"It might have the crown copyright, but you don't have to ask the crown for the right to print it." In the UK you do, until 2039. Its in the public domain in US because its so old, not because it never had a copyright on it.
I can almost see Satan on this guy's shoulder feeding him lines. What a deceiver he is, and extremely proud too. He is nothing like Christ. Why anyone would fall for this fraudster's false witness is beyond me.
I enjoy a good sermon, but one thing I can't stand is preachers who start their sermon by puffing their chest out and say "I'm about to preach on something that's gonna upset a lot of you and make you real mad, and it's not politically correct, but I'm gonna say it anyway cause it's the word o' God!"
@BereanBeacon1 Nope, not a Muslim. I'm sure Muslims have a lot more against the Christian faith than the KJB. However that is not material to my view of KJVOnlyism being cultic.
@Jere616They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19
@Jere616 I have a written exchange with a Muslim and he provided documentation that Christians don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran. Your Protestant popes have provided all that the Muslims need to attack Christianity and you are in agreement with them. Thank you for separating from Bible believers.
@BereanBeacon1 Correction, I separate from KJVOists' contentions, not the bible. Anyway, nice try on the use of the 1 John Scripture and Muslim support for your ad hominem in your attempt to buttress your cultic position. By the way, who are "my protestant popes?"
@Jere616 KJVO is no more a cult than salvation by grace through faith without works and the doctrine of eternal security. That was a STUPID thing you just said there friend.
@jondabill1 From what I have experienced of them, they exhibit traits of being in one. They've gone so far as to say you can't be saved without the KJV and refuse to fellowship with others who don't hold to KJVO. They have an "us versus them" mentality in that they hold other translation users as dangerous to them, deceived or even heretics. I have found them to be rigid and often combative over this non-salvific matter, elevating it as if it was one. This is why I said what I said.
@Jere616 If somebody says that you can't be saved without the KJV, then you have a complete idiot. I'd be glad to talk to him. Give me his or her name. They SHOULD be rigid since the issue is so easy to see, a five year old can understand that the KJV is the word of God. You have to be talked out of it by a silly Christian professor or pastor who has lifted HIMSELF up as the final authority over what the Bible should say according to some non-existant originals.
@jondabill1 At least you admit the professor is a Christian. So are many other people Christians who use other translations to salvific and sanctifying effect. Which makes KJVO ism arbitrary and unnecessarily divisive.
@jondabill1 I suppose you're sincere in your view, but KJV being final authority is unprovable. KJVOists treat their assertions as fact but in reality they place themselves in both a minority and aberrant position concerning bible translations.
@Jere616 Well, it doesn't take much to prove it. Under the King James Bible, God chose to give countless revivals wherein a nation saw millions saved and testified to the POWER of the King James. The common sentiment in the 1600's and 1700s was that their KJV was "equal in power and authority to the KJV." The new versions haven't produced ANYTHING except lukewarm Christians who look back to the "originals" as their final authority when there isn't any originals to be found.
@Jere616 what does it matter? are you living in 1610, or before that? WHY are you asking? What does it matter? The "originals" were non-existent after AD 120.
@jondabill1 Since you won't answer my question, are you claiming that a Final Authority bible appeared suddenly in 1611 A.D., for the first time, in a different language, than the ones it was written in?
@Jere616 I can answer it, there's no problem there, but WHY are you and so many others worried about what was BEFORE the KJV? You can't go back to living BEFORE it, can you? You can go ahead and get the Geneva Bible, Great Bible or the Bishops, but WHY? You said, "a final authority BIBLE appeared suddenly..." BIBLE means BOOK. There was never a copy of the originals TOGETHER in one spot at one time. The Vudois had the scriptures in Latin long before what we know today to be the Vulgate...
@jondabill1 I am not "worried" about it. The question goes to KJVOists exclusive claims for the KJV translation, that's all. So, are the Geneva bible, Great Bible and Bishops bibles also final authority bibles as well as KJV or not?
@Jere616 Let's put it this way. I would read the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, or Bishops Bible BEFORE I would read the new versions, because those bibles aforementioned are from the same holy root of Bibles that can be traced back to Antioch. Your new versions can be traced back to the Vatican in Rome, a corrupt root.
@jondabill1 That's interesting. So, where something comes from ruins its value? That is a fallacious argument. Origins of items do not affect whether something is good or bad. Things stand on their objective merits or faults without regard to place. You're displaying the "nothing good can come from Nazareth" attitude, which is a form of bigotry.
@Jere616 That Bible NEVER puts Egypt in a good light. It is a type of the world in the Bible. When Jesus went there to escape death, God had to call him OUT of it, just like he did the Israelites in Exodus. It is, according to you, therefore a BIGOTED book. It discriminates by location.
@jondabill1 I agree that is generally true about Egypt. However, consider that Apollos comes from Alexandria. Also, so did the Septuagint that the Lord and the Apostles heavily quoted from in the New Testament instead of their own home language scriptures. So, explain how KJVOists arrived at the "taint by location" dogma to dismiss Egyptian originated documents if our own Creator and his personally selected apostles used that translation as much as they did.
@Jere616 Apollos came OUT of Alexandria. You have no proof whatsoever that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the mythological "B.C." Septuagint. It was FOUND in Origen's Hexapla. The legend is based on 1 single letter from Aristaeus. Christ would not have QUOTED a GREEK O.T. since his ministry was to the LOST SHEEP of the house of ISRAEL. He was a Jew himself and spoke Hebrew. A "before Christ" Septuagint is laughable and a fairy tale for kiddies looking for an excuse to NOT read the KJV.
@jondabill1 KJVOist fabrications keep you in the dark. If the LXX is a fairy tale, how was it found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Justin Martyr affirms the LXX in his "Horatory Address to the Greeks, chapter 13." Irenaeus also affirms the LXX and also quotes heavily from it. They were earlier than Origen. Compare the many OT quotes in the NT in KJV and you'll see the differences. As to Jesus see for example, Matt 21:16 with Ps 8:2 in your KJV and in LXX. Learn truth, not cultic propaganda.
@Jere616 "Truth?" WHAT is truth? That's what Pilate asked. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Only a few parts have been "certified" to be BC, and that is the Pentateuch and HOW did they come to the dating conclusion? The same way they date newly dead creatures at 1 million years old. Its a faulty system. Wikipedia admits that the LXX was used by NON-JEWISH Christians. Christ went to the Synagogues (Jewish) and read them the LXX? Your foot. And there you go again with "cultic."
@jondabill1 Have you examined Matt 21:16 against Ps 8:2? I didn't hear you address why Jesus' quote is different from what the Hebrew Scriptures say but is the same as the LXX. If you look on the Internet, you can find the LXX and see that psalm for yourself. Further, you can also read Justin Martyr's statments, which I made easy for you to find by google.
@Jere616 Instances where Jesus' quotes of OT differ never bothered me. The gospels THEMSELVES differ in over 100 places, in ANY GREEK or English text. My theory is that since the Septuagint didn't come together until Origen, then Origen worked on the texts and compared them to MAKE the either pre-existing LXX or not written yet LXX MATCH exactly what Jesus said when the Masoretic text didn't match it totally to make it LOOK like Christ was quoting a Catholic, apocryphal text called the LXX.
@jondabill1 Jesus said "Have you never read?," but does not quote the Masoretic Text. But He must be quoting some other source where it was written for them to read it that way, and that, dear friend, is the LXX, which existed widely enough in Jesus' day for Him to authorize its use for NT holy writ. The way you treat your hypothesis about Origen as some kind of proof to support unsound KJVOist claims does you no credit.
@Jere616 "unsound?" Jesus was a JEW and spoke to JEWS in Hebrew. The QUOTE wasn't word for word from the Masoretic Hebrew text. When Jesus quoted what the commandments were, he left out 6 of them and no LXX can help you there. When Christ goes from one language to another and the Holy Spirit does rather, you find that differences will happen, but the Bible says that it was STILL inspired by the Holy Spirit. He gives you what he wants you to know for TODAY. You have NO proof that LXX was BC.
If the LXX is a forgery or invention of Origen or is not B.C. how could Justin Martyr who wrote before Origen praise the LXX and credit the work to the time of Ptolemy after he had built the library at Alexandria? From ch. 13 of his hortartory to Greek: "These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos (of the LXX translators) still preserved" (my parentheses)
@Jere616 "How could Justin Martyr...?" What? Was he sinless? Was he perfect in knowledge and understanding? Was he smarter than the Bible? The Bible says that Christ was a JEW and his ministry was to the JEWS. Therefore, he spoke Hebrew. By the time the apostles got to writing the gospels down, they had got the gospel out and started churches and the word of God was for the gentiles TOO. At that time, then, Greek was becoming the language of the world.
@Jere616 WHO'S Justin Martyr? Was he Jesus Christ? Of course not, he was a Christian, but had faults and either he was misinformed, reciting a storyline that he had heard and believed, lied, or he didn't know what he was talking about. I assume that he was just reciting the common sentiment of the time or the sentiment he was familiar with. He credited the LXX to the time of Ptolemy I, BUT... nobody can PROVE that now. That's just a theory/fairy tale. Christ wouldn't have bothered with it.
