A book says that it's God's word so it must be God's word. Good, solid argument. A book says that it is the only written word of the Loch Ness monster, so it must be the only written word of the Loch Ness monster.
The Word of God was preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic. The KJV is an adequate translation. I am actually quite fond of it. But, the Complete Jewish Bible translated by David Stern is much more accurate in conveying the real meaning of the original text. The Aramaic English New Testament by Andrew Roth deserves serious consideration also.
This kid can believe what he wants...its his choice and he's not ramming religion down our throats, we can turn this off at any point. He's fanatical about it, thats obvious, and over the top. The issue I have about the KJV is that the language is very difficult to read and understand so I chose to read a version that is translated by a panel of people which means it is a close as possible to the original KJV. I'm sure God would prefer us to read the bible in any translation than not at all
1. If you think that the 1611 version is the true Word of God, I assume you accept the Apocrypha as inspired, since they were in that version? And I assume that you accept all the textual notes where the translators suggest other translations? Do you accept the validity of the introduction, where the translators admit that there must be errors in their version?
Wake up and smell the apostasy since the diabolical "CT" (critical text) is based on the great whore's Codex Vaticanus and Kittel's incorrect Hebrew. Regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ will read, study, believe and preach the inerrant King James Bible for the English-speaking peoples today, or else they will follow apostates and slither off toward the wretched "modern versions."
Do you know enough to tell anyone what the inerrant Holy Scriptures are in any language?
Erasmus was already irrelevant by the time of the reign or King James VI of Scotland and I of England, and so are his scholarly efforts which laid the foundation for Reformation Era translations of the Holy Scrptures in the languages of Europe.
For the English-speaking peoples, the AV1611 is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by LORd and verbally inerrant in the lingua franca of the world today.
When--if ever--did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner bound for hell?
@jjpetkusiii But the KJV translators used Erasmus' text, the Textus Receptus, in their translation, and got those last verses from him, which he got from the Vulgate. So were the KJV translators right to do so or not? And KJV English is not the lingua franca of the world today; in fact, the English we speak isn't. Rather, it's a simplifed form of English, with a smaller vocabulary and simplified syntax.
@Naiant As boggymark1 wrote, "Renowned as the British Solomon by the preacher who eulogized him, King James VI of Scotland and I of England once wrote, 'It is Atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: good Christians content themselves with His will revealed in His word.'
"For the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by the LORD and free of errors, omissions, and additions as an irrefutable matter of historical fact."
As 400KJV put it, "The KJV has been tested in all these things and come out victorious, read any defence on the KJV you'll find that the KJV had it right even when your assumptions seemed so."
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Timothy 2:15).
The King James Bible was not translated from the incorrect Hebrew of the Antisemitic Kittel and a corrupt Alexandrian MS like Rome's Codex Vaticanus.
You got hocus pocus, Opus Dei flagellants, and prelates who protect paedophiles in the Roman Curia.
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration" (Revelation 17:6)
"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18).
Rome is the Mother of Harlots and Abominations according to the Holy Scriptures.
lol! what makes you sure that "phrases"are correctly translated from the original!..if anyone denies of king james inaccuracy and misstranslations is a blind followers of their "pastors"!.YOU ARE BEING LIED DELIBIRATELY!!.so far the most accurate is Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible!!..do ur homework and check it yourself.however,its true that rcc is bein infeltrated by outside enemies of true rcc...there are now two rcc traditional(true) & modernist(falls)
Even if you do believe that this passage does refer to a future translation why the King James why not the NASB, or the ESV, or even the NIV? You did not clarify why it specifically refers to the KJV.
I do not beleive that when this passage was written that the author was refering to a translation that would not be written until over 2500 years later in a language that was not spoken yet.
Sound Biblical doctrine and valid hermeneutic methodology are not matters of debate.
No one (e.g., you) in 400 years has ever proven any linguistic or historical fact that refutes the plenary verbal inerrancy of the King James Bible in fully legible English today, which is the lingua franca of our contemporary world.
@jjpetkusiii You choose to believe in the bible, I choose to believe this guy is a poe and a rather bad one at that. He's just not funny. Also you fail at interpreting my post. Oh and I almost forgot: PENIS!
Are you saying, "De gustibus malis et mulieribus non est disputandum"??
In any case, as random331 put it so succinctly, "Jesus Christ said 'come unto me' -- not his mother, his 'church', his religion, his statue, his priests, his apostles, or anybody else. If you can't tell which churches are lying to you then you either have never read the Bible, or you didn't pay any attention when you did."
When – if ever – were you convinced that you are a lost sinner bound for hell?
@jjpetkusiii Dude! Read -> understand -> post. You're inane babbling makes absolutely no sense. Also quoting latin proverbs does not make you appear smart. I hope that was clear enough.
No, dude, I did not "quote" the Latin proverb which reads: "De gustibus et mulieribus non est disputandum."
I did pose two questions to you, and you failed to answer them. So, when (if ever) did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner on your way to hell?
@sillymonkey829 Clearly you are not sorry. It seems as if something really is wrong with this person. Does it make sense to rub it in? This person may be intellectually inferior to me... let's make them feel bad about it as well!
Бетховен--прекрасный композитор и я рада что именно его произведение (прощание с фортепиано) мне довелось играть на выпускном экзамене по фортепиано.
Many of us, however, who the excellence of prefer Bach or Vivaldi--despite shallow longings for gratuitous novelty by other contemporary listeners--tend in unalloyed honesty and candor to concur with the AV1611 translators who stated that they intended to present the "principal" translation of the Holy Scriptures in English.
Although I am also fluent in modern Spanish, it is not my native language, nor is it that of most Americans to this day.
For the English-speaking peoples in any case, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by the LORD and free of errors, additions and omissions as an irrefutable matter of historical fact.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked." (Proverbs 29:27).
First off the bible was written by half literate goat herders in the bronze age.
Thank King James for giving you that book of toilet paper. Before King James authorized it you would be put to death for owning a English translated bible before 1604. Just look up what happened to William Tyndale for translating it.
The 1611 Bible you have in your hand is not the same as the original 1611 Bible. The apocrypha has been removed and many typo and translation errors have been corrected.
@apologiamixer There is no doubt the Apocrypha was removed, and that it belongs! Did you know it was punishable by a YEAR in prison for selling or printing a King James Version without the Apocrypha in 1611!
My friend, I appreciate the convictions you perceive to be sincere, but you are drowning in your ignorance. Step back from your dogmatism. Only original authors of the original manuscripts (autographs) were inspired; not the scribes of King James or any other modern translation. Was the language of King James the same as in Jesus' day? No! So if there were a closed canon at the end of the 1st century completely in Aramaic, would it be heretical in your eyes? Don't separate faith from reason.
the bible is the truth. just know this :your branch (along with other branches) of christiantiy are dying. DYING. your branches could lose 50% of ur members within the next 40 years. your belief in God is fading into the backround, ur belief in conservative belief is dying. i am a LIBERAL christian, not the dying conservative christian you are. what does that tell you? God is preffering liberal christianity. peace and <3!!!
Did you ever come up with an answer for the fact that the KJV does have a copyright in England?
And if "His truth endureth to all generations" means that the KJV is that truth and nothing else, than what was that truth before 1611? Just show me the preserved word of God in the generation before 1611.
@kexxrulz What color is the container I'm drinking out of? is it glass, plastic or something else? does it have a lid? handle? does it have writing on it, and if so, what does it say? ok, let's have it----god.
he also preserved deuteronomy which commands xtians to stone those who try to turn you away from god. show him no pity. let your hand be the first to strike. i'll bet that was one of those allegory things, huh?
The only reason these morons believe in only the KJV is because that is the only bible that translate everything as hell, when unending burning was never part of the original hebrew or greek. But what do you expect from some dumbrods. KJV onlyism is a cult.
They complain about idolatry, and yet worship some English King.
OK? Seriously? The King James is a "translation" of God's Word! This is not that hard to understand. Did God "authorize" the KIng James translation? Where is this in scripture..other translations have the same verse in them. If I do not speak English, which version do I read? Thank you for believing that God and His Word will always exist, but let's not limit Him by demanding we read only one translation.
