No, no, no. If you want all the words, use a transliteration, like the Emphatic Diaglot. Only interlinear Bibles, give you all the words, with none added. The KJV, NIV, NWT and all translations have words added and taken away from the original text, because transliterations often sound like gibberish, until they are cleaned up. Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek words can often be translated into different English words or phrases, the committee standards produce differing results.
@chriscoolguy15 = If the KJV is "just a translation", I'm taking that to mean in your mind, we do not have the preserved words of God today. What makes the Greek of the New Testament "infallible" whereas the English you and I speak today is not? Does that not strike you as very inconsistent? Of what value to me is the Bible in a language I cannot read or speak? I guess John 3:16 should read "for God so loved the Greeks...
The KJV is 400 years old. Nothing else is even a close second.
Enlighten me. What does “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” (Ezekiel 9:5-7) actually mean? I’m not at all claiming to be a final authority. Everyone I know thinks killing little children is immoral. I didn’t just dream that up. Give me just one context in which killing babies becomes moral. This god is a creation of long ago ignorant and brutal tribesmen is an uncivilized part of the world.
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." jeremiah 29:13 and yes God is Love :) .. don't take the text out of the context ..just search Him until u found Him .. ask Him, all that u don't understand, with a right motivation ... He is faithful .. He will answer He always does .. but in His time :)
Funny that the speaker says he wants "ALL the words" and singles out the NIV and TNIV for criticism, yet says the TEB, NASV, etc. are okay.
If you want the pure, unadulterated words (plural) of God, you have but one choice in English...the King James Version.
It recently marked the 400th YEAR of service to English-speaking people. The rest of the so-called "bibles" average 20 years tops. This fact alone should tell any thinking person which Bible has GOD'S stamp of approval on it!
@tigerlilly66 Interesting thought. Which KJV are you referring to though? The original 1611 version, the 8th edition that is currently being sold, or one of the editions in between? Or are you talking about the NewKJV which uses the same manuscripts and translational methods? Remember the only inspired texts were the autographs themselves, which we don't have, so any Bible in any language, including Greek and Hebrew, is someone's effort in interpreting the original.
@ksartin86 = If you're right, then we do NOT have the preserved words of God as he promised (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35). Who should I believe, the Scripture or you? The KJV we have today is actually the 1769 edition, which was the 7th (not the 8th) in the lineage of the 1611.So what? I'll at least give you credit for using the correct word "edition", not version - a BIG difference! Lastly, the NKJV is NOT based upon the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text of the AV 1611...not even close!
From the bible: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9. "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” Ezekiel 9:5-7 . Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. “Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.” Isaiah 13:15-18.
@max2right = Does it bother you at all that you demonstrate two things with your Bible quotes...complete ignorance of the scripture, and insufferable arrogance in placing yourself as the final authority? Do you care that for centuries, anti-theists have been using these very same arguments as "proof" that if God does exist, he is nothing but a "dirty bully"? You question is obviously rhetorical. You have no interest whatsoever in the answer to it. That much is patently obvious.
@tigerlilly66 Enlighten me. What does “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” (Ezekiel 9:5-7) actually mean? I’m not at all claiming to be a final authority. Everyone I know thinks killing little children is immoral. I didn’t just dream that up. Give me just one context in which killing babies becomes moral. This god is a creation of long ago ignorant and brutal tribesmen is an uncivilized part of the world.
@max2right = I am continually amazed at how you anti-theist types operate. I guess you think that your accusations justify your unbelief, at least in your mind. You final statement confirms what I've had happen 100% of the time when attempting a dialogue...you make it quite clear that your are NOT objective concerning any evidence I might offer, yet you still ask for it. Why don't you just say you choose to reject the God of scripture outright instead of inventing bogus "reasons"?
@tigerlilly66 I don’t know about others but I operate on facts, quoting the bible isn’t an accusation and as yet you have failed to offer any evidence at all. You have claimed that my quotes are somehow misunderstood but, when I ask for scriptural clarification you just make sweeping generalizations about all anti-theists 100% of the time and change the subject to how wrong I and others are without a shred of evidence that supports anything you’ve said.
@max2right = If you're open to objective evidence and willing to change your mind, then why do you START from a position that is hostile to Christianity? Something or someone caused you to take this position, and it sure wasn't a detailed study of the Word of God that did it. On that point, I'll bet the bank and challenge you to deny it. NO ONE becomes an atheist because they looked at troublesome passages and were shocked into unbelief. That is where you BEGAN, friend - read John 3:18 !
@tigerlilly66 It’s because there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of gods, because the Abrahamic religions are hostile to all those that don’t believe as they do and because that religious hostility now threatens us all. I’ve read the entire bible. It’s so filled with immorality and non-sense it’s useless as evidence of anything so again your attempt to label me has failed. Are you open to objective evidence?
max2right - Your use of "empirical" tells me that you place experience above documentation, which means you're dead in the water before you begin. I'll freely grant you that the "Abrahamic religion" (Islam doesn't count) doesn't acknowledge the litany of small-g, false "gods" available today. The Bible speaks of immorality because it is a truthful recording of the deeds of wicked men. You'd prefer lies instead ?
@tigerlilly66 Evidence as in tested, repeatable and observable and documentation that has been peer reviewed. Dead in the water? You apparently don’t know that christianity is one of the three religions based on the faith of Abraham. It’s in the bible. I prefer something factual over a false impression In Ezekiel 9:5-7 this god commands men to kill old, young, girls and women and little children too. There is no context in which that becomes moral.
@max2right = So if I cannot repeat the Resurrection, the parting of the Dead Sea, or any of a hundred other Bible miracles, that makes them null and void? Maybe in your mind, but not in that of any reasonable person open to objective evidence. I figured at some point you'd trot out the old Ezekiel 9 ploy...glad you didn't disappoint. There is a simple answer to it, but you won't accept it, so why would I bother?
You like to look up scripture, so give a try to Proverbs 9:7-8 for the reason.
@lilly66 Those miracles cannot be repeated because they never happened, I say to believe biblical miracles happened with no corroboration outside the bible is not objective, reasonable or open minded. Proverbs 9:7-8 has nothing to do with the Ezekiel quote which is god’s word so any ploy is his. “At some point” and “trot out” I made that point in my first comment 3 days ago & still you cannot justify his killing of babies. This god isn’t worth a moments consideration.
@tigerlilly66 The bible is most probably, the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever. Some people like to eat stinky cheese, because, almost always, they learned to eat it as a kid. Same with the bible. Of course, when you read between the lines ,and cover up all the dirt, you have a marvel of morality. But in the same way, Playboy becomes a manual of morality too.
I would surmise then, based on your il-logic that man is stictly a product of his environment. Personal choice and free will do not matter. We're just destined to float through life like so much flotsam...que sera sera.
Maybe that nihlistic "reasoning" works for you, but it is sure a pathetic, "it's everyone's fault but mine" position. Wouldn't want to have to "man up", how would we?
So Playboy is a proper noun, but the "bible" is not...hmmmmm. Must be just a typo, right?
@tigerlilly66 Bullsh... Educated people create their own purpose in life>>.So Playboy is a proper noun, but the "bible" is not...hmmmmm. Must be just a typo, right>> You got it, that`s what I meant. The bible is only a book of morality when you cover up all the dirt., just like Playboy.
@ndzoko = So, uneducated people cannot "create" their own purpose in life? Tell that to Andrew Carnegie, who barely made it out of grade school, yet went on to become a billionaire. Not that you care, but men like Lincoln, Grant, Tyler, and others became President of the United States with little or NO formal "eduation".
The Bible tells us how to shed the dirt...Playboy still has the dirt firmly attached, just like the sow wallowing in the muck. Pretty much says it all in comparison.
@tigerlilly66 The Bible tells us how to shed the dirt... This is the first admittance ever by a christian that there is "dirt" in the bible. My sincere thanks.. One has to learn how to read the bible, like one learns how to eat stinky cheese. Covering up your nose that you don`t smell it.
@tigerlilly66 = Friend, I have no idea what kind of "Christians" you refer to, but anyone with even a 3rd grade understanding of the Bible knows that the "dirt" is there front and center for everyone to see! Maybe you use the word differently, but the Bible has NEVER air-brushed its characters. Their failures, hypocrisy, lies...you name it, are not concealed, justified, nor excused. Name me any other so-called "holy" book that even comes close to this candor...there isn't one!
@tigerlilly66 .recording of the deeds of wicked men.>> You mean " god ". Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !
@TheParticularBaptist I don't know about the KJV being as great as KJV onliest hype it up to be. I remember when I was first saved I knew nothing about bible translations and the only thing I would hear in my head was" Find the oldest English bible." So I did. A 1537 Thomas Mathew bible which included 100% of William Tyndael's works. I know the KJV1611 claims to use 80% of his work and when I examined them side by side with the greek text I found the KJV1611 slightly lacking. Just a thought...
@TheParticularBaptist I'm not saying the KJV is horrible in fact it is a very good translation but it is just that. The only thing that is infallible from the new testament is the Greek original language. Any ways the English language has change so much it make it very difficult to use it to witness to others. The most literal translation that has all the words in the English of the day is the NASB.
The NIV 2011 has said that many of the Gender specific passages have been removed. This is false. Over 70% ofthe original Changes of the TNIV have been retained by the NIV 2011 and have changed only some of the more contraversial passages. The NIV 2011 has not been Endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention And many major pastors will not endorse the use of the NIV 2011 and have switched to the ESV Bible for teaching. The words Of God must be Preserved as best as possible.
The NIV 1984 Is a great translation I have used my whole life up until this past year. The production NIV 1984 has been stopped and any Niv bible you will buy in a book store or even online the default will be the NIV 2011. The TNIV of 2005 Was Very Quickly removed as the main NIV Bible because of the Gender neutral passages of which there were over a thousand and the 1984 version Was put back in place.
The thing with the NIV2011 is that its pretty much the perverted TNIV of 2005. The NIV (1984) I find to be a bit slopy in its translation. I myself use the KJV/NKJV, NASB (the 77 and the 95 editions) and the 2007 edition of the ESV. They have a new edition of the ESV out this year (2011), I have no idea what has changed. I'm waitimg to hear back from the publishes.
