Pastor Steve is well known for wanting to have homosexuals executed. He also adores the King James Bible. What he DOESN'T seem to know is that King James was gay. Yes... the King who delivered Great Britain from Catholicism who commisioned the KJV and is hero of today's fundamentalists, was actually the biggest Queen going who filled his Royal court with beautiful young men.
Do you mean the original KJV in 1611 that had the deutero canonical books (what some disparage as apocrypha) or do you mean the most recent KJV where Fundies ripped out these sacred books. Yes, that's right, the original KJV had the same books as the Catholics. Imagaine that. Hmmm? If this doesn't make you question, there is something wrong. Stop comparing NIV to KJV and ask why the ORIGINAL KJV had ALL the books of the bible.
Don't you need to get tazed or something. There are certainly more accurate translations than the NIV, but the KJV is NOT THE INSPIRED VERSION OF GOD'S WORD!!!!! This guy is an idiot.
@JohnIsRussian Then what's your point? My point is that the KJV is a translation of the Bible, and not a great one at that. KJVers get their kicks on trying to say that it is the only "authorized" and "inspired" English version of the Bible and that is just nonsense. This "pastor" has shown himself, on every video I have watched of him, to be biblically ignorant by taking things out of context and to beat his KJV only drum and speak out of what he's been taught by men rather than researching.
@RelyOnChrist777 You know how Moses parted the Red Sea? Yeah well the original Hebrew translation actually says he parted a sea of reeds. Walking across the ocean floor versus trekking through a FUCKING SWAMP sounds like a pretty big discrepancy to me.
@JCGotTheLife Well your retarded because the Hebrew language Moses spoke don't even exist no more !!! And obviously you are no one I can debate with, good bye low life!!
I'm from the Philippines, though many filipinos can read & understand english language but the fact is that there is no KJV translation even in popular dialects (we have about 8,000 different dialects). How can we be sure that the Pastor or the preacher translated the word of God from KJV to vernacular dialect correct if the listener is not really good in english. Thats why they resort to different version because it is available in their native dialect....
I would be delighted to sit under this ministry for a few months and be refreshed. This is a brilliant message that needs to be taken seriously by Christians, and is especially timely given that it's 400 years of the KJV this very year.
@Godpleaser77 I don't understand. He seems perfectly ok to me. I think he says Calvinism when he means Hypercalvinism, but other than that, I think he's OK.
Here we see on of the problems with using a translation. Greek had several words for "word." The one used in John 1 is "logos."At the time the gospels were written, that had meanings far beyond "word."It referred to the natural order, to the law on which the cosmos was based.It was in this sense that John was speaking; John wasn't speaking of Jesus as a word such as we speak, but as Logos, that which is behind and beyond all.This preacher is limiting himself, and, in fact limiting the bible.
@usenetposts its all about copy rights! No, am not crazy about who owns the rights or I am happy they were bought up by evil. My first NIV was a gift given me when God first saved me in 1983, and I still have it today. I use all versions and Greek and Hebrew concordances. Pls don’t tell me your following Steven Anderson; bad news! Thanks for your thoughts. Josh
I had trouble following this preacher, but he did hit the NIV in the goones with John 18:1 and 18:3 . With 18:1 the KJV was pretty clear,but the NIV made me try to figure out what a Grove. I thoight they had Gardens back then and not Groves. 18:3 was pretty simple,but when the NIV come a long, it complex me with all this Co-Hearts of Soldgers. KJV said a band of men ! A Grove means your growing a crop for sale and Garden means your growing it for looks ! 2 different things !
@turtle4aire A band of men can be just a group of random men; a cohort or a detachment is an organized military unit. There is a big difference there. The question is, what does the Greek mean? Is it a random group of men, or an organized military unit? The same thing with "garden" vs. "grove;" there are different Greek words for those, and we can't translate as "garden" to suit our theology. Theology comes from the bible, not the other wary round.
Just to back myself up, John Wycliffe translated the Bible to English in the 1380's. When was the King James? 1611? Hmmmm. Also, look at the original verses from 1611.
Spelling is way different because they were still branching from the Germanic Old English. So if you want the real 1611, read that. Otherwise, quite being ridiculous.
How about the new revised standard version or the NRSV. It was published in the 1950s and is based on William tyndale's translation of the New Testament. First it was the American Standard Version and then it was revised again and called the New Revised Standard Version. Give me a break people. It's just too funny. I'm sticking with the original Bible thank you. The one with all God's Word in it, not just the parts some Parliament members decided I should have.
Are you for real? @ 4:30... 'Let's look at the EXACT words as God said them'. Huh? Last I heard, God didn't speak Olde Engish. Hebrew wasn't it? The King James IS a wonderful translation, no doubt about it. But the ONLY translation? Why so? Because King James decreed it?
The KJV is no more authoritative then any other translation. It wasn't even translated from the original tongue, but from Latin. Language has changed over the last four hundred years with many words now obsolete. K
I think this church was used in an illustration in a message yesterday!! We had our 3rd annual "Buckeye Independent Baptist Fellowship" meeting this week and Bro. R.B. Oulette there, and I believe this is the same church!! It's in phoenix, and it's KJV only... :) praise the Lord!
For those who believe the KJV is the PURE word of God but are having difficulty with the old style of English, there is already another version of the KJV known as The American KJV Bible, which has been translated into the modern English language, supposedly without changing the sentence structure and doctrines. I believe only the spelling has been been updated and thus it should reflect the 1611 KJV bible in its purity. It is available free online.
Also the 21st century king james(kj21) and the Third millennium bible which has the apocrypha books as well. they are almost the same, both from the same publisher.
Even the New KJV bible is a corrupted bible because for its Old Testament, it referred to the corrupted Bomberg Hebrew Text by Ben Chayyim, the catholic Septuagint Greek OT & the catholic Latin Vulgate. For its New Testament , it referred to the corrupted catholic Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, for the simplistic reason of them being older documents. The hidden agenda is clear to the discerning; it is the deliberate process of pushing the true faith closer to the heretical catholic faith.
The Doctrine of Inspiration and Preservation are BIBLE Doctrines. Both of which are backed up by Scripture. These are only preserved in English in the KJV. If the KJV is NOT the Bible preserved in English, then what is? And if none are, then we do not have the Bible today preserved in English. So what do we do now? We either have a PERFECT INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD PRESERVED IN ENGLISH WITHOUT PROVEN ERROR, OR WE DO NOT. If we do not then we are just playing church.
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
There is no doubt that ALL the modern English translations of the bible (NIV, NKJV, etc...) have been corrupted. This is not only due to the erroneous work of the modern translators, but to the defective manuscripts ( Sinaiticus and Vatican manuscripts) used for the translations. These manuscripts are also known as the Alexandrian Text, and are the basis of the catholic bible. Only the KJV is the only PURE WORD OF GOD.
@opsvideo2008 gee really why they use the vulgate then and the Duay Remis and other bibles to translate it why are none of the TR documents older than the 10th century pure garbage your delusional why did they choose the translation of a catholic priests TR to use LOL
@opsvideo2008 Well said, but I wonder if there is not also a deliberate attempt also to undermine scriptures in the NIV rather than just being mistranslated by error. Governments and many others have much to gain from altering the bible. The NIV is plausibly an example of this! What worries me is that the NIV has changed too much to be just down to human error and that is what worries me, I could understand minor errors, but these are not minor errors!
