Why King James Bible Only? Bible Questions with Michael Pearl - Episode 027

[forhisglory723]

I personally enjoy the CJB .......It opens up the Scripture in a whole new light. Jesus our Lord was Hebrew, and to understand Scripture from the Hebraic view, is very amazing, and incredible. CJB is Complete Jewish Bible

[micmoable]

King James bible is only worthy version of God's Word---all those modernized and watered-down versions can lead folks astray

[truthfulreply]

I'll take the original one -My Catholic Bible

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. | 2008 | COPYRIGHT 1993 The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright © 2002,

Vulgate [Lat. Vulgata editio =common edition], most ancient extant version of the whole Christian Bible . Its name derives from a 13th-century reference to it as the "editio vulgata." The official Latin version of the Roman Catholic Church, it was prepared c.AD 383-AD 405 by St. Jerome (c.342-420) at the request of Pope St. Damasus I

[xsandsnowx]

Amen, Brother. Very well and humbly said.

[mwilson70201]

Good video brother. I could never understand why so many who profess faith in Christ can't pass up an opportunity to attack the word of their salvation. It's beyond comprehension that "christians" deny God preserved a perfect bible. They have more faith in scholarship then they do in scripture. How can this be? Textual critics comprise the protestant version of the Catholic magisterium, the group of cardinals that determine what is and isn't God's truth. They are modern Scribes and Pharisees.

[Wyowanderer777]

Excellent, thank you kindly!

[becomingbatmitzvah]

@TheKJVberean I don't know which "God" "anointed" the KJV. The KJV does not even claim that. It's only a translation. I don't which "God" you claim anointed the KJV, because the God I believe created the heavens and the earth and was around a lot longer than the KJV. What was the "anointed" version before the KJV came around? Did God thunder it down from Mt. Sinai?

[becomingbatmitzvah]

One place I find that the KJV surpasses all is Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Most versions leave that out.

[YTubeCheese]

The fellow in this video is very mistaken. Here are just a few examples: (1) the KJV isn't based on a majority text. While the TR follows a Byzantine majority reading most of the time, it has some readings that are way outside the mainstream. (2) The translators of the KJV admitted in their preface that their work wasn't perfect; that only the autographs were perfect. (3) God has blessed many translations with very widespread, traditional acceptance in the church's history, e.g. Vulgate and NIV.

[gillamrl]

@YTubeCheese You are greatly mistaken.. sad

[ledzeplad]

if the king james bible is so good why is the western world so bad?

[vincent15641]

The hidden wisdom mentioned at 1st Corinthians 2:7 will only manifest in the King James Bible. For examples, See the Aimed At America 1 video because there are too many parallels for these KJV Scriptures to be coincidences!

[becomingbatmitzvah]

A big problem I have with the King James, though I use it in writing and find it basically accurate, is the word "Easter". KJV can't be perfect, it's not the exact word that issued from God, anyway. It's pretty good, but because the pagan Romans brought Easter in the Church to replace Passover at the Council of Nicea ("to avoid the despicable company of the Jews" - blatant antisemitism) then later on the translators enforced their own ideas on the text. I noticed several mistakes in the OT too.

[Providential1611]

@becomingbatmitzvah Easter is not paganism brought in. I will refer to you a study on this--I need to go find it.

[IELTSExamination]

Preach the Word brother.

[Yahuwnathan]

There is Salvation in no other name. For there is no other name, under heaven, given among men, by which we can be saved. - Acts 4:12. YAHUWAH, the God of hosts, YAHUWAH is His memorial name. - Hosea 12:15. I will set it up so that the rest of mankind may also seek after YAHUWAH The Master, that is all those in the Other-nations who cannot now call upon My Name because they do not know, says YAHUWAH The Master, who does all He says. - Acts 15:16-17

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan Yes, and for TWO THOUSAND YEARS, around the globe, the church, the body of Christ has proclaimed that verse and HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS were born again and followed Jesus. The NAME they used was not the Judazer one, but Jesus, Iesous and the names translated from that Greek name, WHICH IS THE ONLY NAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT USED OF CHRIST. Period. If you have evidence FROM AN ACTUAL MANSUSCRIPT, tell us what and where it is please.