I think it 's entirely possible for a word for word to use modern verbage or words and still maintain it's word for word status. The ESV fails at doing that, it's still a valid translation, just not one a like. Nor do I think it will ever be the number one translation. On another I do not like the NIV2011. I tend to be an NIV/NLT type of guy, and handout those translations.
@glauderback1980 Because it should be obvious God blessed the English versions. Mass revivals came about because of the distribution of these Bible in English following the British empire around the world. The Greek and etc. did not get these type of blessings for whatever reason. I don't believe in double inspiration, but God's hand was definitely at work with how the gospel has spread from the middle east westward. I always find it funny when folks say they need any new translation at all.
You make your points from transitive verbs and modifiers from a language that is completely foreign to you and often has no direct translation? Okay there...
This guy speaks as if modern day bibles aren't corrupted. Unless you have access to the oldest texts and read Greek, you aren't going to have ''all the words". There are also certain things in your bible that are not in the oldest known copies of the gospels.
The new century vertion really twisted some things, they conveniently translated the "very angery" in Nehemiah 13 to "greatly upset" and the Very angery when people are arguing amungst themselves to "very angery" conveniently what they find is worth being very angery about or just a more personal dislike. It also said in Ephesians not "Be angery" and just said "When you are angery" it's all an effort to conform to their personal opinion in our culture today... I dn't htik that's acceptable.
@MedicatedHerbally No, it's a translation issue. With modern versions putting morning star instead of lucifer, the point is it causes a lot of confusion. I didn't lie because it doesnt have to exactly say "Christ", I'm saying when you compare verses it'll take someone to Peter and Revelation where its referring to Christ and so you have Christ falling and NOT lucifer. This is what satan wants, confusion. He wants US arguing about it, when in fact it SHOULD be lucifer, and end of story.
@TheKJVberean Not really the end of story. When you are taking Aramaic, Hebrew, translated to other things like Greek, Latin, German and English and then literally using words that are not exact translations anyway. So Jesus could say, I am the light of the day in one language, someone translates it as morning star. Its all apples and oranges. In my opinion people who are always cramming KJV down other peoples throats such as yourself, are creating confusion especially among new Christians.
Also I find it interesting that you speak of confusion when the KJV has many mistranslations from Greek and gives a verse a slightly different meaning than it originally meant.. I think anyone would find that confusing, especially new Christians. If you really want to know exactly what the Bible says, I suggest you become fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Until then you have no basis for your accusations against other versions other than your own opinion and INTERPRETATION.
@MedicatedHerbally the kjv is the Word of God! You don't have to learn greek or hebrew to understand that. All you need is the Spirit of God in your heart, and He'll show you the truth. I knew this as a child, when my youth pastor was reading from a new version, and I had the kjv. Just from going to Sunday School and learning what you need to do to be saved, you can see the new versions are removing Christian doctrine. They don't just change the "thee's and thou's" as they say.
@VincentRSpicer So are you suggesting then that people who use other versions don't have the Spirit of God with them in their hearts because they don't share your opinion? Also the Bible is very clear in ALL versions on what you need to be saved. So I really don't understand your point......Romans 10:9 (NASB) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
@MedicatedHerbally The new versions are removing doctrines from the Word of God. Such as fasting, and the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Any "translator" who does this is being deceptive, or they're lacking discernment, and yes may be void of the Spirit of God. Not all who read these new translations are void of the Spirit. Some are just unlearned, or new in the faith. Can you defend the virgin birth using your version, or teach one to fast for deliverance from Satan? Get a real Sword, the kjv!!!
@VincentRSpicer She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” -Matthew 1:21-23 (NASB)
@VincentRSpicer Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’” -Matthew 4:1-4 (NASB)
@VincentRSpicer Next?? Those are three things now you have said were not in any new translations, and all three times I have shown you are incorrect and defended them all. So I ask again. Do you have any SCRIPTURE to back up your claims??? What authority gives you the right to say whether the Spirit of God is with someone or not?
@VincentRSpicer Also you claim that people who don't share your opinion are "unlearned" or "new to the faith." This obviously must include John Piper. This is from Wikipedia.."In college he originally subscribed in the Pre-med program, only to be called to ministry during a bout of sickness. Following college, he completed a Masters of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California(1968–71)." So tell me, what school did you complete your Masters of Divinity degree at?
@VincentRSpicer /watch?v=xHWepzUByt4&feature=player_embedded#at=353 Watch this video. It gives just a FEW examples of why the KJV is not perfect or the only "real sword" as you claim to say. There are several more that I can happily show you if you so desire. Stop confusing people with your own opinions.
@MedicatedHerbally Jeez, man. You don't have to be so harsh. I understand that you're only trying to clarify something that you felt was misleading, but don't you think the way you did it was a little bit harsh? Maybe just a little? This is just a suggestion, but maybe show a little more love towards Vincent or whoever you're trying to explain your point to. If you have time, you should take a look at 1 Corinthians 13. Anyways, just my opinions. God bless you, though!
@SiIverxLight Maybe, but this is a serious issue to me. To claim that brothers and sisters in Christ are not using "real swords" because of the version they choose to use is VERY upsetting to me. Especially when they are making claims that aren't backed up by any real evidence, just their own opinions. Saying things like "Not all who read these new translations are void of the Spirit. Some are just unlearned, or new in the faith." is offensive to me.
@SiIverxLight To me that's in insinuating that some who choose to use other translations ARE void of Holy Spirit. Also insinuating that Pastors like John Piper who have given their entire life to ministry and base their sermons off different versions than the KJV are "unlearned, or new to the faith." Those are pretty serious claims. I feel if someone things they have the authority to judge these matters so harshly they better back up their reasoning with some Scripture.
@SiIverxLight It's not a matter of whether I love them or not. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If someone is going to say though such things as these I AM going to argue the point because I find it offensive and a slap in the face to those who use these versions on a daily basis to reach people and bring them to Christ. Its like saying its all in vain because they are not hearing the true Word of God. Pretty serious claims.
@VincentRSpicer Romans 10:9 (KJV)That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved......So as you can see both version are pretty clear. Do you have any other scriptures that support your claim of them removing Christian doctrine? Or are you merely just basing these accusations on because of the way you "feel."
@MedicatedHerbally One more thing - your Easter and Passover comments wont fly. This just goes to show you don't understand the Bible or largely lack in study. Easter is correct. Read that chapter once more. Passover happens before the Days of Unleavened bread. Easter was a pagan holiday to celebrate which happened AFTER the days of unleavened bread. It's not a mistranslation, critics seem to love that argument though, just shows how they dont study themselves.
@TheKJVberean The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" In Job 38:7, the KJV indicates that this is not just a title for Christ, as it is also given to other angelic beings.
@TheKJVberean Ecclesiasticus 50:6 gives the title to the high priest Simon son of Onias (even though many, including KJV-onlyists don't consider Ecclesiasticus to be scripture, it still shows that the KJV translators had no problem using "morning star" for someone other than Christ). One could return the "argument" and say that if "morning star" is only Christ's title, then the KJV tell us there are many Christs because of these verses!
@TheKJVberean Of course that is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than saying the NIV and NASB are equating Christ and Satan. Whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to Satan or not, it is not such a stretch to suggest that "morning star" or a similar term may be applied to Satan, since he too is considered by many to previously be a angel, and can still appear as such.
@TheKJVberean Maybe you don't understand the Bible as much as you think? Or maybe you too should also study? You did lie because you said that these translations said "Christ" falls from heaven, when in reality no translation says that. Its is based solely on your assumptions and your own interpretation.
@MedicatedHerbally So much for ppl such as yourself researching and reading the Bible for yourself. You accuse me of lying? The NIV ESV NASB NLT ASV, etc. They all change out Lucifer and put either "morning star" or "day star" in place of it. Tell me one place in the entire Bible where satan is known by such a name? Nowhere!! But the Lord Jesus Christ IS. 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16.
@TheKJVberean Although the primary context of the passage is about a king of Babylon, it may also be legitimately referring to Satan as well - but if so, it is important to remember that this is an interpretational issue of the passage, not a translational issue of the single word "heylel".
There are many more like these below. Are you comfortable with reading the KJV knowing all this? Please understand that I am not attacking the Word of God, I am pointing out errors in a translation. God's Word is perfect but translations are not. God inspired the apostles and prophets when they wrote, but there is not one verse in the Bible that says translations are inspired.
Philippians 4:6 in the KJV says, "Be careful for nothing." In every day English today this verse says "be careless about everything." The NASB correctly translates it, "Be anxious for nothing."
In Acts 5:30 the KJV says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." This verse says that they killed Jesus and then hung his corpse on a tree. Of course this contradicts all of the Gospel accounts. The NASB says, "Whom you put to death by hanging on a tree." It is easy to see which is right. The KJV makes the same mistake again in Acts 10:39, "Slew and hung on a tree."
In James 3:2, the KJV says we offend every-body. "In many things we offend all." The NASB says, "For we all stumble in many ways." I can agree with the NASB but not with the KJV.
The KJV says, "The love of money is the root of all evil," (I Timothy 6:10). This statement is certainly false. Adam and Eve did not sin for the love of money. Satan's fall was because of pride, not love of money. The adulterer and the fornicator do not do it for money, neither does the rapist. What God actually said was that money can be a root of all sorts of evil. People will do any kind of sin for money. The NASB says, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil."
Philippians 3:20 in the KJV says, "Our conversation is in heaven." Obviously we are not talking to one another in Heaven. We are still on the earth. The NASB correctly says, "Our citizenship is in heaven."
James 5:11 the KJV says, "The Lord is very pitiful." This term is old English for God is full of pity. But still today the KJV says the Lord is "very pitiful." This is a slander against God which should be updated. The NASB says, "The Lord is full of compassion."
Acts 12:4 in the KJV says Herod was planning "after Easter" to bring Peter out. The KJV translates this same Greek word as "Passover" 28 times. This is the only time they translate this Greek word as "Easter." Either the translators were wrong 28 times or they are wrong in Acts 12:4. The NASB translates this Greek word as Passover all 29 times.
Finally, an evangelical leader who is willing to comment on the elephant in the room. I am also a teacher and preacher of the Bible, and depend on the words being there in order to get the sense of the text. Hopefully this a shot across the bow for Bible translators to give us the word of God in our own language instead of what they "think" is supposed to be there.