@Sliepnir2006 You are right. There is more to just translational error in the NIV bible. There is a hidden agenda to dilute, pervert and corrupt the pure word of God so that the final corrupt product, the NIV bible ( and also all the modern English translations as well) can be used to justify the heretical beliefs that have crept into the christian faith. The modern translators are not so stupid to introduce wholesale changes but subtle changes here & there to deceive the sleeping christian.
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that naturea will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7
Why do you think it's called King James Version? Because its the bible EDITED by King James to translate it from latin to english. So in retrospect the KJV is not the true words of your "God" its is the words from King James.
do you ppl even know History the KJV is from two other books... the Great bible and the Geneva bible,you can not copy other languages and have them come out the same... King James was a fan of Shakespeare and he ask for this book to be translated this way... (THATS IT !) im not a fan of Shakespeare.. so i use the Niv... thers is no boogie man behind this book.... and this guy really needs to get a life... and know his history... Geez! buddy your teaching hate
The King James Version is not inspired, but most people who believe that the modern versions have satan in them do NOT believe that! We believe that (unfortunately) it is the only version that didn't use manuscripts CORRUPTED by those viscious unsaved devil worshippers Wescott and Hort. The english of the King James is not inspired but the original language manuscripts used by the modern versions were POISONED by those two Satans- wescott and Hort!
@carloswater7 Rev.21:8 says that all liars will burn in Hell. Lars who lie about God, KJV is the pure Word of God full of Grace and Truth. NIV and all other Satanic perversions lie about God, it's gospel's of men, with which you are cursed, cursed people go to Hell, MATTHEW 25:41 KJV.
@HaRdzstylerR that About KJV is the Pure Word Of GOD is your Opinion. Not that i am Defending the NIV.and the Other bibles. are not satanic cane prove to you there not . the only pure word of God is Jesus not KJV . john 1:1-3. the ones who are truly cursed are tho ones who do not keep the everlasting covenant not ones who read other Bible versions Read Isaiah 24:1-6 and Hebrews 13:20
Sanderson you are a joke one minute you are cussing the next preaching dude do Christ a favor stop you are driving folks away from Christ by being a terrible example
That's right, language is the key to understanding the difference between the versions of the bible. Just like he says the devil worshipers in the old testament were killing babies in any version but the godly people were getting a different message. Example: Hosea 13:16 KJV reads "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against God. They shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped open. But the NIV reads"God is love"
That's right, language is the key to understanding the difference between the versions of the bible. Just like he says the devil worshipers in the old testament were killing babies in any version but the godly people were getting a different message. Example: Hosea 13:16 KJV reads "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against God. They shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped open. But the NIV reads"God is love"
To those who disbelieve the testimony here: 1. The manuscripts that became the KJV are the only ones that can historically be traced back to the hands of the apostles. 2. The Middle English language demands we use Webster's Dictionary from 1828 to clarify word definitions. 3. The Latin text used in conjunction with Erasmus' Greek text was not Catholic, but the Waldensian Itala, passed down generation by generation from no later than 120 AD. Their history has been surgically removed by papists.
So let me get this straight. If it is the actual words themselves that matter, is there a reason you don't read the Bible in Aramaic? After all, the words that Jesus spoke were not English at all. Secondly, you are reference two different types of "words". Some instances of the word, "word" appear in the KJV as capitalized, such as John 1.
NIV Perversion! Rom.8:7 "; the sinful man is hostile to God. IT(?) does not submit to Gods law, nor can IT(?) do so." KJV A pure word of God!! Rom.8:7 "Because the carnal mind is emnity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." HMMM...NIV 'the sinful man' ....KJV 'the carnal mind' ....NIV '(IT)does not submit' KJV 'for it is not subject'... Since,when can a sinful man submit to anything!The subject was the carnal mind,not the sinful man!
1 Corinthians 6 NIV 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
Romans 1 NIV
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Boy these guys show up everywhere conveniently bashing KJV bible believers! Maybe they are two witnesses in Revelation Chapter 11!..lol.. I do not think their agenda is winning souls for Jesus Christ because they are to busy go around correcting others in a corrupt way! I still have never received any response reguarding Dan.3:25 from the NIV Perversion! ."son of the gods.." The usual response I get is 'it footed noted.' Which really means it's not that important..
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Even though I am well able to reply to each of your claims I have decided that I simply don't want to anymore. The thought of wading through an unending cesspool of unrelenting slander, vitriol, disgusting lies, ridiculous conspiracies nourished by inexcusable ignorance is simply too onerous to me. KJV Onlyism is unreasoning moral bankruptcy, happily turning the gospel into a mockery of incompetent apologetic stupidity, bringing the cause of the Christ into disrepute. Contd.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Contd... By their fruit you shall know them and I have not seen the tree of KJV Onlyism produce one single piece of good fruit. I am not willing to cast any more pearls before swine.
You don't think demoting Jesus deity and removing key words like "through the blood" is important?
Colossians 1:14-15 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:14-15 (NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 You can posture all you like, your "irrefutable" arguments have a nasty habit of getting refuted, and often. You just don't pay attention.
I do not have time to answer every one of your posts right now, but rest assured every one of them will be answered in due course. But for now tell me what part of statements like,
"the word "Lucifer"... does not appear in ANY Hebrew text"
Or...
"You... wont find "lucifer" in the Septuagint, widely used by the early Church and quoted by the Apostles"
John 6:69 (KJV) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (NIV) We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
Again, Christ omitted. So who are they talking about?
Not too mention, the NIV clutters the entire scripture up with odd indentations and worthless footnotes. Making it confusing and more difficult to memorize verses by number.
Butchered. CHRIST and COME IN IN THE FLESH omitted.
1 John 4:3 (KJV) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3 (NIV) but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
John 9 NIV 35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Son of man refers to his humanity but Jesus is fully human and fully divine. The man called him Lord and worshiped him.
John 1 NIV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 17 NIV
4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Revelation 22 NIV 12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
John 4 NIV 42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
Who do you think the savior of the world is? There is only one savior and that is Christ.
1 John 4 NIV
14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
The NIV does not "remove" the word "Lucifer" as this word does not appear in ANY Hebrew text. Do you presume the KJV rendering of "lucifer" from the Latin Vulgate is somehow more correct than the Hebrew Masoretic text (Biblia Hebraica) the NIV relies on? The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the Masoretic Text to be nearly identical to texts of the Tanakh dating from 200BC. You also wont find "lucifer" in the Septuagint, widely used by the early Church and quoted by the Apostles!
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Isaiah does not say that Jesus fell from Heaven. Read that verse in context again. Also remember that Satan pre-fall was an anointed cherub, a created angel. The Bible states that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light. Morning stars equal angels and is also referred to in the Book of Job.
Psalm 12 is referring to people and not God's Word.
The Book of Life is where your name is written if you are saved.
@StandForTheFaith Isaiah does not say "Jesus fell from Heaven" at all. Its time for you to stop inserting meanings into the text that aren't there. It doesn't matter if you're reading the NIV, NASB or ESV, they do not say what you are implying. If you read in context it is quite easy to see it is not referring to Jesus. Read my previous post again and pay attention this time as it completely shuts down any argument for rendering the verse with "lucifer".
