People keep defending their betrayers. Many willingly celebrate these wildly wicked weird witchcraft holidays from the weathered old Roman religion of rapists. Are these holidays the beautiful side of evil?...Well, evil, is still evil no matter how it is served to you. The Lord God shall a put curse on all who celebrate these holidays of Hell. You and your children' s children shall suffer plague and death. The Holy Bible explains this fact.
This guy's fatal flaw is the same as other KJV-onlyists. The KJV is the assumed standard. His position is this. If there are verses in the KJV that are not in the other translations, then the modern translations took it/them away. If there are verses/words found in the modern translations but not in the KJV, then the modern translations added to God's word. Nothing more than classic circular reasoning...comparing all other English translations to an English translation. Not scholarly.
@rodwyr Nope, seems that this passage was referred to by Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). It was quoted by the earliest church fathers in their writings before it was removed in favor of modern textual scholarship.
This is the problem for the new scholars... what do we do with the testimony of the earliest church leaders?
@rodwyr The fatal flaw is really that the modern versions are based on corrupted manuscripts. The varied pro-KJV positions (not sure if I am technically a KJV-O) stem from the position that the KJV is based on perfect manuscripts.
That's why they used so many manuscripts...side-by-side comparison. The modern translations include footnotes indicating "some manuscripts omit this" or "some manuscripts include that"...Same thing with KJV's and italicized words. 2 different means, same end.
Not sure you were aware, but the place where the KJV-Only group get their approved texts were from Antioch, which was part of the Roman Empire? The "corruption" started there. (cont'd)
@rodwyr (Italic 1) The italicized words in the KJV is NOT like the footnotes in the modern versions. They are actually a testimony of the honesty of the translators. Two different scenarios are available. First scenario is some words were needed for the sentence structure of the English language to make sense. But as these words were not in directly in the originals the translators italicized them to differentiate them. (continue to Italic 2)
@rodwyr (Italic 2) Second is a selection of words that may have been missing in some of the Greek manuscripts they had in that time but they had evidence from other languages. This suggests that that missing words were errors made by the person copying the manuscript.
**Sorry, I noticed an error in my last post referring to manuscripts that the translators had as "originals". Of course they were not the original penned manuscripts.
The footnotes in the modern translations give the same testimony of the honesty of the translators. I never had a problem with the KJV's usage of the italicized words, and I never had a problem with footnotes in the modern translations. It's all about showing all of the evidence available, nothing more.
"Originals" error noted. No biggie. It happens, brother. I've done it, too.
@rodwyr - It makes a difference, friend. If it isn't quoted or placed in line like the Authorized King James Version, it is easily passed over, easily omitted. However, if it is entered in-line, it is usually read, italics notwithstanding. The Originals error may be "noted", but they are not corrected. Big difference...
Not as big as you might think. I've seen in both the KJV and the modern versions use numbers and letters to indicate other points. Numbers used to indicate another way to translate the word(s) and letters to indicate other passages to look at. Even seen something like stars or other indicators to indicate whether some manuscripts added or omitted parts. Either way, there are indicators to the footnotes.
To rodwyr - Apples and Oranges. When the KJV uses notes and letters, it is for cross referencing. When Modern Translations use the same it is because they are pointing out the keys that have been omitted. If there are stars or letters inndicating that the KJV has omitted scripture, then it is up to you to prove it - in the words of my football coach, "Put up or shut up." The KJV I have and read uses letters for cross references, not omissions. Per your claim, put up the proof.
Sorry for the ambiguity on the last post. Stars, brackets, or what-have-you, I've seen in the modern translations, not necessarily the KJV. I have a KJV that uses numbers, like the modern translations, showing a more literal translation or a different way of translating a word or phrase. One example in my copy of the KJV in Mark 16:14. Ex. "Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat (1)at meat..." In the center column, it shows (1)together. There are other examples, too.
In regards to omitted passages or sections, Mark 16:9-20. The KJV shows no footnotes, but I have a copy of an NASB. It shows verses 9-20, but adds a footnote in the margin showing that later manuscripts add these verses. As I said before, both the KJV committee and the committees of the modern translations strove to achieve the same goal...the most accurate translation possible, with the most available manuscripts, in the language of today.
@rodwyr The KJV shows no footnotes or marginal notes because they have ommitted them. If you look at the facimilie bibles you will see where the King James translators couldnt agree on which words to use. I believe the KJV is the best bible and has done the greatest good for english christendom. But perfect as this man believes no.
So....if I follow this guy right. We should include verses that agree with our theology, even if they were not added until 600 A.D. Does out theology dictate which verses we add into the Bible? Or should the translation team look for the most reliable and authoratative texts.
Hehe....this guy is a joke. The 1611 KJV included the Apocraphal books. They were incuded in all the earlier translations like wycliffes. It wasnt untill 1627 when some puritan printers deleted them. Printers, not translators.....because they didnt like them.
@prairiemark Come on now be intellectually honest. King James and the translators didn't consider Apocraphal books scripture. They were pretty open about that fact.
@SamuelinDetroit Lets see now.the Maththew Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible, Douay Rheims Bible, Zurich Bible, Gutenburg,...as well as Codex Vaticanus,Codex Sinaiticus,Codex Alexandrius....all included apocraphal books...The Septuigiant of course did too....How can they not be considered scripture? Luther grouped the apocraphal books together between the testaments because he didnt like them I guess and considered them of lesser authority. Continued......
@prairiemark Of course Luther didn't like the content of the apocraphal books so he wanted to marginalize them and group them between the OT and NT.....likewise he had grave doubts about Hebrews,James,Jude and Revelations......and he grouped them together at the end of the Bible ...likely to marginalize them in a similar way. Does that make these books less authoratative?
@prairiemark In 1626 when the British and Foriegn Bible Society decided not to include the apocraphal books in printings they financed. Many of the early Puritians had high regard for these books.....John Bunyan for example considered them very useful and he said he got spiritual strenght from them. The church of England likewise regarded them highly.
By the way @MrEdreiss There always has been and always will be those who corrupt God's word (until Christ's return that is) most offenders are religious people.The Bible is laced with warnings about this type of thing but we have always had the origional manuscripts to go back and check it out for ourself. Matthew 7:15 just to name one.
If God's word was missing scripture (manuscripts as you say it) for many years, than many years the Bible didn't exist on the earth. So, for many years, man didn't know how to be saved and Christianity died out. But, this didn't happen because it is not true. Otherwise, according to scripture, this would make Jesus a liar: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33
so when the KJV was written it contained many manuscripts. many years after when we found manuscripts from a time that was closer to the original text than what KJV possessed. So since it wasn't in those earlier texts they didn't add it, however, at the bottom of Acts 8 in the footnotes you will see it there. Now it doesnt make in the KJV wrong, because like Martin Luther always said "let scripture interpret scripture" so while King James was theologically correct, it was in the manuscripts
you guys have lost it. you will know them by there fruit. other tans bring glory to God and repentans from dead works. you guys are just attacking and bringing confusion in young converts.
Thank`s David for these videos. I used to study the maimed niv bible. Not anymore.
I just got my giant print KJV but some of the words used in KJV like ``thou, thine, didst thus, saith, ect`` distract me and make it hard for me to focus on the meaning of what the scriptures have to say.
