What people also don't tell you is that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the most authoritative manuscripts according to modern scholarship (also the underlying manuscripts used for the Wescott/Hort GNT, the NT of translations like the ESV NASB NIV RSV NRSV Message and so on), contain the Apocrypha in their Old testament portions equal with Scripture, due to the fact that they are Vatican manuscripts. KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha as inter-testamental and historical, not as part of the OT.
I'm not really that well educated, but I do believe the Word of God, and have studied it for years. I've read the NIV and the KJV, and in my heart feel the NIV is in error. I believe a true believer will eventually come to that knowledge, if they really know the Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV leaves out far to much information that is essential to the true believer. A great thing about God, is he gives His true followers discernment to know truth, from lies. 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Read the people Romans through Philemon, Gods grace gospel for today, proclaimed to us by the Apostle Paul.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works; lest any man should boast". Ephesians 2:8,9.
For Gods truth for us today, explained simply , I invite you to view Lord Jesus Christ truth Channel. All questions answers..foremost, how to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, the key to understanding the bible, Gods Word. Godbless
I use the KJV, even though there are many grammatical errors compared to the original Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts. We have the resources today especially, to check these errors. There is only a 1% difference in translation differences between the KJV and other modern translations. God has made sure his word is preserved throughout the ages till he comes; Read the following verses; Matt 5:18, Isaiah 59:21, John 10:35.
great post! i noticed in the old testament that there are books mentioned that are no where in the 66. Here are a few......the book of Nathan....also the book of Jasher.. in Numbers 21:14 it talks about The book of the wars of the Lord. Why....why would they exclude them?????
@miro5753 Too bad your questions are unanswered you're right it does say the book of many things and they're not there. It would be nice for Bingolly1 or anyone else to answere that question.
The argument is redundant; The minuscule is a thousand different NT writings, and over 2,200 NT writings exist;
Bibles are translated to attract an audience of readers, and cater to western mythological abstract thought, and in no way shape or form; Reflects the beliefs of the religion, it seeks to replace: Judaism, and the 24 books of the Tanakh.
If the KJV Only people are so Righteous and so ABOVE everybody else and only THEY have the Truth....then why to they BLOCK and Censor any comments that are NOT only KJV Only.
Ever notice that on their videos?
They also use Un Christian language and vile words against ANYONE who disagrees with their KJV Only Cult. I had some "good Christian" KJV only people call me every evil foul word in the book and condemned me to hell 10 times over.
That says a LOT about the KJV Only movement right there.
'there is no original autographs for greek new testamen' Let us face the truth. do we have caesar's 'The gallic war'
original which julius caesar wrote for
himself 2000years ago? no,we dont have any ancient documents that we can call
ORIGINAL by author's themselves. of course,greek new testament manuscripts have many variants and errors,but so does any other ancient documents.we first thank God for saving
new testament also to scholars who collected and compare each manuscripts.
Had Erasmus been given more time to translate he may like some others have seeked to impart his own agender into the text. I have seen more misleading errors in other versions than the 1611 KJV.
Well this is how I feel. If it's in the book then it's in the book. The book isn't wrong. If a book comes out original one way and then changes. Something is seriously wrong, and how is man to decide what should be in the bible or not. No wonder why GOD's wrath is coming down so hard on earth in these last days. People are ignorant and quick to accept man's waord but questions GOD's word.
Thank you for this video. Today me and my minister had a discussion about holidays, and how easter was not in the greek and hebrew bibles, and that it was added in the NKJ. I totally agree with you, we should research ourselves instead of just believing everything, that eveybody say. Thanks alot!
Along with the proper research any verse that seems a little strange can be cleared up. It is a matter of not bringing our presuppositions to the Bible and imposing them on the text. GBU
All you would need to do is show me from Scripture where it stated this, which it is obvious that you can not or you would have simply shown me from Scripture where it stated this.
Well, we believe that the Eastern Orthodox church was also part of this one Catholic Church, before the schism between our faiths. That's why we share most of the same beliefs.
As for everyone else (Protestants, etc.), the fact that you won't find evidence of their teachings before the 16th century is pretty solid evidence that they weren't founded by Christ or his apostles.
You still have not shown me where such a foolish statement such as "The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ!" is found in Scripture. I also find no mention of an "Eastern Orthodox Church" anywhere mentioned in Scripture. You would also have to give me reference to specific differences in teachings so I can determine whether any of the teachings on either side can be found in Scripture.
Your lack of comprehension is hardly my problem. Matthew 16 is what you ned to see and then the ability to discern truth won't hurt you. While you are at it show me where God ordered over 30,000 denominations. Show me where God said throw away 7 books of the Bible. There is much more you have to answer than me. If you need some help with that just let me know.
Okay. Well, that exact phrase isn't found in scripture. But, Jesus's prayer that we all be united is there (John 17:11). An organized church body correcting local churches in teaching is there (Acts 15:1-33). Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not triumph over his church, is there (Matthew 16:18).
If nothing triumphed over the church, then it must have always existed. Protestant, or "evangelical", teaching simply did not exist before the 16th century. The Catholic Church did.
@BaronGrackle You are missing a lot here. Gates don't conquer, they are only defensive meaning they won't prevail [be able to resist]. There wasn't a organized body correcting, the Apostles opinion was sought by the local church because of others that came claiming to bring a teaching: they wanted to know which to believe, not having something imposed. Christ is the head, not anyone else. And since you misunderstood what prevailing is, it isn't surprising that you would use 16th not 1st.
Orthodox Greek here. Christ said "on this solid rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Thousands of schisms is a fancy trick for the enemy to employ, but it will never tear down the Holy Church. Unless you are one to call Christ a liar... We can all be sure that when He says "this will stand forever," He isn't intending for the Truth to flounder for 2000 years before your friends show up.
For starters open your NIV check out what was removed in Matthew 17:2118:1123:14 check out what was removed in Mark 9:449:4615:28 check out what? was removed in Luke 17:3623:1724:40 If you want a more in depth list, with an explanation, check out my video Why the King James Version? (more info)
iotaunam1!!! Wow! I just visited your channel... you say that "The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which was founded by Christ! Outside the Church there is NO salvation!" So according to you Orthodox, Protestants, Quakers, are not saved... this is major heresy and insult to a Just God. Repent. I have nothing more to say to a blasphemer like you.