My NIV translates the Greek word, "de," as "Now," in Philippians 1:12. KJV uses, "But." John Piper's ESV doesn't translate the word. Maybe he should see Matthew 7:1-2. I think one can benefit from any of the major accepted versions, and I encourage using more than one translation for Bible study! Don't be downin' my NIV! :-) Amen on the Mark Strauss Article about the ESV!
@DailyWhitt thats thats he's not saying throw it out. he's saying that where it counts the NIV falters a little bit. i prefer the ESV over the NIV. i encourage people to read lots of translations to get a more rounded idea of the text, actually.
@anonazero I agree on lots of translations. But saying, "Get a Bible with all the words," is a bit of a slam to the NIV (which he names in this clip) IMHO. His favorite version technically doesn't have all the words either. Also, as one blogger said, ESV reads like Yoda-speak in some places. Even the NASB sounds more readable to me - I've rediscovered that version as of late. I believe where it counts, NIV clearly presents the Gospel. However I don't like the revised Gender NIV as much!
@DailyWhitt it is a slam on the NIV as far as theological study but from a guy like piper that sort of carries some weight dont you think? sometimes a but is just a but. sometimes it changes everything.
yeah i heard about the "revised gender" thing. thats what we need, something more palatable so that lost people are more comfortable in our churches all the way to hell.
mmm....so maybe one day the ESV will get all the words in it. No thanks to the ESV, actually grown quite hostile to it....ESV'ers think this translation walks on water. I'll take the NIV, NLT, NKJV, HCSB over the ESV any day.
I had a bible n i think it was NCV n instead of saying "Do not commit adultery" it said "do not be guilty of adultery" n i was trying to teach a guy about it and he tried saying that its ok if your not guilty about it n that was what this version said
@ronathanedwards Really? Where is the error I'm making? I compare spiritual things with spiritual, there is too much evidence and facts. You need to do a little more research, look at what the modern "bibles" have removed and hopefully your eyes will be opened.
(...) The Spanish version was similar to the KJV, but the diff. between them is huge! I mean.. one is saying that God's who does EVERYTHING in salvation an the other that we are! A wrong version can separate 2 points of view in a verse as far as from Calvinism to Arminianism!
Some months ago I was translating a sermon by Washer and found a diff. between the English version and the Spanish one when I wanted to translate a verse he quoted.. In Hosea 14:8 the ESV says, "O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? It is I who answer and look after you. I am like an evergreen cypress; from me comes your fruit," while KJV says, "Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found"
When compared to a translation from the dead sea scrolls the King James version of the bible was 94% accurate. You lose more accuracy than that translation from from spanish to english.
@superjoshua7777 So what your saying is that seems all translations are fallibe that God didnt preserve His infallible Word. The KJV is the infallible translation, rest are liberal owned and revised FROM the KJV is what they say, but they obviously arent. God meant what he said and said what he meant, He has preserved His Word into english spanish and many other languages. English it so happens to be the KJV.
You should learn textual criticism. You wouldn't be making such silly comments. God does preserve His Words. You make the error in HOW he preserves it.
@kenfo0 Search the scriptures, modern versions have either day star morning star or shining star in that verse. Go to 2 Peter and revelation, Christ is known as the day star and morning star. Modern versions removed LUCIFER and instead put in a name of Jesus Christ. Blasphemy.
If he really thinks this is important, how can he not exhort everyone to learn greek and hebrew? Saying "because that's not realistic" is no better excuse than saying "what's the diff. btwn a "when" or a "for"?". He says there is. This is really an issue that should be discussed at length.
I am concerned with this piece of lecture. I don't think he has clearly articulated the point at all. If he is a Bible scholar and he has no idea why a "for" is important, then it is not going to matter to a lay person, because they will have no greater understanding. What he is preaching here can be dangerous...one can spend a lifetime parsing every little word yet missing the message by a mile. Isn't that one of the things Jesus said of the Pharisees?
Dude... KJV and NASB have added and subtracted words just like NIV, TNIV, w/eV
Literal translations are not infallible (yes, I just said KJV's not infallible. Msg me if you disagree :P). They're MAN made translations. (FALLIBLE).
All of them have added and subtracted words. It's part of translating
Go, look at the Greek.
If you wanted to "include ALL the words", John 3:16 would have to look like this:
"So then loved the God, the world, so that the Son, the only one born..."
@the13thof12 Because they are from 2 totally different texts. The KJV is from the TR and the ESV along with all other modern bibles including the Jehovah Witness bible and catholic bible came from the alexandrian texts which are the corrupt westcott and hort. Just do a collation and ask yourself, do you really want to trust a bible that takes Christ off from Jesus in many places and has Christ falling from heaven in isiah 14:12 and not lucifer?
@TheKJVberean Can you explain which translation you says Christ falls from the heaven in Isaiah 14:12? Not one translation says that. It does exchange Lucifer, son of the morning with star of the morning, son of the dawn. It might be better if you don't lie to make your point about your translation.
Of course Piper didnt recommend kjv. He'd rather use esv which is just as bad as niv. "get a bible with all the words" HAAAA yeah piper must be smokin something out his pipe. KJV Bible is the Word of God. Just compare the bibles.
@TheKJVberean Okay, I have a question. If we compare bibles, as you've suggested, how do I know that I should be judging the ESV text by the KJV text and not the other way around?
If you want "all the words" of the bible, you have to read the original texts translated by Aramaic and Hebrew scholars. The ever-occurring idioms and cultural references need to be explained as well. This reveals a quite different bible from the ones currently used.
That is why you seek truth in many ways. If you restrict your study to one 'version', you will become close-minded, and not open to what God is trying to teach you in that moment. You seek truth in God's word, not man's word.
@Roberthurz I saw this sermon live. He was talking about the mistranslation of a word in the TNIV. The question I keep asking, but cannot get a satisfactory answer to is this: Why is the KJV the standard by which we judge other bibles?
@the13thof12 I suggest you buy the book ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE - Doug Stauffer and read it. I find it interesting that in the preface, intro etc. of all modern versions they compare themselves to the KJV. I generally don't do drawn out discussions in a format such as this and I won't do it now. Unlike most people when I open my KJV I believe I am reading the very words God intended me to read and that it is God's word preserved in English. But that's just me... :0)
@Roberthurz The problem with the KJV is that it's hard to read for the current generation, especially ESL people. And so, although it may contains all the words, people actually get much less out of the KJV than the ESV or any other new translation, even the NIV. Many can't understand the old English language
@thnguyen24 It really isn't that difficult to learn to read. I would urge people to make a little effort and spend exclusive time reading the KJV. I personally trust no other version. Take care.
@Roberthurz Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I recently changed from NIV to KJV because I realized how different the two were along with the other modern translations and I prefer the one that has all the words and that stood the test of time.
I have watched many of his videos and it is clear that he thinks that only his religion is correct. This video is one of the best pieces of evidence to support my accusation: "John Piper - What about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, and Jewish people?"
His only "evidence" lies in scripture. This is the same as Islam, Judeaism etc. The very least he should do is acknowledge that their religions have the same chance of being correct.
@UrukEngineer Well that's kind of what it means to be a Christian. Why would he say he follows Jesus and loves him as Lord if he did believe full on he was. That's not arrogance that's belief. They can't all be right, no possible, Islam says jesus wasn't crucified, Judeism says he wasn't the messiah. We believe fully he rose from the dead and was the messiah. The majority of the scholars who have studied it would go against islam and say yes Jesus was crucified. It's belief not arrogance.
@johnnyaplseed2121 You said "Well that's kind of what it means to be a Christian...They can't all be right...The majority of the scholars who have studied it would go against islam...It's belief ..."
This really is my point. Mulism (and others) say exactly the same about their religion. Yet each one is based on the same lack of evidence, just reliance on a collection of old books.
The very least Piper can do is acknowledge that fact and that he might be wrong.
@UrukEngineer At some point it does come down to belief is what I'm saying, but we can rule out things by the facts we do have. I'm saying when most of the manuscripts that have miracles in the Quran are 300 years after the originals, that doesn't work with me. Yes their is belief but its not blind.
@johnnyaplseed2121 Perhaps the Koran was written 300 years after Mohammed (I'm not sure). However I do know that the bible was assembled and underwent large scale editing for a period 20-400 years after Jesus died. I can't see how that makes the bible any better than the koran.
The two faiths have equal provenance. Both can't be right.
But both CAN be wrong - and all scientific evidence points to that conclusion.
Therefore when there is so much evidence for evolution faith is "blind"
@UrukEngineer Well don't find much you just said credible, look at the first editions of the gospels and see how much they have changed. I feel their is a heavy amount of proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't really care about evolution. If Jesus rose from the dead, I follow him to the grave, if he is buried in the ground, no. Everything I have experienced and the credible sources I have studied say to me, one day all will bow before the Lord Jesus, some will praise, others submit
@johnnyaplseed2121 But mate, you keep pointing to the bible as your evidence. It is not a credible source of fact.
There is not one bit of substaiated evidence for the resurrection - nothing. The mulism faith accepts that Jesus lived and died..but that he did not come back to life.
Their proof is just as tenuous as yours. Neither is real proof at all.
However christains make an outrageous claim - that a dead man can come back to life..well prove it.
@UrukEngineer I do? Okay how about these facts, the large majority of scholars say Jesus was crucified, they also say disciples bleieved they saw him, that the tomb was empty, as well as the conversion of skeptic and anti-christian Paul. you can't say the bible is uncredible because its used by christians it is simply a manuscript that must be tested. Many of these facts are attested by up to 5 extra-biblical forces. These facts point to resurrection. But I welcome you to propose other theories
@johnnyaplseed2121 All credit to you Sir for continuing to try to prove your point, however, you are still pointing back to the bible as evidence for its own veracity.
Lets test the bible. Adding up the various liniages it mentions, the world can be calculated to 6-10,000 years old. Carbon dating, sedimentary deposition rates and other independantly provable evidence place the Earth at around 4-5 Billion years.