[Yahuwnathan]

I keep telling you guys there is no J in AbraYA (Hebrew) but people still hold to the names Jehovah and Jesus. Watch my Name videos and have a Strong's Concordance and KJV handy. If I can figure it out anyone can.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan If you get all your information soley from Strongs--well that tells us alot!

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 I give you months of my own study in the form of facts in these messages and available videos I have made about the importance of the Creator and His name, and rather than reply with a confident answer that builds up or tests my information, you discard it without reading it for yourself. Then you infer my ignorance.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan No I do not disgard your months of study---I am familiar with your thinking and line of "evidcne" seeing I researched Hebrew roots in all its forms years ago and have had EXTENSIVE personal dealing with people and friends who were caught up in it, one of whom is now a total apostate. Your arguments are wrong. For ex, the idea that the English name Jesus came from the god Zues is one of the most PREPOSTEROUS lies coming from the Judaizers. There is no proof for that. Its stupid

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 In all my comments here, I never once claimed Jesus came from Zeus. Go to Codex Sinaticus online, however, and find one occurrence of Iesus or Jesus. It's impossible. You will only find IHY = EE-AA-UU = YAHUW. I don't know how much clearer I can be. If they didn't say the word "Jesus" 2,000 years ago, then why do we ask "Jesus" to save us?

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan You don't understand TRANSLATION. Jesus IS Iesous in ENGLISH. The ear;y churdch preached YEASU AND YEASUS CHRISTOS. They did not preach Yahuwah, yeshua or any other name the Judaizers fight AMONGST THEMSELVES ABOUT! The ironic and comical thing is that even in these groups there is serious disagreement and fightings. I have read from them and realized NONE OF THEM know what they are talking about. Sinaiticus has the word IESOUS hundreds of times. What is your point?

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 Matthew 3:3 - John the Baptist quotes from Isaiah 40:3 and says, "Prepare the of the LORD (YHWY)." In Acts 2, Peter quotes from Joel, "Whoever callon the name of the LORD (YHWH) will be saved." I dont think they were saying kurios or lord here. They were (1) quoting from the OT, and (2) speaking to other Hebrews. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek Septuagint do not translate the Name but keep it in the AbraYA - Paleo-Hebrew langauge. So why do we translate it?

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan Paul quotes from Joel as well and there we are informed that the name of the Lord we are to call upon is Jesus Christ! 

[ThyWordIsFire]

@Yahuwnathan Jesus' name in Ancient Hebrew is YAHAWAHSHI, get it right people!!! His name ends with the Ancient Hebrew character "O" which sounds like "EYE" the pictograph character looks like an "EYE" which sounds like "EYE", its where the word EYE comes from...imagine that.

None of the fake names end with a "LONG I" sound, because theyre all incorrect. Yeshua, Yahshuah, Jesus are all obviously incorrect.

Reject that name and you get rejected.

[Providential1611]

@Partyfreakers Hey big mouth. Are you for abortion??? If you are, you are a loud-mouthed, self-righteous HYPOCRITE. And you are a liar who PRETENDS and slanderously accuses that the Bible teaches us to kill children. You are either a LIAR, demented, illiterate or demon-possessed. Either way you should shut your filthy, lying mouth until you get your facts straight. Athiest are the biggest child-abusers and murderers the world has ever seen. Repent and be saved from your evil self

[Yahuwnathan]

@Partyfreakers This is the what the corrupt KJV and twisted Torah teach - if your child scolds you, stone him or her. If you want your "promised land" then kill everyone, even women and children and just take it. Ignore the first four Commandments and only follow the last six (Matthew 19:19 in the corrupt KJV) and do not resist any evil person because government is supreme (Matthew 3, Romans 13). I am not a Christian or a Judaizer. I agree with you Partyfreakers. Search intently for the truth.

[jon083166]

lets see so many holes not enough space.so before 1611 they did not have the word of god? kjv used some of the newest manuscripts so was it polluted, today the newer versions have the newest manuscripts that are older than those in kjv. the church used the geneva in church until recently.he spews flat out lies here. the kjv scholars had to revise it 36 times in 3 years after making it. they admitted it was not perfect. so common sense is not used here

[Arkad412]

all scripture is GIVEN by inspiration including the NIV LOL...........................­............