Actually, we do believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn't necessarily mean damnation for all Non-Catholics. Catechism paragraph 846 and onward covers this a bit. Paragraph 838 discusses other Christians.
Pius IX in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 said:
"It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life"
In 1949, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Suprema Haec Sacra, said " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."
Thus when the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.
That would be a good video subject to explain what the Church means by that. I see so many people make the same statement but do not understand it. I will have to do some more study on before making a video so as not to add to the confusion. Thanks mapollo
You're just saying that because you don't want to address the scripture verses I showed you. :) I'm not going to block you, I just don't agree. GBU too!
By the Holy Spirit who revealed it directly to me... (I do not consider myself a Protestant but I felt led to answer). 1 John 2:27. Only Christ can reveal. I do not trust anyone else not even the Bible itself (I mean the argument that Scripture claims it is ridiculous for any book could claim that) or any Synod. I believe Scripture is inspired by God because Christ revealed it to my heart and that is the only way one can truly know, ie by revelation. (Next)
Also I disagree that the Canon can ever be closed since the Church is a living body with Jesus Christ her head. If lets say Paul's missing Epistle was found would not we add it to the Cannon?
Mormons Consider their Book to be Inspired because "God revealed it to them in their hearts"! - Muslims also feel "in their hearts" that the Quran is the word of God! This type of argument is ilogical!
Wrong. Considering something inspired because some people you never met, centuries before said so is illogical.
And please, we are not talking about knowing things in ones heart, we are talking about revelation from God (1 John 2:27). If God has not revealed to you that something is His you CANNOT know if it is or not, if you accept things because others say so then sorry but I consider you naive.
The question remains unanswered! How do you know INFALLIBLY that the Scriptures you have are INSPIRED and ACCURATE WORD FOR WORD! It is nonsense to state that you have a Feeling inside which tells you - did the Holy Ghost whisper the Canon into your ear?
The Infalible Catholic Church, founded by Christ, decided which books were inspired! This is the ONLY authority anyone has! Christ said: "He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me"!!!
How do you KNOW that the Bible is inspired by God ("Word of God" is a title of Jesus Christ, it seems you are influenced by Protestants)? How do you KNOW that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ? How do you KNOW that the Church is infallible? How do you know that the Apostles were telling the truth? How do you know that Jesus was not an impostor? How do you know anything concerning the Truth about God?
The answer is simple: YOU DO NOT KNOW. You just accept what others have told you. And please spare me the lie that Catholics made the Canon, if you want to be correct it was the ORTHODOX CHURCH which put it together, Roman Catholics split from her and changed even more things....
How do I KNOW (because I do KNOW from experience and not hear say) that Scripture is inspired by God? That Christ is God? That the Apostles were honest?
No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him [Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22] The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God [1 Cor. 2:10] For the Things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God: Now the Saints have received not the Spirit of the World, but the Spirit which is of God, that they might know the things which are freely given them of God [1 Cor. 2:11-12] (Next)
For the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father sends in Christ's name, he teacheth them all things, and bringeth all things to their Remembrance. [John 14:26] Christ prayed to the Father, and he gave the Saints another Comforter, that was to abide with them forever, even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him, but the Saints know him; for he dwelleth with them, and is to be in them [John 14:16-17] (Next)
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God [Rom. 8:9,14] For this is the Covenant that God hath made with the House of Israel, he hath put his Laws in their Mind, and writ them in their Hearts; and they are all taught of God [Heb. 8:10-11] (Next)
And the Anointing which they have received of him, abideth in them; and they need not that any man teach them, but as the same Anointing teacheth them of all things, and is Truth, and is no Lye. [1 John 2:27]
So dear friend I speak of what I KNOW, you speak of what others told you. If you haven't heard the Voice of God, if you cannot distinguish it from your thoughts or Satan's whispers... then you are reprobate!
Calling me "mad" isn't being "nasty"? You are avoiding the subject. In order to back up your views you are mentioning Scripture verses. My position is "How do you know that these verses are true"? If you say "The Church says so", I will ask "How do you know that these people did not just want to start a religion?". The only way to know is by personal revelation, like it or not - that is the truth.
I just saw this post but am going to reply and turn in. The last comment you made to another poster was, "If you haven't heard? the Voice of God, if you cannot distinguish it from your thoughts or Satan's whispers... then you are reprobate! " That looked like a angry reply to me. Btw, false prophets, antichrist and satan are all subtle, they can deceive even the elect, and how many new believers in Christ thought they had found him only to end up in a cult who teaches a false testament?
There are many warnings about this from Christ and the apostles. That is why Jesus left authority and shepards. 2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 2 John 1:7 For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Have a good night.
Yes the Holy Spirit is what the Church depends upon to guide it to truth. What truth is their in 30,000 different sect all claiming the Holy Spirit? GBU
Yoiur history is sorely lacking. Why should I accept some Johnny Come Laterly and accept what they teach when you have thrown away 7 books of the Bible? By whose authority was your Chuch found?
First of all I accept at Books of the Bible (even those denied by Catholics but accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church). I did not tell you to accept what anyone tells you. I said that only by Christ;'s revelation to YOU, you can KNOW the Truth. The only way we can know by whose authority the Church was founded is by personal revelation also. If the Son doesn't reveal humans cannot know.
The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ. The "Orthodox" split from the Church due to political reasons. Later, the Protestants decided to found their own sects, each claiming to be the Churh of Chirst.
The Quakers were founded by George Fox, a Protestant, in the 17th Century! The Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ!!
Error 1: The Catholic split from the Orthodox and changed various doctrines (Filoque, not giving the wine to the people, adding music to the service, not allowing priests to marry, giving the pope extra authority, etc.) Get your facts right please!