Well I haven't studied that much but it doesn't really bother me, I feel it's likely the 7 days spoken of in Genesis were simply time periods but then again God made Adam a man not a baby so why would he make the Earth a baby haha that sounds funny, and you keeping acting as though the bible is not just a historic manuscript, no offence but that's a pretty big error, many scholars would agree that much of the Gospels of Jesus are true and I said I know many extrabiblical sources mentioning Jesus
@johnnyaplseed2121 There is an interesting and very important issue you raise in your last post.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you, like most modern people, don't believe that god made everything in 7 days. That these were "time periods". Many others say that the "Flood" was allegorical too. This approach is aimed at reconciling what is in the bible with what science shows to be more likely.
But the trouble is where do you stop? Was the resurrection allegorical too?
@UrukEngineer I actually don't believe in an allegorical flood but I haven't really researched it, and the thing about the resurrection is its the most plausible event, and its attested to, they didn't preach an allegorical resurrection, no doubt was it a bodily one. I believe some is allegorical but definitely not all of it. Many Old Testament parts are written poetically yet that is not seen in the New Testament.
Well I think that the resurrection was allegorical. His followers "felt" he was with them. When the accounts were written 20-400 years ago this was changed to an actual resurrection. If he really came back to life, why did so few people see him. He should have shown himself to the Romans.
My assertion has as much real evidence as yours (ie none). The only difference is that my account is far more likely as it does not require a suspension of the laws of nature.
@UrukEngineer Okay, his followers were put to death because they believe he rose again, it says he ate fish with them afterword, and I don't see how you can say I haven't brought any evidence. Why would we expect God to be unable to break laws of nature. I just encourage you to look more into it. Try a book called, The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus, it's by Gary Habermas, it should answer a lot of your questions. It was nice talkin w/ you and I hope you find truth
Thank you for trying to put up a cogent defence of religion. However no matter how many times you point to it - the bible just is not sufficient evidence to support the outrageous claims it makes. I'll look up "The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus" by Gary Habermas. I have read other apologists books and all fail to pass the hairdryer-of-reality test. Perhaps this one won't.
If you really are open minded then read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Because anyone who sees a physical Jesus after He is killed would believe, but there is no faith involved. God wants our faith, not our head knowledge of Jesus.
Absolutely not. God turned me from a pornography addict seeking to fulfill my own desires to being completely sold out for Him in one moment, and I havnt touched porn again since then (1.5 years ago). I was alone out in the woods praying that day and God stepped in in a way I can not describe with words. He is willing to give us some evidence of himself, however this is supposed to lead to faith. I can not have faith in the chair im in, because there is no doubt it is not real.
@UrukEngineer Im not being sarcastic when i ask for critique because I don;t want to propose info that you don't question, such as perhaps mayybe the disciples were just confused or they stole the body. I welcome you to ask because I think it is helpful for both of us in learning.
@98nafets we have more docs/copies today?really? can you name any?
@nsxanders yes true, but they used it and twisted scripture to fit the theology. Calvinism is heresy from the pit of hell. Why? Have you read calvins institutes? really you dont even need to just look at the points, calvinists talk Gods sovereignty but their god isnt soveriegn.
@prairemark sorry, false doctrines. Yeah and you got that right its a system, man made system from a heretic and its NOT the Gospel of Christ.
Piper is hypocritical, he tells everyone to get nasb or esv etc when those are no different than niv. All modern bibles are corrupt and satans tool to deceive many into confusion. Piper is a false teacher, and he is sucked into the false doctrine of calvinism. Get the kjv bible if you want the Words of God.
@TheKJVberean You do know that the KJV is not as accurate as the newer literal versions? The KJV was written hundreds of years ago when we did not have as many of the documents/copies of the Bible as we do today. The newer literal translations use more historical documentation.
@TheKJVberean Okay....but lots of guys that preached exclusively from the KJV were staunch Calvinists. I would love to hear what you think Calvinism is. Like... give me a definition. This will be either educational or entertaining. So go for it.
@nsxanders Didn't the writers of the KJV believe in prayers for the dead, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Real Presence at Communion and regenerative Infant Baptism?
@TheKJVberean "The false doctrine of calvinism?" Calvinism is not one doctrine but a way of understanding the Gospel of Christ....it is a system, not one Doctrine.
you know the WORD says in all translations to stop arguing among Believers so what another person doesnt read YOUR translation we are all serving the same God so if we are so called Christ Follows why then do we resort to arguing over something on youtube when you could be spending that time telling someone about Christ or just loving somone
I love John Piper but this is hypocrisy in his part. Get a KING JAMES! Your ESV removes ALL KINDS OF VERSES!!! Your New King James removes God repenting many times in the old testament, which is important because it distorts the true definition of repentance. All these modern translations are wicked and demonic. Thanks for removing the following verses ESV!; Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, so on and so on! thnks ESV!
@TheChrist4All The King James Version (actually ours is one of four "King James Versions, and not the final one, but the one that lasted) actually adds words to the original manuscripts. The ESV is one of the (if not the) most accurate word-by-word translations from the original. One might note that King James had a significant agenda in his translations, and this agenda greatly affected the accuracy of the translation.
@MichaelPT91 first of all, there are no "originals" so do your research. The only "originals" there are, are the Textus Receptus and the Westcott and Hort manuscripts. And yes I agree, the ESV is word for word (WESTCOTT AND HORT!) do your research on who those idiots were. The ESV is not much different then the RSV. ESV is full of errors!!! by the way, are you saying all the martyrs that brought fourth the KJV was for nothing? Are you saying God couldn't preserve his word, word for word?
@TheChrist4All By "original" I meant original languages. I know about Westcott and Hort and the Textus Receptus, and I agree that there is significant argument to be made there, but we cannot actually know that the Textus Receptus is actually better. I am not saying that God can't preserve His word, word-for-word, in translation, but rather that He hasn't. Great evidence for this is the King James 1620, which says in Ex. 20.14, "Thou shalt commit Adultery."
@MichaelPT91 thats weird, there is no 1620 KING JAMES! There is no KING JAMES BIBLE that says that! Im looking at all of my KJV's right now and they all say "thou shalt NOT commit adultery" before you bash on the word of God, please get your info correct. There is no 1620 King James. and ALL 1611 King James Bibles read correctly. How about you look into your ESV errors, instead of creating false ones about KJV. By the way, what does your ESV say in 2 Thessalonians 1:9??
@TheChrist4All Actually, you are entirely incorrect. There was a 1620 KJV. I said in that our 1611 was the one that lasted, but not the final King James Authorized Version. There were four separate translations all under James, and all called the King James Version. The 1611 is also called "the wicked Bible." Do a search on it and look at reputable sources. I'm not sure why you're referencing 2 Thess. 1.9...
@MichaelPT91 wow, how can you say i am wrong when its obvious you dont know your history. the 1620 KJV was NOT another translation by the King James. Neither was the 1631 KJV. Those years were solely PUBLISHING years by Robert Barker and John Bill. That is why those 2 publishings were considered "the wicked bible" As soon as they realized the misprint that occurred in the seventh commandment, they Immediately stopped printing the bible. look at a chronological history of the bible.
@MichaelPT91 I can speak english very well, but yes, I am a second language person. having said that, I am not on the english bible translation committee, but on the Slovak one. what a primitive argument. If Im not an english native speaker, does it mean I can't read Greek?
This has been flagged as spam show
No, no, no. If you want all the words, use a transliteration, like the Emphatic Diaglot. Only interlinear Bibles, give you all the words, with none added. The KJV, NIV, NWT and all translations have words added and taken away from the original text, because transliterations often sound like gibberish, until they are cleaned up. Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek words can often be translated into different English words or phrases, the committee standards produce differing results.
IMJW1000 5 days ago
Comment removed
IMJW1000 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kent Hovind (creation science evagelism) with an interesting talk on the KJV Bible:
watch?v=V8C-Dl7VpRQ
website: drdino dot com
LLThenu 1 month ago
@chriscoolguy15 = If the KJV is "just a translation", I'm taking that to mean in your mind, we do not have the preserved words of God today. What makes the Greek of the New Testament "infallible" whereas the English you and I speak today is not? Does that not strike you as very inconsistent? Of what value to me is the Bible in a language I cannot read or speak? I guess John 3:16 should read "for God so loved the Greeks...
The KJV is 400 years old. Nothing else is even a close second.
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
Enlighten me. What does “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” (Ezekiel 9:5-7) actually mean? I’m not at all claiming to be a final authority. Everyone I know thinks killing little children is immoral. I didn’t just dream that up. Give me just one context in which killing babies becomes moral. This god is a creation of long ago ignorant and brutal tribesmen is an uncivilized part of the world.
max2right 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." jeremiah 29:13 and yes God is Love :) .. don't take the text out of the context ..just search Him until u found Him .. ask Him, all that u don't understand, with a right motivation ... He is faithful .. He will answer He always does .. but in His time :)
kiokocan 2 months ago
Funny that the speaker says he wants "ALL the words" and singles out the NIV and TNIV for criticism, yet says the TEB, NASV, etc. are okay.
If you want the pure, unadulterated words (plural) of God, you have but one choice in English...the King James Version.
It recently marked the 400th YEAR of service to English-speaking people. The rest of the so-called "bibles" average 20 years tops. This fact alone should tell any thinking person which Bible has GOD'S stamp of approval on it!
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 Interesting thought. Which KJV are you referring to though? The original 1611 version, the 8th edition that is currently being sold, or one of the editions in between? Or are you talking about the NewKJV which uses the same manuscripts and translational methods? Remember the only inspired texts were the autographs themselves, which we don't have, so any Bible in any language, including Greek and Hebrew, is someone's effort in interpreting the original.
ksartin86 2 months ago
@ksartin86 = If you're right, then we do NOT have the preserved words of God as he promised (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35). Who should I believe, the Scripture or you? The KJV we have today is actually the 1769 edition, which was the 7th (not the 8th) in the lineage of the 1611.So what? I'll at least give you credit for using the correct word "edition", not version - a BIG difference! Lastly, the NKJV is NOT based upon the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text of the AV 1611...not even close!
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
From the bible: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalms 137:9. "Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” Ezekiel 9:5-7 . Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. “Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.” Isaiah 13:15-18.
God is love?
max2right 3 months ago
@max2right = Does it bother you at all that you demonstrate two things with your Bible quotes...complete ignorance of the scripture, and insufferable arrogance in placing yourself as the final authority? Do you care that for centuries, anti-theists have been using these very same arguments as "proof" that if God does exist, he is nothing but a "dirty bully"? You question is obviously rhetorical. You have no interest whatsoever in the answer to it. That much is patently obvious.