@jondabill1 So, you deny ancient witnesses. You rather prefer the claims of modern critics of the :LXX because you need them to keep your unfounded KJVOist theories. What? Are they sinless? Are they perfect in knowledge and understanding of the ancient world more than those who lived within a hundred years of the apostles? You keep theorizing about what Jesus would have said, but you are hypothesizing, not proving. The apostles also used the LXX too, not only the Lord.
@Jere616 These "ancient witnesses" lived over 100 years AFTER Christ. Paul said that people during his time were "corrupting the words of God." Hmmm. I wonder what me meant?!? I'm using SCRIPTURE to prove my point that Jesus spoke Hebrew to a bunch of non-believing Jews. That's simple to understand. You have not ONE instance that can be PROVEN where Christ spoke from the LXX. Science (falsely so called) can only date the LXX Pentateuch 2 before Christ, and that is even subject to failure.
@jondabill1 Correction, Justin lived and wrote within 100 years of the NT writings. Not all corrupted the word of God, as you're implying these early writers did. So, are you accusing all of them (especially those that might support LXX?) Hmmm. I have shown proof of Jesus using LXX in just one example of His Matt 21 quote. You've only gainsaid it with theories about what Jesus would not have said, and you did so without document support.
@Jere616 Concerning Matthew 21, he quoted Psalms and the Psalms LXX can't be VERIFIED to have been written before Christ. ONLY the Pentateuch in the LXX can be "proven" to be BC. I even doubt that. You BELIEVE that Christ read Greek OT to a bunch of Jews that spoke Hebrew. I choose to believe that Origen or somebody before him messed with the current LXX to make it MATCH what Jesus and the apostles said on a few occasions. YOU have no proof and I have no proof, but mine makes more sense.
@jondabill1 I didn't start out with a presupposition and then look for evidence to support it. when it came to Ps 8 vs. Matt 21. I followed the documents and they show what I have been saying. Jesus said the Pharisees had read the verse as he quoted it and it differs from the Masoretic. A BC LXX source fits the data as it appears in the bible. What makes more sense does not qualify for a foundation when documents exist that contradict your sensibilities.
@Jere616 You certainly DID start out with a presupposition. Your presupposition was that whoever told you that the LXX was quoted by Christ was telling you the TRUTH. Don't give me that stuff. You either believe the book or you don't. I DO, YOU DON'T. "It differs from the Masoretic." Of course it does, sometimes it does often. The gospels DIFFER in over 100 places, so what?!? That DOESN'T mean that the Jews stopped speaking Hebrew for a short period of time and started reading garbage.
@jondabill1 First, no one told me that the NT, including Jesus' quotes, were from the LXX. You see, unlike your KJVOist methods, I went to the documents. Then, I saw that the LXX was being used in the NT. Therefore, LXX is what accounts for the differences. I based my conclusions on evidence. The NT was written long after Gentiles were coming in, so what is wrong with using a translation they could all read, just like Justin and Irenaeus says was already available to them?
@Jere616 Christ and the apostles would not have "USED" a translation that was corrupted with the apocrypha. You based your conclusions on evidence....of what some "church father SAID, thus proving that my point that somebody TOLD you, quit lying. Nobody comes to the conclusion YOU came to unless somebody TOLD them. Is that okay or should I use italics? lol
@jondabill1 Here is another ancient witness for you to deny without just cause. Ireneaus, refering to the LXX: "But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words." Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 21.
@Jere616 "deny?" Friend, I'm not denying these people said that. You are quoting a Roman Catholic Church father who believed that bishops were the ONLY ones who could interpret scripture and that's heresy. Again, this man had NO way of knowing that the LXX was around BEFORE Christ. He was BORN AD 125. He was TAUGHT that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX. He was mistaken. Your quotes are no PROOF text for the validity of your argument. The Levites were in charge of the texts.....
@jondabill1 You are attempting to discredit the writers I have employed so as to continue in KJVOist delusions, that's all. You have no proof of what you are saying about their knowledge of the LXX. You simply maintain your theories as fact. But, documents overwhelm theories.
@Jere616 I am saying that just because a church "father" (and in your case, one of them was just a heinous heretic) says something doesn't mean that they were always right, and that what they said doesn't PROVE anything. I "discredit" them because I believe the BOOK, not because of what OTHERS believe. You apparently don't have a BOOK that you will defend like I do. Answer me that, WHAT is your book? Hmmm?
@jondabill1 The LXX was the most widely used bible of the early church, not only by a couple writers, so discredit them all if you want. That's on you. Since 722 BC Israelites occupied foreign lands and the Greek language became the most widely used 2nd language in the world. There were many "God-fearers" who were Greek speakers who attended their synagogues and also came to Jerusalem to attend the feasts. A LXX makes sense to me because of these things.
@Jere616 "The LXX was the mst widely USED(sic) bible of the early church." That is absolutely NOT true, UNLESS... you believe that Roman Catholics are PART of the early church, and people like Iranaeus were straight shooters, believing the book, then yes. Some church history books are so flogged with supposition and error, its laughable. Some of them call Origen a "church father," who denied that Christ was God's Son. Some "church father: maybe he was YOURS, but he certainly wasn't mine.
@jondabill1 What are you going on about? I never quoted Origen, nor do I care for him. I gave you earlier writers than he and they used the LXX. Further, though, and most importantly, it is the apostles who used the LXX extensively. Yes, they did. Shout (that is, capitalize) all you want. Your tirades have no impact on whether they did or not. KJVOism has you biased against facts.
@Jere616 "KJVOism has you biased against facts." HAHAHA. Sorry, you make me laugh. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Here we go: Original Onlyism has you BIASED against the fingerprint of God's approval and divine hand of blessing on ONE book; the KJV. When the KJV came out, revivals broke out all through europe and the new world. More missionaries were sent out with it, and Christians in the 1700s PREDOMINANTLY believed that their King James Version was equal...
@Jere616 .... to the originals. Not until the 1880s did Satan decide to kill everybody's belief in it and get "Christians" back to that DARK age Greek text that produced NOTHING but persecution of Bible believing Christians, pushed one world ecumenicism and the total authority of a dirty rotten Roman Pope. THAT is the fruit of originals onlyism and the FRUIT of your new versions. SO tell me, since you still haven't answered me: WHAT IS (present tense) the word of God? What IS the scriptures?
@jondabill1 The Scriptures are all versions that translate the greek and hebrew copies as best as possible into the native languages. So, except for corrupted ones, like New World or those that retain the Apocrypha as canon, I would deem the word of God. This means translations into all other languages too, not only Englsh born ones like the KJV, for the Gospel is to be sent out, according to Jesus, to the uttermost parts of the world.
@Jere616The "word of God" proclaims two "God's" in John 1:18? The "word of God" says that water baptism comes BEFORE or completely WITHOUT belief and confession (Acts 8:37)? The "word of God" DOESN'T tell you to "study" it (II Timothy 2:15), or to search the scriptures (John 5:39), and makes a liar out of Christ in John 7:8, and damns Jesus Christ to HELL in Matthew 5:22? Some "word" you have! I'm sorry, I'll stick with NON conflicting authorities and call the KJV the word of God.
@jondabill1 I use a parallel bible to study which includes KJV and others as well as Lexicons. You apparently treat your defense of a single translation of the bible as proof of some sort of virtue. The realities of translating from one language into another and the difficulties of having a dynamic language mean that no foreign translation can ever be authoritative. The best we have are copies in the original languages to help us get as close to a faithful foreign rendering as possible.
@Jere616 what a sad confession! So, to you, there is no way to obey or fulfill Luke 4:4, because we don't have EVERY word of God. What IS your final authority? What do you BELIEVE IS (not was)the word of God? When you refer to scripture, to WHAT are you referring? What would GOD have you to read and, more importantly, BELIEVE?!?
@jondabill1 All we have had for almost 2 thousand years are the Hebrew and Greek copies from which all translations are made, including your KJV. Deciding to be loyal to that one translation creates no true advantage for anyone, just in your mind. It is the security of ignorance, not truth. Implying that Luke 4:4 can only be obeyed by a KJVOist is baseless. You have the same translation issues to contend with that everyone does since the originals were lost.
@Jere616 I'd say that there IS an advantage to sticking with the KJV, especially in light of the fact that it has NEVER been proven to be in error in any spot. "Thy word is TRUTH." "Security of ignorance, NOT truth?" So the KJV is not God's W-O-R-D? See what trouble you get in sticking to lost originals?!? You still haven't told me WHAT the word of God IS (present tense). Let's have it.
@jondabill1 You've put yourself out on a limb by saying the KJV has never been proven to be in error in any spot. What about Matthew 27:9-10 vs. Zechariah 11:12-13. Show me why all translations ascribe the quote to Jeremiah, but the reference is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. My answer is that copyist errors crept in here and there over time so that there are small details that are corrupted, even in KJV. Your KJV translators didn't spot or correct the error. That is why I compare versions.
@Jere616 How is Matthew 27:9 an error? The reference is alluded to in Jeremiah 18:1-4; 19:1-3. If that weren't enough, a Talmudic tradition states that the prophetic writings were placed in this canonical order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Many Hebrew manuscripts follow THIS order. Matthew cited the passage as from the roll of the prophets and by the name of the FIRST book. The Hebrew reads that way, so sorry, YOUR in error, not the book. BTW, I'm not shouting, its for emphasis.
