Left minded souls speak EASIER, to left minded souls. Sometimes, right minded souls, with their pure logic cannot get thru, to get God's message through. 30 day cycle and dna CURVE, must effect, the mindset receptors, and they cannot absorb Gods TRUTH.
Over and over I see people arguing essentially that the newer versions are wrong because they don't agree with the KJV, instead of asking what the original text was, and what those words meant.
She is the least educated person I've seen on the subject. Using the Webster dictionary to show that the old Greek translations into the NIV is wrong? I believe the KJV is better, but this just crazy. If anyone believes she is a scholar they are smoking something. You are now dumber for have watching this. I have two KJBs, one is a 1611. And I enjoy reading both of them. If anyone argues about the translations they should at least quote the difference from the text that it is translated from.
@onemarktwoyou I sooo agree with you and was thinking the same thing. Webster's Dictionary? Yes- it doesn't say the same thing as the KJV because maybe the KJV is not correct? I have always and ONLY used the KJV but all their arguments are making me not wanna read it anymore. (which is sad). It is a foolish circle: Well the NASB doesn't support our doctrine so the translation is wrong. Well: where did you get your doctrine? Answer: from out translation. Its a self-delusion circle.
I started with the "other" translations. I came to the KJV because when I read it red flags went up. Then when checked the Hebrew I found that it was in line more so than the "others". Example read genesis 5 then check the Hebrew. You will find that the KJV is inline, and the understanding of the verses is easier with the KJV as well. The "others" are harder to understand what you need to know. Please do not fall into the trap of non belief. G-d will help if you trust.
@jakethesnakerobertz1 it is what it is friend.kjv is no mason.words in context have their meaning and the sane isaiah passage is the same to understand that the head satan was the anointed cherub or messiah
@DaveShowTV kjv only?i dont think you understand the point of the vid?words in context have meaning but when you change the context then you change the meaning-
I wish KJ Only folks would grow to learn how Sovereign God actually is. And how He will not allow Satan to pervert His Word and the transmission thereof. The 1600's is the 17th Century. To give credit to Satan for what God has done is supreme blasphemy. Ripplinger is a liar- see w w w . a v publications. o r g
@05neal Who have I been yelling at? Nobody. So please don't post lies about me. I did mock your response, but then it was hardly a serious response, was it? Just a few disconnected words and snide comments (and mockery, so please don't be a hypocrite) off the top of your head, whereas my comment, to which you were "responding", was the product of many, many hours of research. Time to check the log in your own eye before worrying about my little slivers.
@Eye2EyeIIIV King James modified about a third of the Tyndale bible to suit Church of England doctrines of that time. That is why it is a 'Hellfire and Brimstone' bible. Modern translations do the same thing with verses like John 3:16 where they leave out the word 'Begotten' because it doesn't fit the doctrine of "Jesus the ONLY son of God". What about Luke 3:38 "Adam son of God".
@Eye2EyeIIIV "For My people are foolish, They know Me not; They are stupid children and have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know." How do you say, We are wise, and the Torah of Yahuah is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
I'm not American (or English background) so i have to put more concentrarion in following the explanation with the annoying music, could you please remove that music? It is very distracting! And to FCY, we have the same problems in our translations in our own language, some have been written to be read easier, but in truth the words are formed into words with another meaning, witch is very wrong! God said that we should not change or add or delete parts or words of the scripture! I stick to KJV!
A leper could not own property, a leper had to live outside the city in a secluded camp, a lepper could not seat at a table and eat with somebody, specially Yahshua who was a Jew and kept the Torah perfectly. Matthew 26:6 is wrong and should read "the potter's house" That is why the woman came to Him with an alabaster vial. Does it make more sense?
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8
-ll tranlation of the bible proves you wrong-worst of all your deny scriptures??to suit your imagination
The ones that 6823 times took the original name of YHWH and replaced it with "god', the ones that say easter instead of passover and many more mistranslations!
For educational purposes I have read it. However, it only takes one word changed! and you are out of the game!
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your Elohim which I command you.
I have read it many times. The king James is is derivative from the J.P Interlinear and a direct translation from the greek. I prefer to read from the original Peshita Aramaic into english.
There is no such thing as an Aramaic copy of the NT. This is a lie to make people believe that the translations we have today are false. The reality is that the NT was written in Greek and no other language.
YHWH did not make any deals with Argentina, Colombia, ten buck two or the Niagara Falls, His deal was with the house of Yhuda and with the house of Israel! Jer 31;31.
Yahhushua, the Messhiac, only came to His people, not to gentiles who later changed him into a pagan christ that goes to church on sundays, rolls easter eggs and comes down the chimney during x-mass.
The King James Version is flawed at best and extremely corrupted at worse. The name of YHWH is in the original 6.823 times. Somebody had the audacity to change it, why are you following them?
The Tanak was written in ancient paleo Hebrew and the Brit Chadasha was written in the peshita Aramaic. YAhshua spoke Aramaic! Just for you to know. What do you think about Romans 10:4? and Acts 12:4. What is the real name of the book of James? Could it be Yacob?
YOU CAN NOT GO PAST THREE VERSES IN GENESIS 1 TO SEE IN THE KING JAMES VERSION THAT YHWH WAS CHANGED TO "god' ALMOST 7000 TIMES!! ARE YOU NOW BLOTTED OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE?
Here's a woman, intelligent no doubt, that has found a way into people's interest and probably into their wallets with putting on shows like those. How could someone who is an 'expert' in Biblical translation present a comparison between two English translations and point to the differences as something done with the intent to distort God's Word? You compare English to Greek!!!! Not English to English.
Thanks for posting this. I saw Gail Riplinger's presentation on another channel, but it was the long version. I like these shorter, bites of teachings because I may not have time to sit thru the long presentation.
Excuse me Ms/Mrs. Riplinger, it is NOT easy to be saved. Sure, the formula is easy, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, doing it though is not. Why? Because man is spiritually dead, a sinful child of wrath by nature. He can not and will not come to God apart from divine intervention. Also, in the case of the context of Matt 7, narrow and difficult ARE, in a sense, synonyms. Narrow in the greek is thlibō: to crowd (lit. or fig.): - afflict, narrow, throng, suffer tribulation, trouble.
There are just as many errors in the KJV if not more this is such a ridiculous waste of a Christian's time to argue this mute point of claiming one archaic 17th century version; Not even the first English bible, somehow trumps the rest. Spend your time trying to "convince" lost people that Jesus Christ is the way of salvation.
i am very sure that the dead sea scrolls confirms the kjv 1611 -it even uses the correct terms in the name of christ-and how can it be 17century if its 16th century??and can you give an example of your statement??if you understood satan deceptions then you'll know he also uses the bible too in the sense of completely changing certain understandings that leads people from salvation???
"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach."
if you go back to the sumarian text you will be learning and understanding the original story....before it was bastardized by the ego's of power craving meglamaniacs...the chosen ones live in a religeous occult that has gained power over the masses via devious means...believe in yourself and be free...
