So which edition of the KJV is the true Word of God? I have three different editions and they all have slight variations. Clearly not every KJVO has the preserved Word of God since some have the 1900 PCE and others may have the 1769 or 1873. KJVOs like to remind us, "things that are different are not the same." C'mon now, let's not be hypocritical.
@pianobomber Continued - "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the process of orthography [spelling] in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variations from the original copy as left by the translators. (Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, 1852, pp. 7,11 as cited by George T. Crabb)
@pianobomber There are three changes to the KJV since 1611.
1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling. The 'Board of Managers' of the American Bible Society in 1852 determined that "The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..."
@BereanBeacon1 You cannot rely on reports from various committees. There are still vocabulary differences between the various editions of the KJV. How can a KJVO have the final authority if these editions do not agree? The reality is that we cannot achieve 100% of what the translators wrote, though we can get very close. But using your rhetoric, things that are different can be the same, therefore the NKJV is an equally viable translation.
@pianobomber All cults and false religions appreciate your position on final authority which lends credence to their multiple authorities. Muslims say they have the perfect book while the Christian Bible is full of errors and prove it by using commentaries and the modern translations. Catholics have their Catechism. IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE
@BereanBeacon1 It is not nice to spread lies about the NKJV. Those are misrepresentations of Gail Riplinger who does not realize the word "lord" was not always used in reference to Jesus, or that the word "God" was often added into the text for purposes of expressions. Sometimes instead of "blood", the NKJV will use "bloodline" or "bloodthirsty". It is best to do your own research and not trust apostates, such as GAR, otherwise you can easily be carried about the wind, as Jude warns about.
@BereanBeacon1 I support the Textus Receptus, you do not need to convince me of the problems that modern translations present with their missing versus, words, and concern over authenticity of certain passages, such as Mark 16:9-20. I am well aware those, but thank you otherwise. Please view this link, though, regarding the NKJV. It is very important:
h t t p://watch.pair.com/TR-nkjv-misrepresentation.html
@pianobomber They are not spreading lies, but truth. Oh I have been praying for a pure translation from original texts without the influence of religions but people of YHWH. Jesus did not found a religion but salvation,relationship and revelation of YHWH to those who believe through Yashua Ha' Massiach..
King James Onlyism is not true; it denies the Hebrew Scriptures the way they are written, and it denies historical facts. It is nothing but an Independent Fundamental Baptist Heresy. Watch out for these folks! They are not Baptists and they are not Christians. They worship the physical element of the Bible, not God who inspired the Bible. They worship King James, a bisexual Anglican/Catholic who printed the 1611 AV (KJV) for political gain. Read the Bible (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NLT, or whatever)
@OneFaithMinistries Your position on the modern translations gives wonderful support to Muslims, who use the commentaries (from "Christians") and verses from the translations to prove Christians don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran. Also Cults who have multiple authorities are greatly encouraged to know that we Christians REALLY don't have a final authority. So next time you meet a Muslim, shake his hand and give him a brotherly hug.
@BereanBeacon1 No. The Muslims have been Husein that argument ever since their evil religion began. You really should not build straw men like that. The modern translations are even more clear about Christ's identity as God than the KJV is. Come on. Get real. Good Bye.
@LuxAuterna I've seen a ton of people saying there are contradictions, most of these are easily answered. Do you have a perfect copy of God's word to compare these "errors" with to prove that they are indeed errors?
What are these contradictions; I'm not asking Google, I'm asking you? what contradictions have YOU read or are you citing the same "errors" that textual critics have been saying for the last 200 years that keep being recycled? Having various translations that contradict eachother are good? So who did slay Goliath?
@tonyb408 david, we are lucky that it is as intact as it is, the spirit gives understanding, as in scripture, Jesus (yeshua) says; "i will write my laws on their hearts" we can look at hebrew and verify also in greek that yeshua (God saves) lives up to His word, still we have a book with few errors, nrsb is good version,remember how they found the dead sea scrolls preserved and how also, the shroud of turin left behind as a relic to the fact that He lived and walked among us and was resurected?
Sorry. This is one Berean Beacon video I cannot agree with.
For example, the KJV renders the Greek 'kurios' in Luke 13:8 as "Lord". The NKJV renders it "sir". This, say the KJV onlyists, is an omision of "Lord" But the KJV renders the same Greek word as "sir" in John 4:11
@TheotherPrometheus Which Greek? (Wescott and Hort?) 98% of existing manuscripts agree with the KJV As I commented to another, multiple versions aids the Muslims (and cults) which they use to prove that we don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran.
@BereanBeacon1 "Omissions" is circular logic. To claim an omission, you first compare the KJV to another version. What the other version does not have is then called an omission. However, you must first assume that the KJV is perfect and the words belong there. To claim the KJV is superior because the NKJV omits words is to first assume the KJV is superior.