Error 2: The Quakers were not founded by George Fox. Fox was one maybe the most important evangelist of the movement. The Quakers were founded by Christ for they were primitive Christianity revived. Most importantly Quakers are not Protestants (denial of main Protestant doctrines: Only Faith, Only Scripture).
"The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ" that statement does not mean anything to anyone who is not Roman Catholic. Here in Greece the Orthodox say exactly the same thing concerning themselves. The Pentecostals, Evangelicals, etc. all claim the same. Do you have anything better than empty slogans?
Why aren't you answering my question? How do you know that the things you believe in are true? Can you answer this?
The Quakers WERE founded by George Fox in the 17th Century!! All heretical sects claim that they are "reviving" the Church founded by Christ! This is impossible, since the Catholic Church still exists - it ALONE was founded by Christ!
"the Catholic Church still exists - it ALONE was founded by Christ!" Do you know that you sound brain washed? How do you know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ? How do you know that Christ was sent from God? Answer please!
P.S.: I could call you a heretic too but as you see I am trying to keep this discussion civilized.
The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ! The "Orthodox" split came much later- even "Orthodox" Church Fathers held the Catholic faith- Papal Primacy etc. You need to do more research!
The Bible says that the Church is the BODY of Christ. Again I cannot accept this just because some book says so I need stronger evidence. That stronger evidence is revelation by God Himself. Has God revealed to you that Scripture is true, if not how can you trust a book so old? Written over so many centuries, etc? Please try to understand what one is saying before replying (and saying things that have nothing to do with my argument). Jesus promised the Holy Spirit not a Book.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The authority of the apostles comes from the Lord himself 1 Cor. 11:23 for the foundation of the Church 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20, 4:11. Peter agrees with Paul that the commands are "given by the Lord himself through your apostles" 2 Pet. 3:2.
He left a church and gave it authority, to be handed on what he taught them. It wasn't every man for himself.
2 Pet. 3:15-17 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, [which the unlearned and unstable wrest, ] as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. cont
You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
Almost every sentence in this post has a half-truth tucked into it. This is a KJV smear--just as the claim that the discredited Sin/Vat. mss are "older" than the Greek mss that was the basis for the KJV, Tyndale, Geneva Bibles. The source for the modern trans. are at least 200 YEARS YOUNGER, with Lianiaus et al, quoting EXACTLY the missing verses of Mark 16: 9-20, in 200AD, !!! See Matt 27:11 where they CHANGE THE WORDS OF JESUS (!), cancelling the fulfillment of prophecy. Check my videos.
Belief has little to do with hard evidence. That entire script, bereft of details, was the sales pitch using smear tactics that was so successful. The KJV was successfully reduced to soon to no longer be in print, as now this flood of translations are owned by non-Christians. It was a classic T Boone Pickens take-over.
The KJV is obv the true Word of God. Every sincerely repentant soul eventually comes to that realization. God makes sure of it. Satan has subverted and attacked the Words of the Lord even since the garden of Eden. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 Thy Word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Psalm 119:140
Incorrect. KJ had little to do with it beyond making preserving the incredible work of Tyndale/Erasmus. Erasmus had much more than 6-8 mss. He scoured libraries all over Europe, gleaning what existed--He also had 100% the original lecionaries (lessons to be read aloud in church). What Erasmus lacked was the last 6 vs. of Revelation and those he used Jerome's Latin vulgate, but it was only 6 vs.!!! This made it easy to compare with what wasknown to be unreliable, the Gnostic mss .(Si/Vati)
Irony of ironies, Erasmus was a Dutch Catholic. Were there not three editions of KJ published in 1611? Which one is the correct one. The most interesting thing of the 1611 is the preface, and is often overlooked by KJV-only adherents.
But the proof is in the pudding! What has been found by archeologists? Are the identifiable ms and/or fragments consistent with with sources of the TR (JV), or the gnostic S/V?(sources of MODERN COPYRIGHTED BIBLES)?
Try 600:1. The evidence of the textus receptus containing the word of God is massive. Absolutely massive. Our job is to preserve it, and especially the words in red untampered with. No Bible that has changed Jesus' words should so nervy to use red ink. "Message" didn't.
KJV Onlyist always overlook the obvious. If they spent half as much time witnessing for Christ instead of zealously spreading arrogant vain assinine bible "OPINION", maybe more folks would be getting saved, you think!
The Apocrypha books were between the Testaments as non-Canonical, as historical books. Erasmus was not the Gr. work mostly used by the translators, Beza was. Many more manuscripts had been referenced, most which support Erasmus. As for the revisions of the KJB, they were correcting of prining errors, and updating spelling and punctuation. The 1611 and todays AV are the same TEXT.
which translations are more accurate? Name them and prove that they are! Having the RIGHT Bible is important.
Modern versions draw from a corrupt textual line, the Alexanderian text, which was complied by Westcott and Hort, and is now in the Nestles/Aland, UBS Greek texts. They contain corrupt gnostic readings. As for textual criticism, the reason KJB only people reject it today is simply because it is not NEEDED, the KJB has the perfect readings, that came by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as well as the Old Latin.
I believe you must be a JJB only person who so often get their facts wrong. The KJV is not isspired God's word is inspired. If the KJB was inspired it would not contain errors.
The text of the NT didn't come from Erasmus, it was mostly Beza 5th edition. As for the book of Rev., not a single word of Erasmus's text has been proven wrong. And there are some scholars who believe that Erasmus did use a Greek manuscript. As for finding being limited in his manscripts, Erasmus had access to every known manuscript in his day, including 'B' which he rejected as being corrupt.
Okay, I see you have the table of contents picture, good. ;)
But the 1611 edition has a different type-face (which is older and harder to read, but it's there). The facsimile editions have this, but the more modern reproductions preserve the spelling but use a modern typeface and remove the illustrations. The modern editions use modern spelling and remove the notes and so forth.
It is difficult to trace all that is needed down. I am sure you see this by now. I am considering a follow-up on this one. Just haven't made up my mind yet. god Bless
At 2:18 I think you meant to say "When King James I of England put together the KJV..." not "Erasmus" (Erasmus' Textus Receptus was used by the AV team, but the statement as you had it appears misleading, as if Erasmus himself was on the team, but he died in 1536.