Gutcheckcoming is correct according to 1Tim2:12. It's a mute point b/c God is calling true believers out of the church(Matt24:15,16) as Satan now sits as God in the temple(today's church) in 2Thess3:4. We can look to the fate of all churches in Rev 1-3 which gives 7 examples.
NIV, one of several modern Bibles copyright owned by Zondervan, is owned by 20th Cent Fox, FOX, NEWS CORP, Ruppert Murdoch. Google Murdoch, Zondervan, NIV.
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
in the kjv to :) Bright is key from the root greek that makes it different niv is actually makes it clearer that its a different title if anything.
4 and Man (Adam) was the 1st morning star. the one that lost his place in the garden of God and lost his heavenly connection with God and was put out of the 1st heaven down to the earth to plow the ground.
"Like it says Israel has fallen from heaven" so Did Adam.
Adam and his descendents are "the Sons of God" talked about in the O.T.
Folks: read your Bibles, see for yourselves the difference in the 'new' translations. ISAIAH 12:14 NIV substitutes Jesus's name: Morning Star...for Lucifer... being cast from heaven....! How WRONG is That?!
The point is is that these people use the KJV as their standard instead of the greek. There is no greek ms or evidence used to support what shes saying. No ones arguing that modern translations aren't difference...the debate is based up mss.
I tried to verify this video. As a sample I checked the verses quoted at 3:20. They do not check out. The video is lying. The video claims the NIV does not use heaven for some of the verses, but in fact it does. Some of the others (eg. Luke 11) are complete fabrications.
Well her sheet clearly says "heaven is greatly reduced". It doesn't mean it's completely eliminated. What's your point? It uses it for some but not for all. The fact she is stating is still true, regardless.
It's also possible to make mistakes, bud. Like you said, Luke 11 was a fabrication. Maybe it was a misprint. We all make mistakes. I'm sure she wouldn't have purposely lied if all that was required to find her out was for some numbskull like you to simply look it up.
This is the point...verse 7 is the scribal variant addition as interpretation/interpolation. This is obviously why it is in the margin of 4/8 of the greek manusripts.
This kind of exchange demands a little more structure. For starters, what are you debating? Are we going to take a shot in the dark for 8,000 words and then hope we can make some sense in rebuttals?
You need to present a specific statement and then debate that statement.
For example, are we going to debate a particular passage? Are we going to debate a particular claim made by Alexandrian scholarship (or Received Text scholars)?
Those are fair questions, and I appreciate your interaction. Yes, I must make a statement at least to deny what you affirm. So word your statement as you desire it to be.
Now, we can discuss specific passages if you so desire. Got any that you would like specifically addressed?
I would hope, however, that you have some structured sense to your position. If you do, you have been able to hide it well here. I John 5:7?
Before a debate may ensue, rules must agreed upon as well as who affirms what and who denies what. I therefore propose as a title for the debate, "The KJV Alone Is The Word of God In English." Whatever the title, he will affirm, and I will deny. (He's going to find the going tough since I'm going to insist upon DOCUMENTATION for every nutty claim; note that his next move will be to drop it).
BBfohio (or whatever his name is) has stated he is willing to debate this issue on CARM. I post under Maestroh, so assuming he stops making snide sexual (you know, junior high) remarks, we will begin negotiations regarding precisely HOW this will be done.
I think many of you will find that his 'arguments' recited from Ms. Riplinger's work will collapse. But never fear - he is going to show me how stupid I am.
The real facts and truth of the matter is that min. 88 is a variant reading in a 16th cent hand, added to the 14th codex Regius of Naples; quoted by none of the greek fathers
"It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." (Scrivener, Introduction, p. 453)
"In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, ...[heretics] place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)
Why don't you bother to mention what the same guy said IN THE SAME BOOK about I John 5:7?
"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver.
Instead of naming off Church Fathers who supposedly used the Johhanine Comma and giving a date of when they lived...give me the work that they mention the Johanine comma. So I can look it up and I wouldn't consider Calvary Chapel my brethren seeing how they use NKJV and KJV
There are over 8,000 Latin manuscripts, of those that contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 John the vast majority contain 1 John 5:7. For example, it is in m (427 AD), r (7th century), t (8th century).
Cyprian's actual quote "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and agian it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'And these three are one." (On the Unity of the Church...Paragraph 6.)
I am not claiming that he is stating the TR verse 7...you asked for the quote there it is...I agree he is not qouting 7 he is wrongfully interpreting verse 8 and the pericope in the context.
but the interpolations are so late why the heck bother even considering them for a translation thats why Metzger says they have no right to honestly be placed in any version (Textual Commentary...pg 648) and added a nice footnote in the NIV emphatically urging this point.
Yeah, but it is an issue in part because there was a Unitarian on the 1881 translation committee. Some of the folks who are Trinitarian - as am I - get upset at what they believe is an attempt to undercut the Trinity.
I think that's a legitimate concern except that the two main guys, Westcott and Hort, were both Trinitarians and were both generally considered conservative Anglican churchmen of their time - as was their nemesis, Burgon.
Oh for sure...but as you would obviously agree there is plenty of other passages in scripture that allude to the doctrine of the trinity. The issue here however is one of honesty with the text as well as textual methodology in criticism. One can not ignore the variant evidence and yet say I want to aspire to the original text.
Nice even the website you gave me uses the NIV for their scripture for today...and I'm glad you use a website with no credentials for your research...just keeping copying and pasting.
One more thing...Westcott and Hort have not been scrapped...only by the Baptist. Their methodologies and textual criticism tools are used in every major university and scholar still to this day.
Noe one teaches Westcott and Hort without a major revision of their work and compelte overhaul of their methodologies. If you can't admit that, you demonstrate a real dishonesty in discourse.
Use of Westcott and Hort is comparible to the use of Darwin in biology (birds of a feather since both W & H both bought the evolutionary hoax). Professors tip their hat at their memory and their work and then they move on.
Now I'll give you a chance to respond to this before I go on any further...then I will address your scriptural references if your interested. Now I know you guys like to react with name calling, insults, accusations, and demonizing but lets try to act like an adult here and only use facts and claims.
One of the greatest hoaxes (right up there with the Lucian Recension) is the idea that 1 John 5:7 is not found in any manuscript other than one that Erasmus produced by coersion.
Dan Brown should have included that in the Davinvi Codes...
Fulgentius quotes it in 510 AD. Jerome in 450 AD. Athanasius in 350 AD. Cyprian in 250 AD. Tertullian in 200 AD. Wadlensian Bibles in 400 AD. Old Syriac in 170 AD, etc., Miniscule 88 in 1150 AD, MSS 61 in 1500 AD.
I will agree with you though that there is evidence of the Byzantine text sneaking up earlier than 12th cent. However, it is very small (no full-text types) starting in the fifth century in portions of Codices W and A.
You are pitting a handful of manuscripts against thousands of Byzantine (which disagree with each other on non-essential portions and whose disagreements are recitified with the use of simple textual science of comparison).
According to you, Christians were mentally and spiritually retarded for about 1,400 years and rejected the true Bible while embracing the false Bible. BUT, thankfully, scholars came along to fix us up and trash our traditional text for the new "eclectic" text. ??