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 I left a comment for you but diden't post it to you. Sorry.
max2right 2 months ago
@max2right -
OK, you didn't post your comment. Are you going to post it, or just tell me you did not. Don't know what to make of that...
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 Enlighten me. What does “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,… “ Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children” (Ezekiel 9:5-7) actually mean? I’m not at all claiming to be a final authority. Everyone I know thinks killing little children is immoral. I didn’t just dream that up. Give me just one context in which killing babies becomes moral. This god is a creation of long ago ignorant and brutal tribesmen is an uncivilized part of the world.
max2right 2 months ago
@max2right = I am continually amazed at how you anti-theist types operate. I guess you think that your accusations justify your unbelief, at least in your mind. You final statement confirms what I've had happen 100% of the time when attempting a dialogue...you make it quite clear that your are NOT objective concerning any evidence I might offer, yet you still ask for it. Why don't you just say you choose to reject the God of scripture outright instead of inventing bogus "reasons"?
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 I don’t know about others but I operate on facts, quoting the bible isn’t an accusation and as yet you have failed to offer any evidence at all. You have claimed that my quotes are somehow misunderstood but, when I ask for scriptural clarification you just make sweeping generalizations about all anti-theists 100% of the time and change the subject to how wrong I and others are without a shred of evidence that supports anything you’ve said.
max2right 2 months ago
@max2right = If you're open to objective evidence and willing to change your mind, then why do you START from a position that is hostile to Christianity? Something or someone caused you to take this position, and it sure wasn't a detailed study of the Word of God that did it. On that point, I'll bet the bank and challenge you to deny it. NO ONE becomes an atheist because they looked at troublesome passages and were shocked into unbelief. That is where you BEGAN, friend - read John 3:18 !
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 It’s because there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of gods, because the Abrahamic religions are hostile to all those that don’t believe as they do and because that religious hostility now threatens us all. I’ve read the entire bible. It’s so filled with immorality and non-sense it’s useless as evidence of anything so again your attempt to label me has failed. Are you open to objective evidence?
max2right 2 months ago
max2right - Your use of "empirical" tells me that you place experience above documentation, which means you're dead in the water before you begin. I'll freely grant you that the "Abrahamic religion" (Islam doesn't count) doesn't acknowledge the litany of small-g, false "gods" available today. The Bible speaks of immorality because it is a truthful recording of the deeds of wicked men. You'd prefer lies instead ?
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 Evidence as in tested, repeatable and observable and documentation that has been peer reviewed. Dead in the water? You apparently don’t know that christianity is one of the three religions based on the faith of Abraham. It’s in the bible. I prefer something factual over a false impression In Ezekiel 9:5-7 this god commands men to kill old, young, girls and women and little children too. There is no context in which that becomes moral.
max2right 2 months ago
@max2right = So if I cannot repeat the Resurrection, the parting of the Dead Sea, or any of a hundred other Bible miracles, that makes them null and void? Maybe in your mind, but not in that of any reasonable person open to objective evidence. I figured at some point you'd trot out the old Ezekiel 9 ploy...glad you didn't disappoint. There is a simple answer to it, but you won't accept it, so why would I bother?
You like to look up scripture, so give a try to Proverbs 9:7-8 for the reason.
tigerlilly66 2 months ago
@lilly66 Those miracles cannot be repeated because they never happened, I say to believe biblical miracles happened with no corroboration outside the bible is not objective, reasonable or open minded. Proverbs 9:7-8 has nothing to do with the Ezekiel quote which is god’s word so any ploy is his. “At some point” and “trot out” I made that point in my first comment 3 days ago & still you cannot justify his killing of babies. This god isn’t worth a moments consideration.
max2right 2 months ago
@tigerlilly66 The bible is most probably, the greatest accumulation of nonsense ever. Some people like to eat stinky cheese, because, almost always, they learned to eat it as a kid. Same with the bible. Of course, when you read between the lines ,and cover up all the dirt, you have a marvel of morality. But in the same way, Playboy becomes a manual of morality too.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko =
I would surmise then, based on your il-logic that man is stictly a product of his environment. Personal choice and free will do not matter. We're just destined to float through life like so much flotsam...que sera sera.
Maybe that nihlistic "reasoning" works for you, but it is sure a pathetic, "it's everyone's fault but mine" position. Wouldn't want to have to "man up", how would we?
So Playboy is a proper noun, but the "bible" is not...hmmmmm. Must be just a typo, right?
tigerlilly66 1 month ago
@tigerlilly66 Bullsh... Educated people create their own purpose in life>>.So Playboy is a proper noun, but the "bible" is not...hmmmmm. Must be just a typo, right>> You got it, that`s what I meant. The bible is only a book of morality when you cover up all the dirt., just like Playboy.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko = So, uneducated people cannot "create" their own purpose in life? Tell that to Andrew Carnegie, who barely made it out of grade school, yet went on to become a billionaire. Not that you care, but men like Lincoln, Grant, Tyler, and others became President of the United States with little or NO formal "eduation".
The Bible tells us how to shed the dirt...Playboy still has the dirt firmly attached, just like the sow wallowing in the muck. Pretty much says it all in comparison.
tigerlilly66 1 month ago
@tigerlilly66 The Bible tells us how to shed the dirt... This is the first admittance ever by a christian that there is "dirt" in the bible. My sincere thanks.. One has to learn how to read the bible, like one learns how to eat stinky cheese. Covering up your nose that you don`t smell it.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@tigerlilly66 = Friend, I have no idea what kind of "Christians" you refer to, but anyone with even a 3rd grade understanding of the Bible knows that the "dirt" is there front and center for everyone to see! Maybe you use the word differently, but the Bible has NEVER air-brushed its characters. Their failures, hypocrisy, lies...you name it, are not concealed, justified, nor excused. Name me any other so-called "holy" book that even comes close to this candor...there isn't one!
tigerlilly66 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tigerlilly66 .recording of the deeds of wicked men.>> You mean " god ". Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of god !
ndzoko 1 month ago
Comment removed
Solideogloria0923 3 months ago 5
Comment removed
Solideogloria0923 3 months ago
Comment removed
Solideogloria0923 3 months ago
Interesting... I love the NIV :)
MrMatt44000 3 months ago
LOL I love Piper, but if he wants a Bible with all the words, he needs KJV not his ESV
TheParticularBaptist 3 months ago 2
@TheParticularBaptist I don't know about the KJV being as great as KJV onliest hype it up to be. I remember when I was first saved I knew nothing about bible translations and the only thing I would hear in my head was" Find the oldest English bible." So I did. A 1537 Thomas Mathew bible which included 100% of William Tyndael's works. I know the KJV1611 claims to use 80% of his work and when I examined them side by side with the greek text I found the KJV1611 slightly lacking. Just a thought...
chriscoolguy15 3 months ago
@TheParticularBaptist I'm not saying the KJV is horrible in fact it is a very good translation but it is just that. The only thing that is infallible from the new testament is the Greek original language. Any ways the English language has change so much it make it very difficult to use it to witness to others. The most literal translation that has all the words in the English of the day is the NASB.
chriscoolguy15 3 months ago
Changing the meaning of thousands of passages is NOT preserving the Words of God.
therzander 3 months ago
The NIV 2011 has said that many of the Gender specific passages have been removed. This is false. Over 70% ofthe original Changes of the TNIV have been retained by the NIV 2011 and have changed only some of the more contraversial passages. The NIV 2011 has not been Endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention And many major pastors will not endorse the use of the NIV 2011 and have switched to the ESV Bible for teaching. The words Of God must be Preserved as best as possible.
therzander 3 months ago
The NIV 1984 Is a great translation I have used my whole life up until this past year. The production NIV 1984 has been stopped and any Niv bible you will buy in a book store or even online the default will be the NIV 2011. The TNIV of 2005 Was Very Quickly removed as the main NIV Bible because of the Gender neutral passages of which there were over a thousand and the 1984 version Was put back in place.
therzander 3 months ago
The thing with the NIV2011 is that its pretty much the perverted TNIV of 2005. The NIV (1984) I find to be a bit slopy in its translation. I myself use the KJV/NKJV, NASB (the 77 and the 95 editions) and the 2007 edition of the ESV. They have a new edition of the ESV out this year (2011), I have no idea what has changed. I'm waitimg to hear back from the publishes.
ExposerOfLies 4 months ago
I think it 's entirely possible for a word for word to use modern verbage or words and still maintain it's word for word status. The ESV fails at doing that, it's still a valid translation, just not one a like. Nor do I think it will ever be the number one translation. On another I do not like the NIV2011. I tend to be an NIV/NLT type of guy, and handout those translations.
sirsaint88 4 months ago
If you are going to fight that the KJV is the most accurate why won't you learn Koine Greek and read it in its original tongue?
glauderback1980 5 months ago
@glauderback1980 Because it should be obvious God blessed the English versions. Mass revivals came about because of the distribution of these Bible in English following the British empire around the world. The Greek and etc. did not get these type of blessings for whatever reason. I don't believe in double inspiration, but God's hand was definitely at work with how the gospel has spread from the middle east westward. I always find it funny when folks say they need any new translation at all.
1Atomtan 3 months ago
You make your points from transitive verbs and modifiers from a language that is completely foreign to you and often has no direct translation? Okay there...
MobiusCoin 5 months ago
I have a NKJV. How much different is that to the KJV?
MasterOranda 5 months ago
Comment removed
MasterOranda 5 months ago
Comment removed
MedicatedHerbally 5 months ago
Wow...very good--now I see what my pastor n church was talking about when he asked me where my KJV was.... :-) I get it!!!
widemanoranges 5 months ago
This guy speaks as if modern day bibles aren't corrupted. Unless you have access to the oldest texts and read Greek, you aren't going to have ''all the words". There are also certain things in your bible that are not in the oldest known copies of the gospels.
djangofile 6 months ago
The new century vertion really twisted some things, they conveniently translated the "very angery" in Nehemiah 13 to "greatly upset" and the Very angery when people are arguing amungst themselves to "very angery" conveniently what they find is worth being very angery about or just a more personal dislike. It also said in Ephesians not "Be angery" and just said "When you are angery" it's all an effort to conform to their personal opinion in our culture today... I dn't htik that's acceptable.
desasterz 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally No, it's a translation issue. With modern versions putting morning star instead of lucifer, the point is it causes a lot of confusion. I didn't lie because it doesnt have to exactly say "Christ", I'm saying when you compare verses it'll take someone to Peter and Revelation where its referring to Christ and so you have Christ falling and NOT lucifer. This is what satan wants, confusion. He wants US arguing about it, when in fact it SHOULD be lucifer, and end of story.