@dspikey Harmless? He is anti Muslim and Anticatholic. He is going to destroy Notre Dame, and many beautiful cathedrals. Plus this future terrorist is going to bomb the Middle East.
Well I admire you for your fervent desire to preach and defend the faith; but perhaps you need to read the translators comments concerning the very bible you purport to be 'thee word of God'. Go ahead and do some real research and find out what they believed of the very bible you read.
Ps. 12:6-7 is the lynchpin for most KJVO advocates. The problem is that, in Hebrew, the suffix translated "them" in v.7 is masculine while the term translated "words" is feminine. In Hebrew, a pronoun has to match its antecedent's gender. So, unless there is some kind of poetic license at play (unlikely), "them" cannot be referring to "words." It is almost certainly referring to the "poor" and "needy" (both masculine in Heb.) of v.5.
Basic Hebrew grammar deflates this guy's whole argument
1. Mr. Wolf (how appropriate), this young man has taken time to post original content; preaching the word of God, as we are commanded. Where is yours?
2. This young man reads the word of God that he has, and he believes it. Isn't that a scriptural principle?
3. Where is the word of God that you believe, Mr. Wolf? I would like to study it and search it, to see whether these things are so that you believe - as my copy of God's word commands.
1) I preach/teach every week in my local congregation.
2)Yes, this is a scriptural principle, but he is forwarding an interpretation, not Ps. 12:7 itself.
3)If you want to know what "word" I believe, I believe the living Christ is ultimately God's word. If you want to know what version of Ps. 12 I believe, the Hebew is the real Ps 12. All else is just a translation. Most times, a translation is fine. But on grammar issue like this, one must look at the original lang. See my PM for 411.
a. My English antecedent, the pronoun "yours", refers back to posted original "content". So, your preaching/teaching in your local congregation isn't a very helpful reply, and doesn't really answer the question either.
b. In fact, by your own judgment, "basic [English] grammar deflates [your] whole argument", 'unless there is some kind of poetic license at play (unlikely) that equates your weekly preaching/teaching to 'posted original content.' '
Oh! I thought your point was something like "get busy preaching." It appears you just want to review my teaching.
I see.
Do you want me to film myself reading my post? I'm not sure how that would help-- other to win people over with my dashing good looks (ha-ha). I'm supposing you mean you want to review my body of teaching. Well, that might take a while. Or, one could just read my post.
1 c. We can rectify that though. I, and perhaps others, would welcome the opportunity to review your 'content', if you would kindly film it and post it for us, as this young man has taken time to do.
2. Given that the Hebrew originals don't exist, and that you are therefore using one of several Hebrew versions; logically, you are only forwarding an interpretation of Ps 12:7 (or vs 8 in the Hebrew) 'as well'.
3a. You haven't specified which of the Hebrew versions that you mean.
You have not specified here what edition of the KJV you are using-- or what particular interpretations the Anglican translators made in translating. (not meaning to be snarky)
I use the BHS to be specific. To my knowledge, there is no textual variants where this Psalm is concerned.
3b. Regardless, the biblical pattern is that translations are equal to the originals in that they are also given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and are superior to the originals in that the translated state is always a better, more desirable, and/or more useful state than that of the original.
4. The word of God must be our FINAL authority, and it doesn't contradict itself. Even the Hebrew teaches that.
What? How is that "the biblical pattern"? "The translated state is always a better... state than the original?" I suppose it would be if one cannot read the biblical languages. Better to have Englsih than a bunch of jibber-jabber you can't read. But anytime you take a statment and export it into a different language, there is a shift involved. Are you suggesting the shifted version is better than the statement in the original language? That's kind of odd, IMO.
For the benefit of the reader, I would like to add a few observations and comments to those posted by Mr. "Wolf". Mr. Wolf sent me a lengthy personal message that continued to expose his deep lack of understanding, and that will require a complete article on our website to properly address. For now, please consider these points in regard to his comments above:
a. The young man who posted these videos reads his bible, believes his bible, and has taken time to share his understanding with others, as we are commanded to do by that very word of God.
b. Wolf, posing as an intellectual, attacked this young man with disdain; concluding that, "Basic Hebrew grammar deflates this guy's whole argument" - despite the fact that Wolf admittedly hasn't posted any videos of his own to share the truth as he purports to know it.
I accept bereanresearch's corrective of my tone. It was not my intention to bereate 1611baptist's efforts. I'm sure he is sincere, and sincerely desires to people to know the truth of Christ. For this, of course, he is to be greatly commended. I could have voice my concerns more gently.
I am, however, still at a bit of a loss as to why my not having posted a video makes my argument carry less weight. But, perhaps this is youtube etiquette a relative newbie like me does not know about.
c. Wolf carelessly missed the meaning of the pronoun "yours", along with its antecedent, in my first question to him. This is significant because the original issue that he raised (to disparage the young man's video) pertains to the use of pronouns in Ps 12:6-7 and their antecedents - a subject about which Wolf relishes opportunities to lecture others.
d. But he dismisses his errors, with continued disdain that he pretends to hide behind a mask of humor, "Oh! I thought your point was something like "get busy preaching." It appears you just want to review my teaching", he says, "Do you want me to film myself reading my post? I'm not sure how that would help-- other to win people over with my dashing good looks (ha-ha)." The point remains that missed the pronoun, the antecedent, the meaning, and the truth.
I was trying to admit my error-- that I had indeed misunderstood the post. My use of humor (or attempted use of humor) was merely an attempt to lighten the tone. Boy did that backfire!
e. I had already guessed that Wolf uses the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) - a Hebrew language version of what some believe to be God's word - but, to avoid making assumptions, I asked him anyway. The BHS is NOT the Hebrew text of God's Word, as Wolf implies it to be. Unbelieving German critics, Wilhelm Gesenius and Rudolf Kittel, are responsible for editing the manuscripts which came to be this BHS version.
f. Rudolf Kittel in particular was a very liberal and anti-Semitic German. His son, Gerhard was tried and imprisoned for war crimes, as Hitler's propaganda minister.
g. Wolf despises God's word; and among many other injustices, he promotes this "German" Hebrew counterfeit, promotes his own pompous intellect, teaches others to doubt and to question the true words of God, and berates young men who study, read, believe and preach the word of God to the best of their abilities.
Even if what you say concerning the editors of the BHS is true, it is immaterial unless you can demonstrate that there is a textual variation (or, worse, a manipulation) at work in Ps. 12: 5-7. I do not know of any. If you do, please say so. I would like to know. Otherwise, your argument here has no real bearing on the discussion.
*1. To acknowledge that unbelieving, anti-Semitic German critics have altered the very words of God, (that were given by inspiration, and entrusted to the Levitical Jews for safe-keeping); and then to suggest that the burden of proof rests on others to prove from non-existing originals that those critics had altered a specific passage pertaining to the preservation of those words is entirely untenable, besides being simply fallacious for shifting the burden of proof.
How do you know that they altered the text if it is impossible "to prove from non-existing originals that those critics had altered a specific passage." It seems to me that this is the only way you can substantiate your claim. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is, indeed, on you at this point. If you can't demonstrate variation of the text of Ps 12, you have no textual argument, just ad hominem and generalization. There are other editions of the MT and non MT mss. Do they differ on Ps. 12?
*2. Godly Jews themselves would never dare to have altered the words of God. But Paul warned us of many men who were doing so even in his day. (II Cor 2:17)
*3. Everyone's opinions are irrelevant. Let God be true and every man a liar. So, here's what must be done to eliminate opinion and bias: one must examine the text within its own context and its own claims to determine - without outside opinion - whether the text itself is erroneous or sound.
Have you ever heard of "qere" and "ketev" in the Masoretic Text (basis for KJV OT)? This is where the Masoretic Jewish scholars noted that the text they were given did not make sense (either in terms of grammar or meaning). They kept the suspect consonents out of respect for what was written (ketev) but inserted vowel points and notes indicating what ought to be read (qere) instead.
As for context, I fail to see you point as I have been trying to bring the context to fore concerning Ps. 12.
*4 "Two plus two equals four" is a fact that is independent of bias and withstands scrutiny because of its conformity to transcendent law, and not to opinion or to convention.
