The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint). Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantiam. Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. The Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70. 2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) saying the angels are to worship messiah. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT (and KJV): Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
Yes. Unfortunately LXX also contains some errors: For one, in Isaiah 25:8 LXX renders it as "Death has prevailed and swallowed them..." But we know from 1 Corinthians 15:54 that Paul understood it was "He will swallow up death in victory." Granted the Hebrew in the MT does leave the subject ambiguous in these verses so the choice is at least understandable, but I think it's safe to say that LXX has it wrong. No translations are worthy of worship.
Ultimately, given the magnitude of errors of the MT plus the scribes and Masoretes targeting messianic scriptures to alter them, the Septuagint is greater than the MT.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John:1:1 The Word = God The word of God IS God O *WORSHIP THE LORD* in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Psalm:96:9 We worship a perfect translation of God's word (which is God)... AMEN TO THAT 🙌
Well, actually I agree with everything you just said. The "nerve" that you hit, and it may have been an assumption on my part, is that you claimed the KJV, over any other translation, is the word of God, which means that the KJV is the "only" true Bible. I have debated KJV onlyists for years and I have found them to be arrogant and closed minded to anything but their own so called truths and reject any body elses opinions, facts and evidences.
You said, "What is the point of this super analysis of the whole subject, can it add anything to my faith?" In my opinion, absolutely yes. Understanding the Bible in its original Hebraic context completely changes how one reads the Bible. Most Christians read it from a western Christian perspective and ignore the fact that it was originally written in Ancient Eastern Hebrew culture. As I demonstrate is some of my other videos, the two philosophies are as different as ngiht and day.
And yet, the people of Jesus' time, who knew the ancient Hebrew, mostly rejected Him. I don't doubt there is some value in knowing the original languages, but much more depends on the spirit of the seeker.
actually the RSV version supplies a footnote ( which they always do when someone is pointing out some contrived anomaly ) Psalms 145 :13 " .. the lord is faithfull in all his words and gracious in all his deeds " with the foot note reading * These two lines are supplied by one Hebrew ,Ms,Gk,Syr. which implies it is found in the Greek , Syrian , and Masoretic versions . The RSV is no " johnny come lately" you know ? I have found versions as old as the 1860's. The revisors began their work when they began to notice problems with the KJV such as the contrived syntax and words that have changed meanings over the centuries .For the record there is no perfect English translation and this has been done by design .
The problem is, You’re comparing it to the Masoretic text, The Septuagint is centuries older and KJV is mostly copied from the Septuagint while Torah is mostly copied from the Masoretic. The Masoretic text is known to having more errors.
The phrase in question is ha-omrim lara. When we break this down we have; ha - the (definite article) omer - saying (participle) im - ones (omrim being the plural participle form) la - to (preposition) ra - evil (noun) when we put all of this together we have "the ones saying to evil." No where in there is the idea of "calling." The Hebrew word for "calling" is qore.
The same God who created everything promised to preserve his words for ever and you somehow doubt that fact ? Remember let God be true and every man be a liar have a nice day ...
@@brucedressel8873 One the translation's say that not God and on top of that we don't know if their is a God. We don't even know which translation is the best and each translation says different thing's. So which one is right ? All translation's claim to be the word of God but no one has a way of knowing.
@@samsmith346 You don't get the point most God's are easy to disprove. That's if the attributes are self contridictory. In other word's you can disprove certain God's. This does not mean their is no God at all. But the Christian God attributes contradict each other so his existence is impossible. This does not mean the original scriptures suffer from the logical problems the translations do. I have studied into the Greek and Hebrew a bit and the original meaning of certain words and when certain doctrines invaded Christian theology. I have also studied into how certain word's have changed in meaning.
From a religious standpoint, I've been told the notion is that despite that there may be errors or meanings may be lost in translation (given just how many languages the bible has been translated from) the idea is that this process is ultimately guided by God and/or that the ultimate meanings and message they convey, rather than the syntax of the words, should be what is most important.
"We have this treasure in earthen vessels." It is the thoughts of God that are inspired. The words are those of the languages of men, and there can be minor mistakes in the text as it was copied and translated, and also difficulty conveying God's thoughts, which are infinite, in a weak, finite language. But God didn't just put one idea in one lone text, He put His thoughts all through the Bible, repeating them in words, examples, parables, object lessons, etc. So by lining up all those different expositions of the same truth, it is not difficult to avoid the variance that one mistranslated text might have conveyed. The Bible is a combination of divinity and humanity. Jesus, the word of God, "was made flesh." It is no different when He came as a man. Did He come in sinless pure flesh, without any traces of the effects of sin? Not at all! His humanity came from the line of David, Abraham, etc. "made in the likeness of sinful flesh." Did Jesus put His entire confidence in His flesh? No! Why would He spend all nights in prayer, if He thought His flesh was infallible and could be trusted? He knew the weakness that was in the flesh. Furthermore, since He was not the Messiah that people were expecting, most of the Jews rejected Him. They did not consider Him to be perfect. Likewise with the Bible. It may contain the perfect thoughts of God...but how many people discern those thoughts? Not many, because humans have their own idea of how a perfect God should be. Nevertheless, divinity was housed and expressed through the flesh of Christ, just as the Divine thoughts are expressed in the weak and erring words of men. Even if we had a perfect book, in a perfect language, we would still misunderstand it, because the problem is not in the Bible, it is in weak humanity.
this is dumb. Jesus used Lev 20:10 and so it’s repeated so that the pharisees were dropped the stone. Has nothing to do with sleep or drunk scribes The Text is right and so is the KJV. textual criticism = scoffers
I had two different friends who enlightened me to this over 20 years ago. One was a world celebrated cartoonist & humorous illustrator whose work was made into toys and included in major motion pictures. He was also a historical explorer who spoke fluent Hebrew. He told me there are a lot of errors in both books of the Bible because Hebrew doesn't translate well(particularly into English), some words & useage not at all. He said the really ancient Hebrew is completely lost because no one today, not even the top Jewish linguists, know what it means. At the time of his death he was producing a two-hour TV documentary about discovering the real remains of Noah's Arc. They found it in a different location than where everyone else is looking because of their noticing an error in one word of Biblical translation. The other was from a biker brother who was a Messianic Jew. He told me the first New Testament Bible was written by the Catholic Church and everything since is really a variation on it. I'm sure you fight a lot of backlash but keep up the good work. This needs to be made known.
