Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square.
for three reason Christianity is not divine religion.1) is Christianity god approved religion? 2) did god appointed any prophet/messiah for the Christianity?3) did god sent any revelation to the Christianity? it's man made religion.
I have to ask, which King James Version?? Because nobody uses the 1611. They all use one of the 1769 Blayney revisions (either the Oxford or Cambridge editions, and they are not the same. There are word differences). Not counting the apocrypha, the 1769 KJV has about 8% change in wording compared to the 1611, not changes in spelling or punctuation, but actual word changes (an equivalent to the NKJV vs. KJV ). I used to attend an independent fundamental KJV-only Baptist church. They don't like going to the sauce for information. They love circular arguments using each other as a reference.
"Nobody goes to hell simply because they didn't believe in Jesus". Huh? Hasn't this been exactly the prevailing belief of the church for centuries, that each person has to believe? Why all the mission trips then...
I'll be homest. I do see why people believe that the KJV is the Bible that should be used for English speaking people (since it was the first full English translation and all the work that was put into it), and now count myself among them. I'm listening to the pastor amd I'm waiting for the punchline that never came. It makes zero sense to place the KJV over the original texts. Idol worship indeed.
Even if we're ignoring the Vulgate-based Wycliffe Bible from the 1380s, the KJV isn't the first full English translation. The Miles Coverdale Bible is the first complete English Bible to use William Tyndale's 1526 New Testament. (Coverdale himself translated some of the other books.) It came out in 1535, the same year that Tyndale was arrested. More of Tyndale's Old Testament work was incorporated into the Thomas Matthew Bible of 1537, released a year after his execution. Then Coverdale returned to revise his work in the Great Bible of 1539, which was authorized for church use by King Henry VIII. This translation would receive two revisions of its own: an unofficial update in Switzerland under John Calvin (the Geneva Bible of 1560) and an authorized update in England under Queen Elizabeth (the Bishops' Bible of 1568). The KJV committee based their work on the latter, though they incorporated some things from the former.
People the original writing of the Bible is Hebrew translated to all other Languages. Christ and all HIS disciples were Hebrew Israelite. God of the Bible says HE the God of the Hebrew Israel. Hebrew for Abraham and Israel for Jacob.
"Embuke"? That's a new world in the English language. 😅 I'm sure you meant imbue though. Anyway, I've not heard that assertion before, who were the conspirators?
It's always surprising to hear any man, much less a pastor, use "Amen" as a throwaway, filler word as often as this dude does. He gives off the vibe of a cultural Christian that is more concerned with being cool than actually preaching the gospel.
Amen! A concept can exist without a specific word, and a word can be created to describe a concept that exists. People are grasping at straws to say God didn't say what He said or mean what He meant. Jesus lives ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I would point out that even the Greek isn't the original language of The Bible. That was just the most common version of the documents the New Testament were written in because Greek was the trade language of the day like English is today. Everything was originally in Aramaic, the language of the people in the New Testament. Hopefully those translators who put it in to Greek also translated them properly.
0:25 "I can take this book and correct the greek" Ok so I know some people have the idea that the king james bible is the only valid translation, because it is the most faithful translation and somehow blessed/ordained specifically by God. Usually cults that just use the outdated language to manipulate people as its more difficult to understand, but I digress. Point is, this is extra wack. In one sentence has he not only said that the greek disagrees with the translation, but that the translation is more correct than the original manuscript. Why? Also you cant just say "amen" and that like means your point is correct. That's not how words work.
He borrowed this remark from the late Peter Ruckman. Now, if you pay close attention to Ruckman when he makes this remark, what he's really saying is that the KJV could be used to correct the supposedly faulty modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament by supplying the "missing" readings. But one problem with Ruckman is that his successors often interpret his rhetoric too literally.
Jesus said the spirit will lead you into all truth,,, that is to say without the infilling/baptism of the spirit there will be errant thinking of the carnal mind. Most churches have no idea what the baptism in the spirit is. They will never find the truth as it is hidden from them. Choices were made in the translating process for the kjv,,, many of them wrong because the men involved were not spirit filled. They had no personal relationship with Jesus to rely on.
The gospels were written by people who never met Jesus long after his death in a different region than Jesus lived. Mark is the only original gospel and the other three are redactions to it. The whole thing is fiction.
It's generally accepted that Matthew and Luke are drawing upon a collection of sayings that are independent of Mark. They are not "reacting to" Mark, but expanding his work with additional sources. John is the one who diverges from the Synoptic tradition, but that's because it's the product of a different community in the early Christian movement, not because the author is interested in refuting Mark or the other evangelists.