Nice job explaining this movement and some of the nonsense motivating it. I would probably prefer the questioned verses to be included for the most part, same as Themis, because of the tradition involved, but it's perfectly sensible to look for what was originally written. As for why the KJV. It's "Authorized". Talk about a marketing gimmick. It was so successful that it's still working 400 years later.
It started off as a marketing Bible when Froben had Erasmus rush the work so he could be first to the press with it. Can you imagine doing a work that this requires in just 6 months. God Bless
Thanks crosscheck..I am impressed with the way you do your videos. Straight to the point without any biasness. It difficult to discuss the Bible since it is such a heated topic at times, God Bless
Still I wonder how many books the original KJV included (73 or 76)...
I believe that the best translations are the Septuagint for the O.T. and the Byzantine / Majority Text for the New Testament. The Critical Texts usually miss out verses such as 1 John 5:7 which I believe is inspired by God.
I believe by the 3rd edition that I John 5:7 was actually added. Erasmus supposedly found a mss with that verse. I will check of the 73 or 76 and get back to you. God Bless
1 John 5:7 is mentioned by very Early Church authors. Even if added (after John) still it declares a great Truth thus in my view inspired by God since it pleased Him to have it in Scripture for so long.
It appears that so much confusion existed at the time that we will be hard pressed to determine whether 73 or 76 but I will seek other sources to see. Maybe a viewer will know and can give us some reference. God Bless
The KJV-only debate will never be settled with some people. As you said in the video "how many people will never hear the gospel for hearing about an outdated Bible." I understand that the NIV is the top selling Bible now.
I agree with your specific analysis, but I think the impulse behind the KJV-onlyists is a valid one. The modern translations (e.g. the NAB) are based on modernist historical-critical methods.
They also seem to have rejected the ancient hermeneutical presumptions (such as apostolic authorship of the Gospels and Epistles) that were the bedrock of traditional interpretation. So their concern is very real. Heresy cannot be allowed to slip into the Scriptures by way of translations.
No doubt about the KJV but newer versions such as the NKJV should be more accurate because of more manuscripts since 1611. There are some very good modern translations and some bad ones. That is why I suggest a person research them before buying one. God Bless
Excellent work Bing. Like trufaithalone I do not feel that God's word can be defined by a special version. There are Bibles on the market that totally change God's word. Those are the ones we need to be careful of.
I'm not against the KJV either - people should realize that God's Word is not defined by a specific "version". I still feel if they want to continue with the KJV ms, they should at least update the obsolete words so people will be able to understand what's being said rather than wasting time looking up what the meaning of knop, grisled, strake, taches, etc. are.
Thanks for including the truth about Erasmus and the Latin Vulgate - good job!
Your exactly right trufaith "God's word isn't defined by a specific word." I feel that one reason the originals are not around might have to do with God. If people worship the KJV they thing is the original what would people worship if we did the Bible or God. God bless
What people also don't tell you is that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the most authoritative manuscripts according to modern scholarship (also the underlying manuscripts used for the Wescott/Hort GNT, the NT of translations like the ESV NASB NIV RSV NRSV Message and so on), contain the Apocrypha in their Old testament portions equal with Scripture, due to the fact that they are Vatican manuscripts. KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha as inter-testamental and historical, not as part of the OT.
jlopez47 5 months ago
James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing
ILUVSEKA 6 months ago
I'm not really that well educated, but I do believe the Word of God, and have studied it for years. I've read the NIV and the KJV, and in my heart feel the NIV is in error. I believe a true believer will eventually come to that knowledge, if they really know the Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV leaves out far to much information that is essential to the true believer. A great thing about God, is he gives His true followers discernment to know truth, from lies. 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
VincentRSpicer 8 months ago
Read the people Romans through Philemon, Gods grace gospel for today, proclaimed to us by the Apostle Paul.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works; lest any man should boast". Ephesians 2:8,9.
For Gods truth for us today, explained simply , I invite you to view Lord Jesus Christ truth Channel. All questions answers..foremost, how to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, the key to understanding the bible, Gods Word. Godbless
LordJesusChristtruth 9 months ago
the word Easter is found in the new testament in reference to the pagan holiday celebrated by Herod. Easter is not Passover ~~
ScorpioSerpico 1 year ago
I use the KJV, even though there are many grammatical errors compared to the original Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts. We have the resources today especially, to check these errors. There is only a 1% difference in translation differences between the KJV and other modern translations. God has made sure his word is preserved throughout the ages till he comes; Read the following verses; Matt 5:18, Isaiah 59:21, John 10:35.
wecanknow webisite
TheEOW2011 1 year ago
great post! i noticed in the old testament that there are books mentioned that are no where in the 66. Here are a few......the book of Nathan....also the book of Jasher.. in Numbers 21:14 it talks about The book of the wars of the Lord. Why....why would they exclude them?????
miro5753 1 year ago
@miro5753 Too bad your questions are unanswered you're right it does say the book of many things and they're not there. It would be nice for Bingolly1 or anyone else to answere that question.
mammal46 1 year ago
The argument is redundant; The minuscule is a thousand different NT writings, and over 2,200 NT writings exist;
Bibles are translated to attract an audience of readers, and cater to western mythological abstract thought, and in no way shape or form; Reflects the beliefs of the religion, it seeks to replace: Judaism, and the 24 books of the Tanakh.
1daewoo888 1 year ago
If the KJV Only people are so Righteous and so ABOVE everybody else and only THEY have the Truth....then why to they BLOCK and Censor any comments that are NOT only KJV Only.
Ever notice that on their videos?
They also use Un Christian language and vile words against ANYONE who disagrees with their KJV Only Cult. I had some "good Christian" KJV only people call me every evil foul word in the book and condemned me to hell 10 times over.
That says a LOT about the KJV Only movement right there.