Wow, I'm stunned. A KJVOist cited Talmudic Tradition for proof, but the LXX is totally discredited by them. Equitable standards you have there - not. If the NT used this Talmudic Tradition, why was Isaiah named as the source of over 20 of his many NT quotes? I thought you just said they used the first name of the roll, Jeremiah. But, his name was never used for an Isaiah quote, showing that it was not an NT convention, but the Zech quote assigned to him is an error that crept in somehow.
@Jere616 I didn't say that EVERY new testament writer used the talmudic tradition. You love to jump to conclusions without reading the writing on the page. Matthew might have, but perhaps Mark or Luke didn't. Not EVERY apostle and writer of the new testament HAD the same background and upbringing and literary background. Not every Christian has the same literary background. Does Matthew have to do what everybody else did? Have you forgotten that God was telling the apostles WHAT to write?
@Jere616 I say "might have" or "perhaps" because I don't KNOW the method. YOu don't KNOW that Christ quoted the LXX but you claim he does. YOU lie, at least I'm honest. "Foundation?" Man, where is YOUR foundation? With over 200 conflicting authorities as your "rock on which you stand," how dare you insult my foundation! My foundation is the King James Bible and its perfect. YOU claim that ANY translation that faithfully (uh huh, sure!) translates the "originals" IS the word of God. Sick.
@Jere616 My foundation never changes. YOur "foundation" changes every six months. My "might have" or "perhaps" deals with HOW its perfect, not WHETHER or WHY.
@jondabill1 Jeremiah may have referenced the Potter, but Matt is definitely quoting Zechariah. If you care to compare the two of them side by side, you will find that to be true. The rest is up to you.
@Jere616 And that is the beauty of it. Matthew was INSPIRED by God and HE dictated to Matthew what to write. Now, isn't it amazing that Matthew was probably familiar with Jeremiah's writings. He references what Jeremiah wrote, but what he writes more closely resembles the writing in Zechariah. Amazing.
@jondabill1 If God was dictating to them what to write what does the writers' literary background have to do with it? These are contradictory premises you're putting forth.
@Jere616 Every writer of scripture has a specific "style" of writing, and that affects what and how they wrote. AS they wrote, however, God dictated to them what to write through the Holy Spirit.
@jondabill1 My main issue is not with the KJV, but the "only" part. I compare versions, as I have said. I find sometimes that the KJV is the one I prefer, but sometimes it's others. I use the NKJV a lot too. KJV's language is so dated it has become a barrier to a clear understanding. It creates two levels of difficulty to go through, the scriptures being hard enough as it is when the common language is used. It is high time it was retired.
@Jere616 I compare versions too, and the new versions are ALWAYS lacking and inferior. I have over 20 bible versions in my possession. Once you "retire" that KJV, you can say goodbye to your spiritual life and any hope of growth in the TRUTH. Once everybody "retires" that KJV, you can say HELLO again to Rome running things under a hellish Pope with a dark age text that will NEVER ever ever have a biblical revival again. New versions NEVER have good fruit. I'll NEVER "retire" it.
@Jere616 Do you ever get tired of saying the same trash? The NT writers quoted the Hebrew text, the one that they were familiar with and believed was the word of God. You have NO proof that the LXX is BC.
@Jere616 Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote, " A considerable # of MSS. exist which give information as 2 Origen's Hexaplaric text & particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us 2 recover the LXX text as it existed b4 Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint. Until we can do that, we r not in a position fully 2 utilize the evidence of the Greek 4 the recovery of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew."
@Jere616 KJVOist fabrications? No, man, I just read the Bible, and the Bible says that Christ SPOKE to the JEWS and his ministry according to Matthew was SOLELY to the JEWS. Grant it, he talked to various Gentiles, but when he spoke to Gentiles, he never QUOTED the OT, which means Christ could NOT have possibly quoted a Greek Septuagint. You think Christ would dare quote from a text that contains the Apocrypha as PART of inspired text? Uh uh. Stick with the book, not scholarship.
William Tyndale, was murdered by catholics and is referred to as the "Father of the English Bible" was the first person to translate & publish the Bible in English, from original Greek and Hebrew texts. His dying words in 1536 were, "Lord open the King of England's eyes." His prayers were answered just three years later when King Henry VIII published the English “Great Bible.” in 1539. The 1611KJV agrees with Tyndale's work.
Hey Ruckman, "Dirty flthy lying scum" you call somebody? Matthew 7 from KJV."Judge not, that ye not be judged" "And why beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and not consider the beam that is in thine own eye" "Thou hypocrite! First cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shall see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" Why don't you preach about love for a change Ruckman!
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10,11
"Dirty filthy, lyng. scum" ???? What kind of a thing is that for a Christian to say about another human being? "What you do to the least of my bretheren, that you do unto me." So I guess he just referred to Jesus the same way.
Dr. Ruckman says that the KJV is the only bible without a copyright, but upon a very, very simple investigation, I found a wiki page with several non-copyright bible versions, several of which are in my library. (the link to the wiki is on my channel in the interests box, it won't let me post it here) Aside from that one very wrong statement, I am pretty much on board with the other points in this video.
@SuperUltra64 Actually Wikipesia refers to the King James Bible being copyrighted to the British Crown for perpetuity. They stated that most other bible translations have ran out of copyrights protection because the translation are so old.
@yeudh I see what you are saying, and that is a good point. I actually just did a quick search of American copyright laws, which was quite informative, and backs up what you said, albeit in a more complicated way. Thanks for the info!
First, you need to pray. Discernment is a gift. If you don't trust or know the Holy spirit in others you have lost balance.Name calling is not of God. What's in your heart? James 3:10-13 (KJV) Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.11Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? The Bible says pray for others that are against you. I never heard him go their! (Matthew 5:44) Read on...
@MrBstring57 Muslims say we don't have the words of God and prove it by providing verses from various translations and commentaries. I have an exchange with a Muslim on this subject if you are interested.
Paul warned the church about getting hung up on the letter of the law or the ink on the page, if you will. It is the Spirit of the word...what God saying to your spirit man through the word, or anyone's testimony to lead you to Himself.2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Don't you think satan would get God's people to argue over God's own word? Don't get trapped!
@MrBstring57 Very well said! One of the classic strategies in warfare is "Divide and Conquer" This man and his argument over semanitcs is dividing Christians. Sounds like he can't stand Catholics or anyone else who doesn't agree with his doctrine. This doctrine has even divided our family and caused a lot of hurt and separation. We in our home believe Jesus is the Son of God. And we believe in the Bible. The underlying theme of the New Testament is "Love" no matter what your doctrine is.
I have Kenneth Wuest study Bibles and the reference he made mention to around the 49:39 mark on this video John 5:1-8 is wrong.The scripture is line upon line, nothing left out. 1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world).
It is extremely evident the bitterness and hatred this man has for others in the body of Christ. 1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?John 13:35 (KJV) 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
if you dont have a kjv then you dont have a bible,period!
you can however be saved without having ever looked at a bible,through the beautiful simple truth of the gospel message,ruckman for me is an in depth teacher of the scriptures to saved people and has many good points although i do not agree with all his views i always have time to give ear to what he has to say.
@david1611kjv David, Yes, the KJV Bible 1611 is the true words of God. because any bible printed after has added meanings from different words.. this is deceiving a bit, and takes people on a different path..We have to be on the right path with God. I have a KJV Bible,the one after that date.. I just ordered the 1611 one. When we see the correct words, it becomes very clear . One word added could change the whole meaning in the whole text.. Bless you.
Does this rough sketch include the NIV, NASB, NLT etc... by which God continues to preserve His Word?
If God perfectly preserved His Word through the Matthews Bible, Syrian, Beza's work etc... then why do these perfectly preserved Word of God firstly dffer from the KJV 1611, as well as from each other?
ok, so my comment which said "racist" got flagged as spam.
I shall back up my comment. Rucman said "there's only one correct time, it's English time... if you'e notgot English time, then you've got the wrong time."
Ok, so are the times recorded in the Bible English times? Doe God run by an English clock?
I love Peter Ruckman, I 1st discovered this amazing man of God back in the late 90's when I read his book "Black is Beautiful" after that, I got many of his cassette tapes and listened round the clock to his awe-inspiring God given wisdom.
The KJV is the word of God. Over the years, Satan has sent his shills to try and take his word from me with deception and confusion, but I can answer ANY and ALL of the Demons attacks on the Bible's so-called contradictions.
You want to know the truth about the Holy Bible? You must read and understand the Holy Quran. It will clarify every thing about God and his holy Books. It is the final message from God Almighty. Nobody will execused on the day of judgement of not knowing! Search google and get some education about this final message!
I wonder if this person has ever seen an original KJV 1611 Bible. It has the Deutrocanonical Books in it and they were not taken out until the 1800s by an act of Parliment.
@bobs0331 that is a copywrighted version if the 1611 version, which was discussed and reformed to include those texts after debate between current scholars...which have a different opinion on the bible than those whose beliefs are reflected in the video...the authorized 1611 does not include those texts found after, including nostic texts such as the book of judas...macabees...etc.