Errant copies form the textus receptus

and somehow a translation based off errant copies equals God's perfect word!?!?!?

thats more funny than reading the NIV. what a joke

But let me seriously ask,,,,I DO NOT want to TAKE YOUR WORD for it.

What BIBLICAL evidence do you have to prove your assertion??????

[TheHorta]

The KJV is a translation. It is NOT a manuscript. There is a BIG difference.

All translations contain *some* errors. Some are better than others (like the KJV), but not one is free from error. Also, there are many variations on the same verses within the manuscripts themselves that make up the Textus Receptus.

Lastly, thousands (if not millions) of people have come to Christ (been saved) by translations other than the KJV. For 1000 years there was no vernacular translation.

[Yahuwnathan]

Romans 2:20-21: "You suppose that you are a teacher of the ignorant, a teacher of youth, having in your twisted Torah the complete summary of all knowledge and of the truth. Yet, while you teach Other-nations, have you failed to learn for yourself The Original Word of Yahuwah?" Just as the Kaballistic Jews corrupted the Hebrew Old Testament, the Catholic Church has corrupted the Greek New Testament. But we now have the manuscripts written by the hand of Matthew himself - not the KJV.

[crimini001]

@Yahuwnathan"...the Catholic Church has corrupted the Greek New Testament." Proof of this, please. "But we now have the manuscripts written by the hand of Matthew himself - not the KJV." I would like proof of this claim, too, please.

[Yahuwnathan]

@crimini001 Read manuscript P46 with your own eyes and compare it with manuscripts written after 300 AD. Why do all the Greek New Testaments use later manuscripts? I don't know. The corruptions are great - but the main is the changing of the Name. You download an image of P46 from the Internet. Just search for it and check out the Name of the Savior. It's not Jesus. After you do that, then you might want to check out originalscriptures website . . . for the recently discovered manuscripts

[crimini001]

@Yahuwnathan I looked at the web site, and did some research. The originalscriptures site is full of factual errors. E.G. according to the OED, and contrary to that web site's claim, "Easter" derives from the Latin "oestrus", which means "rut". Significantly, only English and its kindred languages use "Easter"; every other language uses a form of pesach, from the Hebrew root of the word "Passover". (If the Catholic Church is trying to deceive people, why only in English?)

[Yahuwnathan]

A foolish king does not completely remove himself from the pagan traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, begun by the Zeus wosrhipper Constantine. I have no king but Yahuwah.

[Yahuwnathan]

@WorshipInTruth A foolish king changes the Word of YAH by removing Ya'cob (Jacob) and inserting his own name "James". A foolish king stays within the Royal Family with the serpents responsible for the Crusades and racist imperialism, with no justice for the poor. A foolish king creates the word "Jesus" when His Name is Yahuw, the Son of Yahuwah. HalleluYAH! A foolish king puts faith in a man named Erasmus, who did not recant his pagan and iolatrous position in the ROMAN Catholic Church.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan My firend--stop believing the Judaizer myths. You will find the book of JAMES in Wyclif's 1384 translation. King Jmaes did NONE of the things you assert. They are lies invented by Papists and apostate Protestants to get rid of the true Enlgish Word of God.

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 I'm not a Jusaizer. They don't follow the commands of Scripture either. You find James in Wycliffe's translation? Do you find it in the original? No. You find Ya'acob. Removing the name of the Creator - Yah - removes your name from the Book of Life (Revelation 22)

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan If you are going to falsely accuse King James of trying to get his name into the Bible, and I present evidence that this is NOT SO, then you are following myths. Ya'acob in English can be Jacob OR James just like Robert or Bob, Richard or Dick, and other examples. God's name was removed from NOTHING.  The "name" of God never appears in the NT. They always coose words like Theos, Kurios and the like, which proves this Hebrew name fixation is unwarranted