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
Footnote: d Or in the flesh
John 1 NIV
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Philippians 2 NIV 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Isaiah does not say "Jesus fell from Heaven" at all. Its time for you to stop inserting meanings into the text that aren't there. Modern Bibles do not say what you are implying. If you read in context it is quite easy to see it is not referring to Jesus. Read my previous post about it again and pay attention this time as it completely shuts down any argument for rendering the verse with "lucifer". At least for sensible people it does.
(KJB) Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
(NIV) Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
According to the NIV, Jesus had a ORIGIN not eternal!
(KJB) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(NIV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Yeah, the crummy FOOTNOTE (a) stuck in there which only adds to CONFUSION even admits it should say "only begotten son"!
How about the NIV removing just one phrase so the entire meaning is changed?
(NIV) Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
So basically if you are ever angry at your brother you are in sin?
(KJB) Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
You see. You are only in sin if you are angry "WITHOUT A CAUSE"!
I could go on and one with literally hundreds of verses that are DIRECT attacks on Jesus deity or that which directly do a direct reversal of the meaning entirely!
Still want to defend the NIV?
We don't need to read Greek or Hebrew to understand what I just demonstrated. It should be obvious now.
If you really care about believing on Jesus and on his word, you should be mad at those who perverted his word, as subtly as it seemed, rather than me.
You're confusing yourself by looking at a language you likely don't read and are likely using the corrupt Greek that the NIV used.
I know there is the glorious Textus Receptus loyally hand copied and verified by REAL men of God. The originals being worn out and that they found some old corrupted greek text in tact (in tact because Christians knew not to use them!).
But I don't need that. God preserved his word for us in English.
It's the subtle attack. And with these changes, it is no doubt to me why the KJV has God's power and spirit and the other deceptions do not!
It is no wonder why every Christian who is strong enough to go up publicly against atheists and evolutionists has only been able to do so when using the glorious infallible KING JAMES BIBLE!
Because yet again, when it comes to explaining creation in God's literal sense, the NIV has changed enough to allow confliction.
"It is no wonder why every Christian who is strong enough to go up publicly against atheists and evolutionists has only been able to do so when using the glorious infallible KING JAMES BIBLE!"
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Since you are into late manuscripts that feature additions to the text, perhaps you should add an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not think!".
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Name calling does not help your arguments. You have no textual evidence to substantiate your fanciful stories and have not produced any. Period.
Since your only response now is to call my post "pathetic" and merely return to repeating the same old claims, I can only assume that the standard KJVO proof-texts and insinuations of conspiracy with no real facts and evidence to support your claims was all that you had.
Highlighted in my first response was the inconsistency of your arguments. The word "father" is used of Joseph in Luke 2:48 (KJV) as well as "his parents" in 2:41. Yet, we hear not a word of criticism against KJV. If you were to be honest and consistent, you would either apply the same standard to the KJV you do with the NIV, or you would simply abandon Luke 2:33 as a KJVO proof-text.
At least, that's what a reasonable person might do.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! I was waiting for you to whip that one out.
Better read that again.
WHO called Joseph Jesus' father? It wasn't the author of the Bible!
Like 2:48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. "
That was MARY calling him father. Not the author of the Bible.
The author never refers to Joseph as Jesus' father. Unless it is the NIV, etc. Luke 2:33
..., and that is exactly the kind of thing that is corrupted throughout, as subtle as it may seem, that an atheist would use in a debate on creation, deity of Jesus, etc.
I repeat. The KJV author never refers to Joseph as Jesus' "father". Only the new age bibles do that.
When Mary called him Jesus' father, that was her words. And the author was accurate in noting her words.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 And here we are back to the mere repetition of the same claims again. You'll do anything you can to segue back into the same old rut wont you? Can't you provide better arguments?
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 No, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. It doesn't matter if you have Mary saying it or Matthew writing it. You're simply applying double standards to create controversy where there isn't any. My response has been clear and reasonable, you should try the same.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Of course it escapes you that you wont find Jesus calling Joseph his father in the NIV either. There is no confusion here and no conspiracy. I do find it fascinating that you are apparently incapable of reasonable argumentation without constantly having to recycle the same old claims without evidence, name calling and conspiracy theories.
They wouldn't make it that obvious. The NIV would not have made it into churches, even watered down churches, if they were that obvious to have Jesus call Joseph father.
But you must admit you never caught the other changes.
I've never even been to a church that preached bold or even entire chapters when using the NIV. It's crap.
Matthew 27:35 (KJV) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
They NIV reduces it simply to:
Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
What the?! Where's the power of that verse now? Not in the NIV!!
John 6 KJV 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
The KJV didn't but the TR which relies on only a few late texts included many additions to the text that have been made apparent by the discovery of much earlier and better attested texts. Allegations of corruption or stories about how texts were worn out because they were used more are simply not supported by facts and evidence.
The NIV does not have "without cause" in Matt 5:22 because the Greek text that underlies it does not contain the Greek term "eivkh". It is found in all modern Greek texts in their textual notes and the NIV includes it in the verses footnote as well. You could make a case for its inclusion as it is found in a variety of manuscripts and has early attestation. Some of the oldest texts do not have it though. Translators make judgements based on facts, not conspiracy.
Still on Matt 5:22: Jesus is speaking in the context of sinful anger. He speaks of calling a brother a "fool." He is obviously not speaking about righteous anger as exemplified in Jesus' anger at the hard-hearted Pharisees. To compare the two passages is to compare apples and oranges. You have to be looking for "contradictions" to come up with this.
Does Matt 5:21 compared to Acts 5:1-10 make God a sinner in the KJV? No? How then does Matt 5:22 compared with John 2:13-17 make Christ a sinner in the NIV?
Matt 5:22 ends with, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
If you are going to be at all consistent then does this not make Jesus, the Father and Paul each deserving of hell in the following verses: Matt 23:17, 23:19, Luke 11:40, 12:20, Luke, 1 Cor 15:36?
In this case I do not agree with the NIV translators who believed that the context of Micah 5:2 was suggestive of Davidic lineage of the Messiah. But this is far from being a conspiracy. Like the AV1611, the NIV contains a footnote saying it can also be rendered, "from days of eternity'". Incidentally, the NASB is superior to both, choosing to simply give the most literal rendering as, "From the days of eternity".
That is an all out lie. That's how it's explained.
Unlike the PROVEN FACT that the NIV makers were non Christians and homosexuals because we can both currently look those people up and see their other fruits (works like GLBT) and the fruits of their work in the NIV which removes much of the homosexual sin, the KJV bible absolutely without a doubt tells God's true word about homosexuality.
Something a "homosexual king" would have certainly objected to.
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 First,do your reseach on King James,and you will see that he had same sex reationships.Second,you say,"Something a "homosexual king" would have certainly objected to" doesn't prove King James was not gay,look at Ted Hagee and Bishop Eddie Long, they both were against homosexuals and yet,they were caught having homosexual sex,in other words,hypocrites are everywhere and King James falls in this category.
The NASB is a better translation because they went back to the Actual Greek and Hebrew text. To say if you don't understand the KJV then you must not be saved is just stupid. They didn't talk the way the KJV was written. Like Shakespeare. I've seen many many people come to Christ through the teachings of Charles Stanley, Andy Stanley, Louie Giglio, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin McManus, and many others. None of them use the KJV. Wonder what paster steve thinks of them?