@TheotherPrometheus We have the video documentation proving the NKJV is based on Wescott and Hort's invented Greek texts that disagreed with each other in hundreds of places. This is my last comment as this verse applies: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19 We have the very words of God, you have your intellect.
@TheotherPrometheus The verses are in the KJV. At the judgment seat of Christ, you (I hope) and I will be accountable for every word. What will God say to us about this issue. You say we don't have the words of God and I say we do. Will God say to me, my son you went around telling others that you had my very words, but you didn't even though I said I would preserve them, I wasn't able to.
@BereanBeacon1 " You say we don't have the words of God and I say we do."
I say you do. I also say those who prefer other translations do as well. God's word is found in the whole of Scripture, not one specific set of words written in stone. You must admit that the Bible you hold so dear is not written in the same language that God inspired the authors to write. Does his mean that God did not allow anyone to have His true Word until the KJV came along?
@TheotherPrometheus the problem isn't about the translation or language, it's abotu the base text, some are based on the textus receptus like the KJV which is thousands of manuscripts and copies of the bible that add up, most of the newer versions are from the alexandrian text which is a handful of copies that don't match the majority text. or else they are supposedly from the textus receptus, but require a certain amount of variance so Greedy men can get a copyright and control of use.
@BereanBeacon1 "This is my last comment as this verse applies: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19"
How am I supposed to trust you when you can't even exegete a single verse? That verse has nothing to do with this situation.
So again, what are these errors? Sure people can be saved using an NIV, NLT, ESV etc. But the question is one of theology and doctrine: Was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because of homosexual activity or homosexual prostitution? Who killed Goliath? Your answer is probably David, but read some of those new versions and you get a different answer. So again, what are these errors from the subpar KJV translators?
This has been flagged as spam show
please watch BLOOD MOONS 2014 2015! gr8 info and spread the word
acerv36 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please watch BLOOD MOONS 2014 2015! gr8 info and spread the word
acerv36 4 months ago
So which edition of the KJV is the true Word of God? I have three different editions and they all have slight variations. Clearly not every KJVO has the preserved Word of God since some have the 1900 PCE and others may have the 1769 or 1873. KJVOs like to remind us, "things that are different are not the same." C'mon now, let's not be hypocritical.
pianobomber 8 months ago
@pianobomber Continued - "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the process of orthography [spelling] in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variations from the original copy as left by the translators. (Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, 1852, pp. 7,11 as cited by George T. Crabb)
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@pianobomber There are three changes to the KJV since 1611.
1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling. The 'Board of Managers' of the American Bible Society in 1852 determined that "The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..."
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 You cannot rely on reports from various committees. There are still vocabulary differences between the various editions of the KJV. How can a KJVO have the final authority if these editions do not agree? The reality is that we cannot achieve 100% of what the translators wrote, though we can get very close. But using your rhetoric, things that are different can be the same, therefore the NKJV is an equally viable translation.
pianobomber 8 months ago
@pianobomber All cults and false religions appreciate your position on final authority which lends credence to their multiple authorities. Muslims say they have the perfect book while the Christian Bible is full of errors and prove it by using commentaries and the modern translations. Catholics have their Catechism. IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE
22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 It is not nice to spread lies about the NKJV. Those are misrepresentations of Gail Riplinger who does not realize the word "lord" was not always used in reference to Jesus, or that the word "God" was often added into the text for purposes of expressions. Sometimes instead of "blood", the NKJV will use "bloodline" or "bloodthirsty". It is best to do your own research and not trust apostates, such as GAR, otherwise you can easily be carried about the wind, as Jude warns about.
pianobomber 8 months ago
@pianobomber BIBLE VERSION COMPARISON
h t t p://w w wDOTav1611DOTorg/biblecom.html
BIBLE VERSES REMOVED
h t t p://w w wDOTav1611DOTorg/biblevs.html
BIBLE WORDS REMOVED
h t t p://w w wDOTav1611DOTorg/biblewrd.html
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Comment removed
pianobomber 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 I support the Textus Receptus, you do not need to convince me of the problems that modern translations present with their missing versus, words, and concern over authenticity of certain passages, such as Mark 16:9-20. I am well aware those, but thank you otherwise. Please view this link, though, regarding the NKJV. It is very important:
h t t p://watch.pair.com/TR-nkjv-misrepresentation.html
pianobomber 8 months ago
@pianobomber They are not spreading lies, but truth. Oh I have been praying for a pure translation from original texts without the influence of religions but people of YHWH. Jesus did not found a religion but salvation,relationship and revelation of YHWH to those who believe through Yashua Ha' Massiach..
josacra 6 months ago
Comment removed
anthonyehooker 1 month ago
Does anyone have an opinion about the kj21.