@gjsterp THe bible provided mankind's earliest moral and ethical system....imagine a world where no one felt accountable for their actions and did what they felt they could get away with? the concept of god for christians and all religious people establishes an absolute moral authority from which guidelines and moral and ethical values can be established and enforced. look up Descartes, William C james, Dennet W. K Clifford.... also your bet about science...
@gjsterp ---id look up any christian science organization and request some literature, better yet open a mainstream secular text concerning evolution...look at how many of the premises which people base scientific fact on, are actually guesses made based on the one fact that there was matter before the earth was life sustaining...which is supported by Genesis.
If the KJV (1611) is truly the literal translation of the word of the Living God, why then does it refer to unicorns in nine separate passages? Numbers 23:22 Numbers 24:8 Deuteronomy 33:17 Job 39:9 Job 39:10 Psalms 22:21 Psalms 29:6 Psalms 92:10 Isaiah 34:7 I guess this means unicorns must truly exist
@Tommy70817 your precept of a unicorn is a horse with a horn im assuming, however whose to say that this isnt describing a rhino?... there are dinosaurs atheists claim existed yet there is no geological fossil record of them ever existing, yet we accept that as fact, is it so hard to believe that your concept of a unicorn existed at one point and has since become extinct? research the development of unicorns in art, it originated in Africa and isnt depicted like the unicorn you'd imagine
The King James Version is accurate, but it was written back during the time King James was the King of England and they spoke differently than we do today. It is accurate, but the newer translations, like NKJV, NCV, and NLT are accurate too.... The people who wrote the KJV wrote it in the way they spoke so they could understand it easier. Why can we not do the same thing? We need to understand the Word of God the best we can, and newer translations help us with that.
tell me. would you also be accepting of the jehovah witnesses' bible as being accurate? if so, why and if not, why not. it too is in "modern" language.
No, the Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT correct. They are a cult that have CHANGED the MEANING of the Bible
The NKJV, NCV, and NLT say the same thing as the KJV, just in modern english. The Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons have changed the meaning to fit their doctrine
For example, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, changed the meaning of John 1:1 completely to take away Christ's Deity
There is a big difference in writing in modern english and changing the meaning of the Bible.
funny how a Jehovah Witnesses' bible reads almost word for word the same as these new versions! I suggest you aquire a Jehovah Witnesses bible and see for yourself!
wow, half of a reply! to bad the J.W. bible, which is corrupt reads just like the corrupt new versions. i suggest that you get a new world translation and compare. rather eye opening!
What do you mean half a reply?? You thought I was saying Smith founded the JW and I said that wasn't what I said. What else would I have to say to make a full reply? I said everything to your reply.
And did I ever say the New World Translation was correct?? No... I just named the NKJV, NCV, and NLT.
Yeah, half a reply. You never defended your new versions from reading the same as the NWT. Simple fact is you can't. You say that the NWT is corrupt, yet it reads the same as the new versions that you claim zare accurate. This is a contradiction.. How can the new versions be accurate, and the NWT a corrupt cult written book full of error, when they read the same, even USING the EXACT same modern words in places?
You never once asked me about the validity of the NWT.
And I never said that it was corrupt.
I just said that I never mentioned it. I didn't mention the NWT because I have never read the New World Translation, so I don't know anything about that particular translation.
After we have finished the Overwhelming Evidence of God series, I'll make a video on Translations and send to you.
I do own a NWT, NIV,LT, NKJV, etc... and can tell yopu that the KJV is by far the best of those translations. That the new versions and the NWT contain errors that are common, is without doubt.
since you have "never read the New World Translation", how could you possibly make a video on Translations? it seems to me that you are very uninformed as to the state of corruption involved in both the new versions and the NWT!
"No, the Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT correct. They are a cult that have CHANGED the MEANING of the Bible." YOUR QUOTE, NOT MINE! Well if their "bible" changed the meanings, then the new versions written just the same as the NWT , CHANGES meanings too!
I hate this comment system lol. You are right it is applicable to all other versions. Tell him to send me a message and I'll show him why his NIV is HIV.
What does he not believe? That the King James is the most accurate and best literal translation of God's word? Or something specific like the Deity of Christ?
@thenowinstitute logically speaking if God is perfect...and the Bible is God's word, then the bible must be perfect (deductive argument)....how then can you say we who are imperfect can correct or improve God's words....
I reject the theology that if you do not use the KJB you are going to Hell!!! Where is that in the Bible? What about the people reading the Bible in Spanish? Are they going to hell because they do not read the KJV?
Re: "I reject the theology that if you do not use the KJB... blah, blah, blah"
Straw man argument. Why do you lie about people who believe that the KJB is the Scripture in English? Spanish people can read the Valera, which is faithfully and honestly translated from the RIGHT manuscripts, as is the KJB. Get a life, and mind your manners, sonny.
"Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words... For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?" -Preface to KJV 1611 translation, from subsection entitled "REASONS INDUCING US NOT TO STAND CURIOUSLY UPON AN IDENTITY OF PHRASING"
"It might have the crown copyright, but you don't have to ask the crown for the right to print it." In the UK you do, until 2039. Its in the public domain in US because its so old, not because it never had a copyright on it.
skip8619 3 months ago
Dr. Ruckman is good - far better than the phonies on t.v. these days, telling us that God will heal sicknesses as long as we make them rich.
evilunixuser1 3 months ago 2
I can almost see Satan on this guy's shoulder feeding him lines. What a deceiver he is, and extremely proud too. He is nothing like Christ. Why anyone would fall for this fraudster's false witness is beyond me.
farsight001 3 months ago in playlist phaxad's Favorited Videos
I enjoy a good sermon, but one thing I can't stand is preachers who start their sermon by puffing their chest out and say "I'm about to preach on something that's gonna upset a lot of you and make you real mad, and it's not politically correct, but I'm gonna say it anyway cause it's the word o' God!"
imtheonlysane1here 3 months ago in playlist phaxad's Favorited Videos
Wow! And wow again! ONLY in America!
TBinEye 3 months ago in playlist phaxad's Favorited Videos
Peter Ruckman is "SPOT ON"... wish I could have grown up in his church! This man is the REAL DEAL!!!
cb120594 5 months ago 2
@cb120594 More stuff:
Are Modern Translations Trustworthy? - h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/view_play_list?p=CFD8DC47E427831E
Forum
h t t p://groupsDOTyahooDOTcom/group/whichversion/
Will Kinney Defends the KJB Play List
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/playlist?list=PL16B2149EE5E54979
Articles: h t t p://brandpluckedDOTwebsDOTcom/articlesDOThtm
whichversion@yahoogroupsDOTcom
BereanBeacon1 5 months ago
Let's debate on youtube comments, it'll totally convince someone.
eccentricity00 6 months ago
@eccentricity00 Thank you.
Find the love of God here.
Audio, Gospel of John Chapter 1 AV h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=Ao4uaIjd3xs
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
@eccentricity00 lol
I know man, everytime I read the ridiculous debates in the comments I have NEVER ONCE seen either of the following:
1. "You know what brother I believe I was wrong. Thanks for showing me the truth."
2. "Wow, reading this youtube comment debate totally changed my position."
treadingserpents 4 months ago
Where was the perfect Word of God before 1611?
Victornotvictim77 6 months ago
@Victornotvictim77 I had the list at one time, but I misplaced it.
How I Know The King James Bible is the Word of God
h t t p://w w wDOTav1611DOTorg/kjv/knowkjv.html
BereanBeacon1 6 months ago
KJVO is a cult.
Jere616 8 months ago
@Jere616 Are you a Muslim, because they attack the KJV, as you do.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Nope, not a Muslim. I'm sure Muslims have a lot more against the Christian faith than the KJB. However that is not material to my view of KJVOnlyism being cultic.
Jere616 8 months ago
@Jere616They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@Jere616 I have a written exchange with a Muslim and he provided documentation that Christians don't have the words of God as they do in the Quran. Your Protestant popes have provided all that the Muslims need to attack Christianity and you are in agreement with them. Thank you for separating from Bible believers.
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Correction, I separate from KJVOists' contentions, not the bible. Anyway, nice try on the use of the 1 John Scripture and Muslim support for your ad hominem in your attempt to buttress your cultic position. By the way, who are "my protestant popes?"
Jere616 8 months ago
@Jere616 KJVO is no more a cult than salvation by grace through faith without works and the doctrine of eternal security. That was a STUPID thing you just said there friend.
jondabill1 7 months ago
@jondabill1 From what I have experienced of them, they exhibit traits of being in one. They've gone so far as to say you can't be saved without the KJV and refuse to fellowship with others who don't hold to KJVO. They have an "us versus them" mentality in that they hold other translation users as dangerous to them, deceived or even heretics. I have found them to be rigid and often combative over this non-salvific matter, elevating it as if it was one. This is why I said what I said.
Jere616 7 months ago
@Jere616 If somebody says that you can't be saved without the KJV, then you have a complete idiot. I'd be glad to talk to him. Give me his or her name. They SHOULD be rigid since the issue is so easy to see, a five year old can understand that the KJV is the word of God. You have to be talked out of it by a silly Christian professor or pastor who has lifted HIMSELF up as the final authority over what the Bible should say according to some non-existant originals.
jondabill1 7 months ago
@jondabill1 At least you admit the professor is a Christian. So are many other people Christians who use other translations to salvific and sanctifying effect. Which makes KJVO ism arbitrary and unnecessarily divisive.