Read Gal5:12 where Paul is telling the Apostles he wishes they would go further and cut themselves off.Look up and several othr trans and find the vicious Saul actually said he wished they would castrate themselves.Paul was predicted by Jacob as the one who would kill and then divide.Killed followrs of Jesus and divides his church.Jesus said this robber came into the fold another way.Jesus IDs saul in Rev2.Saul admits all of Jesus'churches rejected him to Timothy..false apostle and deceiver.
KJV is the inerrant Word of God. If you can't understand it you are more than likely "not saved". Any bible that removes the blood of Jesus is nothing short of evil doctrine. There has not been one single national revival since these new "user friendly" bibles have come on the scene. Old fashioned preaching from the KJV, putting people under conviction is the only thing that gets the job done.
I would not even know where to start in exposing your foolish logic and assertions. You must buy into the godless view of pragmatism? Do you have any idea about textual variations? Do you have any knowledge of the issue of translations? Obviously you don't.
Amen!
haksawful 2 weeks ago
This man of God is speaking the truth but it will always offend sinners - gays are abominations to Christ - thats the truth!
johnhypnotherapist 1 month ago
Did this guy get any Biblical training?
jldkrank 1 month ago
Pastor Steve is well known for wanting to have homosexuals executed. He also adores the King James Bible. What he DOESN'T seem to know is that King James was gay. Yes... the King who delivered Great Britain from Catholicism who commisioned the KJV and is hero of today's fundamentalists, was actually the biggest Queen going who filled his Royal court with beautiful young men.
bossendenwoodconvict 1 month ago
@bossendenwoodconvict haha..no. king james wasn't gay. this preacher's crazy and wrong in almost every way, but king james was not a homosexual.
hhannah08 1 month ago
Do you mean the original KJV in 1611 that had the deutero canonical books (what some disparage as apocrypha) or do you mean the most recent KJV where Fundies ripped out these sacred books. Yes, that's right, the original KJV had the same books as the Catholics. Imagaine that. Hmmm? If this doesn't make you question, there is something wrong. Stop comparing NIV to KJV and ask why the ORIGINAL KJV had ALL the books of the bible.
smeier12 1 month ago
I could listen to him preach all day long. Love it.
elbauzan 2 months ago
The Kidron Valley is an ephemeral stream that is dry except during the rainy season..great job, sir.
barrypotter09 3 months ago
Question for KJV cultist: How did anyone know biblical truth before there was a KJV bible?
WorldBibleUnion454 3 months ago 2
@WorldBibleUnion454 best response I have ever heard.
ccsniper 3 months ago
Don't you need to get tazed or something. There are certainly more accurate translations than the NIV, but the KJV is NOT THE INSPIRED VERSION OF GOD'S WORD!!!!! This guy is an idiot.
metanoeo1 4 months ago
@metanoeo1 Have you ever read your bible ?
JohnIsRussian 4 months ago
@JohnIsRussian Yes in Hebrew, Greek, German and English. How about you?
metanoeo1 4 months ago
@metanoeo1 I read the one purified like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over. (psalm 12:6)
JohnIsRussian 4 months ago
@JohnIsRussian Then what's your point? My point is that the KJV is a translation of the Bible, and not a great one at that. KJVers get their kicks on trying to say that it is the only "authorized" and "inspired" English version of the Bible and that is just nonsense. This "pastor" has shown himself, on every video I have watched of him, to be biblically ignorant by taking things out of context and to beat his KJV only drum and speak out of what he's been taught by men rather than researching.
metanoeo1 4 months ago
@metanoeo1 Well , If thats what you believe , good on you , I however disagree , good day , sir
JohnIsRussian 4 months ago
This guy is insane. He's not even preaching the gospel.
7mistahj 5 months ago
I love how he talks like the king james translation is so accurate....
JCGotTheLife 6 months ago
@JCGotTheLife And it is !!!!!!!!!
RelyOnChrist777 5 months ago
@RelyOnChrist777 You know how Moses parted the Red Sea? Yeah well the original Hebrew translation actually says he parted a sea of reeds. Walking across the ocean floor versus trekking through a FUCKING SWAMP sounds like a pretty big discrepancy to me.
JCGotTheLife 5 months ago
@JCGotTheLife Well your retarded because the Hebrew language Moses spoke don't even exist no more !!! And obviously you are no one I can debate with, good bye low life!!
RelyOnChrist777 5 months ago
@RelyOnChrist777 Can't tell if trolling... Or just stupid.
JCGotTheLife 5 months ago
This is a straight up con man. Look at some f his preaching on here and you will see his true character, or lack there of.
TheEodtch 6 months ago
I'm from the Philippines, though many filipinos can read & understand english language but the fact is that there is no KJV translation even in popular dialects (we have about 8,000 different dialects). How can we be sure that the Pastor or the preacher translated the word of God from KJV to vernacular dialect correct if the listener is not really good in english. Thats why they resort to different version because it is available in their native dialect....
lexM457 7 months ago
I would be delighted to sit under this ministry for a few months and be refreshed. This is a brilliant message that needs to be taken seriously by Christians, and is especially timely given that it's 400 years of the KJV this very year.
usenetposts 7 months ago
@usenetposts have you spent any time looking at this guys videos? BAD NEW+
Godpleaser77 7 months ago
@Godpleaser77 Not sure what that means or why you would say so?
usenetposts 7 months ago
@usenetposts Sanderson is a modern day Pharisee! He is a teacher of hate and a foolishness that is not found in any Bible.
Godpleaser77 7 months ago
@Godpleaser77 I don't understand. He seems perfectly ok to me. I think he says Calvinism when he means Hypercalvinism, but other than that, I think he's OK.
usenetposts 7 months ago
@usenetposts search this and get back to me.
STEVEN ANDERSON THE "PASTOR" OF HATE PROMO! Thanks Joshua
Godpleaser77 7 months ago
"the STD, the HIV" lol.
usenetposts 7 months ago
Here we see on of the problems with using a translation. Greek had several words for "word." The one used in John 1 is "logos."At the time the gospels were written, that had meanings far beyond "word."It referred to the natural order, to the law on which the cosmos was based.It was in this sense that John was speaking; John wasn't speaking of Jesus as a word such as we speak, but as Logos, that which is behind and beyond all.This preacher is limiting himself, and, in fact limiting the bible.
Naiant 8 months ago
I love my NIV!
Godpleaser77 8 months ago
@Godpleaser77 It's not YOUR NIV, it's Zonderman's NIV. If you think it's yours, just try reproducing it on your website, as you could with the KJV.
Either something is the Word of God or it's a position on someone's balance sheet. Can't be both.
usenetposts 7 months ago
@usenetposts its all about copy rights! No, am not crazy about who owns the rights or I am happy they were bought up by evil. My first NIV was a gift given me when God first saved me in 1983, and I still have it today. I use all versions and Greek and Hebrew concordances. Pls don’t tell me your following Steven Anderson; bad news! Thanks for your thoughts. Josh
Godpleaser77 7 months ago
I had trouble following this preacher, but he did hit the NIV in the goones with John 18:1 and 18:3 . With 18:1 the KJV was pretty clear,but the NIV made me try to figure out what a Grove. I thoight they had Gardens back then and not Groves. 18:3 was pretty simple,but when the NIV come a long, it complex me with all this Co-Hearts of Soldgers. KJV said a band of men ! A Grove means your growing a crop for sale and Garden means your growing it for looks ! 2 different things !