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 There is no Jesus or Iesus. This was added almost 500 years later. "sus" is Greek (Ephesus, Pegasus, etc.) not AbraYA-Hebrew. Read the early Greek scrolls. Read Codex Sinaticus online. His name reads IHY = YEE-AA-UU. They called him Yahuw. They also called him Yahuwah - the same eternal name of the Father that is covered up with "LORD" in the Old Testament. Reference Matthew 3:3, Acts 2:21. They would not have said "lord" or "kurios" but YAHUWAH. . . Do not make His name vain.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan You are wrong on many counts and have clearly been deceived by Judaizers. If you read the end of Revelation, Christ says "I Jesus sent my angel to testify". Christ spoke there and used His Greek name Iesous. END OF DEBATE. Christ called Himself JESUS. Not yeshua or any of the other half dozen names ye judaizers all argue about. And on top of this, the correct pronunciation of God's name in the OT is not Yahweh, but JEHOVAH. You are very misled my friend

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 Isaiah = Yashayahuw = Salvation is Yahuw. Jeremiah = Yermiyahuw = Yahuw is resurrection. Yahuwshua (Joshua / JESUS) = Yahuw is salvation. Check it out in the Strong's Concordance. Read Hippolatus and others from the Early Church Fathers and Anti-Nicene Fathers. Matthew and Paul wrote in ancient Hebrew (AbraYA) and probably every disciple did.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan You have NO EVIDENCE Paul wrote in Hebrew, or Mastthew or any other writers of inspired Scripture. We have Greek mss, Latin, Syrian, Gothic, Coptic and a host of others, but NO HEBREW. Funny how ALL THESE OTHER LANGUAGES SURVIVED except hebrew. This is the Hebrew roots LIE. If Matthew did write in Hebrew, God did not consider it important enough to preserve ONE SOLITARY manuscript! But we have over 5000 Greek mss. GOD HAS SPOKEN THEREFORE and hebrew is not important.

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 The Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew. See Church History of Eusebius: Supplementary notes and tables, p. 390. See also Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, p. 255. The New Testament books were assumed to be originally in Hebrew according to Church History of Eusebius: Book III, footnote 9. See also Against Heresies: Book III, chapter 10, footnote 10. Refer also to the ROS Text (Restored Original Scriptures). Since most of the apostles were Hebrew, it would follow.

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 I have already said that of the five thousand Greek manuscripts, those from before the Roman Catholic Church record IHY = EE-AA-UU = YAHUW, not Iesus (Jesus). You accept the Textus Receptus from a Roman Catholic Monk, and hence the KJV, yet you do not accept the historical documents (Early Church Fathers) when they say the NT was written in Hebrew first. This does not follow logic. I too was once a fundamental independent Baptist. Then I began to read my Bible in depth.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan You are wrong on many counts and present no actual EVIDENCE. Some early fathers said MATTHEW was originally written and hebrew. That's it. And some believe it was Matthew who ALSO put it into Greek. And God in his Providence wisely saw to it that NO HEBREW mss survivied, but the Greek mss did. Why would God do this if the Hebrew names were so important? The fact is that all we have is GREEK, and in Greek we have Kurios, Theos and Iesous. PERIOD.

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 You think you prove an argument when you put "PERIOD" at the end. All manuscripts whether Greek or Hebrew, preserved the Name of the Creator from ancient Paleo-Hebrew, in the same language He wrote His own name, and we have the audacity to say, "It's not important. We can just call him God or LORD." The Baal worshipers called their god LORD and Master as well. Before you reply, you should watch my videos and then "google" the Greek manuscripts and see His Name. P46, Septuagint

[Yahuwnathan]

@Providential1611 The Judaizers and Zionists refuse to accept Yahuwah their King who died and resurrected because they believe in a twisted Torah. You hold to traditions and translations, being lawless against the 3rd Commanment (Do not make His name vain!) and 4th Commandment (Keep the Seventh Day holy!). These very commandments that our Creator told us to obey forever (Deuteronomy chapters 4 to 12), and which our Savior kept, and which all the disciples after him kept.