How about NKJV, is that a trust worthy translation?
Does he understand that modern Bibles are translated from texts much older than Erasmus' "textus receptus"? Those verses or words are omitted because they don't appear in the older documents. It isn't a conspiracy to change doctrine or take away God's Word.
People this guy in the video is basically telling us the works of Satan! things are omitted to keep people in darkness! Have you seen the movie book of Eli? Get a Torah or King James Version while you can, before bibles are done away with like the Constitution of the United States!
Get the book! LOL.....Why did you waste all of my time! Just get a Greek and Hebrew and discover what the Bible really says! What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
@proginosko I am happy that you are not worshiping the KJV. It only leads to division! And after all if one needs to, he could also get a parallel Bible with 4 interruptions!....I am not sure who you mean "we"! As this man in the video seems to be in love with the version and seems to be worshiping it: after all he wrote a book about it! I despise the thought that anyone thinks that the KJV is some how inspired!
@Godpleaser77 I disagree that the man in the video worships the KJV. Maybe I don't know what you mean by worship. I do not believe that any English translation is inspired. However, I also do not buy into the standard line of the modern textual critics. The Textus Receptus Greek Manuscript is the inspired providentially preserved Word of God.
Good afternoon Sir. I hope you are well. As you know, this verse did appear until 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus. No one knows on what authority this verse was "added" or "removed" However, I have found that a doctrine as important as a belief and dedication to Christ as the Son of God is not restricted to one verse. This imperative is scattered throughout the Bible. The presence or absence of this verse has no impact on the clear message of the Bible.
Wow... hey Does your bible have the "Book of the Wars of the Lord"? That's missing too.
Numbers 21:14 Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, "Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,
Oh and looky here demons believe Jesus is the Son of God, can they be baptized too?
Luke 4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.
@jumbaljoe NO! You're the Hertetic!! You are a blasphemer and are of the demons. You are of Satan! Yes, Satan and all of his demons know who Jesus is. That doesn't change anything. They have lost and know they will be going to the lake of fire very soon. They are still working on people like you to keep you away from salvation so you too can join them in the fire. Jesus Christ is Lord and they know it and their time is near to be tormented forever in the Lake of Fire.
Matthew 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Just because you believe Jesus is Lord doesn't save you. Satan and his demons believe that he is GOD but they are not saved from the fire. One must believe in Jesus as Lord and accept him as their saviour for their sins, therefore giving their life to Jesus and living his comandments as a result of the Holy Spirit working inside of them.
Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?
NO
The answer is very simple and its that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on.
When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.
@lovemymac Paul said in his epistles that even during the time that he was writting them, men were corrupting the Word of God. That would be in first century. The argument that the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts is an erroneous argument.
I don't see anyone bashing anyone in this video, all I see is someone pointing out the truth, these scriptures are missing in some Bible versions and that is very important to salvation. If anyone is feeling bashed by this man's comments it is conviction from God not this man bashing you and your beliefs. God loves us and the Holy Spirit has became present here to help us all to find salvation by the ways Jesus taught which lead to the cross.
wow do you litteraly not know the process of translation of the Bible. Most versions didn't see those verses in the older texts. So instead of what they seen as adding to the bible they took it out. Most other translation will have that verse in the foot notes discribing the reason for taking out that verse and puting it in the foot notes.
Besides, Jesus said let children come to me. He never set a certain age. The specific verse -that is not missing from the Greek Bible- was addressed to a specific perosn who happens to be an ADULT and it says what are the requirements for an adult to be baptized. Any other interpetation is complety wrong and hypothetic.
Actually EVERY translation of the Bible is defective. Even modern Greek is problematic. Most English translations are HORRIBLE.
This is why people should trust the Greek Orthodox Church.
The idea of not baptizing children this is a novelty. Children were baptized just as they were circumcized. The idea of batizing only adults is rationalization of faith that leaves out mentaly retarted people for instance or children that die before they become adults.
its only in the foots so when they are in front of God they can "its in the foot note." Rerevelation 22:18,19. Who reads footnotes aways? and footnotes in bible do nothing but confuse people
So in the bible it says that baptism is what was circumcision. Babies were circumcised. So your saying that the new covenant is more exclusive the old covenant?
Also, I am a Roman Catholic. I have a complete bible. It is the RSV. That passage is in there in its entirety. So to say that a person like me doesn't have a complete bible is a complete lie or ignorance on your part.
@nate12387 Actually verse 38 is in the footnotes, This is because not all the ancient authorities have this verse in there. So not it comes down to textual criticism.
The King James Version is the true word of God do some research about king James and you will find he pretty much founded America hard to believe buy true
I'm sure that anybody, ANYBODY, can get saved through any modern version of the Bible. BUT... if you truly want to be a Bible student, if you really want to hold a preserved Word of G-d, I mean, if you ever come to the position of defending the Bible, you ought to get a King James Bible (because the new Bible versions that I'm aware of have some real serious errors & contradictions built in! But I'm not aware of any in the King James.)
Amen! I was once a hard KJV Camper until it finally hit me through Kent Hovind. Anyone can be saved through a modern Bible but if one was to defend or preach the Word he's to have a KJV. Encouraging to see other's with the same opinion. God Bless!
::"I'm sure that anybody, ANYBODY, can get saved through any modern version of the Bible" --- This is the type of thing I hear when discussing the bad versions. Maybe that is true, but that is like saying anyone can get some nutrition by eating their own manure because not everything is fully digested. Would you give a hungry person manure or pure milk and meat?
@Eye2EyeIIIV Besides, as you say salvation is not the ony issue in the Bible so why defend the polluted meat and drink of the Babylonians? Yes, I am a hard core KJV man.. The folks who whose the others will have to apologize to God for that just like any other sin.
The KJV is based on the received text which is based on the majority of all Bible supporting Greek manuscripts {95%} of about 5,200 pieces and the mass-erotic Hebrew text which is different than the new bibles which are based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrenus which are totally tampered with and messed with and changed and corrected many times. One was found in the popes library another was found in the garbage can in a monastery which were the Egyptian Alexandrian type. Worthless
lilokilani, where do you get your information? Are you parroting what others have said without verifying, because it's what you would like to believe.
Dude, I have removed all comments on this video because I see that this man and his rabid, controlling opinons breed nothing but hatred and division. And given his character it is clear he intends just taht. And none of that behavior comes form G-d. Scary how many "devout Christians" are on his post souting hatred, antisemetic remarks and outright bigotry. Scary how one man can create so much strife with such a video. The fruits of his labor... I need to separate myself from this.
Mr. Daniels is disingenuous, he knows the answer to his question as to why this verse has been left out.
Textual scholars conclude it was not supposed to be in there in the first place. Those who study the texts, arranging them chronologically and by genre recognize that the verse appears to have been added later as earlier manuscripts don't contain that verse.
Nothing is lost from the Scriptures there are plenty of texts that still clearly explain the way of salvation without this verse.
Just GOOGLE "apocrypha contradictions". See what books belong in the canon of Scripture. 66 - no more, no less.
Watch Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" here on Youtube. INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE as to the 1611 KJV being the true Word of God. The JESUITS are still howling.