onemarktwoyou 1 year ago
King James Onlyism is not true; it denies the Hebrew Scriptures the way they are written, and it denies historical facts. It is nothing but an Independent Fundamental Baptist Heresy. Watch out for these folks! They are not Baptists and they are not Christians. They worship the physical element of the Bible, not God who inspired the Bible. They worship King James, a bisexual Anglican/Catholic who printed the 1611 AV (KJV) for political gain. Read the Bible (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NLT, or whatever)
OneFaithMinistries 1 year ago
@OneFaithMinistries Your position on the modern translations gives wonderful support to Muslims, who use the commentaries (from "Christians") and verses from the translations to prove Christians don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran. Also Cults who have multiple authorities are greatly encouraged to know that we Christians REALLY don't have a final authority. So next time you meet a Muslim, shake his hand and give him a brotherly hug.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 No. The Muslims have been Husein that argument ever since their evil religion began. You really should not build straw men like that. The modern translations are even more clear about Christ's identity as God than the KJV is. Come on. Get real. Good Bye.
OneFaithMinistries 1 year ago
@OneFaithMinistries Careful. You desparage their golden calf.
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
@TheotherPrometheus Ha, thats a good one. They do treat it like a Golden Calf don't they?
OneFaithMinistries 1 year ago
@LuxAuterna I've seen a ton of people saying there are contradictions, most of these are easily answered. Do you have a perfect copy of God's word to compare these "errors" with to prove that they are indeed errors?
NateWardawg 1 year ago
What are these contradictions; I'm not asking Google, I'm asking you? what contradictions have YOU read or are you citing the same "errors" that textual critics have been saying for the last 200 years that keep being recycled? Having various translations that contradict eachother are good? So who did slay Goliath?
tonyb408 2 years ago
@tonyb408 david, we are lucky that it is as intact as it is, the spirit gives understanding, as in scripture, Jesus (yeshua) says; "i will write my laws on their hearts" we can look at hebrew and verify also in greek that yeshua (God saves) lives up to His word, still we have a book with few errors, nrsb is good version,remember how they found the dead sea scrolls preserved and how also, the shroud of turin left behind as a relic to the fact that He lived and walked among us and was resurected?
1StandingRock 1 year ago
Sorry. This is one Berean Beacon video I cannot agree with.
For example, the KJV renders the Greek 'kurios' in Luke 13:8 as "Lord". The NKJV renders it "sir". This, say the KJV onlyists, is an omision of "Lord" But the KJV renders the same Greek word as "sir" in John 4:11
TheotherPrometheus 2 years ago
@TheotherPrometheus Which Greek? (Wescott and Hort?) 98% of existing manuscripts agree with the KJV As I commented to another, multiple versions aids the Muslims (and cults) which they use to prove that we don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@TheotherPrometheus IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE
22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 "Omissions" is circular logic. To claim an omission, you first compare the KJV to another version. What the other version does not have is then called an omission. However, you must first assume that the KJV is perfect and the words belong there. To claim the KJV is superior because the NKJV omits words is to first assume the KJV is superior.
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
@TheotherPrometheus We have the video documentation proving the NKJV is based on Wescott and Hort's invented Greek texts that disagreed with each other in hundreds of places. This is my last comment as this verse applies: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19 We have the very words of God, you have your intellect.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 "We have the very words of God, you have your intellect."
At least I can prove I have my intellect. Can you prove you have the very words of God?
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
@TheotherPrometheus The verses are in the KJV. At the judgment seat of Christ, you (I hope) and I will be accountable for every word. What will God say to us about this issue. You say we don't have the words of God and I say we do. Will God say to me, my son you went around telling others that you had my very words, but you didn't even though I said I would preserve them, I wasn't able to.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 " You say we don't have the words of God and I say we do."
I say you do. I also say those who prefer other translations do as well. God's word is found in the whole of Scripture, not one specific set of words written in stone. You must admit that the Bible you hold so dear is not written in the same language that God inspired the authors to write. Does his mean that God did not allow anyone to have His true Word until the KJV came along?
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
@TheotherPrometheus the problem isn't about the translation or language, it's abotu the base text, some are based on the textus receptus like the KJV which is thousands of manuscripts and copies of the bible that add up, most of the newer versions are from the alexandrian text which is a handful of copies that don't match the majority text. or else they are supposedly from the textus receptus, but require a certain amount of variance so Greedy men can get a copyright and control of use.
IWantToKnowChrist 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 "This is my last comment as this verse applies: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19"
How am I supposed to trust you when you can't even exegete a single verse? That verse has nothing to do with this situation.
TheotherPrometheus 1 year ago
So again, what are these errors? Sure people can be saved using an NIV, NLT, ESV etc. But the question is one of theology and doctrine: Was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed because of homosexual activity or homosexual prostitution? Who killed Goliath? Your answer is probably David, but read some of those new versions and you get a different answer. So again, what are these errors from the subpar KJV translators?
tonyb408 2 years ago
@LuxAuterna What translational errors are in the KJV?
tonyb408 2 years ago