[Providential1611]

@Yahuwnathan What "twisted Torah"? To what do you refer? And how does learning about God from a translation violate the third commandement? Where does that commandment speak about translations??? methinks you are halllucinating due to the Judaizer error and the evil spirits behind it. The third commandment says NOTHING about translations, and the fact that you MISUSE that command to FALSELY ACCUSE believers shows the error you are enslaved to.

[Yahuwnathan]

King James changed the name of the apostle James from his Hebrew name Ya’cob (“Yahuwah rises up”), and unless King James repented, he is in hell. The name of the Savior is not “Jesus” because “Jesus is a 400 year old word. His name was Yahuw, as the prophet Isaiah (YashaYAHUW) prophesied would be. The perfect Word has been found, one of many scrolls in the Iranian desert, written by the hand of Matthew (MatithYAHUW) himself. The Original Scriptures . c o m ... please SEEK the Father!

[Yahuwnathan]

The Authorized King James Bible is a state issued translation of the Word from 8 or more corrupted Roman/Byzantine manuscripts handled by the Roman Catholic cleric Erasmus, a pagan idolater and Pope worshiper. (Hence, you see the abrogating of the first four commandments in Matthew 19.) The translators of the King James Bible called James a “Majesty” in the 1611 introduction of the Authorized King James Bible, just as the Pharisees blasphemously said, “We have no king but Kaiser (Caesar).”

[WorshipInTruth]

@Yahuwnathan Erasmus was the most learned scholar of his time, although he remained within the catholic church he was certainly not a pagan idolater or pope worshipper. The byzantine-eastern style manuscripts he used were the proper "majority text" as opposed to the quasi-pagan-gnostic texts created in the occult schools of Alexandria and Rome.

[WorshipInTruth]

@Yahuwnathan King James was a legitimate king, he was not perfect but he was the "King Solomon of Britain". Not only was he a king of multiple nations but he was one of the most educated and well read people in the world at that time. James I was highly religious and devout, unlike his crypto-catholic Stuart predecessors. God certainly allowed England to flourish under his reign.

"A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes." - Proverbs 20:8

[WorshipInTruth]

@Yahuwnathan "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them."- Proverbs 20:26

[bartyfarslar]

You do know that the King James was as queer as a three dollar bill. He was so gay that Sir Walter Raleigh called him "Queen James">

[WorshipInTruth]

@bartyfarslar No proof that he was a homosexual, that is merely something which was suggested by those who wished to delegitimize his reign. Furthermore, King James had nothing to do with the creation of the KJV, his only role was authorizing it. In fact, the AUTHORIZED VERSION was first called the "King James Bible" by its enemies who wanted to paint it as a creation of the King. If you want to descredit the AV 1611 you would need to attack the godly and learned men of the Hampton Court Confer.

[RealEros1]

@WorshipInTruth Sorry to interrupt, where did you obtain the information on how the authorized version became known as the "King Jame's version"? Seems interesting.

[WorshipInTruth]

@RealEros1 It's original name is the "Authorized Version 1611", it was first called the "King James Bible" in a derogeratory fashion by its opponents and that name eventually caught on with the populace that is why it is the KJV but I still prefer to refer to it as the AV 1611. You can find this in most histories.

[WorshipInTruth]

@RealEros1 You must understand that the people much loved the Geneva Bible and knew that part of the agenda of King James in authorizing the creation of the 1611 was to take out comments from Reformers which were anti-monarchical. Remember that King James was a great expounder of the doctrine of the "divine right of kings". The AV 1611 is essentially the Geneva Bible written in better English and without the commentary from the Reformers.

[believerintheword]

Good Video, but I disagree. I do Support the History of the KJV BUT... discoveries of Older manuscripts show her to be inacurate in some things such as the end of Mark, The story of jesus and the Woman who was to be stoned etc. they did not exist in the older manuscripts. You will see a footnote in bibles published today that say these stories were NOT in the oldest manuscripts found.

[ibreuer]

Good job of exposing the corrupt manuscripts that leave out so many references on the divinity of Christ.

[4um360]

That's what you get when you believe the story of the groom and the bride (Jesus and the church). The groom offers his bride the best of all things if she accepts him, but if she rejects him, he'll burn her in hell. It's evil; in any language.