PaulDougouba 1 year ago
'there is no original autographs for greek new testamen' Let us face the truth. do we have caesar's 'The gallic war'
original which julius caesar wrote for
himself 2000years ago? no,we dont have any ancient documents that we can call
ORIGINAL by author's themselves. of course,greek new testament manuscripts have many variants and errors,but so does any other ancient documents.we first thank God for saving
new testament also to scholars who collected and compare each manuscripts.
Lee7676 2 years ago
Had Erasmus been given more time to translate he may like some others have seeked to impart his own agender into the text. I have seen more misleading errors in other versions than the 1611 KJV.
Benyaminssack 2 years ago
Well this is how I feel. If it's in the book then it's in the book. The book isn't wrong. If a book comes out original one way and then changes. Something is seriously wrong, and how is man to decide what should be in the bible or not. No wonder why GOD's wrath is coming down so hard on earth in these last days. People are ignorant and quick to accept man's waord but questions GOD's word.
jatamode 2 years ago
Thank you for this video. Today me and my minister had a discussion about holidays, and how easter was not in the greek and hebrew bibles, and that it was added in the NKJ. I totally agree with you, we should research ourselves instead of just believing everything, that eveybody say. Thanks alot!
phonmusicart 2 years ago
Along with the proper research any verse that seems a little strange can be cleared up. It is a matter of not bringing our presuppositions to the Bible and imposing them on the text. GBU
Bingolly1 2 years ago
"The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ!"? There is no Scriptural proof of such a foolish statement as this!
Frank4YAHWEH 2 years ago
None that you have the sense to find anyway. Get over it
Bingolly1 2 years ago
All you would need to do is show me from Scripture where it stated this, which it is obvious that you can not or you would have simply shown me from Scripture where it stated this.
Frank4YAHWEH 2 years ago
Who are you asking and what are you asking?
Bingolly1 2 years ago
I ask anyone to show me where in Scripture it says or teaches "The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ!"
Frank4YAHWEH 2 years ago
Well, we believe that the Eastern Orthodox church was also part of this one Catholic Church, before the schism between our faiths. That's why we share most of the same beliefs.
As for everyone else (Protestants, etc.), the fact that you won't find evidence of their teachings before the 16th century is pretty solid evidence that they weren't founded by Christ or his apostles.
BaronGrackle 2 years ago
You still have not shown me where such a foolish statement such as "The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ!" is found in Scripture. I also find no mention of an "Eastern Orthodox Church" anywhere mentioned in Scripture. You would also have to give me reference to specific differences in teachings so I can determine whether any of the teachings on either side can be found in Scripture.
Frank4YAHWEH 2 years ago
Your lack of comprehension is hardly my problem. Matthew 16 is what you ned to see and then the ability to discern truth won't hurt you. While you are at it show me where God ordered over 30,000 denominations. Show me where God said throw away 7 books of the Bible. There is much more you have to answer than me. If you need some help with that just let me know.
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Okay. Well, that exact phrase isn't found in scripture. But, Jesus's prayer that we all be united is there (John 17:11). An organized church body correcting local churches in teaching is there (Acts 15:1-33). Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not triumph over his church, is there (Matthew 16:18).
If nothing triumphed over the church, then it must have always existed. Protestant, or "evangelical", teaching simply did not exist before the 16th century. The Catholic Church did.
BaronGrackle 2 years ago
@BaronGrackle You are missing a lot here. Gates don't conquer, they are only defensive meaning they won't prevail [be able to resist]. There wasn't a organized body correcting, the Apostles opinion was sought by the local church because of others that came claiming to bring a teaching: they wanted to know which to believe, not having something imposed. Christ is the head, not anyone else. And since you misunderstood what prevailing is, it isn't surprising that you would use 16th not 1st.
masterkeep 1 year ago
Orthodox Greek here. Christ said "on this solid rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Thousands of schisms is a fancy trick for the enemy to employ, but it will never tear down the Holy Church. Unless you are one to call Christ a liar... We can all be sure that when He says "this will stand forever," He isn't intending for the Truth to flounder for 2000 years before your friends show up.
MikhalisBramouell 2 years ago
jls201 2 years ago
Dear Bingolly1,
As this is your channel if you find my comments offensive please feel free to delete them.
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
iotaunam1!!! Wow! I just visited your channel... you say that "The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which was founded by Christ! Outside the Church there is NO salvation!" So according to you Orthodox, Protestants, Quakers, are not saved... this is major heresy and insult to a Just God. Repent. I have nothing more to say to a blasphemer like you.
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
"Outside the Church there is NO salvation"
iotaunam1's comment is mistaken. The Catholic church does not teach this.
mapollo 2 years ago
That has been explained many times. It appears that some people need a good RCIA class to learn what Catholics really teach :)
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Actually, we do believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn't necessarily mean damnation for all Non-Catholics. Catechism paragraph 846 and onward covers this a bit. Paragraph 838 discusses other Christians.
BaronGrackle 2 years ago
Pius IX in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 said:
"It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life"
mapollo 2 years ago
In 1949, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Suprema Haec Sacra, said " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."
mapollo 2 years ago
Thus when the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.
P+B
mapollo 2 years ago
Yes. We have no disagreement. :-)
BaronGrackle 2 years ago
Thanks for bringing it up.
God be with you
Pace e bene...
mapollo 2 years ago
That would be a good video subject to explain what the Church means by that. I see so many people make the same statement but do not understand it. I will have to do some more study on before making a video so as not to add to the confusion. Thanks mapollo
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Your welcome Bing
mapollo 2 years ago
Anyway as I see where this is heading (me being blocked - as many have done to me) I think I will not say anything else. Believe what you like....
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
You're just saying that because you don't want to address the scripture verses I showed you. :) I'm not going to block you, I just don't agree. GBU too!
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Protestants cant answer this question: Where do you get the authority that your Canon/text (word for word) is inspired?
iotaunam1 2 years ago
By the Holy Spirit who revealed it directly to me... (I do not consider myself a Protestant but I felt led to answer). 1 John 2:27. Only Christ can reveal. I do not trust anyone else not even the Bible itself (I mean the argument that Scripture claims it is ridiculous for any book could claim that) or any Synod. I believe Scripture is inspired by God because Christ revealed it to my heart and that is the only way one can truly know, ie by revelation. (Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Also I disagree that the Canon can ever be closed since the Church is a living body with Jesus Christ her head. If lets say Paul's missing Epistle was found would not we add it to the Cannon?