Jere616 7 months ago
@Jere616 what is salvific?
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Salvific means that which pertains to salvation.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 There is MUCH more to scripture than salvation. FINAL AUTHORITY is not "unnecessarily divisive."
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I suppose you're sincere in your view, but KJV being final authority is unprovable. KJVOists treat their assertions as fact but in reality they place themselves in both a minority and aberrant position concerning bible translations.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Well, it doesn't take much to prove it. Under the King James Bible, God chose to give countless revivals wherein a nation saw millions saved and testified to the POWER of the King James. The common sentiment in the 1600's and 1700s was that their KJV was "equal in power and authority to the KJV." The new versions haven't produced ANYTHING except lukewarm Christians who look back to the "originals" as their final authority when there isn't any originals to be found.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 What bible was the final authority before 1611?
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 what does it matter? are you living in 1610, or before that? WHY are you asking? What does it matter? The "originals" were non-existent after AD 120.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Since you won't answer my question, are you claiming that a Final Authority bible appeared suddenly in 1611 A.D., for the first time, in a different language, than the ones it was written in?
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I can answer it, there's no problem there, but WHY are you and so many others worried about what was BEFORE the KJV? You can't go back to living BEFORE it, can you? You can go ahead and get the Geneva Bible, Great Bible or the Bishops, but WHY? You said, "a final authority BIBLE appeared suddenly..." BIBLE means BOOK. There was never a copy of the originals TOGETHER in one spot at one time. The Vudois had the scriptures in Latin long before what we know today to be the Vulgate...
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I am not "worried" about it. The question goes to KJVOists exclusive claims for the KJV translation, that's all. So, are the Geneva bible, Great Bible and Bishops bibles also final authority bibles as well as KJV or not?
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Let's put it this way. I would read the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, or Bishops Bible BEFORE I would read the new versions, because those bibles aforementioned are from the same holy root of Bibles that can be traced back to Antioch. Your new versions can be traced back to the Vatican in Rome, a corrupt root.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 That's interesting. So, where something comes from ruins its value? That is a fallacious argument. Origins of items do not affect whether something is good or bad. Things stand on their objective merits or faults without regard to place. You're displaying the "nothing good can come from Nazareth" attitude, which is a form of bigotry.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 If that is the case, then the Bible is the most bigoted book in the world!!
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible being the most bigoted book in the world.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 That Bible NEVER puts Egypt in a good light. It is a type of the world in the Bible. When Jesus went there to escape death, God had to call him OUT of it, just like he did the Israelites in Exodus. It is, according to you, therefore a BIGOTED book. It discriminates by location.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I agree that is generally true about Egypt. However, consider that Apollos comes from Alexandria. Also, so did the Septuagint that the Lord and the Apostles heavily quoted from in the New Testament instead of their own home language scriptures. So, explain how KJVOists arrived at the "taint by location" dogma to dismiss Egyptian originated documents if our own Creator and his personally selected apostles used that translation as much as they did.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Apollos came OUT of Alexandria. You have no proof whatsoever that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the mythological "B.C." Septuagint. It was FOUND in Origen's Hexapla. The legend is based on 1 single letter from Aristaeus. Christ would not have QUOTED a GREEK O.T. since his ministry was to the LOST SHEEP of the house of ISRAEL. He was a Jew himself and spoke Hebrew. A "before Christ" Septuagint is laughable and a fairy tale for kiddies looking for an excuse to NOT read the KJV.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 KJVOist fabrications keep you in the dark. If the LXX is a fairy tale, how was it found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Justin Martyr affirms the LXX in his "Horatory Address to the Greeks, chapter 13." Irenaeus also affirms the LXX and also quotes heavily from it. They were earlier than Origen. Compare the many OT quotes in the NT in KJV and you'll see the differences. As to Jesus see for example, Matt 21:16 with Ps 8:2 in your KJV and in LXX. Learn truth, not cultic propaganda.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "Truth?" WHAT is truth? That's what Pilate asked. What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Only a few parts have been "certified" to be BC, and that is the Pentateuch and HOW did they come to the dating conclusion? The same way they date newly dead creatures at 1 million years old. Its a faulty system. Wikipedia admits that the LXX was used by NON-JEWISH Christians. Christ went to the Synagogues (Jewish) and read them the LXX? Your foot. And there you go again with "cultic."
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Have you examined Matt 21:16 against Ps 8:2? I didn't hear you address why Jesus' quote is different from what the Hebrew Scriptures say but is the same as the LXX. If you look on the Internet, you can find the LXX and see that psalm for yourself. Further, you can also read Justin Martyr's statments, which I made easy for you to find by google.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Instances where Jesus' quotes of OT differ never bothered me. The gospels THEMSELVES differ in over 100 places, in ANY GREEK or English text. My theory is that since the Septuagint didn't come together until Origen, then Origen worked on the texts and compared them to MAKE the either pre-existing LXX or not written yet LXX MATCH exactly what Jesus said when the Masoretic text didn't match it totally to make it LOOK like Christ was quoting a Catholic, apocryphal text called the LXX.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Jesus said "Have you never read?," but does not quote the Masoretic Text. But He must be quoting some other source where it was written for them to read it that way, and that, dear friend, is the LXX, which existed widely enough in Jesus' day for Him to authorize its use for NT holy writ. The way you treat your hypothesis about Origen as some kind of proof to support unsound KJVOist claims does you no credit.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "unsound?" Jesus was a JEW and spoke to JEWS in Hebrew. The QUOTE wasn't word for word from the Masoretic Hebrew text. When Jesus quoted what the commandments were, he left out 6 of them and no LXX can help you there. When Christ goes from one language to another and the Holy Spirit does rather, you find that differences will happen, but the Bible says that it was STILL inspired by the Holy Spirit. He gives you what he wants you to know for TODAY. You have NO proof that LXX was BC.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1
If the LXX is a forgery or invention of Origen or is not B.C. how could Justin Martyr who wrote before Origen praise the LXX and credit the work to the time of Ptolemy after he had built the library at Alexandria? From ch. 13 of his hortartory to Greek: "These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos (of the LXX translators) still preserved" (my parentheses)
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "How could Justin Martyr...?" What? Was he sinless? Was he perfect in knowledge and understanding? Was he smarter than the Bible? The Bible says that Christ was a JEW and his ministry was to the JEWS. Therefore, he spoke Hebrew. By the time the apostles got to writing the gospels down, they had got the gospel out and started churches and the word of God was for the gentiles TOO. At that time, then, Greek was becoming the language of the world.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@Jere616 WHO'S Justin Martyr? Was he Jesus Christ? Of course not, he was a Christian, but had faults and either he was misinformed, reciting a storyline that he had heard and believed, lied, or he didn't know what he was talking about. I assume that he was just reciting the common sentiment of the time or the sentiment he was familiar with. He credited the LXX to the time of Ptolemy I, BUT... nobody can PROVE that now. That's just a theory/fairy tale. Christ wouldn't have bothered with it.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 So, you deny ancient witnesses. You rather prefer the claims of modern critics of the :LXX because you need them to keep your unfounded KJVOist theories. What? Are they sinless? Are they perfect in knowledge and understanding of the ancient world more than those who lived within a hundred years of the apostles? You keep theorizing about what Jesus would have said, but you are hypothesizing, not proving. The apostles also used the LXX too, not only the Lord.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 These "ancient witnesses" lived over 100 years AFTER Christ. Paul said that people during his time were "corrupting the words of God." Hmmm. I wonder what me meant?!? I'm using SCRIPTURE to prove my point that Jesus spoke Hebrew to a bunch of non-believing Jews. That's simple to understand. You have not ONE instance that can be PROVEN where Christ spoke from the LXX. Science (falsely so called) can only date the LXX Pentateuch 2 before Christ, and that is even subject to failure.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Correction, Justin lived and wrote within 100 years of the NT writings. Not all corrupted the word of God, as you're implying these early writers did. So, are you accusing all of them (especially those that might support LXX?) Hmmm. I have shown proof of Jesus using LXX in just one example of His Matt 21 quote. You've only gainsaid it with theories about what Jesus would not have said, and you did so without document support.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Concerning Matthew 21, he quoted Psalms and the Psalms LXX can't be VERIFIED to have been written before Christ. ONLY the Pentateuch in the LXX can be "proven" to be BC. I even doubt that. You BELIEVE that Christ read Greek OT to a bunch of Jews that spoke Hebrew. I choose to believe that Origen or somebody before him messed with the current LXX to make it MATCH what Jesus and the apostles said on a few occasions. YOU have no proof and I have no proof, but mine makes more sense.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I didn't start out with a presupposition and then look for evidence to support it. when it came to Ps 8 vs. Matt 21. I followed the documents and they show what I have been saying. Jesus said the Pharisees had read the verse as he quoted it and it differs from the Masoretic. A BC LXX source fits the data as it appears in the bible. What makes more sense does not qualify for a foundation when documents exist that contradict your sensibilities.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 You certainly DID start out with a presupposition. Your presupposition was that whoever told you that the LXX was quoted by Christ was telling you the TRUTH. Don't give me that stuff. You either believe the book or you don't. I DO, YOU DON'T. "It differs from the Masoretic." Of course it does, sometimes it does often. The gospels DIFFER in over 100 places, so what?!? That DOESN'T mean that the Jews stopped speaking Hebrew for a short period of time and started reading garbage.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 First, no one told me that the NT, including Jesus' quotes, were from the LXX. You see, unlike your KJVOist methods, I went to the documents. Then, I saw that the LXX was being used in the NT. Therefore, LXX is what accounts for the differences. I based my conclusions on evidence. The NT was written long after Gentiles were coming in, so what is wrong with using a translation they could all read, just like Justin and Irenaeus says was already available to them?