They still left evidence of the trinity, divinity of Christ, his saving grace and blood, his resurrection and reign, his parousia etc. Wow what damage!
Please explain how the most intelligent created being (Lucifer) would be stupid enough to entirely corrupt a Bible and expect the world to swallow it.
Satan isn't stupid.
He has presented new bibles that grow more corrupt with every passing year. We started with the small changes of the RV, ASV 1901 and RSV 1954. Now, we've come to the Message, NIV and transgendered NIV's, etc.
If you are fool enough to swallow that, go at it. I believe in freedom of conscience.
It is also popular to say as you said yourself that the Alexandrian was corrupt as though there is historical evidence of some sort of corruption. This is one more KJV onlyist effort to demonize everyone and everything that would ascribe to modern translations. What proof is there that they were corrupted, why, and how so? "it was satanic and an effort to change the word or orthodox christianity" they say...well if thats the case they did a horrible job at it bc they left the best stuff in.
The Vaticanus manuscript sat on a shelf in Rome and no one accepted it but the Pope because it is CORRUPT with portions of the manuscript showing corruption. This isn't even denied by the likes of Tischendorf who idolized the piece of toilet paper it was written on.
Siniaticus was being used shred by shred by monks to light fires to warm themselves in the desert night. No one saw any worth in this mutilated manuscript until it because worth something solely upon antiquity.
And you want to say 4000 FULL manuscripts...another lie or ignorant claim. Your over estimating how many FULL ones we have, there are less than 8% of the 5400 manusripts/fragments that are fully preserved.
4,000 full Greek. 1,300 fragment Greek. 10,000 early Latin. 9,300 early Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, etc. 32,000 early Christian quotations (mostly Greek).
Your standards are not legitimate. If we held ALL ancient documents to your standard, we would have to throw out ALL ancient materials. You ought to establish a realistic standard before applying an unrealistic standard to Scriptre.
And you still have to deal with 95% agreement among Byzantine majority manuscripts.
Not word for word bc the translator still is forced to choose between two manuscripts/fragments/papyri that DIFFER from each other. Therefore divorcing the project from full preservation.
That's your faith-based conclusion based upon materialistic presumption. You walk in the flesh, you will die by the flesh.
But Christians have always believed God was in the preservation process and that what we have today is HIS word preserved in fulfillment of HIS promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and based upon HIS character, which is to keep His word.
And you want to claim uniformity, conformity, agreement etc. Well that is also hilarious bc the Byzantine (majority text) is not completely uniform as you would like to think. NO TWO manuscripts in this tradition completely agree w/ each other; it has long been known that one of its characteristics is the conflation found within it. The person espousing this text is not releived of the task of having to choose between variants within. Therefore it is not word for word perfect in the KJV.
The lack of uniformity doesn't present changes to the text like that found in Alexandrian readings (1 Ti. 3:16 for example). You want to gag on a gnat and swallow an Egyptian camel.
And your claim of "conflation" is based on a little thing called CONJECTURE. You have to assume about ten variables to then establish conflation.
It was called TR bc it was the standard version circulating at the time of the Elzevir brothers. And its hilarious that you say "4000 FULL manuscripts and SEVERAL thousand fragments that virtually agree against the Alexandrian texts and in agreement with the KJV." You like to point out lies...well there's a huge one. Bc at last count we only have 5,378 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Not 4000+SEVERAL thousands.
4000 full manuscripts in Greek language, 1,300 fragments in Greek, 10,000 early Latin, 9,300 Syriac, Coptic, Aermenian, Gothic, etc. and more than 32,000 quotations from the church fathers, mostly quoting the pre-Alexandrian Greek texts in existence during that time.
Burgon and Miller demonstrated the "church fathers" used Byzantine text type in the mass majority of their 32,000 quotations.
That's hilarious!!! LOL
Go to biblefacts to org slash history slash oldtext dot html
Don't assume BBBFOHIO that you are the only one here with an education. All this rhetoric about The Received Text as though it is called that bc it came down from the heavens or was Received by Peter himself. The term wasn't coined until 1633 as "textum omnibus receptum"...or "the text now received by all" not bc of the aboved mentioned but bc the king mandated it against the Bishop's Bible which was full of Puritan footnotes taht he abhorred.
The Received Text is called that in RESPONSE to the fact that it was the ONLY text used by Bible Believing, non-papist Christians from the time of the Apostles until 1881.
I am in America. It wasn't called that originally, so are we all stupid for calling it that, now? By your logic, yes.
King James said NOTHING about what text to use in translation. The 40+ translators made that decision on their own and any historical account will confirm that.
King James did put the fear of being put to death into his translators, what we have to prove it... the words baptism and Easter to start with. There are many transliterations in the KJV because they feared being put to death if they denied that century's theology.
The King James Bible is translated from Greek to English. I have the Received Text underlying the KJV and I have the KJV. I can compare them and see that it is an accurate, literal translation.
Interpretation comes after translation, not vice versa.
Words have meaning. Theopneustos is "God-breathed" and translated, "Given by inspriation of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16 from Greek to English. It's that simple and I can show you the accuracy of the KJV in that manner.
What you say is absolutely true. But if you have two DIFFERENT references, then obviously there is more than simple interpretation issues. And that is the point.
The KJV comes from the Textus Receptus Greek.
The new bibles come from Alexandrian Greek.
Things that are different are not the same. Alexandrian manuscripts, for example, remove the Deity of Christ from 1 Timothy 3:16, remove the blood from Colossians 1:14, etc.
Did you know that the KJV does the same thing with 'lion?' Jesus is the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev. 5:5) while Satan is a 'lion' who roars around seeking who he may devour (I Pet. 5:8).
Lucifer is a transliteration of a word that means "Start of the Morning" literally, and might I add that Jesus calls himself the "Bright Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16 (ESV). The name Lucifer may have actually been a reference to the king of Babylon who called himself by different names usually reserved for deities. You can find this out by reading all the scriptures relating to him in the Bible.
This lady is doing nothing but comparing versions. She is completely clueless to the original text, textual criticism, manuscripts etc. These people cause nothing but division. She is only proving the point that modern translations are better than the KJV.
Actually, the only thing she is 'proving' is that she is an expert in the flawed comparison methodology, the question begging argument, and the appeal to selective evidence (compare Acts 4:25 in the 'new versions' with the KJV and you'll see what I mean).
The King James Bible is the ONLY translation that isn't from Alexandrian manuscripts.
The Alexandrian text originate with Origen. He was a Christ-denying nutcase who castrated himself because he thought he needed to lose his nads in order to go to Heaven.
Alexandria, EGYPT. The place God calls His Son out of.
The Alexandrian AND the Western texts PRECEDE Origen; only the Byzantine text is post-Origen. Therefore, assuming Origen wrote a new Bible, it could only have been the Byzantine.
Corrupting God's word IS DIVISION, not pointing out the corruption.
What is wrong with all the stupid idiots who think it's alright to butcher God's word? KEEP YOUR HANDS OF GOD'S WORD.
This "lady" is speaking FACTS.
You don't know anything about the "original text". Or do you? You've never seen the "original text" have you? So, how do you know anything about the "original text"?