*5. Likewise, the intrinsic authority of the Authorized Version is manifest to all who actually "study" it like this; who then discover, by inductive reasoning, that its teachings are consistently sound, when all opposing texts, including those in the original tongues (as well as their derivatives), are found to contain inherent errors, omissions and contradictions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "'study' it like this." At first blush, it sounds to me that you're saying that those who study the KJV as if it is a uniquely inspired translation that is superior to the texts in the original languages discover that the KJV is a uniquely inspired translation that is superior to the texts in the original languages. Hmm. Is this why there is so much circular reasoning within KJVO arguments?
Perhaps this is not what you're implying. Please explain further
h. The Apostle Paul warned us about Mr. Wolf in Acts 20:29. We encourage you to read about it in the King James Bible, and make sure he doesn't pull the wool over your eyes.
i. You can BELIEVE every word that you read in God's word, the King James Bible.
j. Now, regarding Wolf's false views and teachings about translations:
1) In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then given by inspiration and written in the Old Testament Hebrew even though the Holy Ghost had divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). So, both the original and the translation are perfect, Mr. Wolf.
2) Likewise, in Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek. So, both the Hebrew original and the Greek translation are perfect, Mr. Wolf.
3) Jesus and the Apostles quoted the old testament Hebrew frequently... and their words were written in the NT in Greek. If it isn't obvious to you, Mr. Wolf, that means that the words were translated and both the original and the translations are given by inspiration.
4) I could cite other passages where pagan kings and foreign persons (in Babylon, Persia, etc) spoke in other tongues that were translated into Hebrew or Greek, but more examples are unnecessary.
5) Clearly, the scriptural pattern as found in our final authority - is that God considers his translations of his word to be as pure and perfect as that which was spoken in the original tongue.
k. Now, another aspect regarding Wolf's false views and teachings about translations:
1) God's opinion of the word "translate" is proven by his use of it - the state of a translation is better than the state of the original. Enoch was translated from this world into the next an obvious improvement of state; Saul's kingdom was translated into David's kingdom an obvious improvement of state; we will be translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son an obvious improvement of state.
Now, this is a prime example of the kind of reasoning necessary to sustain a KJVO perspective. Here bereanresearch is using an antiquated, Elizabethan usage of a term that is a translation of other terms in another language-- and to make matters more murky, he is carrying the use of this term over to the translation of texts from entirely different contexts in the effort to demonstrate God's positive attitude toward translation. Even if this argument made sense, why does it only apply to KJV?
2) Therefore, the scriptural pattern for translation is that the translated state is better, more useful and/or more desirable than that of the original.
3) Finally, God allowed the first two "originals" of the book of Jeremiah to be destroyed. One was cut up and burned by a heathen king (Jer 36:23) and the other was cast into the Euphrates River upon the command of God himself (Jer 51:63). We are only able to read the book of Jeremiah because a third "original" was written.
Let me make it clear that I have nothing against the translation process. I only suggest that we need to acknowledge that our English Bibles are the products of God's inspiration (origianlly) and a translation process that involves the tricky business of transfering meaning from one language to another. This does not make translations "tainted;" it just means we need to ask a some special questions when we really "dig in to" a passage-- or construct doctrine around them as KJVO folk do Ps. 12
4) So, the scriptural practice as defined by our final authority is that God does not worship "originals" and that he preserves his word forever, and that he values that which has been translated, as having been given by inspiration.
5) Your views about God's word, translations, grammar and other issues are in serious error, Mr. Wolf.
END OF BEREAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE'S REPLY TO MR WOLF
l. The Reader CAN BELIEVE every word that he or she reads in Gods word, the King James Bible.
ur a dumb fuck there is no god u beleive to make ur self fell good about death and god did not right the bible it was written many year after the beleived gods working with adam and eve
The Quran is the preserved word of God, I used to be a Christian and now I am a Muslim, wake up, the bible is full of contradictions and unscientific facts, king James was a Freemason, Masons practice the ancient mystery religions of Egypt, they are Pagans, Prophet Moses pbuh fought against these people, you think the bible is the word of God cus the bible says so, how smart man.
Did you ever think that your perverted version you hold in your hands is a little off? Maybe because they omit thousands of words and take out whole verses?
even for a religious nut this is extremely moronic. It is the truth because it says it is! - ricky gervaise said 'the bible must be true because it says gospel on it ' he was being funny - this guy is serious - nutter
1611baptist, THAT is the silliest of all the arguments I've heard from this crowd. Do some study of textual criticism.
If a Mormon pointed out scripture from the Book of Mormon... would you believe that? Somehow I doubt it.
Although I think this whole KJV only stuff is beyond ridiculous, the KJV is still a truly good 'version'. Do you know what a version is? the word 'version' doesn't even imply the truth. Ever hear a judge say "What's your version?'
The bible proves itself wrong over and over again. The contradictions never stop coming. The burden of proof is on you not me...proving a negative is illogical. Face it it's a book written decades after the so called events, by different men making up different stories. As it was the entire book was put together by a bunch of bishops during the canon meetings of Carthage and Hippo. 385 Ad.
WAKE UP. Your foolish claims are demonic and your lack of history, thinking the events in the Bible where written decades after they happened and you think Carthage and Hippo prove that your ignorance is valid?
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Pro 1:22
OH PLEASE ...show me evidence the BIble was an eye witness account...E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E...Carthage and Hippo prove something...that the entire thing is a fabrication. you could give me a little more respect as an atheist and not quote bible scriptures at me. You could at least try and come up with a response that doesn't involve going back to your pathetic out of date book.
I despair at you god botherers...lost in your world of myth and skygod blathering.
Why would I give respect to ignorant God haters like yourself.
Carthage and Hippo proves nothing. Go rent or buy THE CASE FOR CHRIST if you seek understanding or are you going to continue shunning understanding like a naive little boy.
And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding Pro 7:7
it seems we both think each other are lost. yet again you quote your book like it's a pacifier..when in doubt turn to scripture. You lead your life in the footsteps of a dead guy that died 2000 yrs ago and ill live mine, loving every moment of the modern age...and when we are on our death beds and look back over all we have done, you can have the comfort of your imaginary friend and i will have science and reality to comfort me. i pity you wasting all your time following nothing but a lie.
Your science ideology reminds me of what Paul wrote dear Timothy.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called 1 Timothy 6:20
This verse reminds me of our conversation that since the beginning you are willingly remaining ignorant and foolish. Now Im going to avoid your vain babblings for they are useless much like your life without Christ.
this is getting tedious...i never said get rid of history. we should learn from it...not base you entire world view on some misguided ramblings of people who thought the the earth was at the centre of the universe and that the sun and the starts were different things.
2- The Bible proves itself wrong on numerous occasions. Read the gospels horizontally. Each account of Jesus' life differs on multiple occasions. Differing accounts can not both be right.
"Read the gospels horizontally. Each account of Jesus' life differs on multiple occasions. Differing accounts can not both be right."
The Gospels are four different accounts based on at least four different eyewitness accounts. Each writer had different aspects of Jesus' life they wanted to get across. Some left out portions that others covered or they condensed the information. Luke tends to explain to his Greek audience what Jewish readers would have understood. Give an example.
Mat summarized the story to get to the point (I believe he does this with other accounts of miracles also). Luke has him say the same thing, but highlights that it was through his friends. You have to remember that they had limited resources and had to decide what info their audience needed to have. Luke wanted to emphasize that the Gentile Centurion felt unworthy. Mat apparently didn't care. This wouldn't have been an unusual style at the time.
You've proven yourself to me ignorant. To laugh off Erhman and to suggest someone like White? I see your bias now. You fail to argue against my examples in the bible (You BELIEVE he does so and so? Limited resources?). I agree about the audience though. But you need to explain why specific accounts differ, if they all had the time and resources to record it. Anyway, no point in arguing if you're so stubborn.
I see you have little knowledge of first century conditions. I see your ignorance now.
"you need to explain why specific accounts differ, if they all had the time and resources to record it."
I did in a post that seems to have been lost. Give me a specific. I said they were writing to very diff. audiences. They had diff. things to emphasize. Some paraphrased while others were verbose. It is similar to modern bios
You also have to remember that they were not all writing in chronological order. They had different styles, such as order of topic. Matthew seems to write in topical order. He is also writing to Jewish believers who would get the significance of diff. aspects. Luke's gentile audience would not, so he simplifies the accounts because they wouldn't get the significance and he would emphasize aspects that would matter to them. I wrote specifics before, but they are lost.