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Christ and the apostles would not have "USED" a translation that was corrupted with the apocrypha. You based your conclusions on evidence....of what some "church father SAID, thus proving that my point that somebody TOLD you, quit lying. Nobody comes to the conclusion YOU came to unless somebody TOLD them. Is that okay or should I use italics? lol
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Here is another ancient witness for you to deny without just cause. Ireneaus, refering to the LXX: "But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words." Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 21.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "deny?" Friend, I'm not denying these people said that. You are quoting a Roman Catholic Church father who believed that bishops were the ONLY ones who could interpret scripture and that's heresy. Again, this man had NO way of knowing that the LXX was around BEFORE Christ. He was BORN AD 125. He was TAUGHT that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the LXX. He was mistaken. Your quotes are no PROOF text for the validity of your argument. The Levites were in charge of the texts.....
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 You are attempting to discredit the writers I have employed so as to continue in KJVOist delusions, that's all. You have no proof of what you are saying about their knowledge of the LXX. You simply maintain your theories as fact. But, documents overwhelm theories.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I am saying that just because a church "father" (and in your case, one of them was just a heinous heretic) says something doesn't mean that they were always right, and that what they said doesn't PROVE anything. I "discredit" them because I believe the BOOK, not because of what OTHERS believe. You apparently don't have a BOOK that you will defend like I do. Answer me that, WHAT is your book? Hmmm?
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 The LXX was the most widely used bible of the early church, not only by a couple writers, so discredit them all if you want. That's on you. Since 722 BC Israelites occupied foreign lands and the Greek language became the most widely used 2nd language in the world. There were many "God-fearers" who were Greek speakers who attended their synagogues and also came to Jerusalem to attend the feasts. A LXX makes sense to me because of these things.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "The LXX was the mst widely USED(sic) bible of the early church." That is absolutely NOT true, UNLESS... you believe that Roman Catholics are PART of the early church, and people like Iranaeus were straight shooters, believing the book, then yes. Some church history books are so flogged with supposition and error, its laughable. Some of them call Origen a "church father," who denied that Christ was God's Son. Some "church father: maybe he was YOURS, but he certainly wasn't mine.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 What are you going on about? I never quoted Origen, nor do I care for him. I gave you earlier writers than he and they used the LXX. Further, though, and most importantly, it is the apostles who used the LXX extensively. Yes, they did. Shout (that is, capitalize) all you want. Your tirades have no impact on whether they did or not. KJVOism has you biased against facts.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 "KJVOism has you biased against facts." HAHAHA. Sorry, you make me laugh. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Here we go: Original Onlyism has you BIASED against the fingerprint of God's approval and divine hand of blessing on ONE book; the KJV. When the KJV came out, revivals broke out all through europe and the new world. More missionaries were sent out with it, and Christians in the 1700s PREDOMINANTLY believed that their King James Version was equal...
jondabill1 6 months ago
@Jere616 .... to the originals. Not until the 1880s did Satan decide to kill everybody's belief in it and get "Christians" back to that DARK age Greek text that produced NOTHING but persecution of Bible believing Christians, pushed one world ecumenicism and the total authority of a dirty rotten Roman Pope. THAT is the fruit of originals onlyism and the FRUIT of your new versions. SO tell me, since you still haven't answered me: WHAT IS (present tense) the word of God? What IS the scriptures?
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 The Scriptures are all versions that translate the greek and hebrew copies as best as possible into the native languages. So, except for corrupted ones, like New World or those that retain the Apocrypha as canon, I would deem the word of God. This means translations into all other languages too, not only Englsh born ones like the KJV, for the Gospel is to be sent out, according to Jesus, to the uttermost parts of the world.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616The "word of God" proclaims two "God's" in John 1:18? The "word of God" says that water baptism comes BEFORE or completely WITHOUT belief and confession (Acts 8:37)? The "word of God" DOESN'T tell you to "study" it (II Timothy 2:15), or to search the scriptures (John 5:39), and makes a liar out of Christ in John 7:8, and damns Jesus Christ to HELL in Matthew 5:22? Some "word" you have! I'm sorry, I'll stick with NON conflicting authorities and call the KJV the word of God.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 I use a parallel bible to study which includes KJV and others as well as Lexicons. You apparently treat your defense of a single translation of the bible as proof of some sort of virtue. The realities of translating from one language into another and the difficulties of having a dynamic language mean that no foreign translation can ever be authoritative. The best we have are copies in the original languages to help us get as close to a faithful foreign rendering as possible.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 what a sad confession! So, to you, there is no way to obey or fulfill Luke 4:4, because we don't have EVERY word of God. What IS your final authority? What do you BELIEVE IS (not was)the word of God? When you refer to scripture, to WHAT are you referring? What would GOD have you to read and, more importantly, BELIEVE?!?
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 All we have had for almost 2 thousand years are the Hebrew and Greek copies from which all translations are made, including your KJV. Deciding to be loyal to that one translation creates no true advantage for anyone, just in your mind. It is the security of ignorance, not truth. Implying that Luke 4:4 can only be obeyed by a KJVOist is baseless. You have the same translation issues to contend with that everyone does since the originals were lost.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I'd say that there IS an advantage to sticking with the KJV, especially in light of the fact that it has NEVER been proven to be in error in any spot. "Thy word is TRUTH." "Security of ignorance, NOT truth?" So the KJV is not God's W-O-R-D? See what trouble you get in sticking to lost originals?!? You still haven't told me WHAT the word of God IS (present tense). Let's have it.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 You've put yourself out on a limb by saying the KJV has never been proven to be in error in any spot. What about Matthew 27:9-10 vs. Zechariah 11:12-13. Show me why all translations ascribe the quote to Jeremiah, but the reference is from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. My answer is that copyist errors crept in here and there over time so that there are small details that are corrupted, even in KJV. Your KJV translators didn't spot or correct the error. That is why I compare versions.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 How is Matthew 27:9 an error? The reference is alluded to in Jeremiah 18:1-4; 19:1-3. If that weren't enough, a Talmudic tradition states that the prophetic writings were placed in this canonical order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. Many Hebrew manuscripts follow THIS order. Matthew cited the passage as from the roll of the prophets and by the name of the FIRST book. The Hebrew reads that way, so sorry, YOUR in error, not the book. BTW, I'm not shouting, its for emphasis.
jondabill1 6 months ago
Wow, I'm stunned. A KJVOist cited Talmudic Tradition for proof, but the LXX is totally discredited by them. Equitable standards you have there - not. If the NT used this Talmudic Tradition, why was Isaiah named as the source of over 20 of his many NT quotes? I thought you just said they used the first name of the roll, Jeremiah. But, his name was never used for an Isaiah quote, showing that it was not an NT convention, but the Zech quote assigned to him is an error that crept in somehow.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I didn't say that EVERY new testament writer used the talmudic tradition. You love to jump to conclusions without reading the writing on the page. Matthew might have, but perhaps Mark or Luke didn't. Not EVERY apostle and writer of the new testament HAD the same background and upbringing and literary background. Not every Christian has the same literary background. Does Matthew have to do what everybody else did? Have you forgotten that God was telling the apostles WHAT to write?
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 "might have?" "perhaps?" nice foundation.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I say "might have" or "perhaps" because I don't KNOW the method. YOu don't KNOW that Christ quoted the LXX but you claim he does. YOU lie, at least I'm honest. "Foundation?" Man, where is YOUR foundation? With over 200 conflicting authorities as your "rock on which you stand," how dare you insult my foundation! My foundation is the King James Bible and its perfect. YOU claim that ANY translation that faithfully (uh huh, sure!) translates the "originals" IS the word of God. Sick.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@Jere616 My foundation never changes. YOur "foundation" changes every six months. My "might have" or "perhaps" deals with HOW its perfect, not WHETHER or WHY.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Jeremiah may have referenced the Potter, but Matt is definitely quoting Zechariah. If you care to compare the two of them side by side, you will find that to be true. The rest is up to you.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 And that is the beauty of it. Matthew was INSPIRED by God and HE dictated to Matthew what to write. Now, isn't it amazing that Matthew was probably familiar with Jeremiah's writings. He references what Jeremiah wrote, but what he writes more closely resembles the writing in Zechariah. Amazing.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 If God was dictating to them what to write what does the writers' literary background have to do with it? These are contradictory premises you're putting forth.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Every writer of scripture has a specific "style" of writing, and that affects what and how they wrote. AS they wrote, however, God dictated to them what to write through the Holy Spirit.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 My main issue is not with the KJV, but the "only" part. I compare versions, as I have said. I find sometimes that the KJV is the one I prefer, but sometimes it's others. I use the NKJV a lot too. KJV's language is so dated it has become a barrier to a clear understanding. It creates two levels of difficulty to go through, the scriptures being hard enough as it is when the common language is used. It is high time it was retired.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 I compare versions too, and the new versions are ALWAYS lacking and inferior. I have over 20 bible versions in my possession. Once you "retire" that KJV, you can say goodbye to your spiritual life and any hope of growth in the TRUTH. Once everybody "retires" that KJV, you can say HELLO again to Rome running things under a hellish Pope with a dark age text that will NEVER ever ever have a biblical revival again. New versions NEVER have good fruit. I'll NEVER "retire" it.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 Do you have the LXX too, the ones the NT writers used so much?