GBU.
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Mormons Consider their Book to be Inspired because "God revealed it to them in their hearts"! - Muslims also feel "in their hearts" that the Quran is the word of God! This type of argument is ilogical!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
Wrong. Considering something inspired because some people you never met, centuries before said so is illogical.
And please, we are not talking about knowing things in ones heart, we are talking about revelation from God (1 John 2:27). If God has not revealed to you that something is His you CANNOT know if it is or not, if you accept things because others say so then sorry but I consider you naive.
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
P.S.: If you don't know God's Voice then you are not His (John chapter 10).
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The question remains unanswered! How do you know INFALLIBLY that the Scriptures you have are INSPIRED and ACCURATE WORD FOR WORD! It is nonsense to state that you have a Feeling inside which tells you - did the Holy Ghost whisper the Canon into your ear?
The Infalible Catholic Church, founded by Christ, decided which books were inspired! This is the ONLY authority anyone has! Christ said: "He who hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me"!!!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
How do you KNOW that the Bible is inspired by God ("Word of God" is a title of Jesus Christ, it seems you are influenced by Protestants)? How do you KNOW that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ? How do you KNOW that the Church is infallible? How do you know that the Apostles were telling the truth? How do you know that Jesus was not an impostor? How do you know anything concerning the Truth about God?
(See Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The answer is simple: YOU DO NOT KNOW. You just accept what others have told you. And please spare me the lie that Catholics made the Canon, if you want to be correct it was the ORTHODOX CHURCH which put it together, Roman Catholics split from her and changed even more things....
How do I KNOW (because I do KNOW from experience and not hear say) that Scripture is inspired by God? That Christ is God? That the Apostles were honest?
(See Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him [Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22] The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God [1 Cor. 2:10] For the Things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God: Now the Saints have received not the Spirit of the World, but the Spirit which is of God, that they might know the things which are freely given them of God [1 Cor. 2:11-12] (Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
For the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father sends in Christ's name, he teacheth them all things, and bringeth all things to their Remembrance. [John 14:26] Christ prayed to the Father, and he gave the Saints another Comforter, that was to abide with them forever, even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him, but the Saints know him; for he dwelleth with them, and is to be in them [John 14:16-17] (Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God [Rom. 8:9,14] For this is the Covenant that God hath made with the House of Israel, he hath put his Laws in their Mind, and writ them in their Hearts; and they are all taught of God [Heb. 8:10-11] (Next)
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
And the Anointing which they have received of him, abideth in them; and they need not that any man teach them, but as the same Anointing teacheth them of all things, and is Truth, and is no Lye. [1 John 2:27]
So dear friend I speak of what I KNOW, you speak of what others told you. If you haven't heard the Voice of God, if you cannot distinguish it from your thoughts or Satan's whispers... then you are reprobate!
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
If you speak what you know then it is clear that your lack of knowledge is lacking. Are you mad because your organization has no solid foundation?
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Christ is a solid foundation Bingolly1. No need to turn nasty just because we disagree :)
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Why is it that I can post the truth and others can post lies and when I call them on it I am the one turning nasty?
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Dear Bingolly1,
Calling me "mad" isn't being "nasty"? You are avoiding the subject. In order to back up your views you are mentioning Scripture verses. My position is "How do you know that these verses are true"? If you say "The Church says so", I will ask "How do you know that these people did not just want to start a religion?". The only way to know is by personal revelation, like it or not - that is the truth.
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
I just saw this post but am going to reply and turn in. The last comment you made to another poster was, "If you haven't heard? the Voice of God, if you cannot distinguish it from your thoughts or Satan's whispers... then you are reprobate! " That looked like a angry reply to me. Btw, false prophets, antichrist and satan are all subtle, they can deceive even the elect, and how many new believers in Christ thought they had found him only to end up in a cult who teaches a false testament?
Bingolly1 2 years ago
There are many warnings about this from Christ and the apostles. That is why Jesus left authority and shepards. 2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 2 John 1:7 For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an antichrist. Have a good night.
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Yes the Holy Spirit is what the Church depends upon to guide it to truth. What truth is their in 30,000 different sect all claiming the Holy Spirit? GBU
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Yoiur history is sorely lacking. Why should I accept some Johnny Come Laterly and accept what they teach when you have thrown away 7 books of the Bible? By whose authority was your Chuch found?
Bingolly1 2 years ago
First of all I accept at Books of the Bible (even those denied by Catholics but accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church). I did not tell you to accept what anyone tells you. I said that only by Christ;'s revelation to YOU, you can KNOW the Truth. The only way we can know by whose authority the Church was founded is by personal revelation also. If the Son doesn't reveal humans cannot know.
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ. The "Orthodox" split from the Church due to political reasons. Later, the Protestants decided to found their own sects, each claiming to be the Churh of Chirst.
The Quakers were founded by George Fox, a Protestant, in the 17th Century! The Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ!!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
Error 1: The Catholic split from the Orthodox and changed various doctrines (Filoque, not giving the wine to the people, adding music to the service, not allowing priests to marry, giving the pope extra authority, etc.) Get your facts right please!
See Next
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Error 2: The Quakers were not founded by George Fox. Fox was one maybe the most important evangelist of the movement. The Quakers were founded by Christ for they were primitive Christianity revived. Most importantly Quakers are not Protestants (denial of main Protestant doctrines: Only Faith, Only Scripture).
See Next
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
"The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ" that statement does not mean anything to anyone who is not Roman Catholic. Here in Greece the Orthodox say exactly the same thing concerning themselves. The Pentecostals, Evangelicals, etc. all claim the same. Do you have anything better than empty slogans?
Why aren't you answering my question? How do you know that the things you believe in are true? Can you answer this?