TheKJVberean 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean Not really the end of story. When you are taking Aramaic, Hebrew, translated to other things like Greek, Latin, German and English and then literally using words that are not exact translations anyway. So Jesus could say, I am the light of the day in one language, someone translates it as morning star. Its all apples and oranges. In my opinion people who are always cramming KJV down other peoples throats such as yourself, are creating confusion especially among new Christians.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Also I find it interesting that you speak of confusion when the KJV has many mistranslations from Greek and gives a verse a slightly different meaning than it originally meant.. I think anyone would find that confusing, especially new Christians. If you really want to know exactly what the Bible says, I suggest you become fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Until then you have no basis for your accusations against other versions other than your own opinion and INTERPRETATION.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally the kjv is the Word of God! You don't have to learn greek or hebrew to understand that. All you need is the Spirit of God in your heart, and He'll show you the truth. I knew this as a child, when my youth pastor was reading from a new version, and I had the kjv. Just from going to Sunday School and learning what you need to do to be saved, you can see the new versions are removing Christian doctrine. They don't just change the "thee's and thou's" as they say.
VincentRSpicer 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer So are you suggesting then that people who use other versions don't have the Spirit of God with them in their hearts because they don't share your opinion? Also the Bible is very clear in ALL versions on what you need to be saved. So I really don't understand your point......Romans 10:9 (NASB) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally The new versions are removing doctrines from the Word of God. Such as fasting, and the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Any "translator" who does this is being deceptive, or they're lacking discernment, and yes may be void of the Spirit of God. Not all who read these new translations are void of the Spirit. Some are just unlearned, or new in the faith. Can you defend the virgin birth using your version, or teach one to fast for deliverance from Satan? Get a real Sword, the kjv!!!
VincentRSpicer 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” -Matthew 1:21-23 (NASB)
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’” -Matthew 4:1-4 (NASB)
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer Next?? Those are three things now you have said were not in any new translations, and all three times I have shown you are incorrect and defended them all. So I ask again. Do you have any SCRIPTURE to back up your claims??? What authority gives you the right to say whether the Spirit of God is with someone or not?
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer Also you claim that people who don't share your opinion are "unlearned" or "new to the faith." This obviously must include John Piper. This is from Wikipedia.."In college he originally subscribed in the Pre-med program, only to be called to ministry during a bout of sickness. Following college, he completed a Masters of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California(1968–71)." So tell me, what school did you complete your Masters of Divinity degree at?
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@VincentRSpicer /watch?v=xHWepzUByt4&feature=player_embedded#at=353 Watch this video. It gives just a FEW examples of why the KJV is not perfect or the only "real sword" as you claim to say. There are several more that I can happily show you if you so desire. Stop confusing people with your own opinions.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally Jeez, man. You don't have to be so harsh. I understand that you're only trying to clarify something that you felt was misleading, but don't you think the way you did it was a little bit harsh? Maybe just a little? This is just a suggestion, but maybe show a little more love towards Vincent or whoever you're trying to explain your point to. If you have time, you should take a look at 1 Corinthians 13. Anyways, just my opinions. God bless you, though!
SiIverxLight 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SiIverxLight Maybe, but this is a serious issue to me. To claim that brothers and sisters in Christ are not using "real swords" because of the version they choose to use is VERY upsetting to me. Especially when they are making claims that aren't backed up by any real evidence, just their own opinions. Saying things like "Not all who read these new translations are void of the Spirit. Some are just unlearned, or new in the faith." is offensive to me.
MedicatedHerbally 5 months ago
@SiIverxLight To me that's in insinuating that some who choose to use other translations ARE void of Holy Spirit. Also insinuating that Pastors like John Piper who have given their entire life to ministry and base their sermons off different versions than the KJV are "unlearned, or new to the faith." Those are pretty serious claims. I feel if someone things they have the authority to judge these matters so harshly they better back up their reasoning with some Scripture.
MedicatedHerbally 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SiIverxLight It's not a matter of whether I love them or not. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. If someone is going to say though such things as these I AM going to argue the point because I find it offensive and a slap in the face to those who use these versions on a daily basis to reach people and bring them to Christ. Its like saying its all in vain because they are not hearing the true Word of God. Pretty serious claims.
MedicatedHerbally 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VincentRSpicer Romans 10:9 (KJV)That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved......So as you can see both version are pretty clear. Do you have any other scriptures that support your claim of them removing Christian doctrine? Or are you merely just basing these accusations on because of the way you "feel."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Comment removed
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally One more thing - your Easter and Passover comments wont fly. This just goes to show you don't understand the Bible or largely lack in study. Easter is correct. Read that chapter once more. Passover happens before the Days of Unleavened bread. Easter was a pagan holiday to celebrate which happened AFTER the days of unleavened bread. It's not a mistranslation, critics seem to love that argument though, just shows how they dont study themselves.
TheKJVberean 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears. Job 38:7 (KJV) "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" In Job 38:7, the KJV indicates that this is not just a title for Christ, as it is also given to other angelic beings.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean Ecclesiasticus 50:6 gives the title to the high priest Simon son of Onias (even though many, including KJV-onlyists don't consider Ecclesiasticus to be scripture, it still shows that the KJV translators had no problem using "morning star" for someone other than Christ). One could return the "argument" and say that if "morning star" is only Christ's title, then the KJV tell us there are many Christs because of these verses!
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean Of course that is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than saying the NIV and NASB are equating Christ and Satan. Whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to Satan or not, it is not such a stretch to suggest that "morning star" or a similar term may be applied to Satan, since he too is considered by many to previously be a angel, and can still appear as such.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean Maybe you don't understand the Bible as much as you think? Or maybe you too should also study? You did lie because you said that these translations said "Christ" falls from heaven, when in reality no translation says that. Its is based solely on your assumptions and your own interpretation.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
@MedicatedHerbally So much for ppl such as yourself researching and reading the Bible for yourself. You accuse me of lying? The NIV ESV NASB NLT ASV, etc. They all change out Lucifer and put either "morning star" or "day star" in place of it. Tell me one place in the entire Bible where satan is known by such a name? Nowhere!! But the Lord Jesus Christ IS. 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16.
TheKJVberean 6 months ago
@TheKJVberean Although the primary context of the passage is about a king of Babylon, it may also be legitimately referring to Satan as well - but if so, it is important to remember that this is an interpretational issue of the passage, not a translational issue of the single word "heylel".
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
There are many more like these below. Are you comfortable with reading the KJV knowing all this? Please understand that I am not attacking the Word of God, I am pointing out errors in a translation. God's Word is perfect but translations are not. God inspired the apostles and prophets when they wrote, but there is not one verse in the Bible that says translations are inspired.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Philippians 4:6 in the KJV says, "Be careful for nothing." In every day English today this verse says "be careless about everything." The NASB correctly translates it, "Be anxious for nothing."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Acts 5:30 the KJV says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." This verse says that they killed Jesus and then hung his corpse on a tree. Of course this contradicts all of the Gospel accounts. The NASB says, "Whom you put to death by hanging on a tree." It is easy to see which is right. The KJV makes the same mistake again in Acts 10:39, "Slew and hung on a tree."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
In James 3:2, the KJV says we offend every-body. "In many things we offend all." The NASB says, "For we all stumble in many ways." I can agree with the NASB but not with the KJV.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
The KJV says, "The love of money is the root of all evil," (I Timothy 6:10). This statement is certainly false. Adam and Eve did not sin for the love of money. Satan's fall was because of pride, not love of money. The adulterer and the fornicator do not do it for money, neither does the rapist. What God actually said was that money can be a root of all sorts of evil. People will do any kind of sin for money. The NASB says, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Philippians 3:20 in the KJV says, "Our conversation is in heaven." Obviously we are not talking to one another in Heaven. We are still on the earth. The NASB correctly says, "Our citizenship is in heaven."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
James 5:11 the KJV says, "The Lord is very pitiful." This term is old English for God is full of pity. But still today the KJV says the Lord is "very pitiful." This is a slander against God which should be updated. The NASB says, "The Lord is full of compassion."
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Acts 12:4 in the KJV says Herod was planning "after Easter" to bring Peter out. The KJV translates this same Greek word as "Passover" 28 times. This is the only time they translate this Greek word as "Easter." Either the translators were wrong 28 times or they are wrong in Acts 12:4. The NASB translates this Greek word as Passover all 29 times.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
for god was manifest in the flesh....k j v........the rest say HE was manifest.....all others are corrupt........
jonniec7 6 months ago
Finally, an evangelical leader who is willing to comment on the elephant in the room. I am also a teacher and preacher of the Bible, and depend on the words being there in order to get the sense of the text. Hopefully this a shot across the bow for Bible translators to give us the word of God in our own language instead of what they "think" is supposed to be there.
Rwinger261 7 months ago
Hey pipping Piper, how much did the ESV publishers pay you to make this rant?
TheHeroOfChrist 7 months ago
You guys are all wrong. It's all about the Santa Biblia translation. lol
achavez78 7 months ago
ESV for the win.
samtorrance5590 8 months ago
My NIV translates the Greek word, "de," as "Now," in Philippians 1:12. KJV uses, "But." John Piper's ESV doesn't translate the word. Maybe he should see Matthew 7:1-2. I think one can benefit from any of the major accepted versions, and I encourage using more than one translation for Bible study! Don't be downin' my NIV! :-) Amen on the Mark Strauss Article about the ESV!