I'm with him here
turtle4aire 9 months ago
@turtle4aire A band of men can be just a group of random men; a cohort or a detachment is an organized military unit. There is a big difference there. The question is, what does the Greek mean? Is it a random group of men, or an organized military unit? The same thing with "garden" vs. "grove;" there are different Greek words for those, and we can't translate as "garden" to suit our theology. Theology comes from the bible, not the other wary round.
Naiant 8 months ago
Just to back myself up, John Wycliffe translated the Bible to English in the 1380's. When was the King James? 1611? Hmmmm. Also, look at the original verses from 1611.
Spelling is way different because they were still branching from the Germanic Old English. So if you want the real 1611, read that. Otherwise, quite being ridiculous.
rock1the1arts100 9 months ago
How about the new revised standard version or the NRSV. It was published in the 1950s and is based on William tyndale's translation of the New Testament. First it was the American Standard Version and then it was revised again and called the New Revised Standard Version. Give me a break people. It's just too funny. I'm sticking with the original Bible thank you. The one with all God's Word in it, not just the parts some Parliament members decided I should have.
justintyler1370 9 months ago
From the original KJV preface "A variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"
It seems that even the folks that translated the KJV weren't KJV only.
MaxPointy 9 months ago
Are you for real? @ 4:30... 'Let's look at the EXACT words as God said them'. Huh? Last I heard, God didn't speak Olde Engish. Hebrew wasn't it? The King James IS a wonderful translation, no doubt about it. But the ONLY translation? Why so? Because King James decreed it?
The KJV is no more authoritative then any other translation. It wasn't even translated from the original tongue, but from Latin. Language has changed over the last four hundred years with many words now obsolete. K
kangtheconqueror 9 months ago
Comment removed
kangtheconqueror 9 months ago
Does the KJV not have the same words ADDED by MArtin Luther? It is by faith "alone" that we are saved. Wrong!
mjacobson73 10 months ago
I think this church was used in an illustration in a message yesterday!! We had our 3rd annual "Buckeye Independent Baptist Fellowship" meeting this week and Bro. R.B. Oulette there, and I believe this is the same church!! It's in phoenix, and it's KJV only... :) praise the Lord!
TheGoldenLlama88 10 months ago
You should debate James White on this topic.
iamhackett 10 months ago
I didn't know that God wrote the bible in english?
onemarktwoyou 11 months ago 2
For those who believe the KJV is the PURE word of God but are having difficulty with the old style of English, there is already another version of the KJV known as The American KJV Bible, which has been translated into the modern English language, supposedly without changing the sentence structure and doctrines. I believe only the spelling has been been updated and thus it should reflect the 1611 KJV bible in its purity. It is available free online.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
@opsvideo2008
Also the 21st century king james(kj21) and the Third millennium bible which has the apocrypha books as well. they are almost the same, both from the same publisher.
onemarktwoyou 11 months ago
Even the New KJV bible is a corrupted bible because for its Old Testament, it referred to the corrupted Bomberg Hebrew Text by Ben Chayyim, the catholic Septuagint Greek OT & the catholic Latin Vulgate. For its New Testament , it referred to the corrupted catholic Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, for the simplistic reason of them being older documents. The hidden agenda is clear to the discerning; it is the deliberate process of pushing the true faith closer to the heretical catholic faith.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
The Doctrine of Inspiration and Preservation are BIBLE Doctrines. Both of which are backed up by Scripture. These are only preserved in English in the KJV. If the KJV is NOT the Bible preserved in English, then what is? And if none are, then we do not have the Bible today preserved in English. So what do we do now? We either have a PERFECT INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD PRESERVED IN ENGLISH WITHOUT PROVEN ERROR, OR WE DO NOT. If we do not then we are just playing church.
bobberney 11 months ago
Jesus spoke Aramaic
Paul wrote in Greek
Peter (James, John etc) wrote in Hebrew
I've used the NIV for years and I find no differences between it and the KJV.
Theoretically we should all learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew.
Otherwise we are taking the translator's word for the correctness of ANY translation.
Claiming that the KJV is the only correct text is just creating a strawman and causing divisions.
I have had passages open up in the NIV that were gibberish in the KJV.
That's my $0.02 worth.
hammerogod 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
The Old testament of the KJV bible was translated directly from the original Hebrew manuscripts, while the New Testament of the KJV was translated directly from the original Greek New Testament manuscripts known as the Textus Receptus. Thus the KJV bible was translated from the source of the original manuscripts of Scripture, unlike the modern English translations which used catholic manuscripts as their basis.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
There is no doubt that ALL the modern English translations of the bible (NIV, NKJV, etc...) have been corrupted. This is not only due to the erroneous work of the modern translators, but to the defective manuscripts ( Sinaiticus and Vatican manuscripts) used for the translations. These manuscripts are also known as the Alexandrian Text, and are the basis of the catholic bible. Only the KJV is the only PURE WORD OF GOD.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
@opsvideo2008 gee really why they use the vulgate then and the Duay Remis and other bibles to translate it why are none of the TR documents older than the 10th century pure garbage your delusional why did they choose the translation of a catholic priests TR to use LOL
martlut 11 months ago
@opsvideo2008 Well said, but I wonder if there is not also a deliberate attempt also to undermine scriptures in the NIV rather than just being mistranslated by error. Governments and many others have much to gain from altering the bible. The NIV is plausibly an example of this! What worries me is that the NIV has changed too much to be just down to human error and that is what worries me, I could understand minor errors, but these are not minor errors!
Sliepnir2006 11 months ago
@Sliepnir2006 You are right. There is more to just translational error in the NIV bible. There is a hidden agenda to dilute, pervert and corrupt the pure word of God so that the final corrupt product, the NIV bible ( and also all the modern English translations as well) can be used to justify the heretical beliefs that have crept into the christian faith. The modern translators are not so stupid to introduce wholesale changes but subtle changes here & there to deceive the sleeping christian.
opsvideo2008 11 months ago
Have a lot not hate a lot duh
krispyle 1 year ago
Also weird thing is all these people against niv sure do seem to hate a lot of judgmental hate in them.You will know them by there fruit huh
krispyle 1 year ago
King James version was translated from other versions and was edited .niv was translated from original stuff. He's a idiot
krispyle 1 year ago
@krispyle
I agree.....except for the ad hominum bit.
He is not an idiot, he is just a zealot with an agenda.
hammerogod 11 months ago
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that naturea will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:7
GunnyGunny1 1 year ago
Why do you think it's called King James Version? Because its the bible EDITED by King James to translate it from latin to english. So in retrospect the KJV is not the true words of your "God" its is the words from King James.