[SwordofSpirit1]

Beginning in minute 5:06, Aagh! That's extortion! Now we know where the perversion and the demons crept in!  (Thanks for the info)

[SwordofSpirit1]

I read the KJV only because it is God personified. When I read the other versions, it's like reading something a little kid could've written, ie a comic book is surreal and fantastic compared to vivid reality. Also, when I read my KJV, God's Spirit leads me on an "adventure" throughout, teaching me. Morale: It is indeed and in fact the "inspired" Word of God. Very hearty, satisfying reading that I use to commune with my Father. Comfort Food.

[KeneshaCoulibaly]

Make it plain. AMEN. EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT. WOW. I'M SO HAPPY HEARING AND WATCHING THIS CLEAR AND CONCISE TRUTH.

[KeneshaCoulibaly]

Make it plain. AMEN.

[fcdog555]

Is this the guy who wrote that sick book that teaches to beat your child?

[TBman256]

@fcdog555 yep

[fcdog555]

@TBman256 What a sick sad man

[DaddyDave723]

I enjoy hearing Michael Pearl speak, but I don't have to agree with every bit of it. I think everyone should start replying to this using the same language that is in the KJV LOL.

The Bible, thankfully, is being translated in more and more languages. Praise God! I do use the KJV as well as other versions to compare, but the KVJ is not my personal choice because I get too caught up in all the "thee, thoust, -eth" and my mind tends to stray.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right. Just sharing.

[Hehatesugly]

@DaddyDave723

Yea! You are not saying anyone is wrong or right but however, you have succeeded in preaching the gospel according to Lucifer. You see, the reason many are under a delusion today & on their way to taking the Mark of the Beast is bec they forsake the KJV & read from Satan's bible translations which he carefully prepared for this exact purpose.

[Petitegirl90]

Where is the best place to get a KJV that hasn't been revised or changed??

[Petitegirl90]

What about the people in other countries who don't have the kjv but another version. Can God not reveal Himself to them through that bible?? I think so!!

[Petitegirl90]

I love the King James Bible it is the main version I study from but I don't think that God can't use the other versions. If for instance someone picked up a NIV or ESV God could still convict them and draw them to repentance and save them. I have heard many King James onlyists say that no one can be saved if they read any other version which I think is rediculous.

[forlife01]

King James Bible (if you're into English prose/poetry) and NASB if you want a word for word translation of the original texts. However, a Message remix that is read and followed is better than a KJB or a NASB that sits on a shelf and gets worshiped by people that don't read it but claim to know everything about it.

[Brightfame73]

In what sense do you mean that the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were written in Classical Greek?

[BrotherDonovan]

"If I need a good laugh I use the New International Version" BRILLIANT! God Bless you Brother. I read recently that the New New International Version (which in itself is a weird concept - how does the meaning change so much that the Word needs to be constantly revised? Hebrews 13:8) has taken out gender specific references ie "If you sin against your brother OR SISTER". My goodness, the Word is the Word is the Word and has been saving souls since day one. 400 years is testament enough for me.

[MasoreticVsKJV]

The biggest error in the King James Bible and all other Modern English Bibles for that matter, is he removal of God's name over 7,000 times in the Bible. God's name is YHWH/Yahweh, not LORD.

[ljietuvis]

Really, 95% of Greek manuscripts agree with King James Bible? What about 1st John 5:7-8 which is the ONLY place in the Bible where Trinity is taught and it does not appear in ANY of the Greek manuscripts? So, I would say, King James Bible doesn't agree with a single one of Greek manuscripts

[Onetruthrgv]

@ljietuvis It appears in the textus receptus and as well church fathers quoted 1st john 5:7 the way the king James bible puts it and they existed before the KJV

[crimini001]

@Onetruthrgv Some Church Fathers quoted I John 5:7, but only after it had appeared in Latin manuscripts. The oldest Greek manuscript to contain it is from around 1000 A.D.