This guy is a clown. However, if translating the bible from the original language of the authors is so problematic that it leads to these endless rabbit hole debates on what it actually says and means, that's a problem. There are about 60 English translations of the bible, and while several of them have minor difference that don't really matter, we're not talking about a book on economics. This is supposed to be the word of a god. It kind of matters.
Whether it is translated in Greek, English or Swahili, the Bible was written by ancient Hebrew people and without an understanding of their culture; you're not going to have an accurate image of what they were attempting to communicate. For example in Hebrew, the word "hear" (Shema) is also the word for "obey". They are inseparable, meaning that you haven't heard until you've obeyed (Let those with ears, obey). Try re-reading your Bible with that understanding and see what it says.
What you say is true for the Old Testament. Of corse the Jewish culture context is also very important in the New Testament, which was written in Greek
@@JD-fd1rl "Of corse the Jewish culture context is also very important in the New Testament, which was written in Greek" That's what I think people either forget or fail to recognize. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, is recognized as the Gospel written to 1st Century Hebrews. Many of the things recorded by Matthew in His Gospel, as they were understood by his Hebrew audience, would've been considered subversive in a community occupied by a European dictator (For example, Matthew 1:21 means something completely different to a Hebrew person declaring Jesus to be YHWH, the LORD of Moses). However the Roman's understanding or even interest in Hebrew culture was sparse at best.
There is something about the language of the KJV that makes it unique and inspirational to the reader/listener. Also, studying the KJV requires much more time trying to understand the language, time spent in the Word and what it means. Having said that my go to translation is the ESV and it has advantages as well.
If you base the value of any ideology on its most faulty proponents, then you're destined to think everything's a crock. (I'm reminded of those RU-vid channels that find the most vapid young women on social media and then treat them as if they're the official spokespeople of feminism...)
This heresy has gained more traction than one would imagine. Also, I know I'm bucking the literacy trend but he's actually radical, not fundamental, because he has abandoned the fundamental tenets of faith and reason for radical ideas. We should be teaching people to stick with the fundamentals and not get caught up in radical winds of false doctrine.
What about the more than 7,500,000,000 people whose first language is not English, let alone 17th century English? Should we translate from the KJV, the New KJV or from the Greek (and Hebrew), "corrected" by this man?
I've heard this explained in different ways. If you look up Jeremiah 29:11, the KJV says "peace", while the NIV says "prosper" for the word "shalom". If you look this word up in Strong's it is H7965 and has many options to choose from. The ideology in a nutshell is that the KJV translators chose the most applicable word.
Though I'm not sure the pastor conveyed his point well the point he is making is that we have the perfect word of God in the English language translated for us in the KJV and so we do not need to keep running back to the Greek and Hebrew picking up private interpretations from the words we plainly read (Greek and Hebrew often have many meanings for different words so the words God would have translated for us to read were done so we would trust them to be true). This practice causes many to be sceptical/correctors of God's word (critics as they are called) rather than believers in His word. God has said they He has placed His word above His name (psalm 138:2) and His pure words in the English are in the KJV and not the corrupted bibles whose source is Alexandria, Egypt and the gnostic philosophers (the source for the KJV is Antioch, Syria). So you have misunderstood the message and you have incorrectly given credence to corrupted English bibles which disagree with God's truth (attacking the deity of Christ, way of eternal salvation, the trinity, repentance, hell judgement and much, much more). You need to study church history more. Lord bless.
The pastor is actually correct. The Greek used today is not the same Koine Greek of Jesus time. It's based off a Greek only a 100 years old. There are changes in the language. Therefore, the KJV is "correcting" this new modern version. This is all well documented. I would post a link to a great source to watch, but my comment may get deleted. I'll just post the title of the video. Hope this clears up the confusion. "Why King James Bible Only? Bible Questions with Michael Pearl - Episode 027"
Your video doesn't do justice to the KJV,by way of this minister.The KJV is the word of God,Untill the author of confusion entered into the fray, there was no question..But of course that is is aim.
I agree with you, but those who believe in “KJV Only” ( and im assuming from this clip that this pastor believes that) actually believe that the KJV was inspired by God. A “reinspiration, “ of God. They DO believe it is perfect in the KJV English.
Well said. Having spent a few years assisting with Bible translation in Africa, I can confirm that it is a difficult process. At times the recipient language has multiple options and sometimes no good option. Choices are made and it is also very difficult for translators to set aside their backgrounds and bias. Most do not understand the challenges of language and translation.