YougotAIDZ123 1 year ago
do you ppl even know History the KJV is from two other books... the Great bible and the Geneva bible,you can not copy other languages and have them come out the same... King James was a fan of Shakespeare and he ask for this book to be translated this way... (THATS IT !) im not a fan of Shakespeare.. so i use the Niv... thers is no boogie man behind this book.... and this guy really needs to get a life... and know his history... Geez! buddy your teaching hate
LovTheNose 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The King James Version is not inspired, but most people who believe that the modern versions have satan in them do NOT believe that! We believe that (unfortunately) it is the only version that didn't use manuscripts CORRUPTED by those viscious unsaved devil worshippers Wescott and Hort. The english of the King James is not inspired but the original language manuscripts used by the modern versions were POISONED by those two Satans- wescott and Hort!
barrypatrickius 1 year ago
KJOnlyism are more Evil that the people of wat it say's on vrs REVELATION 21:8
carloswater7 1 year ago
@carloswater7 Rev.21:8 says that all liars will burn in Hell. Lars who lie about God, KJV is the pure Word of God full of Grace and Truth. NIV and all other Satanic perversions lie about God, it's gospel's of men, with which you are cursed, cursed people go to Hell, MATTHEW 25:41 KJV.
HaRdzstylerR 1 year ago
@HaRdzstylerR that About KJV is the Pure Word Of GOD is your Opinion. Not that i am Defending the NIV.and the Other bibles. are not satanic cane prove to you there not . the only pure word of God is Jesus not KJV . john 1:1-3. the ones who are truly cursed are tho ones who do not keep the everlasting covenant not ones who read other Bible versions Read Isaiah 24:1-6 and Hebrews 13:20
carloswater7 1 year ago
Mark:
KJV: "But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats."
NIV: "Wear sandals but not an extra shirt."
Somewhat in agreement, but in Luke:
KJV: "Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way."
NIV: "Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road"
NIV says DON'T bring sandals, and DO bring sandals.
joroma77 1 year ago
@joroma77 thank you for opening my eyes with proof.
notdemocratic 1 year ago
Another Preacher condeming himself
TheOriginofStorms 1 year ago
Sanderson you are a joke one minute you are cussing the next preaching dude do Christ a favor stop you are driving folks away from Christ by being a terrible example
BrandonClapp74 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's right, language is the key to understanding the difference between the versions of the bible. Just like he says the devil worshipers in the old testament were killing babies in any version but the godly people were getting a different message. Example: Hosea 13:16 KJV reads "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against God. They shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped open. But the NIV reads"God is love"
halftastic 1 year ago
That's right, language is the key to understanding the difference between the versions of the bible. Just like he says the devil worshipers in the old testament were killing babies in any version but the godly people were getting a different message. Example: Hosea 13:16 KJV reads "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against God. They shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped open. But the NIV reads"God is love"
halftastic 1 year ago
The English language has only been around since about 900 A.D.
The Old Testament was scribed from Hebrew.
The New Testament was scribed from Greek.
The KJV was TRANSLATED in 1611, which was 1611 years after Christ's birth...
So how about instead of whining about which version is more accurate, why don't you cut to the source and learn ancient Greek? hm?
EuphoriaMusicSession 1 year ago
ahh yes. The KJV translated from Henrys bible that allowed him to marry his Protestant whore. how inspirational
americal69 1 year ago
Preach on!
shalenieteves 1 year ago 2
WHAT ABOUT BEHAMIEM GROOVE?
cantore35 1 year ago
To those who disbelieve the testimony here: 1. The manuscripts that became the KJV are the only ones that can historically be traced back to the hands of the apostles. 2. The Middle English language demands we use Webster's Dictionary from 1828 to clarify word definitions. 3. The Latin text used in conjunction with Erasmus' Greek text was not Catholic, but the Waldensian Itala, passed down generation by generation from no later than 120 AD. Their history has been surgically removed by papists.
utopiandesign 1 year ago
So let me get this straight. If it is the actual words themselves that matter, is there a reason you don't read the Bible in Aramaic? After all, the words that Jesus spoke were not English at all. Secondly, you are reference two different types of "words". Some instances of the word, "word" appear in the KJV as capitalized, such as John 1.
dannynjessie 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
NIV Perversion! Rom.8:7 "; the sinful man is hostile to God. IT(?) does not submit to Gods law, nor can IT(?) do so." KJV A pure word of God!! Rom.8:7 "Because the carnal mind is emnity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." HMMM...NIV 'the sinful man' ....KJV 'the carnal mind' ....NIV '(IT)does not submit' KJV 'for it is not subject'... Since,when can a sinful man submit to anything!The subject was the carnal mind,not the sinful man!
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
How about the NIV changing (filthy) sodomite to "male prostitute".
Doesn't that completely change the sin from an abomination to prostitution?
What do you guys think of homosexuality in the Bible?
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 So now you are going to lie and say the NIV supports homosexuality?
Leviticus 18 NIV 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20 NIV 13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
1 Corinthians 6 NIV
1 Corinthians 6 NIV 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
Romans 1 NIV
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Boy these guys show up everywhere conveniently bashing KJV bible believers! Maybe they are two witnesses in Revelation Chapter 11!..lol.. I do not think their agenda is winning souls for Jesus Christ because they are to busy go around correcting others in a corrupt way! I still have never received any response reguarding Dan.3:25 from the NIV Perversion! ."son of the gods.." The usual response I get is 'it footed noted.' Which really means it's not that important..
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Comment removed
Keruaran 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Even though I am well able to reply to each of your claims I have decided that I simply don't want to anymore. The thought of wading through an unending cesspool of unrelenting slander, vitriol, disgusting lies, ridiculous conspiracies nourished by inexcusable ignorance is simply too onerous to me. KJV Onlyism is unreasoning moral bankruptcy, happily turning the gospel into a mockery of incompetent apologetic stupidity, bringing the cause of the Christ into disrepute. Contd.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Contd... By their fruit you shall know them and I have not seen the tree of KJV Onlyism produce one single piece of good fruit. I am not willing to cast any more pearls before swine.
Keruaran 1 year ago
Since I have to hold people's hands...
You don't think demoting Jesus deity and removing key words like "through the blood" is important?
Colossians 1:14-15 (KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:14-15 (NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
I've got to go make my kids some dinner.
I've posted a FRACTION of what evidence I have.
And it is irrefutable.
I have given enough. If someone can't tell God's uncorrupted word to the corrupted indeed, there is nothing more I can do.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 You can posture all you like, your "irrefutable" arguments have a nasty habit of getting refuted, and often. You just don't pay attention.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
You didn't refute them.
You guys have IGNORED them.
Like StandForTheFaith did when he retorted by posting scriptures that were not (obviously) corrupted.
All you prove is that the NIV adds confusion!
Such as Jesus said in BOTH the KJV and the NIV that he is the "morning star".
But the NIV says that the MORNING STAR fell from heaven in Isaiah 14 where the KJV correctly said LUCIFER fell from heaven!
What is that? Truth in some and a LIE where it counts!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
I do not have time to answer every one of your posts right now, but rest assured every one of them will be answered in due course. But for now tell me what part of statements like,
"the word "Lucifer"... does not appear in ANY Hebrew text"
Or...
"You... wont find "lucifer" in the Septuagint, widely used by the early Church and quoted by the Apostles"
Do you not understand?
Keruaran 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Comment removed
Keruaran 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Comment removed
Keruaran 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Comment removed
Keruaran 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Comment removed
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
All sorts of scripture is deduced to nothing. And it's so subtle, most people don';t notice.
Luke 22:64 (KJV) And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
Luke 22:64 (NIV) They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?"
Verse after verse. It is subtle however demoted throughout.
I can't believe anyone would prefer the NIV over the WORD.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
The NIV removes the word Lucifer and instead says that JESUS fell from heaven
Isaiah 14:12
Psalms 12:6-7 BUTCHERED in the NIV, meaning changed.