Good Job! Your comment is the most intelligent one I have seen yet. yours and Maestohbill's. The issue is that people translated the KJV not God. Come to think of it people have made all the translations that exist. The flaws of any version is it originates with human beings...
I came to realize that the KJV is the perfect word of God. I prayed to God to lead me to the right one, since there are so many versions. There can only be one word of God because God does not change. Versions do. The other versions never allowed God to speak to me. The only way I experienced growth in me was through the reading of the KJV.
Do you care to debate this in a moderated forum, Homer, or are you little more than a nerd who got his tail kicked walking home from school who is now living out his schoolyard fantasy?
Come register at CARM, and I will break you from sucking eggs - assuming you have an ounce of intestinal fortitude (which we both know you don't).
You wouldn't know what the "original text" says, you blaspheming little liar. You have NEVER seen the original text. No one has EVER seen the original text.
What do you mean? What original. According to EVERY Greek scholar on the face of God's green earth, there IS no original. The "originals" perished. All you have are copies.
Great Video!
Gr8PaintDotCOm 1 month ago
1600 through 1699 is the 17th century. FYI.
nexus1g 4 months ago
@jakethesnakerobertz 1 If you do a little research into who owns Zondervan then you will understand why their translation reads as it does!
SunflowerMama76 7 months ago
Good but why have the music - it detracts from the message, God bless.
laurian27453 9 months ago
@DaveShowTV
Left minded souls speak EASIER, to left minded souls. Sometimes, right minded souls, with their pure logic cannot get thru, to get God's message through. 30 day cycle and dna CURVE, must effect, the mindset receptors, and they cannot absorb Gods TRUTH.
loverofyahshua 10 months ago
Over and over I see people arguing essentially that the newer versions are wrong because they don't agree with the KJV, instead of asking what the original text was, and what those words meant.
Naiant 1 year ago
She is the least educated person I've seen on the subject. Using the Webster dictionary to show that the old Greek translations into the NIV is wrong? I believe the KJV is better, but this just crazy. If anyone believes she is a scholar they are smoking something. You are now dumber for have watching this. I have two KJBs, one is a 1611. And I enjoy reading both of them. If anyone argues about the translations they should at least quote the difference from the text that it is translated from.
onemarktwoyou 1 year ago
@onemarktwoyou I sooo agree with you and was thinking the same thing. Webster's Dictionary? Yes- it doesn't say the same thing as the KJV because maybe the KJV is not correct? I have always and ONLY used the KJV but all their arguments are making me not wanna read it anymore. (which is sad). It is a foolish circle: Well the NASB doesn't support our doctrine so the translation is wrong. Well: where did you get your doctrine? Answer: from out translation. Its a self-delusion circle.
ExMuslim4Jesus 6 months ago
@ExMuslim4Jesus
I started with the "other" translations. I came to the KJV because when I read it red flags went up. Then when checked the Hebrew I found that it was in line more so than the "others". Example read genesis 5 then check the Hebrew. You will find that the KJV is inline, and the understanding of the verses is easier with the KJV as well. The "others" are harder to understand what you need to know. Please do not fall into the trap of non belief. G-d will help if you trust.
onemarktwoyou 6 months ago
AMEN sister!! God bless
Duggars14 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Churches are whore houses anyway! What can be expected?
uwjco 1 year ago
@DaveShowTV Churches are whore houses anyway! What can be expected?
uwjco 1 year ago
@jakethesnakerobertz1 they are a type of angel
forlatagate 1 year ago
@jakethesnakerobertz1 it is what it is friend.kjv is no mason.words in context have their meaning and the sane isaiah passage is the same to understand that the head satan was the anointed cherub or messiah
forlatagate 1 year ago
@DaveShowTV kjv only?i dont think you understand the point of the vid?words in context have meaning but when you change the context then you change the meaning-
forlatagate 1 year ago
I wish KJ Only folks would grow to learn how Sovereign God actually is. And how He will not allow Satan to pervert His Word and the transmission thereof. The 1600's is the 17th Century. To give credit to Satan for what God has done is supreme blasphemy. Ripplinger is a liar- see w w w . a v publications. o r g
MrSuperchicken1 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@05neal In other words you can't explain it either.
Let's see if I can do as well:
Is not.
maybe.
I don't think so.
magic.
Never happened.
There, did I refute your non-refutations?
Don't be silly.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@05neal I have no idea what these context-free
one-line comments of yours are supposed to mean.
If I was a psychic telegraphist I might figure it out.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
And you are fretting about which VERSION to use?
Amazing.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
NIV New Idiot Version
Ilovjas 1 year ago
Exellent....Simple...Simply Exellent!
mikesglider 1 year ago
Enough said. Praise the LORD!!!
joshuahedges 2 years ago
fantastic. thanks.
empireuniverse 2 years ago
If you dont have a King James Bible, you dont HAVE a Bible:
/watch?v=_ibY7qhmBlM&
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago 2
amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol whew ! glory :)
parisreidhead 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eye2EyeIIIV King James modified about a third of the Tyndale bible to suit Church of England doctrines of that time. That is why it is a 'Hellfire and Brimstone' bible. Modern translations do the same thing with verses like John 3:16 where they leave out the word 'Begotten' because it doesn't fit the doctrine of "Jesus the ONLY son of God". What about Luke 3:38 "Adam son of God".
yarrw 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV "For My people are foolish, They know Me not; They are stupid children and have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know." How do you say, We are wise, and the Torah of Yahuah is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
uwjco 1 year ago
Sorry, should be FCJ, wrong key hit! :)
arjwm 2 years ago
I'm not American (or English background) so i have to put more concentrarion in following the explanation with the annoying music, could you please remove that music? It is very distracting! And to FCY, we have the same problems in our translations in our own language, some have been written to be read easier, but in truth the words are formed into words with another meaning, witch is very wrong! God said that we should not change or add or delete parts or words of the scripture! I stick to KJV!
arjwm 2 years ago
So, tell us how we enter into the kingdom? Do you know? or you are just talking?
uwjco 2 years ago
Are you a new covenant believer? If so, how did you enter into the new covenant?
uwjco 2 years ago
Was Yahshua in the house of the leper or the house of the jar maker? What say you?
uwjco 2 years ago
Matthew 26:6
falitigate 2 years ago
A leper could not own property, a leper had to live outside the city in a secluded camp, a lepper could not seat at a table and eat with somebody, specially Yahshua who was a Jew and kept the Torah perfectly. Matthew 26:6 is wrong and should read "the potter's house" That is why the woman came to Him with an alabaster vial. Does it make more sense?
uwjco 2 years ago
6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8
-ll tranlation of the bible proves you wrong-worst of all your deny scriptures??to suit your imagination
falitigate 2 years ago
The word in Aramaic for leper is garba and the word for jar maker is gahrba, here you can clearly see that the translators made another mistake.
uwjco 2 years ago
there is no mistake,
falitigate 2 years ago
Let the people reading this comments decide!
uwjco 2 years ago
The KJV is flawed at best and corrupted at worst! I am not trying to put down the translation! it was the best we had and we need to move on!
uwjco 2 years ago
ok which king James version are you talking about??
falitigate 2 years ago
The ones that 6823 times took the original name of YHWH and replaced it with "god', the ones that say easter instead of passover and many more mistranslations!
uwjco 2 years ago
have you ever read the original kjv with the apocrypha in it??that still use allot of original words
falitigate 2 years ago
For educational purposes I have read it. However, it only takes one word changed! and you are out of the game!