[Onetruthrgv]

@crimini001 Please see my response to lijetuvis

[ljietuvis]

@Onetruthrgv OK, I stand corrected, but still the first Greek manuscripts with these verses were written in the XV or XVI century, and that was after these verses were translated from Latin to Greek. Scholars agree that 1st John 5:7-8 certainly was not in the original text, but was later added in order to justify belief in the Trinity. You can check watch?v=61295LAfQmo

[Onetruthrgv]

@ljietuvis That's a logical fallacy, Because y proceeds x therefore x is the authority is logically incoherent. In fact this argument does not hold up because we have many other verses for the trinity. "Scholars agree that 1st John 5:7-8 certainly was not in the original text" This is a logical fallacy called arguing from authority. How can the say x was not in the original if we don't have the originals? We rely on the copies of the originals.

[ljietuvis]

@Onetruthrgv Yes, we rely on copies of the originals, and if all of the earliest copies don't have a verse, and only much later copies have it, that's an indication that the verse was not in the originals but was added later, don't you agree? If something was in the originals we would expect it to be in all copies. Also, if the people who study a particular field come to the same conclusion that does suggest that the conclusion is plausible and supported.

[Onetruthrgv]

@ljietuvis That's logically incoherent, that's like me saying because the protestant movement happened after the catholic church was established we thus are wrong since the oldest known church teaches things differently than protestants. As I explained before just because y proceeds x does not mean x has authority.

You are presupposing that the sintaticus and vaticanus are copied correctly for the originals. I would like to see the evidence with out fallacy that they are copied accurately.

[ljietuvis]

@Onetruthrgv I can not demonstrate that anything was copied correctly, but what I'm saying is that it's more likely that the older copies are more likely to be accurate than the later ones. It is very unlikely that nobody would copy the text correctly until some point in time and then they would start copying it correctly, it's much more likely that people would be copying it correctly until some person put in additional two verses and then most people copied from the text with those verses.

[Onetruthrgv]

@ljietuvis I disagree 100% Its possible that the manuscripts you have are the corrupt ones and it is eually possible the manuscripts we have are the ones that have been preserved. Older makes no difference. Any body was able to copy the originals so oldest does not even matter since anyone could have very well copied them and changed them how they pleased. The church history is in favor of the KJV since church fathers did quote john 5:7 and many others

[ljietuvis]

@Onetruthrgv The originals were not available to everybody, they were available to a very limited amount of people who lived soon after they were written. So what we have are copies of copies of copies. And seriously, what is the probability that of the old Greek manuscripts only the incorrect ones would happen to be preserved? The later manuscripts are copies of earlier manuscripts, and all of the earlier manuscripts we have do not include those verses.

[Onetruthrgv]

@ljietuvis That's arguing from silence. Is it not possible that the textus receptus was copied from early manuscripts that of which are now lost? Call it unlikely or a cop out but that possibility does exist. The dead sea scrolls were confirming for the Masoretic text which was in the KJV when alot of the critics insulted the text. The same is possible for the TR now my main issue here is that you are pressuposing that older is better, did you know the sinaiticus was found in a waste basket?

[crimini001]

@Onetruthrgv "Call it unlikely or a cop out but that possibility does exist." No, it actually doesn't. The textual history of the Textus Receptus is very well established.

[Onetruthrgv]

@crimini001 Only what we know is established. As I stated Earlier Its a logical fallacy called arguing from silence to draw a conclusion based on the absence of evidence for early manuscripts in support of the Textus receptus

[genetrumbo]

Good defense of the King James Bible. I like it because it is so intertwined with the history and culture of the English speaking people. It was the Bible of Washington, Lincoln, and Calvin, and it was the predominant Protestant Bible of my youth. The language is very poetic, and so many great turns of expression come from it that are part of today's language and culture. It has some obsolete words, but that is part of its charm. And it comes down through time to us by Providence.

[OnlyTheScriptures]

Great translation but it does contain some error..one example is the word WORLD,it does not have the same meaning each time it is used.

[DrOakley1689]

I think this video will make a great addition to an upcoming edition of The Dividing Line, for it presents all the standard canards and errors of the KJV Only movement. I will try to get to it before the end of July. Listen in at aomin.org!

James

[roger4Jesus]

Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

[roger4Jesus]

The background information helps but you can get all the info in the world and if you still don't hear the truth (he that hath ears to hear let him hear) then you don't get Jesus as he said "I am the way the TRUTH and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me".