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Do you ever get tired of saying the same trash? The NT writers quoted the Hebrew text, the one that they were familiar with and believed was the word of God. You have NO proof that the LXX is BC.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 It's not trash.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 ....not 10 men out of every tribe, like your fairy tale is based on.
jondabill1 6 months ago
@jondabill1 KJVOists cannot stand that the LXX exists according to the witnesses of old because it sinks your divisive theories.
Jere616 6 months ago
@Jere616 Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote, " A considerable # of MSS. exist which give information as 2 Origen's Hexaplaric text & particular passages in the other columns, but these do not go far towards enabling us 2 recover the LXX text as it existed b4 Origen; and this remains the greatest problem which confronts the textual student of the Septuagint. Until we can do that, we r not in a position fully 2 utilize the evidence of the Greek 4 the recovery of the pre-Masoretic Hebrew."
jondabill1 6 months ago
@Jere616 KJVOist fabrications? No, man, I just read the Bible, and the Bible says that Christ SPOKE to the JEWS and his ministry according to Matthew was SOLELY to the JEWS. Grant it, he talked to various Gentiles, but when he spoke to Gentiles, he never QUOTED the OT, which means Christ could NOT have possibly quoted a Greek Septuagint. You think Christ would dare quote from a text that contains the Apocrypha as PART of inspired text? Uh uh. Stick with the book, not scholarship.
jondabill1 6 months ago
William Tyndale, was murdered by catholics and is referred to as the "Father of the English Bible" was the first person to translate & publish the Bible in English, from original Greek and Hebrew texts. His dying words in 1536 were, "Lord open the King of England's eyes." His prayers were answered just three years later when King Henry VIII published the English “Great Bible.” in 1539. The 1611KJV agrees with Tyndale's work.
derektrophy 8 months ago
<-----NIV burner!2x
Kxelate 9 months ago
<-----NIV burner!
Kxelate 9 months ago
Hey Ruckman, "Dirty flthy lying scum" you call somebody? Matthew 7 from KJV."Judge not, that ye not be judged" "And why beholdest the mote that is in thy brother's eye, and not consider the beam that is in thine own eye" "Thou hypocrite! First cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shall see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye" Why don't you preach about love for a change Ruckman!
rvalderas1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rvalderas1 Your time is coming.
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:10,11
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
"Dirty filthy, lyng. scum" ???? What kind of a thing is that for a Christian to say about another human being? "What you do to the least of my bretheren, that you do unto me." So I guess he just referred to Jesus the same way.
rvalderas1 10 months ago
Dr. Ruckman says that the KJV is the only bible without a copyright, but upon a very, very simple investigation, I found a wiki page with several non-copyright bible versions, several of which are in my library. (the link to the wiki is on my channel in the interests box, it won't let me post it here) Aside from that one very wrong statement, I am pretty much on board with the other points in this video.
SuperUltra64 10 months ago
@SuperUltra64 Actually Wikipesia refers to the King James Bible being copyrighted to the British Crown for perpetuity. They stated that most other bible translations have ran out of copyrights protection because the translation are so old.
yeudh 10 months ago 2
@yeudh I see what you are saying, and that is a good point. I actually just did a quick search of American copyright laws, which was quite informative, and backs up what you said, albeit in a more complicated way. Thanks for the info!
SuperUltra64 10 months ago
First, you need to pray. Discernment is a gift. If you don't trust or know the Holy spirit in others you have lost balance.Name calling is not of God. What's in your heart? James 3:10-13 (KJV) Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.11Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? The Bible says pray for others that are against you. I never heard him go their! (Matthew 5:44) Read on...
MrBstring57 11 months ago
@MrBstring57 Muslims say we don't have the words of God and prove it by providing verses from various translations and commentaries. I have an exchange with a Muslim on this subject if you are interested.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
Paul warned the church about getting hung up on the letter of the law or the ink on the page, if you will. It is the Spirit of the word...what God saying to your spirit man through the word, or anyone's testimony to lead you to Himself.2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Don't you think satan would get God's people to argue over God's own word? Don't get trapped!
MrBstring57 11 months ago
@MrBstring57 Very well said! One of the classic strategies in warfare is "Divide and Conquer" This man and his argument over semanitcs is dividing Christians. Sounds like he can't stand Catholics or anyone else who doesn't agree with his doctrine. This doctrine has even divided our family and caused a lot of hurt and separation. We in our home believe Jesus is the Son of God. And we believe in the Bible. The underlying theme of the New Testament is "Love" no matter what your doctrine is.
rvalderas1 10 months ago
I have Kenneth Wuest study Bibles and the reference he made mention to around the 49:39 mark on this video John 5:1-8 is wrong.The scripture is line upon line, nothing left out. 1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world).
MrBstring57 11 months ago
It is extremely evident the bitterness and hatred this man has for others in the body of Christ. 1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?John 13:35 (KJV) 35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
MrBstring57 11 months ago
Thank you for this! It is outstanding and NEEDED!!!
ramester 1 year ago
this upload is pure gold!!!!..
if you dont have a kjv then you dont have a bible,period!
you can however be saved without having ever looked at a bible,through the beautiful simple truth of the gospel message,ruckman for me is an in depth teacher of the scriptures to saved people and has many good points although i do not agree with all his views i always have time to give ear to what he has to say.
thanx bb for this,keep up the good work bro
see you in heaven
david1611kjv 1 year ago
@david1611kjv David, Yes, the KJV Bible 1611 is the true words of God. because any bible printed after has added meanings from different words.. this is deceiving a bit, and takes people on a different path..We have to be on the right path with God. I have a KJV Bible,the one after that date.. I just ordered the 1611 one. When we see the correct words, it becomes very clear . One word added could change the whole meaning in the whole text.. Bless you.
bssmart1118 1 year ago
@xxxsandsnowxxx
Does this rough sketch include the NIV, NASB, NLT etc... by which God continues to preserve His Word?
If God perfectly preserved His Word through the Matthews Bible, Syrian, Beza's work etc... then why do these perfectly preserved Word of God firstly dffer from the KJV 1611, as well as from each other?
junglehappiness 1 year ago
@xxxsandsnowxxx
How did God preserve His Word prior to the 1611?
junglehappiness 1 year ago
ok, so my comment which said "racist" got flagged as spam.
I shall back up my comment. Rucman said "there's only one correct time, it's English time... if you'e notgot English time, then you've got the wrong time."
Ok, so are the times recorded in the Bible English times? Doe God run by an English clock?
junglehappiness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
r.a.c.i.s.t.
junglehappiness 1 year ago
This guy looks like someone who uses the "F" and "N" word on a regular basis.
brianh406 1 year ago
amen amen amen
ChrisTurann 1 year ago
I love Peter Ruckman, I 1st discovered this amazing man of God back in the late 90's when I read his book "Black is Beautiful" after that, I got many of his cassette tapes and listened round the clock to his awe-inspiring God given wisdom.
The KJV is the word of God. Over the years, Satan has sent his shills to try and take his word from me with deception and confusion, but I can answer ANY and ALL of the Demons attacks on the Bible's so-called contradictions.
God BLESS you Ruckman!
BuckGeneralTurgidson 1 year ago
You want to know the truth about the Holy Bible? You must read and understand the Holy Quran. It will clarify every thing about God and his holy Books. It is the final message from God Almighty. Nobody will execused on the day of judgement of not knowing! Search google and get some education about this final message!
zahranims 1 year ago
Here is a list of early English translations of the Bible:
Tyndale's English New Testament 1525 AD
Coverdale Bible (first complete English Bible) 1535 AD
Matthews Bible 1537
Great Bible (the first Authorized version) 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishop's Bible 1568, intended to replace the Geneva Bible which had become too popular according to Church authorities.
Douay-Rheims 1582, first Catholic version of the New Testament
King James Version with apocrypha 1611
rb300dx 1 year ago
I wonder if this person has ever seen an original KJV 1611 Bible. It has the Deutrocanonical Books in it and they were not taken out until the 1800s by an act of Parliment.
bobs0331 1 year ago
@bobs0331 that is a copywrighted version if the 1611 version, which was discussed and reformed to include those texts after debate between current scholars...which have a different opinion on the bible than those whose beliefs are reflected in the video...the authorized 1611 does not include those texts found after, including nostic texts such as the book of judas...macabees...etc.
thug4ever319 1 year ago
Preach Thou Man of God
bloodyswordisa63 1 year ago
Search "Wiles of a Wicked Woman" from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Boy, some woman really pissed off her husband or boyfriend.
gjsterp 1 year ago
I have been looking for a King James Version with no concordance, no outside influences, and no maps or pictures. I have not been able to find one..