@fardawg Sorry man. What you're writing just makes so little sense, I don't know where to begin. It's not biased to suggest Erhman over White when one has much more solid credentials than the other. A priest who released a book noted 33 similarities in the gospels, however on every point that matters they differ. What about all the dead rising from their graves in Matt 27:52. Why would neither the other gospel writers OR ANY OTHER LITERATURE mention that? Then answer all Bart's examples.
"What about all the dead rising from their graves in Matt 27:52."
You seem to be under the false impression that each writer needed to give every single account the others did.
I'll let John explain..."Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25
PS John is using hyperbole. Most of you people seem to not comprehend non-literal styles.
He stands on the position that we can't historically validate the Bible, I agree with that.He talks about how we don't even KNOW who authored the gospels, it wasn't anyone named "Matthew" "Mark" "Luke" and "John." The writers wrote what they needed to, to coerce the listener. None of the important points of Jesus' story match up between the gospels. I agree with him. Just to clarify, have you read him? To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me.
"None of the important points of Jesus' story match up between the gospels."
examples?
" have you read him? To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me."
I have listened to lectures, debates, read articles and looked through his books. None of what he says is new to me. It is written to "shock" the uninformed. Have you read Dr. White? Erhman didn't seem to have read him as he didn't know where White was coming from in the debate.
"To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me."
First, that's silly. If the arguments can't stand on their own, why put them forward. Second, I could say the same if you haven't read White. I have a feeling I have read more Erhman than you have read White or Wallace.
@fardawg I too watch tons of debates and read many many books on the subject. The format for YouTube comments is not well adapted to list arguments when they specifically need background to be talked about. It's too complex a subject for a limited text comment. Bart may be giving information known to some but certainly not all. from the reactions I've read about, lots of people knew nothing about what he wrote.
I suggest you look up "Ehrman vs. Luke and Mark" by Dr. White on youtube to see how well this "hardcore christian" knows his Bible. Either he is ignorant or lying. It should be the first video.
"from the reactions I've read about, lots of people knew nothing about what he wrote"
And those are the people who don't do the research needed and apostatize on a whim.
@fardawg I'm also curious why you discount Bart Erhman. He was a hardcore Christian who came to disbelieve when he worked hard to study the texts in their original languages, and wrote papers on the subjects, because he wanted to get closer to get closer to his god. He wasn't biased against God when he began his criticism, quite the opposite.
@fardawg Give an example? Really? Your argument that some people "left out portions" is asinine when the same parts are recorded in multiple conflicting ways. Have you read anything by Bart Ehrman for example? He goes into great detail about the contradictions and why it's wrong to "mash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that [they] get the true understanding." When was the leper cured? Mat says before, Mark says after. Did the centurion approach Jesus? Mat says yes, Luke says no.
I'll take that up. Let's start with the scorpions who guard the rising sun at the end of the world. I don't believe anyone has encountered those. And the jewel trees?
I know you will bring up the Garden of Eden, but it can be debated as to how much is meant as metaphor. Revelation has similar language that is clearly metaphorical. Gil. is like that throughout and never has a sense of reality.
A book says that it's God's word so it must be God's word. Good, solid argument. A book says that it is the only written word of the Loch Ness monster, so it must be the only written word of the Loch Ness monster.
Absydion 5 months ago 3
You're featured in another video: v=iPaTaq_FlWk
Absydion 5 months ago
The Word of God was preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic. The KJV is an adequate translation. I am actually quite fond of it. But, the Complete Jewish Bible translated by David Stern is much more accurate in conveying the real meaning of the original text. The Aramaic English New Testament by Andrew Roth deserves serious consideration also.
ReverendTFunk 6 months ago
Psalms 12 gives no reason to believe in KJV over any translation....
jeremytarbush 7 months ago
This kid can believe what he wants...its his choice and he's not ramming religion down our throats, we can turn this off at any point. He's fanatical about it, thats obvious, and over the top. The issue I have about the KJV is that the language is very difficult to read and understand so I chose to read a version that is translated by a panel of people which means it is a close as possible to the original KJV. I'm sure God would prefer us to read the bible in any translation than not at all
Mel130673 9 months ago
1. If you think that the 1611 version is the true Word of God, I assume you accept the Apocrypha as inspired, since they were in that version? And I assume that you accept all the textual notes where the translators suggest other translations? Do you accept the validity of the introduction, where the translators admit that there must be errors in their version?
2. How as God's word preserved before 1611?
Naiant 10 months ago
@Naiant
Wake up and smell the apostasy since the diabolical "CT" (critical text) is based on the great whore's Codex Vaticanus and Kittel's incorrect Hebrew. Regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ will read, study, believe and preach the inerrant King James Bible for the English-speaking peoples today, or else they will follow apostates and slither off toward the wretched "modern versions."
Do you know enough to tell anyone what the inerrant Holy Scriptures are in any language?
jjpetkusiii 9 months ago
@jjpetkusiii Did you know that the last few verses of the KJV Book of Revelations was taken from the Latin Vulgate by the Roman Catholic Erasmus?
Naiant 9 months ago
@Naiant
Erasmus was already irrelevant by the time of the reign or King James VI of Scotland and I of England, and so are his scholarly efforts which laid the foundation for Reformation Era translations of the Holy Scrptures in the languages of Europe.
For the English-speaking peoples, the AV1611 is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by LORd and verbally inerrant in the lingua franca of the world today.
When--if ever--did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner bound for hell?
jjpetkusiii 9 months ago
@jjpetkusiii But the KJV translators used Erasmus' text, the Textus Receptus, in their translation, and got those last verses from him, which he got from the Vulgate. So were the KJV translators right to do so or not? And KJV English is not the lingua franca of the world today; in fact, the English we speak isn't. Rather, it's a simplifed form of English, with a smaller vocabulary and simplified syntax.
Naiant 9 months ago
@Naiant As boggymark1 wrote, "Renowned as the British Solomon by the preacher who eulogized him, King James VI of Scotland and I of England once wrote, 'It is Atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: good Christians content themselves with His will revealed in His word.'
"For the English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by the LORD and free of errors, omissions, and additions as an irrefutable matter of historical fact."
You fail exegesis again.
jjpetkusiii 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jjpetkusiii Oh, and you didn't answer my questions.
Naiant 9 months ago
@Naiant You fail exegesis.
Believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ today, and be saved by grace through faith in the Son of God alone.
jjpetkusiii 9 months ago
@LinguaPerspicua
As 400KJV put it, "The KJV has been tested in all these things and come out victorious, read any defence on the KJV you'll find that the KJV had it right even when your assumptions seemed so."
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2Timothy 2:15).
The King James Bible was not translated from the incorrect Hebrew of the Antisemitic Kittel and a corrupt Alexandrian MS like Rome's Codex Vaticanus.
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
@LinguaPerspicua
You got hocus pocus, Opus Dei flagellants, and prelates who protect paedophiles in the Roman Curia.
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration" (Revelation 17:6)
"And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18).
Rome is the Mother of Harlots and Abominations according to the Holy Scriptures.
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol! what makes you sure that "phrases"are correctly translated from the original!..if anyone denies of king james inaccuracy and misstranslations is a blind followers of their "pastors"!.YOU ARE BEING LIED DELIBIRATELY!!.so far the most accurate is Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible!!..do ur homework and check it yourself.however,its true that rcc is bein infeltrated by outside enemies of true rcc...there are now two rcc traditional(true) & modernist(falls)
RockPhilippines 11 months ago
Even if you do believe that this passage does refer to a future translation why the King James why not the NASB, or the ESV, or even the NIV? You did not clarify why it specifically refers to the KJV.
port2483 11 months ago
I do not beleive that when this passage was written that the author was refering to a translation that would not be written until over 2500 years later in a language that was not spoken yet.
port2483 11 months ago
@port2483
Unlike you, the Lord God omnipotent is also omniscient.
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
You fail at satire. Please stop. Thank you.
TheNarfhead 1 year ago
@TheNarfhead
You fail exegesis.
Sound Biblical doctrine and valid hermeneutic methodology are not matters of debate.