DailyWhitt 8 months ago
@DailyWhitt thats thats he's not saying throw it out. he's saying that where it counts the NIV falters a little bit. i prefer the ESV over the NIV. i encourage people to read lots of translations to get a more rounded idea of the text, actually.
anonazero 7 months ago
@anonazero I agree on lots of translations. But saying, "Get a Bible with all the words," is a bit of a slam to the NIV (which he names in this clip) IMHO. His favorite version technically doesn't have all the words either. Also, as one blogger said, ESV reads like Yoda-speak in some places. Even the NASB sounds more readable to me - I've rediscovered that version as of late. I believe where it counts, NIV clearly presents the Gospel. However I don't like the revised Gender NIV as much!
DailyWhitt 7 months ago
@DailyWhitt it is a slam on the NIV as far as theological study but from a guy like piper that sort of carries some weight dont you think? sometimes a but is just a but. sometimes it changes everything.
yeah i heard about the "revised gender" thing. thats what we need, something more palatable so that lost people are more comfortable in our churches all the way to hell.
anonazero 7 months ago
what verse was he talking about????
philip2260 8 months ago
oh....y'all need to read 'Why the ESV should not become the English Standard Version." by Mark Strauss
sirsaint88 8 months ago
mmm....so maybe one day the ESV will get all the words in it. No thanks to the ESV, actually grown quite hostile to it....ESV'ers think this translation walks on water. I'll take the NIV, NLT, NKJV, HCSB over the ESV any day.
sirsaint88 8 months ago
I had a bible n i think it was NCV n instead of saying "Do not commit adultery" it said "do not be guilty of adultery" n i was trying to teach a guy about it and he tried saying that its ok if your not guilty about it n that was what this version said
junio1234567890 9 months ago
@ronathanedwards Really? Where is the error I'm making? I compare spiritual things with spiritual, there is too much evidence and facts. You need to do a little more research, look at what the modern "bibles" have removed and hopefully your eyes will be opened.
TheKJVberean 9 months ago
Which passage of scripture is he talking about?
brendos444 9 months ago
(...) The Spanish version was similar to the KJV, but the diff. between them is huge! I mean.. one is saying that God's who does EVERYTHING in salvation an the other that we are! A wrong version can separate 2 points of view in a verse as far as from Calvinism to Arminianism!
I agree with the reformed view tho..
rosarinianpethead 9 months ago
Some months ago I was translating a sermon by Washer and found a diff. between the English version and the Spanish one when I wanted to translate a verse he quoted.. In Hosea 14:8 the ESV says, "O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? It is I who answer and look after you. I am like an evergreen cypress; from me comes your fruit," while KJV says, "Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found"
rosarinianpethead 9 months ago
ESV doesn't have all the words either. I love the ESV but I am a little troubled because it's very similar to the NIV.
TomAdams20 9 months ago
When compared to a translation from the dead sea scrolls the King James version of the bible was 94% accurate. You lose more accuracy than that translation from from spanish to english.
mynameismatt2010 9 months ago
@superjoshua7777 So what your saying is that seems all translations are fallibe that God didnt preserve His infallible Word. The KJV is the infallible translation, rest are liberal owned and revised FROM the KJV is what they say, but they obviously arent. God meant what he said and said what he meant, He has preserved His Word into english spanish and many other languages. English it so happens to be the KJV.
TheKJVberean 9 months ago
@TheKJVberean
You should learn textual criticism. You wouldn't be making such silly comments. God does preserve His Words. You make the error in HOW he preserves it.
ronathanedwards 9 months ago
@kenfo0 Search the scriptures, modern versions have either day star morning star or shining star in that verse. Go to 2 Peter and revelation, Christ is known as the day star and morning star. Modern versions removed LUCIFER and instead put in a name of Jesus Christ. Blasphemy.
TheKJVberean 9 months ago
If he really thinks this is important, how can he not exhort everyone to learn greek and hebrew? Saying "because that's not realistic" is no better excuse than saying "what's the diff. btwn a "when" or a "for"?". He says there is. This is really an issue that should be discussed at length.
kenfo0 9 months ago
I am concerned with this piece of lecture. I don't think he has clearly articulated the point at all. If he is a Bible scholar and he has no idea why a "for" is important, then it is not going to matter to a lay person, because they will have no greater understanding. What he is preaching here can be dangerous...one can spend a lifetime parsing every little word yet missing the message by a mile. Isn't that one of the things Jesus said of the Pharisees?
kenfo0 9 months ago
And even that was adding punctuation :P
superjoshua7777 9 months ago
Dude... KJV and NASB have added and subtracted words just like NIV, TNIV, w/eV
Literal translations are not infallible (yes, I just said KJV's not infallible. Msg me if you disagree :P). They're MAN made translations. (FALLIBLE).
All of them have added and subtracted words. It's part of translating
Go, look at the Greek.
If you wanted to "include ALL the words", John 3:16 would have to look like this:
"So then loved the God, the world, so that the Son, the only one born..."
superjoshua7777 9 months ago
@the13thof12 Because they are from 2 totally different texts. The KJV is from the TR and the ESV along with all other modern bibles including the Jehovah Witness bible and catholic bible came from the alexandrian texts which are the corrupt westcott and hort. Just do a collation and ask yourself, do you really want to trust a bible that takes Christ off from Jesus in many places and has Christ falling from heaven in isiah 14:12 and not lucifer?
TheKJVberean 10 months ago
@TheKJVberean Here is the ESV version: "“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!". I don't see "Christ" in there. Either your sentence is poorly formed and you didn't mean the ESV, or you misquoted it.
kenfo0 9 months ago
@TheKJVberean Can you explain which translation you says Christ falls from the heaven in Isaiah 14:12? Not one translation says that. It does exchange Lucifer, son of the morning with star of the morning, son of the dawn. It might be better if you don't lie to make your point about your translation.
MedicatedHerbally 6 months ago
Of course Piper didnt recommend kjv. He'd rather use esv which is just as bad as niv. "get a bible with all the words" HAAAA yeah piper must be smokin something out his pipe. KJV Bible is the Word of God. Just compare the bibles.
TheKJVberean 10 months ago
@TheKJVberean Okay, I have a question. If we compare bibles, as you've suggested, how do I know that I should be judging the ESV text by the KJV text and not the other way around?
the13thof12 10 months ago
If you want "all the words" of the bible, you have to read the original texts translated by Aramaic and Hebrew scholars. The ever-occurring idioms and cultural references need to be explained as well. This reveals a quite different bible from the ones currently used.
wavenaboard 11 months ago
That is why you seek truth in many ways. If you restrict your study to one 'version', you will become close-minded, and not open to what God is trying to teach you in that moment. You seek truth in God's word, not man's word.
biteme2367 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He didn't even suggest the KJV
Matthew23and9 11 months ago
He didn't even suggest the KJV
Matthew23and9 11 months ago
I find it interesting that he is using some of the same arguments I use to defend the KJV. I like all the words too. Just sayin' :0)
Roberthurz 11 months ago 8
@Roberthurz KJV adds verses. That is why he doesnt suggest it.
grantedimustbeinsane 11 months ago
@grantedimustbeinsane The Nearly Inspired Version subtracts words and changes them. That's why I won't suggest it. :0)
Roberthurz 11 months ago
@Roberthurz I saw this sermon live. He was talking about the mistranslation of a word in the TNIV. The question I keep asking, but cannot get a satisfactory answer to is this: Why is the KJV the standard by which we judge other bibles?
the13thof12 10 months ago
@the13thof12 I suggest you buy the book ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE - Doug Stauffer and read it. I find it interesting that in the preface, intro etc. of all modern versions they compare themselves to the KJV. I generally don't do drawn out discussions in a format such as this and I won't do it now. Unlike most people when I open my KJV I believe I am reading the very words God intended me to read and that it is God's word preserved in English. But that's just me... :0)
Roberthurz 10 months ago
@Roberthurz I've read enough KJV only stuff to get the gist of it. May I message you privately?
the13thof12 10 months ago
@Roberthurz The problem with the KJV is that it's hard to read for the current generation, especially ESL people. And so, although it may contains all the words, people actually get much less out of the KJV than the ESV or any other new translation, even the NIV. Many can't understand the old English language
thnguyen24 6 months ago
@thnguyen24 It really isn't that difficult to learn to read. I would urge people to make a little effort and spend exclusive time reading the KJV. I personally trust no other version. Take care.
Roberthurz 6 months ago
@Roberthurz Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I recently changed from NIV to KJV because I realized how different the two were along with the other modern translations and I prefer the one that has all the words and that stood the test of time.
BYRD1014 5 months ago
I am an Atheist and I dislike Piper and the arrogant way he pushes this rubbish.
However, unlike on a very large number of christian sites, he does not disable comments and allows freedom of speech. For that he has my respect.
I would like to see him challenge his fellow christians to engage with the rest of the world and allow comments on their videos too.
Until they do, they lack moral courage and dishonour the man they are supposed to follow - Jesus wouldn't have disabled comments.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer I am just interested what you mean by arrogant? He definitely believes what he says, I don't think it's arrogance, it's utmost belief.
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 You ask why I think he is arrogant..
I have watched many of his videos and it is clear that he thinks that only his religion is correct. This video is one of the best pieces of evidence to support my accusation: "John Piper - What about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, and Jewish people?"
His only "evidence" lies in scripture. This is the same as Islam, Judeaism etc. The very least he should do is acknowledge that their religions have the same chance of being correct.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer Well that's kind of what it means to be a Christian. Why would he say he follows Jesus and loves him as Lord if he did believe full on he was. That's not arrogance that's belief. They can't all be right, no possible, Islam says jesus wasn't crucified, Judeism says he wasn't the messiah. We believe fully he rose from the dead and was the messiah. The majority of the scholars who have studied it would go against islam and say yes Jesus was crucified. It's belief not arrogance.
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 You said "Well that's kind of what it means to be a Christian...They can't all be right...The majority of the scholars who have studied it would go against islam...It's belief ..."
This really is my point. Mulism (and others) say exactly the same about their religion. Yet each one is based on the same lack of evidence, just reliance on a collection of old books.
The very least Piper can do is acknowledge that fact and that he might be wrong.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer At some point it does come down to belief is what I'm saying, but we can rule out things by the facts we do have. I'm saying when most of the manuscripts that have miracles in the Quran are 300 years after the originals, that doesn't work with me. Yes their is belief but its not blind.
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 Perhaps the Koran was written 300 years after Mohammed (I'm not sure). However I do know that the bible was assembled and underwent large scale editing for a period 20-400 years after Jesus died. I can't see how that makes the bible any better than the koran.