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahweh your Elohim which I command you.
uwjco 2 years ago
by your answer i can tell you have not read the original kjv
falitigate 2 years ago
I have read it many times. The king James is is derivative from the J.P Interlinear and a direct translation from the greek. I prefer to read from the original Peshita Aramaic into english.
uwjco 2 years ago
There is no such thing as an Aramaic copy of the NT. This is a lie to make people believe that the translations we have today are false. The reality is that the NT was written in Greek and no other language.
FollowChristJesus 2 years ago
I am trying to figure out why this lady does not respond to my comments!
uwjco 2 years ago
YHWH did not make any deals with Argentina, Colombia, ten buck two or the Niagara Falls, His deal was with the house of Yhuda and with the house of Israel! Jer 31;31.
Yahhushua, the Messhiac, only came to His people, not to gentiles who later changed him into a pagan christ that goes to church on sundays, rolls easter eggs and comes down the chimney during x-mass.
uwjco 2 years ago
The King James Version is flawed at best and extremely corrupted at worse. The name of YHWH is in the original 6.823 times. Somebody had the audacity to change it, why are you following them?
uwjco 2 years ago
The Tanak was written in ancient paleo Hebrew and the Brit Chadasha was written in the peshita Aramaic. YAhshua spoke Aramaic! Just for you to know. What do you think about Romans 10:4? and Acts 12:4. What is the real name of the book of James? Could it be Yacob?
uwjco 2 years ago
YOU CAN NOT GO PAST THREE VERSES IN GENESIS 1 TO SEE IN THE KING JAMES VERSION THAT YHWH WAS CHANGED TO "god' ALMOST 7000 TIMES!! ARE YOU NOW BLOTTED OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE?
uwjco 2 years ago
Here's a woman, intelligent no doubt, that has found a way into people's interest and probably into their wallets with putting on shows like those. How could someone who is an 'expert' in Biblical translation present a comparison between two English translations and point to the differences as something done with the intent to distort God's Word? You compare English to Greek!!!! Not English to English.
ciorapimurati 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I saw Gail Riplinger's presentation on another channel, but it was the long version. I like these shorter, bites of teachings because I may not have time to sit thru the long presentation.
LuvWorkingAtHome 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You cant trust the bible AT ALL,
it was a fireside book of myth to start with
and it has been degraded steadily ever since.
It is so vague, so internally inconsistent,
so filled with scientific and historical error
and so many contradictions
that it is totally worthless for any sort
of instruction or moral guidance.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Comment removed
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Excuse me Ms/Mrs. Riplinger, it is NOT easy to be saved. Sure, the formula is easy, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus, doing it though is not. Why? Because man is spiritually dead, a sinful child of wrath by nature. He can not and will not come to God apart from divine intervention. Also, in the case of the context of Matt 7, narrow and difficult ARE, in a sense, synonyms. Narrow in the greek is thlibō: to crowd (lit. or fig.): - afflict, narrow, throng, suffer tribulation, trouble.
Coyne1988 3 years ago
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
-Mark 10:26-27, KJV
Coyne1988 3 years ago
There are just as many errors in the KJV if not more this is such a ridiculous waste of a Christian's time to argue this mute point of claiming one archaic 17th century version; Not even the first English bible, somehow trumps the rest. Spend your time trying to "convince" lost people that Jesus Christ is the way of salvation.
rb300dx 3 years ago
i am very sure that the dead sea scrolls confirms the kjv 1611 -it even uses the correct terms in the name of christ-and how can it be 17century if its 16th century??and can you give an example of your statement??if you understood satan deceptions then you'll know he also uses the bible too in the sense of completely changing certain understandings that leads people from salvation???
forlatagate 3 years ago
No one convinces anyone to get saved. What saves someone is the PURE word of God (1Pe.1:23-25)
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom.10:17)
edwardpf123 3 years ago
mistranslations are realy a plague in the bible, but i dont think ever we will use the new translations...
syraneko 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bible study of the day, "women are wicked"
Eccles. 25:13
"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman."
Eccles. 25:22
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."
Eccles. 42:13-14
"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach."
isamsb 3 years ago
if you go back to the sumarian text you will be learning and understanding the original story....before it was bastardized by the ego's of power craving meglamaniacs...the chosen ones live in a religeous occult that has gained power over the masses via devious means...believe in yourself and be free...
bhudamonk 3 years ago
Excellent!
CathyFromPensacola 3 years ago
women should really keep silent in church
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
Gutcheckcoming is correct according to 1Tim2:12. It's a mute point b/c God is calling true believers out of the church(Matt24:15,16) as Satan now sits as God in the temple(today's church) in 2Thess3:4. We can look to the fate of all churches in Rev 1-3 which gives 7 examples.
tariqshabazz 3 years ago
NIV, one of several modern Bibles copyright owned by Zondervan, is owned by 20th Cent Fox, FOX, NEWS CORP, Ruppert Murdoch. Google Murdoch, Zondervan, NIV.
icctga 3 years ago
zondervan also prints the kjv in america hi5
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
It's only a shame for Jezebel-type women to speak in the Church. There are multiple examples in the Bible of women leading, speaking and prophesying.
KJBman777 3 years ago
kkkkkkatherine The word "Morning Star" and "Lucifer" are the same.
Lucifer in hebrew = heylel = "light-bearer" 1) shining one, morning star,
Jesus called him self the 2nd Adam/man
CRJarvis 3 years ago
revalalations in the niv calls jesus the morning star, do you see the contradiction?
bumbacutthoat 3 years ago
Revelation 22:16 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
in the kjv to :) Bright is key from the root greek that makes it different niv is actually makes it clearer that its a different title if anything.
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
see this is the hard part to tell anyone.
1 Jesus was the 2nd Man (Adam)
2 he was the 2nd to have the title Morning Star
3 Man (Adam) was the 1st man
4 and Man (Adam) was the 1st morning star. the one that lost his place in the garden of God and lost his heavenly connection with God and was put out of the 1st heaven down to the earth to plow the ground.
"Like it says Israel has fallen from heaven" so Did Adam.
Adam and his descendents are "the Sons of God" talked about in the O.T.
CRJarvis 3 years ago
The reason it's hard to tell anyone is because it's not in the bible...not the kjv anyway.
masseyjt 3 years ago
Thank you very much for posting this!!