No one (e.g., you) in 400 years has ever proven any linguistic or historical fact that refutes the plenary verbal inerrancy of the King James Bible in fully legible English today, which is the lingua franca of our contemporary world.
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
@jjpetkusiii You choose to believe in the bible, I choose to believe this guy is a poe and a rather bad one at that. He's just not funny. Also you fail at interpreting my post. Oh and I almost forgot: PENIS!
TheNarfhead 10 months ago
@TheNarfhead
Are you saying, "De gustibus malis et mulieribus non est disputandum"??
In any case, as random331 put it so succinctly, "Jesus Christ said 'come unto me' -- not his mother, his 'church', his religion, his statue, his priests, his apostles, or anybody else. If you can't tell which churches are lying to you then you either have never read the Bible, or you didn't pay any attention when you did."
When – if ever – were you convinced that you are a lost sinner bound for hell?
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
@jjpetkusiii Dude! Read -> understand -> post. You're inane babbling makes absolutely no sense. Also quoting latin proverbs does not make you appear smart. I hope that was clear enough.
TheNarfhead 10 months ago
@TheNarfhead
No, dude, I did not "quote" the Latin proverb which reads: "De gustibus et mulieribus non est disputandum."
I did pose two questions to you, and you failed to answer them. So, when (if ever) did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner on your way to hell?
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
What a bumbling idiot. You sound like you might be slightly mentally retarded... I'm sorry your parents were brother and sister.
sillymonkey829 1 year ago
@sillymonkey829 Clearly you are not sorry. It seems as if something really is wrong with this person. Does it make sense to rub it in? This person may be intellectually inferior to me... let's make them feel bad about it as well!
FromThatShow 11 months ago
@FromThatShow
Бетховен--прекрасный композитор и я рада что именно его произведение (прощание с фортепиано) мне довелось играть на выпускном экзамене по фортепиано.
Many of us, however, who the excellence of prefer Bach or Vivaldi--despite shallow longings for gratuitous novelty by other contemporary listeners--tend in unalloyed honesty and candor to concur with the AV1611 translators who stated that they intended to present the "principal" translation of the Holy Scriptures in English.
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
@FromThatShow
Although I am also fluent in modern Spanish, it is not my native language, nor is it that of most Americans to this day.
For the English-speaking peoples in any case, the King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures, preserved by the LORD and free of errors, additions and omissions as an irrefutable matter of historical fact.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked." (Proverbs 29:27).
jjpetkusiii 10 months ago
This kids a moron.
First off the bible was written by half literate goat herders in the bronze age.
Thank King James for giving you that book of toilet paper. Before King James authorized it you would be put to death for owning a English translated bible before 1604. Just look up what happened to William Tyndale for translating it.
Traumarituel 1 year ago
A good book to read is James White's THE KJV-ONLY CONTROVERSY
doctorh2005 1 year ago
in what part of the Bible it says that KJV is the word or will be the word of God. i am sure you will not find"it
carloswater7 1 year ago
ur an idiot.
RaabBlog 1 year ago
You should get one with the apocrypha, honestly.
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
Spend some time studying young man and hold your conclusions until then
Gideom007 1 year ago
Preserved word? Do you know how many times it's been revised and translated?
benniquaid 1 year ago
The 1611 Bible you have in your hand is not the same as the original 1611 Bible. The apocrypha has been removed and many typo and translation errors have been corrected.
apologiamixer 1 year ago
@apologiamixer There is no doubt the Apocrypha was removed, and that it belongs! Did you know it was punishable by a YEAR in prison for selling or printing a King James Version without the Apocrypha in 1611!
LifeLibertyLove 1 year ago
this is sad...
daniel197BC123 1 year ago
psalms 12 says that the KJV is the preserved words of God? No, it doesn't.
You are arguing in a circle.
lulumousie 1 year ago
How do you a KJV only person take what Jesus said here?
And why are you not obeying what the Scribes and the Pharisees tell you to do?
KJV Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;
CRJarvis 1 year ago
My friend, I appreciate the convictions you perceive to be sincere, but you are drowning in your ignorance. Step back from your dogmatism. Only original authors of the original manuscripts (autographs) were inspired; not the scribes of King James or any other modern translation. Was the language of King James the same as in Jesus' day? No! So if there were a closed canon at the end of the 1st century completely in Aramaic, would it be heretical in your eyes? Don't separate faith from reason.
AndyThomaston 1 year ago
the bible is the truth. just know this :your branch (along with other branches) of christiantiy are dying. DYING. your branches could lose 50% of ur members within the next 40 years. your belief in God is fading into the backround, ur belief in conservative belief is dying. i am a LIBERAL christian, not the dying conservative christian you are. what does that tell you? God is preffering liberal christianity. peace and <3!!!
838287 1 year ago
@1611baptist
Did you ever come up with an answer for the fact that the KJV does have a copyright in England?
And if "His truth endureth to all generations" means that the KJV is that truth and nothing else, than what was that truth before 1611? Just show me the preserved word of God in the generation before 1611.
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg Bibles w/ N.T. based on the Textus Receptus, or the Majority Texts.
filoIII 1 year ago
Comment removed
RandomInternetTroll 1 year ago
I'm God.
Prove I'm not.
kexxrulz 1 year ago
@kexxrulz What color is the container I'm drinking out of? is it glass, plastic or something else? does it have a lid? handle? does it have writing on it, and if so, what does it say? ok, let's have it----god.
filoIII 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filoIII I don't have to tell you. I'm god, why should I have to answer your questions?
kexxrulz 1 year ago
Hows that speech impediment going there buddy?
How's that circular logic going too, its blindingly stupid.
759 1 year ago
I feel so sorry for this young man. This is why incest is considered a sin.
gaelic572 1 year ago
he also preserved deuteronomy which commands xtians to stone those who try to turn you away from god. show him no pity. let your hand be the first to strike. i'll bet that was one of those allegory things, huh?
wp4866 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wp4866
"he also preserved deuteronomy which commands xtians to stone those who try to turn you away from god. "
Funny, I thought Deuteronomy was in the Old Testament, i.e. before "xtians"?
fardawg 1 year ago
You are pretty good at calling people names 1611baptist, do you have a bible verse for that? IMHO =moron.
MCACLT 1 year ago
circular logic bro
eternally4given 1 year ago
This kid is a fucking idiot...
DRUMMERDAVEKINKADE 1 year ago
The only reason these morons believe in only the KJV is because that is the only bible that translate everything as hell, when unending burning was never part of the original hebrew or greek. But what do you expect from some dumbrods. KJV onlyism is a cult.
They complain about idolatry, and yet worship some English King.
This guy is an idiot.
Fundemons 1 year ago
IQ = 63
Mogoco 1 year ago
OK? Seriously? The King James is a "translation" of God's Word! This is not that hard to understand. Did God "authorize" the KIng James translation? Where is this in scripture..other translations have the same verse in them. If I do not speak English, which version do I read? Thank you for believing that God and His Word will always exist, but let's not limit Him by demanding we read only one translation.
Godnotman 1 year ago
ur not too bright, ur cuter than u r smart, ur more piased than u are stupid, what r u most?
tofylennox 1 year ago
i like this guy feel kinda sorry for him....not very smart but harmless gobshite all the same
dspikey 1 year ago
@dspikey Harmless? He is anti Muslim and Anticatholic. He is going to destroy Notre Dame, and many beautiful cathedrals. Plus this future terrorist is going to bomb the Middle East.
Fundemons 1 year ago
I'm not exactly pro Islam myself...
dspikey 1 year ago
Showing that God preserved his Word says nothing about which English translation best captures the Greek and Hebrew meaning.
Where in the Bible does it say that only the KJV is inspired? What is I do not speak english.
You have no reasoning in this video. There is absolutely no connection in your video to the KJVO issue.
thealphajustin 2 years 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.
Given such a bucket of nonsense,
why would anyone get all het up
over which VERSION to read??
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
You have a lot of growing up to do my friend.
kentuckycats123 2 years ago
Well I admire you for your fervent desire to preach and defend the faith; but perhaps you need to read the translators comments concerning the very bible you purport to be 'thee word of God'. Go ahead and do some real research and find out what they believed of the very bible you read.
lkevins1 2 years ago
FAKE & GAY!