Go do even a cursory study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will find copies of Enoch Sirach, Tobit, etc included along with the other books found in the Bible. Your point is a non-point.
yeah I found out that the KJV is missing whole books:
* Letter of Aristeas * Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah * Joseph and Aseneth * Life of Adam and Eve * Lives of the Prophets * Ladder of Jacob * Jannes and Jambres * History of the Rechabites * Eldad and Modad * History of Joseph * Odes of Solomon * Prayer of Joseph * Prayer of Jacob.
Watch Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" here on Youtube. Throw your NIV, NASB, Douay Rheims in the dumpster. No, don't do that. Shred them or burn them. Someone may get this GARBAGE out of the garbage.
tell the truth about what ive done? sounds like youre making it out that ive murdered a whole bunch of people or something...so what have I done thats so bad then? im sorry im not 100% sinlessly perfect like you are guess im nto a Christian coz i still sin, as do you and everyone else no one is 100% sinless
I wonder how many of the people making comments have a personal relationship with the Lord? How many have asked for His wisdom to understand his Word? Or is this just a debate between self proclaimed know it alls, throwing opinions back and forth? I try to read the Bible every day, and usually don't grasp the TRUE meaning I am reading the first time. But I do ask the Lord for His wisdom, because being a part of mankind, my wisdom is finite. God's wisdom is infinite.
the kjv was translated by william tesdale who was killed by the roman catholic church.. so blood was shead over the kjv bible .. it is the word of god
Blood was shed over Galileo's stuff too... uh.. and Buddhas and lots and lots and lots of blood over the wacked out teachings of the pedophine Mohammud.... so I guess that means... oh never mind... this is like talking to a mushroom....
Erasmus considered the catholic texts of the time, but disregarded them as polluted and erroneous. His Greek Textus Receptus led directly to the reformation when read by Martin Luther and others. The Holy Roman Church\State removed the Word from the people and implemented a corrupt system that plunged the world into the dark ages for 1100yrs and almost 700 yrs of inquisition. Rome was also notably silent during WWII when Jews were rounded up in Italy without a single word from the pontiff.
The catholic church emphasizes ritual, sacraments and penance over grace. The KJV is based on the greek textus recptus. This was compiled by a renowned catholic monk Erasmus who compiled the original greek, aramaic and hebrew texts, but remained true to the manuscripts without editing. It is the whole Word of God and why there is such a distinct difference between the KJV and all others and why the KJV is attacked relentlessly.
All of the modern translations with the exception of the paraphrased versions are based on catholic texts. Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Vulgate and Septuagint. These "older" manuscripts took the existing texts used by the faithful and edited them to conform to catholic\pagan dogma and ritual. That is why key words and verse pertaining to the divinity of Christ, salvation by Grace through faith and the blood of Christ are removed.
im surprised that you lack common sense and even fail at 3rd grade english...you do realise that words have more then one meaning dont you? kill has more then 1 meaning, go use a dictionary to see the other meanings for their respective contexts...kill doesnt just have 1 meaning. The KJV does say thou shalt not bear false witness anyway, it doesnt change it. Why are you so obsessed with the 10 commandments anyway this isnt judaism anymore its christianity, were not under the law anymore.
Since I ain't no Bible scholar, I reckon I'd jes have to be a choosin' which version seems more accurate: the one that says what's necessary to be baptised or the one that don't.
FUN FACT! The KJV is the only bible not copyrighted. The others are! What motivation would one have to copyright a bible? $. King James Version is the word of God!
Why is KJV not copyrighted? Simple. KJV came out of the Authorized Version, which was copyrighted in 16th century. Copyrights was understood that the intellectual property can only be held for a certain number of years. 400 years later, why would a dead king and its dead authors care about collecting royalty anymore? They dead, and they can't bring their gold to heaven, sarcastically speaking. The "$" argument by bullhonkeymofo isn't accurate. King James needed to pay his translators back then.
Here's are some good questions for you. If it's about the money, why are Christian bookstores selling KJV Bibles? Who are pocketing the money? Publishers? Ministries? Or other unknown receipients? King Jimmy's translators needed the funds in order to eat. Hebrew scribes of old needed pay in order to eat. Have you ever thought of that? Let's be reasonable. If the criteria is such that $ is not to be involved, KJV should be completely free for all. FUN FACT!! IT'S NOT FREE!! One has to cough up $
Which one? The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Also, the KJV was based on the "Bishop's Bible." So then, wouldn't the Bishop's Bible be the inspired text? Also, the original KJV included the Apocrypha. Are those books inspired?
Wrong. The Catholic Church at the 1546 Council of Trent declared that the following apocryphal books ARE inspired and thus are included in the canon of scripture: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.
The new translations haven't been around very long and alot of people who are carrying them are younger people who think they are acceptable. When I was younger, the Bible wasn't questioned like it is now and picked apart like it is. The Bible has to be taken as a whole and it stands up against any false translation that comes out these days. I have watched things change over the years but the Wrod of God is never changing.
Amen merrysmerrys!! I'm encouraged to hear somebody with that sense of interest to dig into the Bible and devour it for its worth. We need to question the Bible and pick it apart to There are indeed lots of poor translations out there which are misleading. The Word of God will forever remain, even with the presence of imperfect translations. KJV isn't immune either. English is not THE perfect language to match every word for word. But the very essence of God's Word will never perish. Praise God
You really take the time to follow my husband around on You Tube? This is on top of the time you have spent making a channel & videos. Don't you have a job? a family? anything better to do with your time? You are as pathetic and as insane as the birth giver Pat.
A) That verse is a universally recognized corruption of scripture that was added later.
B) Just because you like the sound of something doesn't mean that it must be God's word.
C) Your entire argument is based on how much better you think the bible is with the spurious verse.
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book - Revelation 22:18
Who should you trust? The leading scientists or the Word of God? Who should you trust? "Christian" celebrities or the
Word of God? Phillipians 2:6 is blasphemous in most versions. Nobody cares because peer pressure is more important today than Truth. If John Doe Radio Preacher uses a New Version and my best church buddies use a New Version, it can't be wrong, can it? I gave the deacons in my church 150 verse comparisons proving that the new versions are profane. They promptly kicked me out.
BUahahahahaha.. this guy is random.. he is a nobody preacher in the back woods who beleives women are his "footstool." And that G-d "speaks directly to him" so no one should dare question how he interprets the Bible. What a nut job.
Very good video! I've read the book by this author. He knows what he is talking about. Very well researched. He actually examines each version comparing over 250 verses and shows what is missing from them.
I agree he does his research, but he injects many of his personal opinions too. With regards to what's in this video, regarding the passage of Acts 8:37 taken out is directly accusing that the scribes (who lived earlier than the scribes who penned the ancient texts used for KJV) of TAKING TEXT OUT b/c THEY WANT TO BAPTIZE BABIES??? Where do you see the logic in that?? It's flawed opinion on this author's part. That's only one of the uncountable flaws in his books, without sound historical proof.
You can also tell a lot about idiots who make statments like ByeCruelWorld. His name alone speaks of his aimlessness, purposelessness, and uselessness!
I'm sure everyone is quite impressed with your scholarly refutation of the speaker...NOT!