I have recently purchased an old (1965) KJV
Bible...hoping it's not been 'modernized'
Folks: read your Bibles, see for yourselves the difference in the 'new' translations. ISAIAH 12:14 NIV substitutes Jesus's name: Morning Star...for Lucifer... being cast from heaven....! How WRONG is That?!
kkkkkkatherine 3 years ago
there is no isaiah 12:14 it only goes to 6 even in the kjv
Gutcheckcoming 3 years ago
The point is is that these people use the KJV as their standard instead of the greek. There is no greek ms or evidence used to support what shes saying. No ones arguing that modern translations aren't difference...the debate is based up mss.
boboe511 3 years ago
I tried to verify this video. As a sample I checked the verses quoted at 3:20. They do not check out. The video is lying. The video claims the NIV does not use heaven for some of the verses, but in fact it does. Some of the others (eg. Luke 11) are complete fabrications.
pieperjk 3 years ago
Well her sheet clearly says "heaven is greatly reduced". It doesn't mean it's completely eliminated. What's your point? It uses it for some but not for all. The fact she is stating is still true, regardless.
It's also possible to make mistakes, bud. Like you said, Luke 11 was a fabrication. Maybe it was a misprint. We all make mistakes. I'm sure she wouldn't have purposely lied if all that was required to find her out was for some numbskull like you to simply look it up.
davidmichaelmann 3 years ago
and we share the same view points bro.
boboe511 3 years ago
This is the point...verse 7 is the scribal variant addition as interpretation/interpolation. This is obviously why it is in the margin of 4/8 of the greek manusripts.
boboe511 3 years ago
3) Attacking a critic without substantiating it (example: accusing Westcott of devil worship) constitutes ad hominem.
4) Accusing your opponent of lying without demonstrating it constitutes ad hominem.
5) Questioning the credentials of a critic is not ad hominem provided it is documented.
We can add any rules bbhofio wants to consider.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
This kind of exchange demands a little more structure. For starters, what are you debating? Are we going to take a shot in the dark for 8,000 words and then hope we can make some sense in rebuttals?
You need to present a specific statement and then debate that statement.
For example, are we going to debate a particular passage? Are we going to debate a particular claim made by Alexandrian scholarship (or Received Text scholars)?
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Those are fair questions, and I appreciate your interaction. Yes, I must make a statement at least to deny what you affirm. So word your statement as you desire it to be.
Now, we can discuss specific passages if you so desire. Got any that you would like specifically addressed?
I would hope, however, that you have some structured sense to your position. If you do, you have been able to hide it well here. I John 5:7?
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
PROPOSAL
1) 8,000 word opening statements
2) 4,000 word rebuttal part #1
3) 4,000 word counter rebuttal to new issues
4) 75 cross examination questions that must be answered 'yes/no'
5) Closing Statements of 3,500 words
ADDITIONAL RULES
1) All citations must be fully documented with bibliographic data
2) Ad hominem is strictly prohibited. Its first use will draw a warning; it's second use will result in forfeiture of the debate
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
I think you scared him off.
boboe511 3 years ago
DEBATE OFFER
Before a debate may ensue, rules must agreed upon as well as who affirms what and who denies what. I therefore propose as a title for the debate, "The KJV Alone Is The Word of God In English." Whatever the title, he will affirm, and I will deny. (He's going to find the going tough since I'm going to insist upon DOCUMENTATION for every nutty claim; note that his next move will be to drop it).
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
I would enjoy seeing this if you don't mind Maestro
boboe511 3 years ago
Dear Viewers,
BBfohio (or whatever his name is) has stated he is willing to debate this issue on CARM. I post under Maestroh, so assuming he stops making snide sexual (you know, junior high) remarks, we will begin negotiations regarding precisely HOW this will be done.
I think many of you will find that his 'arguments' recited from Ms. Riplinger's work will collapse. But never fear - he is going to show me how stupid I am.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Thank you MAESTRO for joining the conversation its nice to see some one else has a brain.
boboe511 3 years ago
The real facts and truth of the matter is that min. 88 is a variant reading in a 16th cent hand, added to the 14th codex Regius of Naples; quoted by none of the greek fathers
boboe511 3 years ago
"It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." (Scrivener, Introduction, p. 453)
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Jerome confirms:
"In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, ...[heretics] place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father, and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic (i.e. universal) faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is confirmed." (390 AD, Prologue To The Canonical Epistles)
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Why don't you bother to mention what the same guy said IN THE SAME BOOK about I John 5:7?
"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Instead of naming off Church Fathers who supposedly used the Johhanine Comma and giving a date of when they lived...give me the work that they mention the Johanine comma. So I can look it up and I wouldn't consider Calvary Chapel my brethren seeing how they use NKJV and KJV
boboe511 3 years ago
Jerome's Epistle to Eustochium in 450 AD.
The Council of Carthage quotes the verse in it's appeal against Arians in 415 AD.
The 4th century "Liber Apologeticus" contains it.
Cyprian quotes it in "On the Unity of the Church".
bbbfohio 3 years ago
There are over 8,000 Latin manuscripts, of those that contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 John the vast majority contain 1 John 5:7. For example, it is in m (427 AD), r (7th century), t (8th century).
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Give me Cyprian's ACTUAL quotation.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Cyprian's actual quote "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and agian it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'And these three are one." (On the Unity of the Church...Paragraph 6.)
boboe511 3 years ago
I see. So the only part he QUOTED was from verse eight.
How can quoting a phrase from verse eight be proof of the existence of verse 7?
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
I am not claiming that he is stating the TR verse 7...you asked for the quote there it is...I agree he is not qouting 7 he is wrongfully interpreting verse 8 and the pericope in the context.
boboe511 3 years ago
My bad. I thought you were arguing for it. Oh - and it's in the margin of four out of eight total Greek mss - not 4/8, which would be 1/2.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
well 4/8 bc there are 8 greek mss with the CJ from 15th cent- but 4 of them are in the margin and 4 have it actually inserted in the text.
boboe511 3 years ago
but the interpolations are so late why the heck bother even considering them for a translation thats why Metzger says they have no right to honestly be placed in any version (Textual Commentary...pg 648) and added a nice footnote in the NIV emphatically urging this point.
boboe511 3 years ago
Yeah, but it is an issue in part because there was a Unitarian on the 1881 translation committee. Some of the folks who are Trinitarian - as am I - get upset at what they believe is an attempt to undercut the Trinity.
I think that's a legitimate concern except that the two main guys, Westcott and Hort, were both Trinitarians and were both generally considered conservative Anglican churchmen of their time - as was their nemesis, Burgon.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Oh for sure...but as you would obviously agree there is plenty of other passages in scripture that allude to the doctrine of the trinity. The issue here however is one of honesty with the text as well as textual methodology in criticism. One can not ignore the variant evidence and yet say I want to aspire to the original text.
boboe511 3 years ago
Bingo. Romans 5:1-5 for starters.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Nice even the website you gave me uses the NIV for their scripture for today...and I'm glad you use a website with no credentials for your research...just keeping copying and pasting.
boboe511 3 years ago
I sent you to one of your corrupt brethren so you couldn't accuse me of bias.
You just can't be pleased. You're going to crap on God's word, no matter what it takes, evidently.
I didn't copy and paste anything. I have more than 14 textual science texts at my disposal, besides internet resources.
But why would that matter. Is this a "mine's bigger than yours" match or are you interested in FACTS?