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The Quakers WERE founded by George Fox in the 17th Century!! All heretical sects claim that they are "reviving" the Church founded by Christ! This is impossible, since the Catholic Church still exists - it ALONE was founded by Christ!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
"the Catholic Church still exists - it ALONE was founded by Christ!" Do you know that you sound brain washed? How do you know that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ? How do you know that Christ was sent from God? Answer please!
P.S.: I could call you a heretic too but as you see I am trying to keep this discussion civilized.
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The Catholic Church ALONE was founded by Christ! The "Orthodox" split came much later- even "Orthodox" Church Fathers held the Catholic faith- Papal Primacy etc. You need to do more research!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
That is a lie. Not even early Popes held "Papal Primacy" I think you ought to study a little history.
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
The Bible tells us the Church was founded by Jesus you just do noty want to accept it.
Bingolly1 2 years ago
The Bible says that the Church is the BODY of Christ. Again I cannot accept this just because some book says so I need stronger evidence. That stronger evidence is revelation by God Himself. Has God revealed to you that Scripture is true, if not how can you trust a book so old? Written over so many centuries, etc? Please try to understand what one is saying before replying (and saying things that have nothing to do with my argument). Jesus promised the Holy Spirit not a Book.
GBU!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
2 Thessalonians 2:14 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
The authority of the apostles comes from the Lord himself 1 Cor. 11:23 for the foundation of the Church 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20, 4:11. Peter agrees with Paul that the commands are "given by the Lord himself through your apostles" 2 Pet. 3:2.
He left a church and gave it authority, to be handed on what he taught them. It wasn't every man for himself.
Bingolly1 2 years ago
2 Pet. 3:15-17 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, [which the unlearned and unstable wrest, ] as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. cont
Bingolly1 2 years ago
You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
Bingolly1 2 years ago
Almost every sentence in this post has a half-truth tucked into it. This is a KJV smear--just as the claim that the discredited Sin/Vat. mss are "older" than the Greek mss that was the basis for the KJV, Tyndale, Geneva Bibles. The source for the modern trans. are at least 200 YEARS YOUNGER, with Lianiaus et al, quoting EXACTLY the missing verses of Mark 16: 9-20, in 200AD, !!! See Matt 27:11 where they CHANGE THE WORDS OF JESUS (!), cancelling the fulfillment of prophecy. Check my videos.
icctga 3 years ago
Typical KJV-Only answer. Believe what you want to believe.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Belief has little to do with hard evidence. That entire script, bereft of details, was the sales pitch using smear tactics that was so successful. The KJV was successfully reduced to soon to no longer be in print, as now this flood of translations are owned by non-Christians. It was a classic T Boone Pickens take-over.
icctga 3 years ago
Believe what you want to believe. Thanks
Bingolly1 3 years ago
I agree, half truths galore and a self appointed teacher to boot.
PtaterFace 3 years ago
The KJV is obv the true Word of God. Every sincerely repentant soul eventually comes to that realization. God makes sure of it. Satan has subverted and attacked the Words of the Lord even since the garden of Eden. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9 Thy Word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Psalm 119:140
Elzeem 3 years ago
The problem is that the KJV was not inspired by God but by King James. Every sincerely repentant soul eventually comes to realize that.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Incorrect. KJ had little to do with it beyond making preserving the incredible work of Tyndale/Erasmus. Erasmus had much more than 6-8 mss. He scoured libraries all over Europe, gleaning what existed--He also had 100% the original lecionaries (lessons to be read aloud in church). What Erasmus lacked was the last 6 vs. of Revelation and those he used Jerome's Latin vulgate, but it was only 6 vs.!!! This made it easy to compare with what wasknown to be unreliable, the Gnostic mss .(Si/Vati)
icctga 3 years ago
Irony of ironies, Erasmus was a Dutch Catholic. Were there not three editions of KJ published in 1611? Which one is the correct one. The most interesting thing of the 1611 is the preface, and is often overlooked by KJV-only adherents.
mapollo 3 years ago
Truth is often overlooked by those who are to blind to see. God Bless You
Bingolly1 3 years ago
But the proof is in the pudding! What has been found by archeologists? Are the identifiable ms and/or fragments consistent with with sources of the TR (JV), or the gnostic S/V?(sources of MODERN COPYRIGHTED BIBLES)?
Try 600:1. The evidence of the textus receptus containing the word of God is massive. Absolutely massive. Our job is to preserve it, and especially the words in red untampered with. No Bible that has changed Jesus' words should so nervy to use red ink. "Message" didn't.
icctga 3 years ago
If your reading the wrong pudding it can leave a bad taste in your mouth. Sorry but as I said the KJV was not inspired by God get over it. Thanks
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Tell us how Shakespeare ended up in the KJV of 1611? Was that in the Textus Receptus?
mapollo 3 years ago
KJV Onlyist always overlook the obvious. If they spent half as much time witnessing for Christ instead of zealously spreading arrogant vain assinine bible "OPINION", maybe more folks would be getting saved, you think!
rb300dx 3 years ago
Excellent point. Thanks very much
Bingolly1 3 years ago
The Apocrypha books were between the Testaments as non-Canonical, as historical books. Erasmus was not the Gr. work mostly used by the translators, Beza was. Many more manuscripts had been referenced, most which support Erasmus. As for the revisions of the KJB, they were correcting of prining errors, and updating spelling and punctuation. The 1611 and todays AV are the same TEXT.
which translations are more accurate? Name them and prove that they are! Having the RIGHT Bible is important.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The KJV cannot be God's inspired word or the authors would not have thrown 7 books out of it.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Those books were not scripture. The KJB has the exact number of books God gave us-66.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
You immaturity is noted. Thanks
Bingolly1 3 years ago
I suppose to anti-King James Bible zealots, telling the truth is a sign of immaturity.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Modern versions draw from a corrupt textual line, the Alexanderian text, which was complied by Westcott and Hort, and is now in the Nestles/Aland, UBS Greek texts. They contain corrupt gnostic readings. As for textual criticism, the reason KJB only people reject it today is simply because it is not NEEDED, the KJB has the perfect readings, that came by Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as well as the Old Latin.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
I believe you must be a JJB only person who so often get their facts wrong. The KJV is not isspired God's word is inspired. If the KJB was inspired it would not contain errors.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
The text of the NT didn't come from Erasmus, it was mostly Beza 5th edition. As for the book of Rev., not a single word of Erasmus's text has been proven wrong. And there are some scholars who believe that Erasmus did use a Greek manuscript. As for finding being limited in his manscripts, Erasmus had access to every known manuscript in his day, including 'B' which he rejected as being corrupt.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Okay, I see you have the table of contents picture, good. ;)
But the 1611 edition has a different type-face (which is older and harder to read, but it's there). The facsimile editions have this, but the more modern reproductions preserve the spelling but use a modern typeface and remove the illustrations. The modern editions use modern spelling and remove the notes and so forth.