Wrong. 10 years ago I wanted a disposable email address. I tried many nicknames but all were taken. I typed in byecruelworld in exasperation, intending to try another provider, and was amused that it was ironically accepted, so I kept it
BTW, I spent 15 years helping disabled people in both paid and voluntary positions, and I've been a teacher for the last six years. So your entire allegation is fallacious
oooh...fallacious! I like big words like this. I think the definition of it is "the lies I tell are not, but the ones YOU tell are".
Is that about right?
Glad you help others. Try helping yourself...you need it more than they do. Anyone that trashes the Word of God as you have is in serious need of help!
Excuse me? Where is Christ in your words, tigerlilly66? And don't give me that "who are you to judge me" nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, speaking more than necessary.
I have both the KJB and the NIV; I am using the KJB to correct the NIV. ☺
The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the modern versions it occurs - ZERO!!! The affect of this even caused a critic to come out and said 'the word "hell" only appears in the New Testament; therefore, the Old & New Testament don't belong together!' Sorry, but he wasnt holding a Bible.
What is this? A repost of the same message? Was it necessary to start a new one? I replied the previous one, and are you unable to reply my comment?
I ask you, Eye2EyeIIIV. What is your interpretation of Hosea 11:12, if only reading KJV, without consulting Hebrew text? As for my interpretation, I already paraphrased in a reply to your earlier comment below.
I challenge you to show yourself a man who understands his scripture rather than a rabble rouser who misuse quotes.
If I'm correct, the Gideon Society is more than happy if you took them away. If the thief put it to proper use, God is glorified. Whatever the thief does with them, they don't care. If he burns the Bible, they won't care, but it shows the contempt of the one burning them. In return, God will still be glorified, as His Word will remain forever.
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Amen to that. We shouldn't take out God's words, or water it down. But, for staunch KJV supporters who accuse modern translation of taking out verses are equally in danger of accusations of adding words to the Bible (see my previous comments). KJV-only supporter's most favorite verse Ps12:6 says "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." For KJV's source of ancient text, they have words not found in even more ancient-ancient text. Get my drift?
my bible has that verse. whoop whoop
r0baa 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EASTER, CHRISTMAS & TRUTH:
People keep defending their betrayers. Many willingly celebrate these wildly wicked weird witchcraft holidays from the weathered old Roman religion of rapists. Are these holidays the beautiful side of evil?...Well, evil, is still evil no matter how it is served to you. The Lord God shall a put curse on all who celebrate these holidays of Hell. You and your children' s children shall suffer plague and death. The Holy Bible explains this fact.
Private Investigator Sinne
TruthTeller878 8 months ago
Comment removed
TruthTeller878 8 months ago
Also take a look at KJV 1 John 5:7. compare with Modern Language, Living Bible and Revised Standard. Are they the same words by words?
hornerm5 9 months ago
Also take a look at KJV 1 John 5:7. compare with Modern Language, Living Bible and Revised Standard.
hornerm5 9 months ago
This guy's fatal flaw is the same as other KJV-onlyists. The KJV is the assumed standard. His position is this. If there are verses in the KJV that are not in the other translations, then the modern translations took it/them away. If there are verses/words found in the modern translations but not in the KJV, then the modern translations added to God's word. Nothing more than classic circular reasoning...comparing all other English translations to an English translation. Not scholarly.
rodwyr 10 months ago
@rodwyr Nope, seems that this passage was referred to by Irenaeus (202 AD), Cyprian (258 AD), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Pacian (392 AD), Ambrose (397 AD), Augustine (430 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). It was quoted by the earliest church fathers in their writings before it was removed in favor of modern textual scholarship.
This is the problem for the new scholars... what do we do with the testimony of the earliest church leaders?
down8ve 9 months ago
@down8ve
Take it into account. But however valid their testimony is, what do the manuscripts say?
Textual scholarship was used in the 1600's, just like today.
rodwyr 9 months ago
@rodwyr The fatal flaw is really that the modern versions are based on corrupted manuscripts. The varied pro-KJV positions (not sure if I am technically a KJV-O) stem from the position that the KJV is based on perfect manuscripts.
SamuelinDetroit 9 months ago
@SamuelinDetroit
That's why they used so many manuscripts...side-by-side comparison. The modern translations include footnotes indicating "some manuscripts omit this" or "some manuscripts include that"...Same thing with KJV's and italicized words. 2 different means, same end.
Not sure you were aware, but the place where the KJV-Only group get their approved texts were from Antioch, which was part of the Roman Empire? The "corruption" started there. (cont'd)
rodwyr 9 months ago
@rodwyr (Italic 1) The italicized words in the KJV is NOT like the footnotes in the modern versions. They are actually a testimony of the honesty of the translators. Two different scenarios are available. First scenario is some words were needed for the sentence structure of the English language to make sense. But as these words were not in directly in the originals the translators italicized them to differentiate them. (continue to Italic 2)
SamuelinDetroit 9 months ago
@rodwyr (Italic 2) Second is a selection of words that may have been missing in some of the Greek manuscripts they had in that time but they had evidence from other languages. This suggests that that missing words were errors made by the person copying the manuscript.
**Sorry, I noticed an error in my last post referring to manuscripts that the translators had as "originals". Of course they were not the original penned manuscripts.
SamuelinDetroit 9 months ago
@SamuelinDetroit
The footnotes in the modern translations give the same testimony of the honesty of the translators. I never had a problem with the KJV's usage of the italicized words, and I never had a problem with footnotes in the modern translations. It's all about showing all of the evidence available, nothing more.
"Originals" error noted. No biggie. It happens, brother. I've done it, too.
rodwyr 9 months ago
@rodwyr - It makes a difference, friend. If it isn't quoted or placed in line like the Authorized King James Version, it is easily passed over, easily omitted. However, if it is entered in-line, it is usually read, italics notwithstanding. The Originals error may be "noted", but they are not corrected. Big difference...
BLCFrenzy 9 months ago
@BLCFrenzy
Not as big as you might think. I've seen in both the KJV and the modern versions use numbers and letters to indicate other points. Numbers used to indicate another way to translate the word(s) and letters to indicate other passages to look at. Even seen something like stars or other indicators to indicate whether some manuscripts added or omitted parts. Either way, there are indicators to the footnotes.
rodwyr 9 months ago
To rodwyr - Apples and Oranges. When the KJV uses notes and letters, it is for cross referencing. When Modern Translations use the same it is because they are pointing out the keys that have been omitted. If there are stars or letters inndicating that the KJV has omitted scripture, then it is up to you to prove it - in the words of my football coach, "Put up or shut up." The KJV I have and read uses letters for cross references, not omissions. Per your claim, put up the proof.