Stop psycho-analyzing and trying to change the subject and start dealing with FACTS.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
One more thing...Westcott and Hort have not been scrapped...only by the Baptist. Their methodologies and textual criticism tools are used in every major university and scholar still to this day.
boboe511 3 years ago
No one buys the Recension theory.
Noe one teaches Westcott and Hort without a major revision of their work and compelte overhaul of their methodologies. If you can't admit that, you demonstrate a real dishonesty in discourse.
Use of Westcott and Hort is comparible to the use of Darwin in biology (birds of a feather since both W & H both bought the evolutionary hoax). Professors tip their hat at their memory and their work and then they move on.
That's the real world...
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Now I'll give you a chance to respond to this before I go on any further...then I will address your scriptural references if your interested. Now I know you guys like to react with name calling, insults, accusations, and demonizing but lets try to act like an adult here and only use facts and claims.
boboe511 3 years ago
One of the greatest hoaxes (right up there with the Lucian Recension) is the idea that 1 John 5:7 is not found in any manuscript other than one that Erasmus produced by coersion.
Dan Brown should have included that in the Davinvi Codes...
Fulgentius quotes it in 510 AD. Jerome in 450 AD. Athanasius in 350 AD. Cyprian in 250 AD. Tertullian in 200 AD. Wadlensian Bibles in 400 AD. Old Syriac in 170 AD, etc., Miniscule 88 in 1150 AD, MSS 61 in 1500 AD.
All before Erasmus was born.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
I will agree with you though that there is evidence of the Byzantine text sneaking up earlier than 12th cent. However, it is very small (no full-text types) starting in the fifth century in portions of Codices W and A.
boboe511 3 years ago
You are pitting a handful of manuscripts against thousands of Byzantine (which disagree with each other on non-essential portions and whose disagreements are recitified with the use of simple textual science of comparison).
According to you, Christians were mentally and spiritually retarded for about 1,400 years and rejected the true Bible while embracing the false Bible. BUT, thankfully, scholars came along to fix us up and trash our traditional text for the new "eclectic" text. ??
bbbfohio 3 years ago
They still left evidence of the trinity, divinity of Christ, his saving grace and blood, his resurrection and reign, his parousia etc. Wow what damage!
boboe511 3 years ago
Please explain how the most intelligent created being (Lucifer) would be stupid enough to entirely corrupt a Bible and expect the world to swallow it.
Satan isn't stupid.
He has presented new bibles that grow more corrupt with every passing year. We started with the small changes of the RV, ASV 1901 and RSV 1954. Now, we've come to the Message, NIV and transgendered NIV's, etc.
If you are fool enough to swallow that, go at it. I believe in freedom of conscience.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
It is also popular to say as you said yourself that the Alexandrian was corrupt as though there is historical evidence of some sort of corruption. This is one more KJV onlyist effort to demonize everyone and everything that would ascribe to modern translations. What proof is there that they were corrupted, why, and how so? "it was satanic and an effort to change the word or orthodox christianity" they say...well if thats the case they did a horrible job at it bc they left the best stuff in.
boboe511 3 years ago
The Vaticanus manuscript sat on a shelf in Rome and no one accepted it but the Pope because it is CORRUPT with portions of the manuscript showing corruption. This isn't even denied by the likes of Tischendorf who idolized the piece of toilet paper it was written on.
Siniaticus was being used shred by shred by monks to light fires to warm themselves in the desert night. No one saw any worth in this mutilated manuscript until it because worth something solely upon antiquity.
Facts...
bbbfohio 3 years ago
And you want to say 4000 FULL manuscripts...another lie or ignorant claim. Your over estimating how many FULL ones we have, there are less than 8% of the 5400 manusripts/fragments that are fully preserved.
boboe511 3 years ago
4,000 full Greek. 1,300 fragment Greek. 10,000 early Latin. 9,300 early Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, etc. 32,000 early Christian quotations (mostly Greek).
Your standards are not legitimate. If we held ALL ancient documents to your standard, we would have to throw out ALL ancient materials. You ought to establish a realistic standard before applying an unrealistic standard to Scriptre.
And you still have to deal with 95% agreement among Byzantine majority manuscripts.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Not word for word bc the translator still is forced to choose between two manuscripts/fragments/papyri that DIFFER from each other. Therefore divorcing the project from full preservation.
boboe511 3 years ago
That's your faith-based conclusion based upon materialistic presumption. You walk in the flesh, you will die by the flesh.
But Christians have always believed God was in the preservation process and that what we have today is HIS word preserved in fulfillment of HIS promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and based upon HIS character, which is to keep His word.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
And you want to claim uniformity, conformity, agreement etc. Well that is also hilarious bc the Byzantine (majority text) is not completely uniform as you would like to think. NO TWO manuscripts in this tradition completely agree w/ each other; it has long been known that one of its characteristics is the conflation found within it. The person espousing this text is not releived of the task of having to choose between variants within. Therefore it is not word for word perfect in the KJV.
boboe511 3 years ago
Your accusations are a load of crap.
The lack of uniformity doesn't present changes to the text like that found in Alexandrian readings (1 Ti. 3:16 for example). You want to gag on a gnat and swallow an Egyptian camel.
And your claim of "conflation" is based on a little thing called CONJECTURE. You have to assume about ten variables to then establish conflation.
And we all know what happens when we ass-ume.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
It was called TR bc it was the standard version circulating at the time of the Elzevir brothers. And its hilarious that you say "4000 FULL manuscripts and SEVERAL thousand fragments that virtually agree against the Alexandrian texts and in agreement with the KJV." You like to point out lies...well there's a huge one. Bc at last count we only have 5,378 manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament. Not 4000+SEVERAL thousands.
boboe511 3 years ago
4000 full manuscripts in Greek language, 1,300 fragments in Greek, 10,000 early Latin, 9,300 Syriac, Coptic, Aermenian, Gothic, etc. and more than 32,000 quotations from the church fathers, mostly quoting the pre-Alexandrian Greek texts in existence during that time.
Burgon and Miller demonstrated the "church fathers" used Byzantine text type in the mass majority of their 32,000 quotations.
That's hilarious!!! LOL
Go to biblefacts to org slash history slash oldtext dot html
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Don't assume BBBFOHIO that you are the only one here with an education. All this rhetoric about The Received Text as though it is called that bc it came down from the heavens or was Received by Peter himself. The term wasn't coined until 1633 as "textum omnibus receptum"...or "the text now received by all" not bc of the aboved mentioned but bc the king mandated it against the Bishop's Bible which was full of Puritan footnotes taht he abhorred.
boboe511 3 years ago
You are spuing falsehood.
The Received Text is called that in RESPONSE to the fact that it was the ONLY text used by Bible Believing, non-papist Christians from the time of the Apostles until 1881.
I am in America. It wasn't called that originally, so are we all stupid for calling it that, now? By your logic, yes.
King James said NOTHING about what text to use in translation. The 40+ translators made that decision on their own and any historical account will confirm that.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
King James did put the fear of being put to death into his translators, what we have to prove it... the words baptism and Easter to start with. There are many transliterations in the KJV because they feared being put to death if they denied that century's theology.