[roger4Jesus]

after I became born again (saved by the blood of Jesus alone!) I read the niv and kjv and some other iv. I came to the conclusion that the niv and the other bible did not give me the same power and joy. I KNEW by the holy Spirit in me that the KJV was God speaking to me.

[gburkable]

Came from Adam and Eve.

[ortafunk]

It Is amazing such as one of of these TBN preachers trying scorn Me & they read from something as the living bible or something written by a woman sunday school teacher & I laugh at them.

[iKory13]

I use NIV. haha

[cowboytony47]

I like your channel my friend,have a blessed day

[littlebigronnie386]

I like this video. sounds like you`ve done your research. i have not yet dug into the history of it myself, but i too only study the word from kjv. thank you

[ASonOfLiberty1776]

This guy needs to read "The King James Only Controversy" by James White.

[wonjon6791]

You do realize the King James Bible is less accurate because they lacked the knowledge, and manuscripts that allow us to more accurately interpret the Bible into the more accurate versions we have today right?

[provocationofgrace]

@wonjon6791 - I know that I am a little late to respond. How do you know that what you are saying is true? It is my understanding that the KJV translators knew the ancient languages as well as they knew their own. They had debates in these languages. You seem very confident in your assertion about them lacking the knowledge. How do you know that? What manuscripts are you referring to that allow us to more accurately interpret the Bible? Enlighten me please.

[necas00]

well said.

[NephilimFree]

AMEN. The KJV is the only Bible any responsible Christian should dare read.

[nephilimfail1]

KJV is the only true word of god because god speaks old english. lol

[frostgoatfarm]

I respect Michael Pearl and his teachings on training children. We've learned so much from him. However, in studying out this issue myself, it sounds as though Mr. Pearl has confused a few facts or at least terms, and said some things that are untrue regarding Greek texts. I don't find his comments or his view on the Received Text and the other Greek manuscripts as being intellectually, historically, or even spiritually sound. I would not recommending adopting this viewpoint. Study it out.

[Jecizza]

What about the NKJV? I like the KJV, but most people can't understand it because languages change over time.

[matchesison]

where did cains wife come from?

[trencherpin]

Genesis 5:4 Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. Cain married one of his sisters.

[matchesison]

@trencherpin awesome. i thought that was forbidden?

[shaggypete19]

@matchesison it wasn't forbidden for another thousand years or so (under Moses)... before then, marrying siblings was completely safe and allowed.

[matchesison]

@shaggypete19 so, scientifically speaking, we all started from inbreeding. does that mean adam and eve were, for lack of better words, "more human"?

[shaggypete19]

@matchesison we started from adam and eve, followed by "inbreeding", yes. i don't understand the "more human" question...

[matchesison]

@shaggypete19 ok, yes, it was poorly asked. what i meant was that inbreeding causes negatives results and causes the offspring to be flawed. does the inbreeding that occurred with adam and eve mean cain and able suffered from any of the defects and possibly passed them onto the rest of humanity? what i meant by "more human" was that, if we do all suffer from these passed on defects (if they exist) was adam and eve a more perfect design of human?

[shaggypete19]

@matchesison ah, i understand. when i said that sibling relations were completely safe earlier, i meant that to include that there were no defects being passed on. i believe that adam and eve were perfect beings at creation, and so there were no defects to worry about. entropy set in beginning with the first sin, however, and eventually the gene pool was contaminated (mutation? external factors? idk), and hereditary issues became a concern. as info, i don't believe at all in "KJV only".

[ThreeDaysKoRn]

@matchesison when a man and a woman love each other.......well you know the rest lol.

[matchesison]

@ThreeDaysKoRn ? yes i know the rest haha. but cain and abel were the first two children of adam and eve. that means cain married his sister or mother right?

[ThreeDaysKoRn]

@matchesison maby he lived down south lol but that makes sense yet thats kind of disgusting but you gotta do what you gotta do lol.

[keithmisner85]

Very helpful

[parenthope]

The Textus Receptus (KJV) and the Majority Text are slightly different. What Mike says about the Alexandrian Texts is true.