SchmidtyXX 2 years ago
i like how god gave you a speech impediment to help preach his "word"
^ lol
robthesamplist 2 years ago
Ps. 12:6-7 is the lynchpin for most KJVO advocates. The problem is that, in Hebrew, the suffix translated "them" in v.7 is masculine while the term translated "words" is feminine. In Hebrew, a pronoun has to match its antecedent's gender. So, unless there is some kind of poetic license at play (unlikely), "them" cannot be referring to "words." It is almost certainly referring to the "poor" and "needy" (both masculine in Heb.) of v.5.
Basic Hebrew grammar deflates this guy's whole argument
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
1. Mr. Wolf (how appropriate), this young man has taken time to post original content; preaching the word of God, as we are commanded. Where is yours?
2. This young man reads the word of God that he has, and he believes it. Isn't that a scriptural principle?
3. Where is the word of God that you believe, Mr. Wolf? I would like to study it and search it, to see whether these things are so that you believe - as my copy of God's word commands.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
1) I preach/teach every week in my local congregation.
2)Yes, this is a scriptural principle, but he is forwarding an interpretation, not Ps. 12:7 itself.
3)If you want to know what "word" I believe, I believe the living Christ is ultimately God's word. If you want to know what version of Ps. 12 I believe, the Hebew is the real Ps 12. All else is just a translation. Most times, a translation is fine. But on grammar issue like this, one must look at the original lang. See my PM for 411.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
1. Thank you for the reply.
a. My English antecedent, the pronoun "yours", refers back to posted original "content". So, your preaching/teaching in your local congregation isn't a very helpful reply, and doesn't really answer the question either.
b. In fact, by your own judgment, "basic [English] grammar deflates [your] whole argument", 'unless there is some kind of poetic license at play (unlikely) that equates your weekly preaching/teaching to 'posted original content.' '
(Continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
Oh! I thought your point was something like "get busy preaching." It appears you just want to review my teaching.
I see.
Do you want me to film myself reading my post? I'm not sure how that would help-- other to win people over with my dashing good looks (ha-ha). I'm supposing you mean you want to review my body of teaching. Well, that might take a while. Or, one could just read my post.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
1 c. We can rectify that though. I, and perhaps others, would welcome the opportunity to review your 'content', if you would kindly film it and post it for us, as this young man has taken time to do.
2. Given that the Hebrew originals don't exist, and that you are therefore using one of several Hebrew versions; logically, you are only forwarding an interpretation of Ps 12:7 (or vs 8 in the Hebrew) 'as well'.
3a. You haven't specified which of the Hebrew versions that you mean.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
You have not specified here what edition of the KJV you are using-- or what particular interpretations the Anglican translators made in translating. (not meaning to be snarky)
I use the BHS to be specific. To my knowledge, there is no textual variants where this Psalm is concerned.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
3b. Regardless, the biblical pattern is that translations are equal to the originals in that they are also given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and are superior to the originals in that the translated state is always a better, more desirable, and/or more useful state than that of the original.
4. The word of God must be our FINAL authority, and it doesn't contradict itself. Even the Hebrew teaches that.
(Continued Below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
What? How is that "the biblical pattern"? "The translated state is always a better... state than the original?" I suppose it would be if one cannot read the biblical languages. Better to have Englsih than a bunch of jibber-jabber you can't read. But anytime you take a statment and export it into a different language, there is a shift involved. Are you suggesting the shifted version is better than the statement in the original language? That's kind of odd, IMO.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
5. I have addressed these issues in our website and can respond more thoroughly by email.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
For the benefit of the reader, I would like to add a few observations and comments to those posted by Mr. "Wolf". Mr. Wolf sent me a lengthy personal message that continued to expose his deep lack of understanding, and that will require a complete article on our website to properly address. For now, please consider these points in regard to his comments above:
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
a. The young man who posted these videos reads his bible, believes his bible, and has taken time to share his understanding with others, as we are commanded to do by that very word of God.
b. Wolf, posing as an intellectual, attacked this young man with disdain; concluding that, "Basic Hebrew grammar deflates this guy's whole argument" - despite the fact that Wolf admittedly hasn't posted any videos of his own to share the truth as he purports to know it.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
I accept bereanresearch's corrective of my tone. It was not my intention to bereate 1611baptist's efforts. I'm sure he is sincere, and sincerely desires to people to know the truth of Christ. For this, of course, he is to be greatly commended. I could have voice my concerns more gently.
I am, however, still at a bit of a loss as to why my not having posted a video makes my argument carry less weight. But, perhaps this is youtube etiquette a relative newbie like me does not know about.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
c. Wolf carelessly missed the meaning of the pronoun "yours", along with its antecedent, in my first question to him. This is significant because the original issue that he raised (to disparage the young man's video) pertains to the use of pronouns in Ps 12:6-7 and their antecedents - a subject about which Wolf relishes opportunities to lecture others.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
d. But he dismisses his errors, with continued disdain that he pretends to hide behind a mask of humor, "Oh! I thought your point was something like "get busy preaching." It appears you just want to review my teaching", he says, "Do you want me to film myself reading my post? I'm not sure how that would help-- other to win people over with my dashing good looks (ha-ha)." The point remains that missed the pronoun, the antecedent, the meaning, and the truth.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
I was trying to admit my error-- that I had indeed misunderstood the post. My use of humor (or attempted use of humor) was merely an attempt to lighten the tone. Boy did that backfire!
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
e. I had already guessed that Wolf uses the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) - a Hebrew language version of what some believe to be God's word - but, to avoid making assumptions, I asked him anyway. The BHS is NOT the Hebrew text of God's Word, as Wolf implies it to be. Unbelieving German critics, Wilhelm Gesenius and Rudolf Kittel, are responsible for editing the manuscripts which came to be this BHS version.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
f. Rudolf Kittel in particular was a very liberal and anti-Semitic German. His son, Gerhard was tried and imprisoned for war crimes, as Hitler's propaganda minister.
g. Wolf despises God's word; and among many other injustices, he promotes this "German" Hebrew counterfeit, promotes his own pompous intellect, teaches others to doubt and to question the true words of God, and berates young men who study, read, believe and preach the word of God to the best of their abilities.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
Even if what you say concerning the editors of the BHS is true, it is immaterial unless you can demonstrate that there is a textual variation (or, worse, a manipulation) at work in Ps. 12: 5-7. I do not know of any. If you do, please say so. I would like to know. Otherwise, your argument here has no real bearing on the discussion.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
*1. To acknowledge that unbelieving, anti-Semitic German critics have altered the very words of God, (that were given by inspiration, and entrusted to the Levitical Jews for safe-keeping); and then to suggest that the burden of proof rests on others to prove from non-existing originals that those critics had altered a specific passage pertaining to the preservation of those words is entirely untenable, besides being simply fallacious for shifting the burden of proof.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
How do you know that they altered the text if it is impossible "to prove from non-existing originals that those critics had altered a specific passage." It seems to me that this is the only way you can substantiate your claim. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is, indeed, on you at this point. If you can't demonstrate variation of the text of Ps 12, you have no textual argument, just ad hominem and generalization. There are other editions of the MT and non MT mss. Do they differ on Ps. 12?
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
*2. Godly Jews themselves would never dare to have altered the words of God. But Paul warned us of many men who were doing so even in his day. (II Cor 2:17)
*3. Everyone's opinions are irrelevant. Let God be true and every man a liar. So, here's what must be done to eliminate opinion and bias: one must examine the text within its own context and its own claims to determine - without outside opinion - whether the text itself is erroneous or sound.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of "qere" and "ketev" in the Masoretic Text (basis for KJV OT)? This is where the Masoretic Jewish scholars noted that the text they were given did not make sense (either in terms of grammar or meaning). They kept the suspect consonents out of respect for what was written (ketev) but inserted vowel points and notes indicating what ought to be read (qere) instead.
As for context, I fail to see you point as I have been trying to bring the context to fore concerning Ps. 12.