FollowChristJesus 2 years ago
what do you mean by easter
iamundergrace 2 years ago
So now we ordain women into teaching positions?
apologiamixer 3 years ago
The King James Bible is translated from Greek to English. I have the Received Text underlying the KJV and I have the KJV. I can compare them and see that it is an accurate, literal translation.
Interpretation comes after translation, not vice versa.
Words have meaning. Theopneustos is "God-breathed" and translated, "Given by inspriation of God" in 2 Timothy 3:16 from Greek to English. It's that simple and I can show you the accuracy of the KJV in that manner.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
That's not the point, at all.
What you say is absolutely true. But if you have two DIFFERENT references, then obviously there is more than simple interpretation issues. And that is the point.
The KJV comes from the Textus Receptus Greek.
The new bibles come from Alexandrian Greek.
Things that are different are not the same. Alexandrian manuscripts, for example, remove the Deity of Christ from 1 Timothy 3:16, remove the blood from Colossians 1:14, etc.
That is the issue.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Look up Isaiah 14:12 in your NIV. They removed the reference to Lucifer and replaced it with "Star of the Morning"... a title of Jesus Christ!!
According to the NIV, Jesus is kicked out of Heaven!
This is exactly what Albert Pike (Mason), Madame Blavatsky (New Age) and all occultic relgions teach!
I wouldn't use an NIV to wipe with after using the toilet! Just trash it, man. It's GARBAGE, not even FIT for use as TP.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Did you know that the KJV does the same thing with 'lion?' Jesus is the 'lion of the tribe of Judah' (Rev. 5:5) while Satan is a 'lion' who roars around seeking who he may devour (I Pet. 5:8).
But I hardly expect consistency from a KJVO.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Look up Isaiah 14:12 in your NIV. They removed the reference to Lucifer and replaced it with "Star of the Morning"... a title of Jesus Christ!!
According to the NIV, Jesus is kicked out of Heaven!
This is exactly what Albert Pike (Mason), Madame Blavatsky (New Age) and all occultic relgions teach!
I wouldn't use an NIV to wipe with after using the toilet! Just trash it, man. It's GARBAGE, not even FIT for use as TP.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Lucifer is a transliteration of a word that means "Start of the Morning" literally, and might I add that Jesus calls himself the "Bright Morning Star" in Rev. 22:16 (ESV). The name Lucifer may have actually been a reference to the king of Babylon who called himself by different names usually reserved for deities. You can find this out by reading all the scriptures relating to him in the Bible.
FollowChristJesus 2 years ago
Go to biblebelievers dot calm
Look under "Bible Versions" for a TON of factual info exposing the FRAUDULENT new "bibles", including the HIV (NIV).
bbbfohio 3 years ago
You are crazy lady.
Brix1990 3 years ago
This lady is doing nothing but comparing versions. She is completely clueless to the original text, textual criticism, manuscripts etc. These people cause nothing but division. She is only proving the point that modern translations are better than the KJV.
boboe511 3 years ago
Actually, the only thing she is 'proving' is that she is an expert in the flawed comparison methodology, the question begging argument, and the appeal to selective evidence (compare Acts 4:25 in the 'new versions' with the KJV and you'll see what I mean).
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
The King James Bible is the ONLY translation that isn't from Alexandrian manuscripts.
The Alexandrian text originate with Origen. He was a Christ-denying nutcase who castrated himself because he thought he needed to lose his nads in order to go to Heaven.
Alexandria, EGYPT. The place God calls His Son out of.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
The Alexandrian AND the Western texts PRECEDE Origen; only the Byzantine text is post-Origen. Therefore, assuming Origen wrote a new Bible, it could only have been the Byzantine.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Corrupting God's word IS DIVISION, not pointing out the corruption.
What is wrong with all the stupid idiots who think it's alright to butcher God's word? KEEP YOUR HANDS OF GOD'S WORD.
This "lady" is speaking FACTS.
You don't know anything about the "original text". Or do you? You've never seen the "original text" have you? So, how do you know anything about the "original text"?
You don't. It doesn't EXIST.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
No she isn't.
But you're too ignorant to know it.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Good Job! Your comment is the most intelligent one I have seen yet. yours and Maestohbill's. The issue is that people translated the KJV not God. Come to think of it people have made all the translations that exist. The flaws of any version is it originates with human beings...
FollowChristJesus 2 years ago
I came to realize that the KJV is the perfect word of God. I prayed to God to lead me to the right one, since there are so many versions. There can only be one word of God because God does not change. Versions do. The other versions never allowed God to speak to me. The only way I experienced growth in me was through the reading of the KJV.
nyrick999 4 years ago
Yeah, well I prayed to God and he told me the god that talked to you was a liar.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Maestrohbill is the liar. Your posts are stupid.
The King James Bible IS the word of God and you will be judged by IT on Judgment Day.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
Do you care to debate this in a moderated forum, Homer, or are you little more than a nerd who got his tail kicked walking home from school who is now living out his schoolyard fantasy?
Come register at CARM, and I will break you from sucking eggs - assuming you have an ounce of intestinal fortitude (which we both know you don't).
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Are you masterbating while you write that? Sounds like you were getting horny talking about fantasies and all...
bbbfohio 3 years ago
I see the real devil is named bbbfohio.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
Explain exactly where it is that I can take the pleasure of demonstrating how stupid you are.
I'll be there...
bbbfohio 3 years ago
CARM dot org
Although your word is clearly the LAST in stupidity already.
Maestrohbill 3 years ago
this woman does not care if she is leading people to hell or not. she only trying to prove her way her bible is the right one.
The Blind leading the Blind.
what does the Original Text say.
CRJarvis 4 years ago
if a woman can lead people to christ, let her do it
muscletruckdude 4 years ago
i have no problem with her being a woman.
i will call her IT if you want.
its the fact that IT is not checking the scripture to the orignal but to ITs translation.
CRJarvis 4 years ago
You wouldn't know what the "original text" says, you blaspheming little liar. You have NEVER seen the original text. No one has EVER seen the original text.
You're full of crap.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
The original? LOL
Go kid your grandmother. The "original" you speak of is GONE. Desintegrated. POOF.
Why do you lie like that? You keep talking about "the original" CRJarvis, you are a bold-faced LIAR.
You have NEVER seen the "original" and you just say that because you know that most people don't know enough to point out that you're full of CRAP.
bbbfohio 3 years ago
look up this video it will help you.
remember in the Original Text Hebrew Aramaic and Greek do not have this problems.
search on youtube for " 101 Contradictions in the Bible "
CRJarvis 4 years ago
A translation cannot be determined as good or bad based on another translation. The original must be consulted...
sugkrino 4 years ago
dead sea scrolls confirms much
forlatagate 4 years ago
I would agree.
sugkrino 4 years ago
I Agree, why don't you compaire the JKV to the Original that came from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
CRJarvis 4 years ago
The original? LOL
You mean Alexandrinus? Not the original.
You mean Siniaticus? Not the original.
You mean Vaticanus? Not the original.
What do you mean? What original. According to EVERY Greek scholar on the face of God's green earth, there IS no original. The "originals" perished. All you have are copies.
bbbfohio 3 years ago