XSC3 3 years ago
It is difficult to trace all that is needed down. I am sure you see this by now. I am considering a follow-up on this one. Just haven't made up my mind yet. god Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
At 2:18 I think you meant to say "When King James I of England put together the KJV..." not "Erasmus" (Erasmus' Textus Receptus was used by the AV team, but the statement as you had it appears misleading, as if Erasmus himself was on the team, but he died in 1536.
XSC3 3 years ago
Thanks for heads up.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
I agree with you 100%. There is much that was left out of probably all versions of the Bible. Very informative, thanks for sharing.
espritedecorp 3 years ago
Ther have been those who asked about the 80 books in the original KJV. I might have to do a follow-up to clear that up. God Bless You
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Yes, they were considered non-canonical, placed between the Testaments.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
For those who would like to see the Bible Books in the original 1611 Kjv I have them listed on my blog.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
I posted a quick link to the right -->
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Nice job explaining this movement and some of the nonsense motivating it. I would probably prefer the questioned verses to be included for the most part, same as Themis, because of the tradition involved, but it's perfectly sensible to look for what was originally written. As for why the KJV. It's "Authorized". Talk about a marketing gimmick. It was so successful that it's still working 400 years later.
BeingBob 3 years ago
It started off as a marketing Bible when Froben had Erasmus rush the work so he could be first to the press with it. Can you imagine doing a work that this requires in just 6 months. God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Thanks!
I've never really understood the KJV Only movement. Why do people think that it has to be the KJV? I just don't understand.
See you in the Eucharist,
Anthony
seltian 3 years ago
Thanks and God Bless You. Eagerly awaiting Sept 5th.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
one word: SUPERB!!!
Agila1 3 years ago
Thanks agila...hope to see you on stickam this week. God Bless You
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Bing that was a really well done and even handed look at the issue. Great Job!!
21crosscheck21 3 years ago
Thanks crosscheck..I am impressed with the way you do your videos. Straight to the point without any biasness. It difficult to discuss the Bible since it is such a heated topic at times, God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Thank you for the very informative video.
Still I wonder how many books the original KJV included (73 or 76)...
I believe that the best translations are the Septuagint for the O.T. and the Byzantine / Majority Text for the New Testament. The Critical Texts usually miss out verses such as 1 John 5:7 which I believe is inspired by God.
May God Bless you Always!
themistoklisp 3 years ago
I believe by the 3rd edition that I John 5:7 was actually added. Erasmus supposedly found a mss with that verse. I will check of the 73 or 76 and get back to you. God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
1 John 5:7 is mentioned by very Early Church authors. Even if added (after John) still it declares a great Truth thus in my view inspired by God since it pleased Him to have it in Scripture for so long.
God Bless!
themistoklisp 3 years ago
Would you believe 80 Themis. Not 73 not 76 but 80. Go figure
Bingolly1 3 years ago
80 Books? Do you know which ones they were?
Thank you.
themistoklisp 3 years ago
Yes I know which ones they are and will probably post a link to them or send them to you. God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Thank you very much!
God Bless.
themistoklisp 3 years ago
It appears that so much confusion existed at the time that we will be hard pressed to determine whether 73 or 76 but I will seek other sources to see. Maybe a viewer will know and can give us some reference. God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
very well done. thanks.
Radfahrer1985 3 years ago
The KJV-only debate will never be settled with some people. As you said in the video "how many people will never hear the gospel for hearing about an outdated Bible." I understand that the NIV is the top selling Bible now.
ByFaith12 3 years ago
I agree with your specific analysis, but I think the impulse behind the KJV-onlyists is a valid one. The modern translations (e.g. the NAB) are based on modernist historical-critical methods.
They also seem to have rejected the ancient hermeneutical presumptions (such as apostolic authorship of the Gospels and Epistles) that were the bedrock of traditional interpretation. So their concern is very real. Heresy cannot be allowed to slip into the Scriptures by way of translations.
lukewarm25 3 years ago
No doubt about the KJV but newer versions such as the NKJV should be more accurate because of more manuscripts since 1611. There are some very good modern translations and some bad ones. That is why I suggest a person research them before buying one. God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
fantastic
granjitsingh 3 years ago
Thanks very much and God Bless You.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
Excellent work Bing. Like trufaithalone I do not feel that God's word can be defined by a special version. There are Bibles on the market that totally change God's word. Those are the ones we need to be careful of.
SamuelTheProphet 3 years ago
Thanks for comment Samuel and God bless You.
Bingolly1 3 years ago
I'm not against the KJV either - people should realize that God's Word is not defined by a specific "version". I still feel if they want to continue with the KJV ms, they should at least update the obsolete words so people will be able to understand what's being said rather than wasting time looking up what the meaning of knop, grisled, strake, taches, etc. are.
Thanks for including the truth about Erasmus and the Latin Vulgate - good job!
thrufaithalone 3 years ago
Your exactly right trufaith "God's word isn't defined by a specific word." I feel that one reason the originals are not around might have to do with God. If people worship the KJV they thing is the original what would people worship if we did the Bible or God. God bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago
As always great video explaining the kjv.
I'm personally going to be using the rsv 2nd catholic edition
nate12387 3 years ago
I have one myself. After doing research on it I found it to be favored by many peopel. Thanks Nate and God Bless
Bingolly1 3 years ago