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
*4 "Two plus two equals four" is a fact that is independent of bias and withstands scrutiny because of its conformity to transcendent law, and not to opinion or to convention.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
*5. Likewise, the intrinsic authority of the Authorized Version is manifest to all who actually "study" it like this; who then discover, by inductive reasoning, that its teachings are consistently sound, when all opposing texts, including those in the original tongues (as well as their derivatives), are found to contain inherent errors, omissions and contradictions.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "'study' it like this." At first blush, it sounds to me that you're saying that those who study the KJV as if it is a uniquely inspired translation that is superior to the texts in the original languages discover that the KJV is a uniquely inspired translation that is superior to the texts in the original languages. Hmm. Is this why there is so much circular reasoning within KJVO arguments?
Perhaps this is not what you're implying. Please explain further
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
h. The Apostle Paul warned us about Mr. Wolf in Acts 20:29. We encourage you to read about it in the King James Bible, and make sure he doesn't pull the wool over your eyes.
i. You can BELIEVE every word that you read in God's word, the King James Bible.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
j. Now, regarding Wolf's false views and teachings about translations:
1) In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then given by inspiration and written in the Old Testament Hebrew even though the Holy Ghost had divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). So, both the original and the translation are perfect, Mr. Wolf.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
2) Likewise, in Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek. So, both the Hebrew original and the Greek translation are perfect, Mr. Wolf.
3) Jesus and the Apostles quoted the old testament Hebrew frequently... and their words were written in the NT in Greek. If it isn't obvious to you, Mr. Wolf, that means that the words were translated and both the original and the translations are given by inspiration.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
4) I could cite other passages where pagan kings and foreign persons (in Babylon, Persia, etc) spoke in other tongues that were translated into Hebrew or Greek, but more examples are unnecessary.
5) Clearly, the scriptural pattern as found in our final authority - is that God considers his translations of his word to be as pure and perfect as that which was spoken in the original tongue.
k. Now, another aspect regarding Wolf's false views and teachings about translations:
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
1) God's opinion of the word "translate" is proven by his use of it - the state of a translation is better than the state of the original. Enoch was translated from this world into the next an obvious improvement of state; Saul's kingdom was translated into David's kingdom an obvious improvement of state; we will be translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son an obvious improvement of state.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
Now, this is a prime example of the kind of reasoning necessary to sustain a KJVO perspective. Here bereanresearch is using an antiquated, Elizabethan usage of a term that is a translation of other terms in another language-- and to make matters more murky, he is carrying the use of this term over to the translation of texts from entirely different contexts in the effort to demonstrate God's positive attitude toward translation. Even if this argument made sense, why does it only apply to KJV?
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
2) Therefore, the scriptural pattern for translation is that the translated state is better, more useful and/or more desirable than that of the original.
3) Finally, God allowed the first two "originals" of the book of Jeremiah to be destroyed. One was cut up and burned by a heathen king (Jer 36:23) and the other was cast into the Euphrates River upon the command of God himself (Jer 51:63). We are only able to read the book of Jeremiah because a third "original" was written.
(continued below)
bereanresearch 2 years ago
Let me make it clear that I have nothing against the translation process. I only suggest that we need to acknowledge that our English Bibles are the products of God's inspiration (origianlly) and a translation process that involves the tricky business of transfering meaning from one language to another. This does not make translations "tainted;" it just means we need to ask a some special questions when we really "dig in to" a passage-- or construct doctrine around them as KJVO folk do Ps. 12
MrScooterWolf 2 years ago
4) So, the scriptural practice as defined by our final authority is that God does not worship "originals" and that he preserves his word forever, and that he values that which has been translated, as having been given by inspiration.
5) Your views about God's word, translations, grammar and other issues are in serious error, Mr. Wolf.
END OF BEREAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE'S REPLY TO MR WOLF
l. The Reader CAN BELIEVE every word that he or she reads in Gods word, the King James Bible.
bereanresearch 2 years ago
the only truth I heard was at 12 seconds
Qena 2 years ago
aaaaahhhhhhhhh, do you realize that you are not even reading the 1611 KJV??
aburocko 2 years ago
Shame the word of god in the KJV1611 doesn't mention the usefulness of bookmarks eh?
waspbloke 2 years ago
ur a dumb fuck there is no god u beleive to make ur self fell good about death and god did not right the bible it was written many year after the beleived gods working with adam and eve
patrickledford420 2 years ago
I have family that lives in Brazil and speaks Portugese. What Bible should they use?
cvandyne 2 years ago
@cvandyne
That depends on how wonky the table is.
waspbloke 2 years ago 2
i'm laughing my ass off!!
get a life
saburoemon 2 years ago
The Quran is the preserved word of God, I used to be a Christian and now I am a Muslim, wake up, the bible is full of contradictions and unscientific facts, king James was a Freemason, Masons practice the ancient mystery religions of Egypt, they are Pagans, Prophet Moses pbuh fought against these people, you think the bible is the word of God cus the bible says so, how smart man.
KilluminatiMujahad 2 years ago
Is it me, or does it seem that KJ Onlyist seem to be a little off? I'm not trying to be insulting but this seems to be the essence of KJ onlyism.
October31st1517 2 years ago 2
Did you ever think that your perverted version you hold in your hands is a little off? Maybe because they omit thousands of words and take out whole verses?
1611baptist 2 years ago
This is easily one of the most moronic videos on Youtube.
magrpe 2 years ago 5
You haven't shown how any verse in the bible refers directly to the KJV1611. Your argument is illogical.
iluvhsw 2 years ago 3
He also wasn't using a 1611 KJV either, so this whole argument is rather sad.
Christisms 2 years ago
as Ricky Gervais would say to Karl Pilkington, your an idiot play a record!
begalthegreat 2 years ago
"Why God believes its a word of God" fucking 20 seconds in too your video and you just destroyed your self...
resistanceunion 2 years ago
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."
VeraM18 2 years ago
Your bible is full of crazy shit!
Bozmatic 2 years ago
even for a religious nut this is extremely moronic. It is the truth because it says it is! - ricky gervaise said 'the bible must be true because it says gospel on it ' he was being funny - this guy is serious - nutter
coldwarkid007 2 years ago 3
1611baptist, THAT is the silliest of all the arguments I've heard from this crowd. Do some study of textual criticism.
If a Mormon pointed out scripture from the Book of Mormon... would you believe that? Somehow I doubt it.
Although I think this whole KJV only stuff is beyond ridiculous, the KJV is still a truly good 'version'. Do you know what a version is? the word 'version' doesn't even imply the truth. Ever hear a judge say "What's your version?'
Blessings to you.
SkiesVibrant 2 years ago
OH, I get it. The Bible is the word of god because the BIble says so.
As if I hadn't heard that one before ...
Turandot29 2 years ago 6
Dont let these dogs and pigs discourage you brother. Keep pressing for the mark to obtain that imperishable crown of life the Lord promised for us.
WarriorPriest28 2 years ago
The bible proves itself wrong over and over again. The contradictions never stop coming. The burden of proof is on you not me...proving a negative is illogical. Face it it's a book written decades after the so called events, by different men making up different stories. As it was the entire book was put together by a bunch of bishops during the canon meetings of Carthage and Hippo. 385 Ad.
wake up
reasonnotgod 2 years ago 2
WAKE UP. Your foolish claims are demonic and your lack of history, thinking the events in the Bible where written decades after they happened and you think Carthage and Hippo prove that your ignorance is valid?
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Pro 1:22
WarriorPriest28 2 years ago
OH PLEASE ...show me evidence the BIble was an eye witness account...E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E...Carthage and Hippo prove something...that the entire thing is a fabrication. you could give me a little more respect as an atheist and not quote bible scriptures at me. You could at least try and come up with a response that doesn't involve going back to your pathetic out of date book.
I despair at you god botherers...lost in your world of myth and skygod blathering.
enough is enough
reasonnotgod 2 years ago
Why would I give respect to ignorant God haters like yourself.
Carthage and Hippo proves nothing. Go rent or buy THE CASE FOR CHRIST if you seek understanding or are you going to continue shunning understanding like a naive little boy.
And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding Pro 7:7
WarriorPriest28 2 years ago
it seems we both think each other are lost. yet again you quote your book like it's a pacifier..when in doubt turn to scripture. You lead your life in the footsteps of a dead guy that died 2000 yrs ago and ill live mine, loving every moment of the modern age...and when we are on our death beds and look back over all we have done, you can have the comfort of your imaginary friend and i will have science and reality to comfort me. i pity you wasting all your time following nothing but a lie.
reasonnotgod 2 years ago
Your science ideology reminds me of what Paul wrote dear Timothy.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called 1 Timothy 6:20
This verse reminds me of our conversation that since the beginning you are willingly remaining ignorant and foolish. Now Im going to avoid your vain babblings for they are useless much like your life without Christ.