(This one is important,l it's about God preserving his word).
Revelation 22:18-19 Book of Life changed to "tree of life".
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV removes GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. Thus the power of that verses is weakened. Total BUTCHERY!
Romans 14:10 Christ's deity attacked. Changed "Christ" to "God". ....
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
How about when they change "son of God" to "son of man"? John 9:35
Micah 5:2 is a HUGE corruption! You can not defend this crap!
The KJV says Jesus is everlasting (eternal). The NIV and others say Jesus has an origin! B L A S P H E M Y !
Matthew 8:29, Matthew 16:20 etc and in many places, Jesus name omitted in the NIV.
John 4:42 They remove the name "Christ" and replace it with simply "man".
These are all powerful scriptures, but powerless int he NIV, etc.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
John 6:69 (KJV) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
John 6:69 (NIV) We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
Again, Christ omitted. So who are they talking about?
Not too mention, the NIV clutters the entire scripture up with odd indentations and worthless footnotes. Making it confusing and more difficult to memorize verses by number.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
Butchered. CHRIST and COME IN IN THE FLESH omitted.
1 John 4:3 (KJV) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3 (NIV) but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
John 9 NIV 35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." 37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Son of man refers to his humanity but Jesus is fully human and fully divine. The man called him Lord and worshiped him.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Your claim regarding Jesus having an origin is false.
John 1 NIV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 17 NIV
4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@StandForTheFaith
Not every verse is corrupted.
But the one I showed was indeed corrupted. On purpose.
How come when I show you an OBVIOUSLY corrupted scripture you defend it with a scripture that is not corrupted?
That's not helping your belief in that perverted bible.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 The NIV is not a perverted Bible. Which verse exactly are you referring to?
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Also referring to Jesus in Revelation.
Revelation 22 NIV 12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Matthew 8 NIV
29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
Who do you think the Son of God is? Who but Jesus who is God could torment the demons?
Matthew 16 NIV
20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Who do you think the Christ is if not Jesus Christ?
Matthew 1 NIV
16..... the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
John 4 NIV 42They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
Who do you think the savior of the world is? There is only one savior and that is Christ.
1 John 4 NIV
14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
The NIV does not "remove" the word "Lucifer" as this word does not appear in ANY Hebrew text. Do you presume the KJV rendering of "lucifer" from the Latin Vulgate is somehow more correct than the Hebrew Masoretic text (Biblia Hebraica) the NIV relies on? The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the Masoretic Text to be nearly identical to texts of the Tanakh dating from 200BC. You also wont find "lucifer" in the Septuagint, widely used by the early Church and quoted by the Apostles!
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Isaiah does not say that Jesus fell from Heaven. Read that verse in context again. Also remember that Satan pre-fall was an anointed cherub, a created angel. The Bible states that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light. Morning stars equal angels and is also referred to in the Book of Job.
Psalm 12 is referring to people and not God's Word.
The Book of Life is where your name is written if you are saved.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@StandForTheFaith Isaiah does not say "Jesus fell from Heaven" at all. Its time for you to stop inserting meanings into the text that aren't there. It doesn't matter if you're reading the NIV, NASB or ESV, they do not say what you are implying. If you read in context it is quite easy to see it is not referring to Jesus. Read my previous post again and pay attention this time as it completely shuts down any argument for rendering the verse with "lucifer".
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran I think you made a post to the wrong person. Oops!
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@StandForTheFaith Oh... I did too, sorry!
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran I should just mind my own business. LOL I'm tired and going to bed. I have my quota in for the day.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
1 Timothy 3:16 NIV
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
Footnote: d Or in the flesh
John 1 NIV
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Philippians 2 NIV 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Isaiah does not say "Jesus fell from Heaven" at all. Its time for you to stop inserting meanings into the text that aren't there. Modern Bibles do not say what you are implying. If you read in context it is quite easy to see it is not referring to Jesus. Read my previous post about it again and pay attention this time as it completely shuts down any argument for rendering the verse with "lucifer". At least for sensible people it does.
Keruaran 1 year ago
(KJB) Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
(NIV) Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
According to the NIV, Jesus had a ORIGIN not eternal!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, you should know THIS one!
(KJB) John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(NIV) John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Yeah, the crummy FOOTNOTE (a) stuck in there which only adds to CONFUSION even admits it should say "only begotten son"!
Subtle yet wicked ATTACK!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
How about the NIV removing just one phrase so the entire meaning is changed?
(NIV) Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
So basically if you are ever angry at your brother you are in sin?
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's what the NIV is missing...
(KJB) Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
You see. You are only in sin if you are angry "WITHOUT A CAUSE"!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
I could go on and one with literally hundreds of verses that are DIRECT attacks on Jesus deity or that which directly do a direct reversal of the meaning entirely!
Still want to defend the NIV?
We don't need to read Greek or Hebrew to understand what I just demonstrated. It should be obvious now.
If you really care about believing on Jesus and on his word, you should be mad at those who perverted his word, as subtly as it seemed, rather than me.
I'm only the messenger of the truth.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 I will answer the rest of your posts later. Right now I have to take a break and get some sleep.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
The KJV didn't add anything.
You're confusing yourself by looking at a language you likely don't read and are likely using the corrupt Greek that the NIV used.
I know there is the glorious Textus Receptus loyally hand copied and verified by REAL men of God. The originals being worn out and that they found some old corrupted greek text in tact (in tact because Christians knew not to use them!).
But I don't need that. God preserved his word for us in English.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
... and your defense of the NIV and other perVersions who called Joseph Jesus father is pathetic. It was DELIBERATELY DONE!
As I said, you may think the NIV and others are all the same at first glance.
But if you actually read them the corruption was quite deliberate.
If every word was changed no one would have ever been deceived to read a Revised bible or ultimately the NIV.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
It's the subtle attack. And with these changes, it is no doubt to me why the KJV has God's power and spirit and the other deceptions do not!
It is no wonder why every Christian who is strong enough to go up publicly against atheists and evolutionists has only been able to do so when using the glorious infallible KING JAMES BIBLE!
Because yet again, when it comes to explaining creation in God's literal sense, the NIV has changed enough to allow confliction.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
"It is no wonder why every Christian who is strong enough to go up publicly against atheists and evolutionists has only been able to do so when using the glorious infallible KING JAMES BIBLE!"
This statement is plainly and simply false.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
Oh yeah?
The ONLY creationists I know who are able to debate and crush evo's and atheists are ones who use the KJV Bible.
The NIV and the alike are messed up enough to cause confusion for the Christian and give ammo to the atheist.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Since you are into late manuscripts that feature additions to the text, perhaps you should add an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not think!".
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
Fool.
The MOST USED TEXTS are destroyed.
Of course they found the old perverted texts in tact. Real Christians REJECTED those filthy rags!
We don't even need to try to find old greek/hebrew.
The proof is in the current English translations which represent each.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Name calling does not help your arguments. You have no textual evidence to substantiate your fanciful stories and have not produced any. Period.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Since your only response now is to call my post "pathetic" and merely return to repeating the same old claims, I can only assume that the standard KJVO proof-texts and insinuations of conspiracy with no real facts and evidence to support your claims was all that you had.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Highlighted in my first response was the inconsistency of your arguments. The word "father" is used of Joseph in Luke 2:48 (KJV) as well as "his parents" in 2:41. Yet, we hear not a word of criticism against KJV. If you were to be honest and consistent, you would either apply the same standard to the KJV you do with the NIV, or you would simply abandon Luke 2:33 as a KJVO proof-text.