The two faiths have equal provenance. Both can't be right.
But both CAN be wrong - and all scientific evidence points to that conclusion.
Therefore when there is so much evidence for evolution faith is "blind"
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer Well don't find much you just said credible, look at the first editions of the gospels and see how much they have changed. I feel their is a heavy amount of proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't really care about evolution. If Jesus rose from the dead, I follow him to the grave, if he is buried in the ground, no. Everything I have experienced and the credible sources I have studied say to me, one day all will bow before the Lord Jesus, some will praise, others submit
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 But mate, you keep pointing to the bible as your evidence. It is not a credible source of fact.
There is not one bit of substaiated evidence for the resurrection - nothing. The mulism faith accepts that Jesus lived and died..but that he did not come back to life.
Their proof is just as tenuous as yours. Neither is real proof at all.
However christains make an outrageous claim - that a dead man can come back to life..well prove it.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer I do? Okay how about these facts, the large majority of scholars say Jesus was crucified, they also say disciples bleieved they saw him, that the tomb was empty, as well as the conversion of skeptic and anti-christian Paul. you can't say the bible is uncredible because its used by christians it is simply a manuscript that must be tested. Many of these facts are attested by up to 5 extra-biblical forces. These facts point to resurrection. But I welcome you to propose other theories
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 All credit to you Sir for continuing to try to prove your point, however, you are still pointing back to the bible as evidence for its own veracity.
Lets test the bible. Adding up the various liniages it mentions, the world can be calculated to 6-10,000 years old. Carbon dating, sedimentary deposition rates and other independantly provable evidence place the Earth at around 4-5 Billion years.
Which one do you believe in?
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
Well I haven't studied that much but it doesn't really bother me, I feel it's likely the 7 days spoken of in Genesis were simply time periods but then again God made Adam a man not a baby so why would he make the Earth a baby haha that sounds funny, and you keeping acting as though the bible is not just a historic manuscript, no offence but that's a pretty big error, many scholars would agree that much of the Gospels of Jesus are true and I said I know many extrabiblical sources mentioning Jesus
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121 There is an interesting and very important issue you raise in your last post.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you, like most modern people, don't believe that god made everything in 7 days. That these were "time periods". Many others say that the "Flood" was allegorical too. This approach is aimed at reconciling what is in the bible with what science shows to be more likely.
But the trouble is where do you stop? Was the resurrection allegorical too?
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer I actually don't believe in an allegorical flood but I haven't really researched it, and the thing about the resurrection is its the most plausible event, and its attested to, they didn't preach an allegorical resurrection, no doubt was it a bodily one. I believe some is allegorical but definitely not all of it. Many Old Testament parts are written poetically yet that is not seen in the New Testament.
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121
Well I think that the resurrection was allegorical. His followers "felt" he was with them. When the accounts were written 20-400 years ago this was changed to an actual resurrection. If he really came back to life, why did so few people see him. He should have shown himself to the Romans.
My assertion has as much real evidence as yours (ie none). The only difference is that my account is far more likely as it does not require a suspension of the laws of nature.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer Okay, his followers were put to death because they believe he rose again, it says he ate fish with them afterword, and I don't see how you can say I haven't brought any evidence. Why would we expect God to be unable to break laws of nature. I just encourage you to look more into it. Try a book called, The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus, it's by Gary Habermas, it should answer a lot of your questions. It was nice talkin w/ you and I hope you find truth
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@johnnyaplseed2121
Thank you for trying to put up a cogent defence of religion. However no matter how many times you point to it - the bible just is not sufficient evidence to support the outrageous claims it makes. I'll look up "The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus" by Gary Habermas. I have read other apologists books and all fail to pass the hairdryer-of-reality test. Perhaps this one won't.
If you really are open minded then read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer
Because anyone who sees a physical Jesus after He is killed would believe, but there is no faith involved. God wants our faith, not our head knowledge of Jesus.
eingram21 1 year ago
@eingram21
What you are saying is that he wants blind trust - he actually refuses to give evidence in order that you have to suspend your logic and reason?
Either this makes no sense or god is a crackpot cult leader just like in Waco.
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer
Absolutely not. God turned me from a pornography addict seeking to fulfill my own desires to being completely sold out for Him in one moment, and I havnt touched porn again since then (1.5 years ago). I was alone out in the woods praying that day and God stepped in in a way I can not describe with words. He is willing to give us some evidence of himself, however this is supposed to lead to faith. I can not have faith in the chair im in, because there is no doubt it is not real.
eingram21 1 year ago 17
@eingram21 Well I am glad that you seem happier with your life now.
I believe that you always had that power within you and need not give god the credit that actually YOU are due.
I think however that your epiphany, real though it is to you, does not constitute independently verifiable evidence. Sorry mate
UrukEngineer 1 year ago
@UrukEngineer Im not being sarcastic when i ask for critique because I don;t want to propose info that you don't question, such as perhaps mayybe the disciples were just confused or they stole the body. I welcome you to ask because I think it is helpful for both of us in learning.
johnnyaplseed2121 1 year ago
@98nafets we have more docs/copies today?really? can you name any?
@nsxanders yes true, but they used it and twisted scripture to fit the theology. Calvinism is heresy from the pit of hell. Why? Have you read calvins institutes? really you dont even need to just look at the points, calvinists talk Gods sovereignty but their god isnt soveriegn.
@prairemark sorry, false doctrines. Yeah and you got that right its a system, man made system from a heretic and its NOT the Gospel of Christ.
TheKJVberean 1 year ago
In General Referencing several versions is the best way to comprehend.
riptow420 1 year ago
Piper is hypocritical, he tells everyone to get nasb or esv etc when those are no different than niv. All modern bibles are corrupt and satans tool to deceive many into confusion. Piper is a false teacher, and he is sucked into the false doctrine of calvinism. Get the kjv bible if you want the Words of God.
TheKJVberean 1 year ago
@TheKJVberean You do know that the KJV is not as accurate as the newer literal versions? The KJV was written hundreds of years ago when we did not have as many of the documents/copies of the Bible as we do today. The newer literal translations use more historical documentation.
98nafets 1 year ago
@TheKJVberean Okay....but lots of guys that preached exclusively from the KJV were staunch Calvinists. I would love to hear what you think Calvinism is. Like... give me a definition. This will be either educational or entertaining. So go for it.
nsxanders 1 year ago
@nsxanders Didn't the writers of the KJV believe in prayers for the dead, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Real Presence at Communion and regenerative Infant Baptism?
prairiemark 1 year ago
@TheKJVberean "The false doctrine of calvinism?" Calvinism is not one doctrine but a way of understanding the Gospel of Christ....it is a system, not one Doctrine.
prairiemark 1 year ago
And god said let us go down? What?
God doesnt know where adam is in eden ,yet he knows all? what?
Paracoy666 1 year ago
you know the WORD says in all translations to stop arguing among Believers so what another person doesnt read YOUR translation we are all serving the same God so if we are so called Christ Follows why then do we resort to arguing over something on youtube when you could be spending that time telling someone about Christ or just loving somone
MyDeking 1 year ago
I love John Piper but this is hypocrisy in his part. Get a KING JAMES! Your ESV removes ALL KINDS OF VERSES!!! Your New King James removes God repenting many times in the old testament, which is important because it distorts the true definition of repentance. All these modern translations are wicked and demonic. Thanks for removing the following verses ESV!; Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, so on and so on! thnks ESV!
TheChrist4All 1 year ago
@TheChrist4All The King James Version (actually ours is one of four "King James Versions, and not the final one, but the one that lasted) actually adds words to the original manuscripts. The ESV is one of the (if not the) most accurate word-by-word translations from the original. One might note that King James had a significant agenda in his translations, and this agenda greatly affected the accuracy of the translation.
MichaelPT91 1 year ago
@MichaelPT91 first of all, there are no "originals" so do your research. The only "originals" there are, are the Textus Receptus and the Westcott and Hort manuscripts. And yes I agree, the ESV is word for word (WESTCOTT AND HORT!) do your research on who those idiots were. The ESV is not much different then the RSV. ESV is full of errors!!! by the way, are you saying all the martyrs that brought fourth the KJV was for nothing? Are you saying God couldn't preserve his word, word for word?
TheChrist4All 1 year ago
@TheChrist4All By "original" I meant original languages. I know about Westcott and Hort and the Textus Receptus, and I agree that there is significant argument to be made there, but we cannot actually know that the Textus Receptus is actually better. I am not saying that God can't preserve His word, word-for-word, in translation, but rather that He hasn't. Great evidence for this is the King James 1620, which says in Ex. 20.14, "Thou shalt commit Adultery."
MichaelPT91 1 year ago
@MichaelPT91 thats weird, there is no 1620 KING JAMES! There is no KING JAMES BIBLE that says that! Im looking at all of my KJV's right now and they all say "thou shalt NOT commit adultery" before you bash on the word of God, please get your info correct. There is no 1620 King James. and ALL 1611 King James Bibles read correctly. How about you look into your ESV errors, instead of creating false ones about KJV. By the way, what does your ESV say in 2 Thessalonians 1:9??
TheChrist4All 1 year ago
@TheChrist4All Actually, you are entirely incorrect. There was a 1620 KJV. I said in that our 1611 was the one that lasted, but not the final King James Authorized Version. There were four separate translations all under James, and all called the King James Version. The 1611 is also called "the wicked Bible." Do a search on it and look at reputable sources. I'm not sure why you're referencing 2 Thess. 1.9...
MichaelPT91 1 year ago
@MichaelPT91 wow, how can you say i am wrong when its obvious you dont know your history. the 1620 KJV was NOT another translation by the King James. Neither was the 1631 KJV. Those years were solely PUBLISHING years by Robert Barker and John Bill. That is why those 2 publishings were considered "the wicked bible" As soon as they realized the misprint that occurred in the seventh commandment, they Immediately stopped printing the bible. look at a chronological history of the bible.
TheChrist4All 1 year ago
@MichaelPT91 I can speak english very well, but yes, I am a second language person. having said that, I am not on the english bible translation committee, but on the Slovak one. what a primitive argument. If Im not an english native speaker, does it mean I can't read Greek?
bluesyboypete 1 year ago