BLCFrenzy 9 months ago
@BLCFrenzy
Sorry for the ambiguity on the last post. Stars, brackets, or what-have-you, I've seen in the modern translations, not necessarily the KJV. I have a KJV that uses numbers, like the modern translations, showing a more literal translation or a different way of translating a word or phrase. One example in my copy of the KJV in Mark 16:14. Ex. "Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat (1)at meat..." In the center column, it shows (1)together. There are other examples, too.
rodwyr 9 months ago
@BLCFrenzy
In regards to omitted passages or sections, Mark 16:9-20. The KJV shows no footnotes, but I have a copy of an NASB. It shows verses 9-20, but adds a footnote in the margin showing that later manuscripts add these verses. As I said before, both the KJV committee and the committees of the modern translations strove to achieve the same goal...the most accurate translation possible, with the most available manuscripts, in the language of today.
rodwyr 9 months ago
@rodwyr The KJV shows no footnotes or marginal notes because they have ommitted them. If you look at the facimilie bibles you will see where the King James translators couldnt agree on which words to use. I believe the KJV is the best bible and has done the greatest good for english christendom. But perfect as this man believes no.
jhfoote9 5 months ago
@SamuelinDetroit
The question I would rather ask is simply this...
What good is believing in the accuracy of ANY translation of the Bible is you don't believe its contents?
rodwyr 9 months ago
So....if I follow this guy right. We should include verses that agree with our theology, even if they were not added until 600 A.D. Does out theology dictate which verses we add into the Bible? Or should the translation team look for the most reliable and authoratative texts.
prairiemark 10 months ago
Hehe....this guy is a joke. The 1611 KJV included the Apocraphal books. They were incuded in all the earlier translations like wycliffes. It wasnt untill 1627 when some puritan printers deleted them. Printers, not translators.....because they didnt like them.
prairiemark 10 months ago
@prairiemark Come on now be intellectually honest. King James and the translators didn't consider Apocraphal books scripture. They were pretty open about that fact.
SamuelinDetroit 9 months ago
@SamuelinDetroit Lets see now.the Maththew Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Geneva Bible, Douay Rheims Bible, Zurich Bible, Gutenburg,...as well as Codex Vaticanus,Codex Sinaiticus,Codex Alexandrius....all included apocraphal books...The Septuigiant of course did too....How can they not be considered scripture? Luther grouped the apocraphal books together between the testaments because he didnt like them I guess and considered them of lesser authority. Continued......
prairiemark 9 months ago
@prairiemark Of course Luther didn't like the content of the apocraphal books so he wanted to marginalize them and group them between the OT and NT.....likewise he had grave doubts about Hebrews,James,Jude and Revelations......and he grouped them together at the end of the Bible ...likely to marginalize them in a similar way. Does that make these books less authoratative?
prairiemark 9 months ago
@prairiemark In 1626 when the British and Foriegn Bible Society decided not to include the apocraphal books in printings they financed. Many of the early Puritians had high regard for these books.....John Bunyan for example considered them very useful and he said he got spiritual strenght from them. The church of England likewise regarded them highly.
prairiemark 9 months ago
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) has it.
Herrsharp 10 months ago
By the way @MrEdreiss There always has been and always will be those who corrupt God's word (until Christ's return that is) most offenders are religious people.The Bible is laced with warnings about this type of thing but we have always had the origional manuscripts to go back and check it out for ourself. Matthew 7:15 just to name one.
RACARNIE 10 months ago 2
May I humbly suggest using the King James Companion Bible along with the Strong's concordance.Those are best study tools available as I see it.
RACARNIE 10 months ago
If God's word was missing scripture (manuscripts as you say it) for many years, than many years the Bible didn't exist on the earth. So, for many years, man didn't know how to be saved and Christianity died out. But, this didn't happen because it is not true. Otherwise, according to scripture, this would make Jesus a liar: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mat. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33
MrEdreiss 11 months ago
I just experienced a six minute, twenty five second theological infomercial. I want my time back.
simkolkay 11 months ago
that were closer in date to the original texts.
1991dcb 11 months ago
so when the KJV was written it contained many manuscripts. many years after when we found manuscripts from a time that was closer to the original text than what KJV possessed. So since it wasn't in those earlier texts they didn't add it, however, at the bottom of Acts 8 in the footnotes you will see it there. Now it doesnt make in the KJV wrong, because like Martin Luther always said "let scripture interpret scripture" so while King James was theologically correct, it was in the manuscripts
1991dcb 11 months ago
you guys have lost it. you will know them by there fruit. other tans bring glory to God and repentans from dead works. you guys are just attacking and bringing confusion in young converts.
philip2260 11 months ago
Thank`s David for these videos. I used to study the maimed niv bible. Not anymore.
I just got my giant print KJV but some of the words used in KJV like ``thou, thine, didst thus, saith, ect`` distract me and make it hard for me to focus on the meaning of what the scriptures have to say.
How about NKJV, is that a trust worthy translation?
pinnaclesupclose 11 months ago
Does he understand that modern Bibles are translated from texts much older than Erasmus' "textus receptus"? Those verses or words are omitted because they don't appear in the older documents. It isn't a conspiracy to change doctrine or take away God's Word.
MegaUsername1980 1 year ago
@MegaUsername1980 do you understand that 90+% of manuscript evidence agrees with the kjv right and not with modern corrupt counterfeit bibles
DefenseAgainstEvils 1 year ago
@DefenseAgainstEvils so your saying kjv is only 90% correct?
philip2260 11 months ago
@MegaUsername1980 these people have lost it. they now attack Christians cozs they been deceived by Satan.
philip2260 11 months ago
Amen Brother, God Bless your true teaching!
shvesa1 1 year ago
Amen brother!!!!!! God bless
Duggars14 1 year ago
Thanks brother...
i'm mexican, and in spanish we have problems with our translations of the Bible....
buth thanks God, that we are warned about this
lalorayado10 1 year ago
People this guy in the video is basically telling us the works of Satan! things are omitted to keep people in darkness! Have you seen the movie book of Eli? Get a Torah or King James Version while you can, before bibles are done away with like the Constitution of the United States!
jamjr1972 1 year ago 2
@pdflm World English Bible chopped Revelation 2:18 verse 18 writes; " To the angel of the assembly in Thyatira write: ..............where's the rest?
jamjr1972 1 year ago
Get the book! LOL.....Why did you waste all of my time! Just get a Greek and Hebrew and discover what the Bible really says! What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Godpleaser77 1 year ago
@Godpleaser77 We don't worship the King James and yes, we know Paul did not use the King James.
proginosko 1 year ago
@proginosko I am happy that you are not worshiping the KJV. It only leads to division! And after all if one needs to, he could also get a parallel Bible with 4 interruptions!....I am not sure who you mean "we"! As this man in the video seems to be in love with the version and seems to be worshiping it: after all he wrote a book about it! I despise the thought that anyone thinks that the KJV is some how inspired!
Godpleaser77 1 year ago
@Godpleaser77 I disagree that the man in the video worships the KJV. Maybe I don't know what you mean by worship. I do not believe that any English translation is inspired. However, I also do not buy into the standard line of the modern textual critics. The Textus Receptus Greek Manuscript is the inspired providentially preserved Word of God.
proginosko 1 year ago
Good afternoon Sir. I hope you are well. As you know, this verse did appear until 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus. No one knows on what authority this verse was "added" or "removed" However, I have found that a doctrine as important as a belief and dedication to Christ as the Son of God is not restricted to one verse. This imperative is scattered throughout the Bible. The presence or absence of this verse has no impact on the clear message of the Bible.
mark0454 1 year ago
Wow... hey Does your bible have the "Book of the Wars of the Lord"? That's missing too.