At least, that's what a reasonable person might do.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! I was waiting for you to whip that one out.
Better read that again.
WHO called Joseph Jesus' father? It wasn't the author of the Bible!
Like 2:48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. "
That was MARY calling him father. Not the author of the Bible.
The author never refers to Joseph as Jesus' father. Unless it is the NIV, etc. Luke 2:33
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
..., and that is exactly the kind of thing that is corrupted throughout, as subtle as it may seem, that an atheist would use in a debate on creation, deity of Jesus, etc.
I repeat. The KJV author never refers to Joseph as Jesus' "father". Only the new age bibles do that.
When Mary called him Jesus' father, that was her words. And the author was accurate in noting her words.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 And here we are back to the mere repetition of the same claims again. You'll do anything you can to segue back into the same old rut wont you? Can't you provide better arguments?
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 No, you're going to have to do a lot better than that. It doesn't matter if you have Mary saying it or Matthew writing it. You're simply applying double standards to create controversy where there isn't any. My response has been clear and reasonable, you should try the same.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
I already know Mary said that. That is moot to the accuracy of the Bibles.
The author of the Bible would NEVER refer to Joseph as Jesus' father when Jesus himself never does! That is confusion. And the NIV is full of it.
I refuse to believe that the textus receptus added Acts 8:37. It doesn't make any sense without Acts 8:37
The Catholics and new ager's don't want you to know you must believe on Jesus BEFORE being baptized.
The Catholic church hates the KJV.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Of course it escapes you that you wont find Jesus calling Joseph his father in the NIV either. There is no confusion here and no conspiracy. I do find it fascinating that you are apparently incapable of reasonable argumentation without constantly having to recycle the same old claims without evidence, name calling and conspiracy theories.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@Keruaran
They wouldn't make it that obvious. The NIV would not have made it into churches, even watered down churches, if they were that obvious to have Jesus call Joseph father.
But you must admit you never caught the other changes.
I've never even been to a church that preached bold or even entire chapters when using the NIV. It's crap.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
Look at this butchery!
Matthew 27:35 (KJV) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
They NIV reduces it simply to:
Matthew 27:35 (NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
What the?! Where's the power of that verse now? Not in the NIV!!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Was the scripture fulfilled in the NIV perVersion?
Mark 15:28 (NIV) (All I hear are crickets chirping. There is no Mark 15:28 in the NIV!)
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
John 6 KJV 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
StandForTheFaith 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
The KJV didn't but the TR which relies on only a few late texts included many additions to the text that have been made apparent by the discovery of much earlier and better attested texts. Allegations of corruption or stories about how texts were worn out because they were used more are simply not supported by facts and evidence.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
The NIV does not have "without cause" in Matt 5:22 because the Greek text that underlies it does not contain the Greek term "eivkh". It is found in all modern Greek texts in their textual notes and the NIV includes it in the verses footnote as well. You could make a case for its inclusion as it is found in a variety of manuscripts and has early attestation. Some of the oldest texts do not have it though. Translators make judgements based on facts, not conspiracy.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Still on Matt 5:22: Jesus is speaking in the context of sinful anger. He speaks of calling a brother a "fool." He is obviously not speaking about righteous anger as exemplified in Jesus' anger at the hard-hearted Pharisees. To compare the two passages is to compare apples and oranges. You have to be looking for "contradictions" to come up with this.
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
Does Matt 5:21 compared to Acts 5:1-10 make God a sinner in the KJV? No? How then does Matt 5:22 compared with John 2:13-17 make Christ a sinner in the NIV?
Matt 5:22 ends with, "whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
If you are going to be at all consistent then does this not make Jesus, the Father and Paul each deserving of hell in the following verses: Matt 23:17, 23:19, Luke 11:40, 12:20, Luke, 1 Cor 15:36?
Or is this just double standards?
Keruaran 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777
In this case I do not agree with the NIV translators who believed that the context of Micah 5:2 was suggestive of Davidic lineage of the Messiah. But this is far from being a conspiracy. Like the AV1611, the NIV contains a footnote saying it can also be rendered, "from days of eternity'". Incidentally, the NASB is superior to both, choosing to simply give the most literal rendering as, "From the days of eternity".
Keruaran 1 year ago
How do you explain King james? King James was a homosexual who was buried with his homosexual partner.
Dexter123Man 1 year ago
@Dexter123Man
That is an all out lie. That's how it's explained.
Unlike the PROVEN FACT that the NIV makers were non Christians and homosexuals because we can both currently look those people up and see their other fruits (works like GLBT) and the fruits of their work in the NIV which removes much of the homosexual sin, the KJV bible absolutely without a doubt tells God's true word about homosexuality.
Something a "homosexual king" would have certainly objected to.
Nice try.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 First,do your reseach on King James,and you will see that he had same sex reationships.Second,you say,"Something a "homosexual king" would have certainly objected to" doesn't prove King James was not gay,look at Ted Hagee and Bishop Eddie Long, they both were against homosexuals and yet,they were caught having homosexual sex,in other words,hypocrites are everywhere and King James falls in this category.
Dexter123Man 1 year ago
@Dexter123Man
There is NO fact that King James was a filthy sodomite. New age idiots made that up.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
Ignorance is bliss
Gideom007 1 year ago
The NASB is a better translation because they went back to the Actual Greek and Hebrew text. To say if you don't understand the KJV then you must not be saved is just stupid. They didn't talk the way the KJV was written. Like Shakespeare. I've seen many many people come to Christ through the teachings of Charles Stanley, Andy Stanley, Louie Giglio, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin McManus, and many others. None of them use the KJV. Wonder what paster steve thinks of them?
sloeffler 1 year ago
@sloeffler
Uh, the "actual" greek text they use is the exact same as the NIV and other perversions. Crafted by Wescott and hort.
Not THEE Greek text handed down by servants of God that the KJV used.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 1 year ago
Read Gal5:12 where Paul is telling the Apostles he wishes they would go further and cut themselves off.Look up and several othr trans and find the vicious Saul actually said he wished they would castrate themselves.Paul was predicted by Jacob as the one who would kill and then divide.Killed followrs of Jesus and divides his church.Jesus said this robber came into the fold another way.Jesus IDs saul in Rev2.Saul admits all of Jesus'churches rejected him to Timothy..false apostle and deceiver.
thedagonjones 1 year ago
@thedagonjones
You heretic!
HeresyHunter1711 1 year ago
ha ha ha. "Hot off the press 1980."
bajojohn 1 year ago
KJV is the inerrant Word of God. If you can't understand it you are more than likely "not saved". Any bible that removes the blood of Jesus is nothing short of evil doctrine. There has not been one single national revival since these new "user friendly" bibles have come on the scene. Old fashioned preaching from the KJV, putting people under conviction is the only thing that gets the job done.
vbmason24 1 year ago
@vbmason24
I would not even know where to start in exposing your foolish logic and assertions. You must buy into the godless view of pragmatism? Do you have any idea about textual variations? Do you have any knowledge of the issue of translations? Obviously you don't.
HeresyHunter1711 1 year ago
@vbmason24 I know