Can anyone help me out?
DedicatedMessenger 1 year ago
get a cambridge standard text.
eccentricity00 1 year ago
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DedicatedMessenger 1 year ago
What about satyrs or dragons?
Isaiah 13:21-22
Isaiah 34:13-14
Or Cockatrices (half dragon or serpent/half rooster)
Isaiah 11:8
Isaiah 14:29
Isaiah 59:5
Jeremiah 8:17
Wow!
Tommy70817 2 years ago
@Tommy70817
Didn't a Christian Archeologist dig any of these up yet? I thought they did.
I think one of them found a unicorn recently.
This Version is "THEIR authority?"
They never opened a science book, I bet.
Has anyone found just one prectical and useful idea in the Bible that has actually helped mankind?
I read it.
I didn't find one.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp THe bible provided mankind's earliest moral and ethical system....imagine a world where no one felt accountable for their actions and did what they felt they could get away with? the concept of god for christians and all religious people establishes an absolute moral authority from which guidelines and moral and ethical values can be established and enforced. look up Descartes, William C james, Dennet W. K Clifford.... also your bet about science...
thug4ever319 1 year ago
@thug4ever319
You wrote: THe bible provided mankind's earliest moral and ethical system..
You do realize how absurd your claim is?
probably NOT.
The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hindus, Chinese, etc lived with their own set of morals and their cultures flourished.
The Bible is only one of many religious and has as much validity as any other.
All were based on superstition, so their validity is nonsense.
It is a poor human being who needs the threat of Hell to act with compassion.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@thug4ever319
See YT: History of the Bible.
watch?v=ShLVsvzdfU0
gjsterp 1 year ago
@gjsterp ---id look up any christian science organization and request some literature, better yet open a mainstream secular text concerning evolution...look at how many of the premises which people base scientific fact on, are actually guesses made based on the one fact that there was matter before the earth was life sustaining...which is supported by Genesis.
thug4ever319 1 year ago
@thug4ever319
Christian Science?
Isn't that sort of an oxymoron?
Religion and Science?
Fact: We don't know where or how the Universe came into being, but so what?
Even if we never know, it is no reason to invoke a made believe character into the equation.
God is not fact, only speculation.
gjsterp 1 year ago
@thug4ever319
You Bible thumping idiots piss me off at times.
Especially the type in this video.
You pick out certain ideas that science is still unsure of.
True. There is much science does not know yet.
But, science eradicated polio, cholera, plague, and many more.
It has saved more lives and brought more dead to life than all the people Jesus was suppose to revive.
It is the reason you have safe drinking water, abundant food and all the other play things in your life.
Wake up from your dream!
gjsterp 1 year ago
@Tommy70817
@Tommy70817
Didn't a Christian Archeologist dig any of these up yet? I thought they did.
I think one of them found a unicorn recently.
This Version is "THEIR authority?"
They never opened a science book, I bet.
Has anyone found just one prectical and useful idea in the Bible that has actually helped mankind?
I read it.
I didn't find one.
FYI: Your referred passages seem to have been corrected by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
gjsterp 1 year ago
Tommy70817 2 years ago
@Tommy70817 your precept of a unicorn is a horse with a horn im assuming, however whose to say that this isnt describing a rhino?... there are dinosaurs atheists claim existed yet there is no geological fossil record of them ever existing, yet we accept that as fact, is it so hard to believe that your concept of a unicorn existed at one point and has since become extinct? research the development of unicorns in art, it originated in Africa and isnt depicted like the unicorn you'd imagine
thug4ever319 1 year ago
hmmm
Tommy70817 2 years ago
teach it!!!!!
thedudesays 2 years ago
The King James Version is accurate, but it was written back during the time King James was the King of England and they spoke differently than we do today. It is accurate, but the newer translations, like NKJV, NCV, and NLT are accurate too.... The people who wrote the KJV wrote it in the way they spoke so they could understand it easier. Why can we not do the same thing? We need to understand the Word of God the best we can, and newer translations help us with that.
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
tell me. would you also be accepting of the jehovah witnesses' bible as being accurate? if so, why and if not, why not. it too is in "modern" language.
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
No, the Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT correct. They are a cult that have CHANGED the MEANING of the Bible
The NKJV, NCV, and NLT say the same thing as the KJV, just in modern english. The Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons have changed the meaning to fit their doctrine
For example, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, changed the meaning of John 1:1 completely to take away Christ's Deity
There is a big difference in writing in modern english and changing the meaning of the Bible.
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
funny how a Jehovah Witnesses' bible reads almost word for word the same as these new versions! I suggest you aquire a Jehovah Witnesses bible and see for yourself!
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
the jehovah witnesses were invent by Russel, not Smith! I wonder how you became such an expert on the Bible and history?!?
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
I never said Smith founded the Jehovahs Witnesses. I was talking about JW and Mormons.
Pay attention when you're reading peoples comments.
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
wow, half of a reply! to bad the J.W. bible, which is corrupt reads just like the corrupt new versions. i suggest that you get a new world translation and compare. rather eye opening!
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
What do you mean half a reply?? You thought I was saying Smith founded the JW and I said that wasn't what I said. What else would I have to say to make a full reply? I said everything to your reply.
And did I ever say the New World Translation was correct?? No... I just named the NKJV, NCV, and NLT.
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
Yeah, half a reply. You never defended your new versions from reading the same as the NWT. Simple fact is you can't. You say that the NWT is corrupt, yet it reads the same as the new versions that you claim zare accurate. This is a contradiction.. How can the new versions be accurate, and the NWT a corrupt cult written book full of error, when they read the same, even USING the EXACT same modern words in places?
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
What are you talking about? I gave a full reply.
You never once asked me about the validity of the NWT.
And I never said that it was corrupt.
I just said that I never mentioned it. I didn't mention the NWT because I have never read the New World Translation, so I don't know anything about that particular translation.
After we have finished the Overwhelming Evidence of God series, I'll make a video on Translations and send to you.
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
I do own a NWT, NIV,LT, NKJV, etc... and can tell yopu that the KJV is by far the best of those translations. That the new versions and the NWT contain errors that are common, is without doubt.
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
since you have "never read the New World Translation", how could you possibly make a video on Translations? it seems to me that you are very uninformed as to the state of corruption involved in both the new versions and the NWT!
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
see my reply to your personal message...
thenowinstitute 2 years ago
"No, the Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT correct. They are a cult that have CHANGED the MEANING of the Bible." YOUR QUOTE, NOT MINE! Well if their "bible" changed the meanings, then the new versions written just the same as the NWT , CHANGES meanings too!
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
The NWT does change the meanings of verses that are in every other english version of the bible. And I can prove it if you don't believe it.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
You don't have to prove anything to me about the NWT and these new (per)version "bibles".
You do, however need to learn how to follow conversation!
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
Then why are you telling someone his truthful quote is not yours?
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
You need to read ALL the comments between the two of us.
How can some one elses quote be mine (or yours for that matter)?
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
You are refuting someone concerning a quote they made which is true. That is what I read.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
No.
I am pointing out to him, that his comment on the NWT is correct, but also applicable to the NIV, ASV, LB, etc...
I told you that you need to read ALL of the comments between me and him(a young boy actually).
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
I hate this comment system lol. You are right it is applicable to all other versions. Tell him to send me a message and I'll show him why his NIV is HIV.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago 2
I had already done this, plus showed him where the new perversions had lies contained in them and why.
However, he refused sound doctrine.
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
What does he not believe? That the King James is the most accurate and best literal translation of God's word? Or something specific like the Deity of Christ?
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
Evidently he believes God lies.
He believes that ALL versions (excluding the NWT that reads the same as the new perversions) are the Word of God!!!
It doesn't seem to matter to him that the new versions contain lies and cotradictions.
He is Southern "Baptist" so therefore he should have no problem with the Diety of Christ.
ziggy2sound4u 2 years ago
Luke 8:12 ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."
Deuteronomy 4:2 "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."
Titus 1:2 = GOD CANNOT LIE
God is the Father of truth
Satan is the Father of lies
Thus any bible with a lie or a true contradiction in it is of Satan.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago 2
@thenowinstitute logically speaking if God is perfect...and the Bible is God's word, then the bible must be perfect (deductive argument)....how then can you say we who are imperfect can correct or improve God's words....
thug4ever319 1 year ago
I reject the theology that if you do not use the KJB you are going to Hell!!! Where is that in the Bible? What about the people reading the Bible in Spanish? Are they going to hell because they do not read the KJV?
Crazy crazy crazy!!!!
mikemanners11 2 years ago
Re: "I reject the theology that if you do not use the KJB... blah, blah, blah"
Straw man argument. Why do you lie about people who believe that the KJB is the Scripture in English? Spanish people can read the Valera, which is faithfully and honestly translated from the RIGHT manuscripts, as is the KJB. Get a life, and mind your manners, sonny.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Amen.
Proverbs 26:3
A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the backs of fools!
tallswede68 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words... For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?" -Preface to KJV 1611 translation, from subsection entitled "REASONS INDUCING US NOT TO STAND CURIOUSLY UPON AN IDENTITY OF PHRASING"
emptyflagpole 2 years ago