Numbers 21:14 Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, "Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,
Oh and looky here demons believe Jesus is the Son of God, can they be baptized too?
Luke 4:41 Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.
You're a heretic.
jumbaljoe 1 year ago
@jumbaljoe NO! You're the Hertetic!! You are a blasphemer and are of the demons. You are of Satan! Yes, Satan and all of his demons know who Jesus is. That doesn't change anything. They have lost and know they will be going to the lake of fire very soon. They are still working on people like you to keep you away from salvation so you too can join them in the fire. Jesus Christ is Lord and they know it and their time is near to be tormented forever in the Lake of Fire.
RaptureOrTribulation 1 year ago
Matthew 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
RaptureOrTribulation 1 year ago
Just because you believe Jesus is Lord doesn't save you. Satan and his demons believe that he is GOD but they are not saved from the fire. One must believe in Jesus as Lord and accept him as their saviour for their sins, therefore giving their life to Jesus and living his comandments as a result of the Holy Spirit working inside of them.
RaptureOrTribulation 1 year ago
Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?
NO
The answer is very simple and its that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on.
lovemymac 1 year ago
@lovemymac CONT
When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.
lovemymac 1 year ago
@lovemymac Paul said in his epistles that even during the time that he was writting them, men were corrupting the Word of God. That would be in first century. The argument that the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts is an erroneous argument.
proginosko 1 year ago
I don't see anyone bashing anyone in this video, all I see is someone pointing out the truth, these scriptures are missing in some Bible versions and that is very important to salvation. If anyone is feeling bashed by this man's comments it is conviction from God not this man bashing you and your beliefs. God loves us and the Holy Spirit has became present here to help us all to find salvation by the ways Jesus taught which lead to the cross.
Castille7 1 year ago
wow do you litteraly not know the process of translation of the Bible. Most versions didn't see those verses in the older texts. So instead of what they seen as adding to the bible they took it out. Most other translation will have that verse in the foot notes discribing the reason for taking out that verse and puting it in the foot notes.
jasofisc 1 year ago
I don't want to meet George in a dark alleyway!
pawntiff 1 year ago
Besides, Jesus said let children come to me. He never set a certain age. The specific verse -that is not missing from the Greek Bible- was addressed to a specific perosn who happens to be an ADULT and it says what are the requirements for an adult to be baptized. Any other interpetation is complety wrong and hypothetic.
theoprovlitos 1 year ago
Actually EVERY translation of the Bible is defective. Even modern Greek is problematic. Most English translations are HORRIBLE.
This is why people should trust the Greek Orthodox Church.
The idea of not baptizing children this is a novelty. Children were baptized just as they were circumcized. The idea of batizing only adults is rationalization of faith that leaves out mentaly retarted people for instance or children that die before they become adults.
theoprovlitos 1 year ago
its only in the foots so when they are in front of God they can "its in the foot note." Rerevelation 22:18,19. Who reads footnotes aways? and footnotes in bible do nothing but confuse people
brbjuke45 1 year ago
@brbjuke45
revsla 1 year ago
So in the bible it says that baptism is what was circumcision. Babies were circumcised. So your saying that the new covenant is more exclusive the old covenant?
Also, I am a Roman Catholic. I have a complete bible. It is the RSV. That passage is in there in its entirety. So to say that a person like me doesn't have a complete bible is a complete lie or ignorance on your part.
nate12387 1 year ago
@nate12387 Actually verse 38 is in the footnotes, This is because not all the ancient authorities have this verse in there. So not it comes down to textual criticism.
nate12387 1 year ago
Oh, and you also can't get baptized if you're missing a limb.
Tough luck.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Excellent video!
888EVANGELIST 1 year ago
it's not in my bible , but its in the foot notes. a verse doesn't deserve to be treated that way!
verses ≠≠≠≠≠ footnotes!
arielcjr 1 year ago
ITS MISSING FROM MY BIBLE TOO!!!
arielcjr 1 year ago
The King James Version is the true word of God do some research about king James and you will find he pretty much founded America hard to believe buy true
farrockaway11692 1 year ago
so whithout me having to get the book. WHICH BIBLE VERSION IS THE WORD OF GOD? anybody?
jamespunani 1 year ago
What are your approved versions of the Bible?
timabissett 1 year ago
@timabissett
King James Bible! ONLY!
alanes758 1 year ago
I'm sure that anybody, ANYBODY, can get saved through any modern version of the Bible. BUT... if you truly want to be a Bible student, if you really want to hold a preserved Word of G-d, I mean, if you ever come to the position of defending the Bible, you ought to get a King James Bible (because the new Bible versions that I'm aware of have some real serious errors & contradictions built in! But I'm not aware of any in the King James.)
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Amen! I was once a hard KJV Camper until it finally hit me through Kent Hovind. Anyone can be saved through a modern Bible but if one was to defend or preach the Word he's to have a KJV. Encouraging to see other's with the same opinion. God Bless!
gelmanfamily 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
::"I'm sure that anybody, ANYBODY, can get saved through any modern version of the Bible" --- This is the type of thing I hear when discussing the bad versions. Maybe that is true, but that is like saying anyone can get some nutrition by eating their own manure because not everything is fully digested. Would you give a hungry person manure or pure milk and meat?
MavMin 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV Besides, as you say salvation is not the ony issue in the Bible so why defend the polluted meat and drink of the Babylonians? Yes, I am a hard core KJV man.. The folks who whose the others will have to apologize to God for that just like any other sin.
MavMin 1 year ago
The KJV is based on the received text which is based on the majority of all Bible supporting Greek manuscripts {95%} of about 5,200 pieces and the mass-erotic Hebrew text which is different than the new bibles which are based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and Alexandrenus which are totally tampered with and messed with and changed and corrected many times. One was found in the popes library another was found in the garbage can in a monastery which were the Egyptian Alexandrian type. Worthless
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
I am glad to see how many people stirr up when truth comes up. It's like when you put salt on one of those bug-like slimmy things.
MegaPajarraco 2 years ago
lilokilani, where do you get your information? Are you parroting what others have said without verifying, because it's what you would like to believe.
mundus vult decipi
aredeemed1 2 years ago
Dude, I have removed all comments on this video because I see that this man and his rabid, controlling opinons breed nothing but hatred and division. And given his character it is clear he intends just taht. And none of that behavior comes form G-d. Scary how many "devout Christians" are on his post souting hatred, antisemetic remarks and outright bigotry. Scary how one man can create so much strife with such a video. The fruits of his labor... I need to separate myself from this.
liliokilani 2 years ago
Mr. Daniels is disingenuous, he knows the answer to his question as to why this verse has been left out.
Textual scholars conclude it was not supposed to be in there in the first place. Those who study the texts, arranging them chronologically and by genre recognize that the verse appears to have been added later as earlier manuscripts don't contain that verse.
Nothing is lost from the Scriptures there are plenty of texts that still clearly explain the way of salvation without this verse.
aredeemed1 2 years ago
PLease note that if you reply to another comments to copy the full or partial name so everyone knows whom your talking to .
flyingscience 2 years ago
Great video.