WarriorPriest28 2 years ago
it seems you are unable to sustain an adult conversation. I tried.
goodbye
reasonnotgod 2 years ago
show me them you make these statement but offer no proof
dajazzman234 2 years ago
this is getting tedious...i never said get rid of history. we should learn from it...not base you entire world view on some misguided ramblings of people who thought the the earth was at the centre of the universe and that the sun and the starts were different things.
It's time to grow up and think for yourself.
reasonnotgod 2 years ago
You can't prove the Bible wrong.
1611baptist 2 years ago
Sure I can. Your beloved KJV calls bats birds.
FreePlay 2 years ago
@1611baptist Yeah, but you can prove the KJV wrong.
Fundemons 1 year ago
@1611baptist
1- Prove the Epic Of Gilgamesh is wrong.
2- The Bible proves itself wrong on numerous occasions. Read the gospels horizontally. Each account of Jesus' life differs on multiple occasions. Differing accounts can not both be right.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"Read the gospels horizontally. Each account of Jesus' life differs on multiple occasions. Differing accounts can not both be right."
The Gospels are four different accounts based on at least four different eyewitness accounts. Each writer had different aspects of Jesus' life they wanted to get across. Some left out portions that others covered or they condensed the information. Luke tends to explain to his Greek audience what Jewish readers would have understood. Give an example.
fardawg 1 year ago
Comment removed
WideEyedPictures 1 year ago
@WideEyedPictures / MagnumDB
"Your argument that some people "left out portions" is asinine when the same parts are recorded in multiple conflicting ways."
That was PART of my argument. Way to condense.
" Have you read anything by Bart Ehrman.."
Bart is a Joke. See Dr. James White.
"When was the leper cured? Mat says before, Mark says after."
After what?
To be continued
fardawg 1 year ago
Continued...
"Did the centurion approach Jesus?"
Mat summarized the story to get to the point (I believe he does this with other accounts of miracles also). Luke has him say the same thing, but highlights that it was through his friends. You have to remember that they had limited resources and had to decide what info their audience needed to have. Luke wanted to emphasize that the Gentile Centurion felt unworthy. Mat apparently didn't care. This wouldn't have been an unusual style at the time.
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg
You've proven yourself to me ignorant. To laugh off Erhman and to suggest someone like White? I see your bias now. You fail to argue against my examples in the bible (You BELIEVE he does so and so? Limited resources?). I agree about the audience though. But you need to explain why specific accounts differ, if they all had the time and resources to record it. Anyway, no point in arguing if you're so stubborn.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
Comment removed
fardawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnumDB
"To laugh off Erhman and to suggest someone like White?"
Now I see YOUR bias.
"You fail to argue against my examples in the bible "
I thought I did. Maybe my reply didn't get through. Give me a specific.
"You BELIEVE he does so and so?"
I BELIEVE I said that because I wasn't sure at the time if I had the right author in mind.
To be continued
fardawg 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
continued
I think my last post didn't go through.
"Limited resources?"
I see you have little knowledge of first century conditions. I see your ignorance now.
"you need to explain why specific accounts differ, if they all had the time and resources to record it."
I did in a post that seems to have been lost. Give me a specific. I said they were writing to very diff. audiences. They had diff. things to emphasize. Some paraphrased while others were verbose. It is similar to modern bios
fardawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnumDB
continued 2
You also have to remember that they were not all writing in chronological order. They had different styles, such as order of topic. Matthew seems to write in topical order. He is also writing to Jewish believers who would get the significance of diff. aspects. Luke's gentile audience would not, so he simplifies the accounts because they wouldn't get the significance and he would emphasize aspects that would matter to them. I wrote specifics before, but they are lost.
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg Sorry man. What you're writing just makes so little sense, I don't know where to begin. It's not biased to suggest Erhman over White when one has much more solid credentials than the other. A priest who released a book noted 33 similarities in the gospels, however on every point that matters they differ. What about all the dead rising from their graves in Matt 27:52. Why would neither the other gospel writers OR ANY OTHER LITERATURE mention that? Then answer all Bart's examples.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnumDB
"It's not biased to suggest Erhman over White when one has much more solid credentials than the other."
So if I get someone with more "credentials" than Bart you will believe them over Bart?
"A priest who released a book noted 33 similarities in the gospels, however on every point that matters they differ."
What priest (I'm not catholic btw)? Example?
to be continued
fardawg 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"What about all the dead rising from their graves in Matt 27:52."
You seem to be under the false impression that each writer needed to give every single account the others did.
I'll let John explain..."Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25
PS John is using hyperbole. Most of you people seem to not comprehend non-literal styles.
fardawg 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"Then answer all Bart's examples."
Bring em on.
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg
He stands on the position that we can't historically validate the Bible, I agree with that.He talks about how we don't even KNOW who authored the gospels, it wasn't anyone named "Matthew" "Mark" "Luke" and "John." The writers wrote what they needed to, to coerce the listener. None of the important points of Jesus' story match up between the gospels. I agree with him. Just to clarify, have you read him? To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"None of the important points of Jesus' story match up between the gospels."
examples?
" have you read him? To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me."
I have listened to lectures, debates, read articles and looked through his books. None of what he says is new to me. It is written to "shock" the uninformed. Have you read Dr. White? Erhman didn't seem to have read him as he didn't know where White was coming from in the debate.
fardawg 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"To give examples w/out the background from the book isn't good enough for me."
First, that's silly. If the arguments can't stand on their own, why put them forward. Second, I could say the same if you haven't read White. I have a feeling I have read more Erhman than you have read White or Wallace.
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg I too watch tons of debates and read many many books on the subject. The format for YouTube comments is not well adapted to list arguments when they specifically need background to be talked about. It's too complex a subject for a limited text comment. Bart may be giving information known to some but certainly not all. from the reactions I've read about, lots of people knew nothing about what he wrote.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagnumDB
I suggest you look up "Ehrman vs. Luke and Mark" by Dr. White on youtube to see how well this "hardcore christian" knows his Bible. Either he is ignorant or lying. It should be the first video.
"from the reactions I've read about, lots of people knew nothing about what he wrote"
And those are the people who don't do the research needed and apostatize on a whim.
fardawg 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"I too watch tons of debates and read many many books on the subject."
What have you read by Dr. White?
fardawg 1 year ago
@fardawg I'm also curious why you discount Bart Erhman. He was a hardcore Christian who came to disbelieve when he worked hard to study the texts in their original languages, and wrote papers on the subjects, because he wanted to get closer to get closer to his god. He wasn't biased against God when he began his criticism, quite the opposite.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"I'm also curious why you discount Bart Erhman."
Because he rehashes old arguments and acts like they are buried by the Church. I suggest you listen to Dr. White and Dan Wallace's critiques.
I don't care where he started from. If White or Wallace started from an atheist perspective and came to Christianity, would you care?
fardawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fardawg Give an example? Really? Your argument that some people "left out portions" is asinine when the same parts are recorded in multiple conflicting ways. Have you read anything by Bart Ehrman for example? He goes into great detail about the contradictions and why it's wrong to "mash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that [they] get the true understanding." When was the leper cured? Mat says before, Mark says after. Did the centurion approach Jesus? Mat says yes, Luke says no.
MagnumDB 1 year ago
@MagnumDB
"Prove the Epic Of Gilgamesh is wrong."
I'll take that up. Let's start with the scorpions who guard the rising sun at the end of the world. I don't believe anyone has encountered those. And the jewel trees?
I know you will bring up the Garden of Eden, but it can be debated as to how much is meant as metaphor. Revelation has similar language that is clearly metaphorical. Gil. is like that throughout and never has a sense of reality.
fardawg 1 year ago
Comment removed
WideEyedPictures 1 year ago
@WideEyedPictures / MagnumDB
"You're just full of yourself huh? 'I know you'll bring up the garden of eden.' You don't know that. Because I wasn't going to."
Yes you were. You all do. That's why I preempted the thought. You wouldn't have been smart not to bring it up.
fardawg 1 year ago