33rdbook 2 years ago
Comment removed
pimpymcdougall 2 years ago
Judaism = most evil religion in existance, truly the religion of the antichrist.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
So what's the complete one called
scotishjohn 2 years ago
Just GOOGLE "apocrypha contradictions". See what books belong in the canon of Scripture. 66 - no more, no less.
Watch Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" here on Youtube. INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE as to the 1611 KJV being the true Word of God. The JESUITS are still howling.
strivetoenterin 2 years ago
Comment removed
strivetoenterin 2 years ago
Go do even a cursory study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will find copies of Enoch Sirach, Tobit, etc included along with the other books found in the Bible. Your point is a non-point.
bosefasaurus 2 years ago
yeah I found out that the KJV is missing whole books:
* Letter of Aristeas * Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah * Joseph and Aseneth * Life of Adam and Eve * Lives of the Prophets * Ladder of Jacob * Jannes and Jambres * History of the Rechabites * Eldad and Modad * History of Joseph * Odes of Solomon * Prayer of Joseph * Prayer of Jacob.
Joe31121961 2 years ago
Watch Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" here on Youtube. Throw your NIV, NASB, Douay Rheims in the dumpster. No, don't do that. Shred them or burn them. Someone may get this GARBAGE out of the garbage.
strivetoenterin 2 years ago
Who cares ?
DownpresserMan 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
Whats a Jew doing in a Christian video anyway?
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
Judaism is a false religion and is controlled by Satan, I suggest you leave Judaism, its clear youre not a Christian.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
what wicked life? you lived with him 24/7 to analyse every action he does?
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
you dont know anything about me at all...and I say the same thing about you, that youre wicked and you serve the devil.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
tell the truth about what ive done? sounds like youre making it out that ive murdered a whole bunch of people or something...so what have I done thats so bad then? im sorry im not 100% sinlessly perfect like you are guess im nto a Christian coz i still sin, as do you and everyone else no one is 100% sinless
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
I hope you get saved one day, you really need to escape the grip of Judaism, I pray youll find the truth.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
lol faith without actions is dead ...
MrRocko99 2 years ago
Thank you for doing all this valuable research! God bless you! :D
csmatyi 2 years ago
...There's only one requirement...You must know where Jesus is..Where is Jesus?..In my heart...That's it
christopherharvell66 2 years ago
I wonder how many of the people making comments have a personal relationship with the Lord? How many have asked for His wisdom to understand his Word? Or is this just a debate between self proclaimed know it alls, throwing opinions back and forth? I try to read the Bible every day, and usually don't grasp the TRUE meaning I am reading the first time. But I do ask the Lord for His wisdom, because being a part of mankind, my wisdom is finite. God's wisdom is infinite.
yaya4now2 2 years ago
the kjv was translated by william tesdale who was killed by the roman catholic church.. so blood was shead over the kjv bible .. it is the word of god
MrRocko99 2 years ago
Blood was shed over Galileo's stuff too... uh.. and Buddhas and lots and lots and lots of blood over the wacked out teachings of the pedophine Mohammud.... so I guess that means... oh never mind... this is like talking to a mushroom....
liliokilani 2 years ago
youre a fool, no one cares about your worthless false opinions in here
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Isn't the ENTIRE Bible more or less cut and paste? Even the original version was made by people who didn't include ALL the stories.
BrellK 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
JohnD24x7 2 years ago 2
amen
MrRocko99 2 years ago
Erasmus considered the catholic texts of the time, but disregarded them as polluted and erroneous. His Greek Textus Receptus led directly to the reformation when read by Martin Luther and others. The Holy Roman Church\State removed the Word from the people and implemented a corrupt system that plunged the world into the dark ages for 1100yrs and almost 700 yrs of inquisition. Rome was also notably silent during WWII when Jews were rounded up in Italy without a single word from the pontiff.
JohnD24x7 2 years ago
The catholic church emphasizes ritual, sacraments and penance over grace. The KJV is based on the greek textus recptus. This was compiled by a renowned catholic monk Erasmus who compiled the original greek, aramaic and hebrew texts, but remained true to the manuscripts without editing. It is the whole Word of God and why there is such a distinct difference between the KJV and all others and why the KJV is attacked relentlessly.
JohnD24x7 2 years ago
All of the modern translations with the exception of the paraphrased versions are based on catholic texts. Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Vulgate and Septuagint. These "older" manuscripts took the existing texts used by the faithful and edited them to conform to catholic\pagan dogma and ritual. That is why key words and verse pertaining to the divinity of Christ, salvation by Grace through faith and the blood of Christ are removed.
JohnD24x7 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
im surprised that you lack common sense and even fail at 3rd grade english...you do realise that words have more then one meaning dont you? kill has more then 1 meaning, go use a dictionary to see the other meanings for their respective contexts...kill doesnt just have 1 meaning. The KJV does say thou shalt not bear false witness anyway, it doesnt change it. Why are you so obsessed with the 10 commandments anyway this isnt judaism anymore its christianity, were not under the law anymore.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
LOL hahaha wow best laugh ive had for days, thank you you just showed your stupidity, hahaha.
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Dude im not the guy that got tazered at the border...haha...im a 22 year old who lives in Australia....
ServantofGod3 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
a Bible party. now there's an idea.
beccabarlow 2 years ago
All I have to say is AMEN
TheKingJamesBible 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh a missing verse..
There is no complete bible because not all ancient christian texts made it in to the bible, some books were chosen and others were left out.
CreationDebunked 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a great video! I love it.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Since I ain't no Bible scholar, I reckon I'd jes have to be a choosin' which version seems more accurate: the one that says what's necessary to be baptised or the one that don't.
jlujan69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the bible is a fictional fairy tale
ThePvtgomerpyle 2 years ago
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:16 KJV
subdivisions416 2 years ago
FUN FACT! The KJV is the only bible not copyrighted. The others are! What motivation would one have to copyright a bible? $. King James Version is the word of God!
bullhonkeymofo 2 years ago
Why is KJV not copyrighted? Simple. KJV came out of the Authorized Version, which was copyrighted in 16th century. Copyrights was understood that the intellectual property can only be held for a certain number of years. 400 years later, why would a dead king and its dead authors care about collecting royalty anymore? They dead, and they can't bring their gold to heaven, sarcastically speaking. The "$" argument by bullhonkeymofo isn't accurate. King James needed to pay his translators back then.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Here's are some good questions for you. If it's about the money, why are Christian bookstores selling KJV Bibles? Who are pocketing the money? Publishers? Ministries? Or other unknown receipients? King Jimmy's translators needed the funds in order to eat. Hebrew scribes of old needed pay in order to eat. Have you ever thought of that? Let's be reasonable. If the criteria is such that $ is not to be involved, KJV should be completely free for all. FUN FACT!! IT'S NOT FREE!! One has to cough up $
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
Which one? The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Also, the KJV was based on the "Bishop's Bible." So then, wouldn't the Bishop's Bible be the inspired text? Also, the original KJV included the Apocrypha. Are those books inspired?
buddyboy55 2 years ago
The apocrypha was never considered as inspired scripture. It was placed in the KJV only as historical reference. Not as inspired.
vekl 2 years ago 2
Wrong. The Catholic Church at the 1546 Council of Trent declared that the following apocryphal books ARE inspired and thus are included in the canon of scripture: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.
buddyboy55 2 years ago
Thats the CATHOLIC church. Not the early christian fathers. There's a difference.
The catholic church cannot ordain squat because she s not of God.
vekl 2 years ago 4
I'm not a Catholic, but if it weren't for the Catholic church, we wouldn't have the Bible today. God's hand is in the history.
I do not see the point of "early christian fathers" being thrown into the context of this argument buddyboy55 is trying to make here.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Comment removed
liliokilani 2 years ago
Good thing you captioned it for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Subtitledworship 2 years ago
Amen.
Every Christian should go back, and demand a refund.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
The new translations haven't been around very long and alot of people who are carrying them are younger people who think they are acceptable. When I was younger, the Bible wasn't questioned like it is now and picked apart like it is. The Bible has to be taken as a whole and it stands up against any false translation that comes out these days. I have watched things change over the years but the Wrod of God is never changing.
merrysmerrys 2 years ago
Amen merrysmerrys!! I'm encouraged to hear somebody with that sense of interest to dig into the Bible and devour it for its worth. We need to question the Bible and pick it apart to There are indeed lots of poor translations out there which are misleading. The Word of God will forever remain, even with the presence of imperfect translations. KJV isn't immune either. English is not THE perfect language to match every word for word. But the very essence of God's Word will never perish. Praise God
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
911 is an inside job pass it on.
Only evil people try to cover up the truth!
LittleManKB 2 years ago
I faked my cancer operation to get my "friends" to send me money. Insaide job. You bet!
NonMasonDisOrder 2 years ago
You really take the time to follow my husband around on You Tube? This is on top of the time you have spent making a channel & videos. Don't you have a job? a family? anything better to do with your time? You are as pathetic and as insane as the birth giver Pat.
PotPriestess 2 years ago
A) That verse is a universally recognized corruption of scripture that was added later.
B) Just because you like the sound of something doesn't mean that it must be God's word.
C) Your entire argument is based on how much better you think the bible is with the spurious verse.
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book - Revelation 22:18
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Writer is ecumenical. Evolution is "universally recognized". Doesn't mean it is true.
Cherickllc 2 years ago
[Writer is ecumenical]
A) What writer? Are you talking about me?
[Evolution is "universally recognized"]
B) Depends what you mean by evolution.
[Doesn't mean it is true]
C) Who should I trust: the leading biblical scholars or some random guy who likes the way certain spurious verses sound?
bandaidmafia 2 years ago
Who should you trust? The leading scientists or the Word of God? Who should you trust? "Christian" celebrities or the
Word of God? Phillipians 2:6 is blasphemous in most versions. Nobody cares because peer pressure is more important today than Truth. If John Doe Radio Preacher uses a New Version and my best church buddies use a New Version, it can't be wrong, can it? I gave the deacons in my church 150 verse comparisons proving that the new versions are profane. They promptly kicked me out.
Cherickllc 2 years ago 2
BUahahahahaha.. this guy is random.. he is a nobody preacher in the back woods who beleives women are his "footstool." And that G-d "speaks directly to him" so no one should dare question how he interprets the Bible. What a nut job.
liliokilani 2 years ago
Very good video! I've read the book by this author. He knows what he is talking about. Very well researched. He actually examines each version comparing over 250 verses and shows what is missing from them.
doronlassil 2 years ago
I agree he does his research, but he injects many of his personal opinions too. With regards to what's in this video, regarding the passage of Acts 8:37 taken out is directly accusing that the scribes (who lived earlier than the scribes who penned the ancient texts used for KJV) of TAKING TEXT OUT b/c THEY WANT TO BAPTIZE BABIES??? Where do you see the logic in that?? It's flawed opinion on this author's part. That's only one of the uncountable flaws in his books, without sound historical proof.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
You can also tell a lot about idiots who make statments like ByeCruelWorld. His name alone speaks of his aimlessness, purposelessness, and uselessness!
I'm sure everyone is quite impressed with your scholarly refutation of the speaker...NOT!
Get a life, bozo
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
> His name alone speaks of his aimlessness,
> purposelessness, and uselessness!
Wrong. 10 years ago I wanted a disposable email address. I tried many nicknames but all were taken. I typed in byecruelworld in exasperation, intending to try another provider, and was amused that it was ironically accepted, so I kept it
BTW, I spent 15 years helping disabled people in both paid and voluntary positions, and I've been a teacher for the last six years. So your entire allegation is fallacious
ByeCruelWorld 2 years ago
oooh...fallacious! I like big words like this. I think the definition of it is "the lies I tell are not, but the ones YOU tell are".
Is that about right?
Glad you help others. Try helping yourself...you need it more than they do. Anyone that trashes the Word of God as you have is in serious need of help!
tigerlilly66 2 years ago
Excuse me? Where is Christ in your words, tigerlilly66? And don't give me that "who are you to judge me" nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, speaking more than necessary.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Plus the Eunuch was BLACK which was an issue in those days as well. GOOD VIDEO!!
aethiops007 2 years ago
I have both the KJB and the NIV; I am using the KJB to correct the NIV. ☺
The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament in the King James Bible. In the Old Testament of the modern versions it occurs - ZERO!!! The affect of this even caused a critic to come out and said 'the word "hell" only appears in the New Testament; therefore, the Old & New Testament don't belong together!' Sorry, but he wasnt holding a Bible.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago 2
You got it right, Eye2...the NIV (Not Inspired Version) would be better called TNSV (The New Satanic Version) because it is his masterpiece
Things that are different are not the same.
The NIV is no more a "Bible" than Bart Simpson is a real person.
tigerlilly66 2 years ago 5
Hosea 11:12
(KJV) "Judah yet ruleth with God."
(NIV) "Judah is unruly against God."
Would you say that is saying the same thing???
"Things that are Different Are Not the Same."
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago 3
What is this? A repost of the same message? Was it necessary to start a new one? I replied the previous one, and are you unable to reply my comment?
I ask you, Eye2EyeIIIV. What is your interpretation of Hosea 11:12, if only reading KJV, without consulting Hebrew text? As for my interpretation, I already paraphrased in a reply to your earlier comment below.
I challenge you to show yourself a man who understands his scripture rather than a rabble rouser who misuse quotes.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Bible are free. Steal 'em from hotel rooms.
SeisrushOb 2 years ago
If I'm correct, the Gideon Society is more than happy if you took them away. If the thief put it to proper use, God is glorified. Whatever the thief does with them, they don't care. If he burns the Bible, they won't care, but it shows the contempt of the one burning them. In return, God will still be glorified, as His Word will remain forever.
andrewlee1982 2 years ago
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
dunhova 2 years ago
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
dunhova 2 years ago
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
# John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."
dunhova 2 years ago
"You can't just take out God's word cause you don't like what he said."
Jesus: Go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor.
I don't see any Christians doing that...
ssnatcherss 2 years ago
Amen to that. We shouldn't take out God's words, or water it down. But, for staunch KJV supporters who accuse modern translation of taking out verses are equally in danger of accusations of adding words to the Bible (see my previous comments). KJV-only supporter's most favorite verse Ps12:6 says "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." For KJV's source of ancient text, they have words not found in even more ancient-ancient text. Get my drift?
andrewlee1982 2 years ago