Hi Joe, so what have you been reading for 20 years ever since? I suppose you believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and in the Father and Holy Spirit?
I've read KJV but lately I've been reading from NIV. I also recently bought the Koren Jerusalem Bible that has Hebrew on the facing page. I was wondering what people's suggestions as to the best English version. My guess would be the Koren version, because it's compiled by people who use Hebrew and English in everyday speech. It also has the advantage that I can check Hebrew words and learn a little bit of that language.
*The author of this quote is Jay P. Green, Sr. Translator of the MKJV, LITV, Interlinear, and KJ3 Bible. “Upon studying certain portions of the Scriptures, the author was appalled, thoroughly shocked, when it was found that the NASB and NIV, supposedly conservative' translations, had eliminated such a noted testimony to the Deity of Christ as God manifet in the flesh. Other new versions were searched to see if they did this also. The following pages reveal the more extensive studies that were made to discover how the new versions treat the deity of Christ. Such notable Gnostic corruptions as that in Matthew 19:16-19 where the Scriptures were altered to make Christ deny His own goodness, have been resurrected and inserted into nine of the new versions. And this in spite of the fact that the many words the new versions have cast out of Matthew appear intact in Mark 10:17, 18 and Luke 18:18, 19. This, of course, puts a direct contradiction within the new versions. Further study turned up Ebionite, Manachean, and other heretical beliefs being reinserted into new versions. Among other things, the virgin birth, the sinlessness, the omnipresence, and other essential doctrines testifying to Christ as God have been changed or denied in the new versions. God's words are precious, and especially precious are those verses which assure us that Christ is co-equal God, ever-existing, without beginning or end. Because of this, it is important that every lover of Christ and His Word must be alerted to what is being done in the new versions, each new one being more corrupt than those that went before. And having been informed, it is essential that all true believers spread the message that the Scriptures are being stolen away from them under the guise of a 'new' version which promises to be more readable, more stylish, etc. The words may be different, but the evil doctrines seen in these new versions are as old as Satan himself. For He has ever been efficient in moving unbelieving men and women to deny the deity of Christ, and to assert that it is by their good will and works that they will be saved. For the cause of God and Truth, for the love of our Savior God, Jesus Christ, go forth and make known the message of this book.” Those 9 versions: (ERV) (NASB) (NIV) (NRSV) (REB) (GNB) (NAB) (CEV) (NKJV, failing only in Hebrews 2:9) Personally, I don’t use the KJV, because it obviously has errors and is written in elizabethan english. I use the KJ3 literal translation, which is the English from the interlinear bible, but more updated
Jeff, thanks for your reply. The thing I put in quotes comes after "amar." I was pointing out that amar does not have to be translated as "saying" or "said." In fact in the hebrew, that verse has "ha-amarim" which is being used as a substantive participle. In your comment you had to leave out the lamed in your translation to make "ha-amarim" say "ones saying to." You know this, since you claim be translating it literally. The literal says "---- FOR evil good and FOR good evil."
When one professes to be a Christian, but doesn't believe any Bible is the preserved, inspired and inerrant word of Almighty God which He emphatically states many times would NEVER pass away, that makes them a Bible agnostic or Bible atheist by definition. Here is about three years worth of reading on any question one would like answered as to why all modern versions are Roman Catholic in origin and practice. There are also some good links on this page. God bless and enjoy! dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/will-kinney-kjv-index/comment-page-1/#comment-575
God preserved His Word in the same way He inspired it: in Hebrew and Greek. We know the KJV is not perfectly preserved because of its many errors. The KJV is not a perfect translation. It has many errors: 1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12 Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) 3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
@@andreanunez5510 : The KJV has numerous errors, such as: 1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12 Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) 3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes) 10. Mark 7:19b: KJV has "expelled" when it should be "He declared all foods cleansed."
@@RobespierreThePoof : You don't understand what Biblical inerrancy is. It doesn't deny that there were changes and errors made in the transmission of the manuscripts.
For everyone saying that the KJV is the PERFECT translation and the pure word of God, You are either brainwashed or highly in denial. I understand that there were transliteration errors in there for sure, and I still use the KJV as my authority. For one when you see the very word "GOD" or" LORD" that is a replacement for YHWH.( YahWeh,( Elohim) or (Jehovah). So they use titles instead of actual names. And that is all through the Bible. Also in the greek language Jesus was actually "Iesous" and in the aramaic"Yeshua" or in Hebrew Yehoshua" The exact same name of one of the only 2 who made it into the promised land in the Old Testament. The KJV was translated by MAN, so that alone will let you know that it isnt PERFECT. The Hebrew language is a very hard language to translate and transliterate and I know a few places in the KJV that arent exactly correct. In Acts 7;45 one word is erroneous in the translation. It says " Jesus" instead of Joshua. The entire verse and chapter is describing Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness, so it would make no sense whatsoever for it to say " Jesus" and the reason it was erroneous was the fact that Jesus had the exact same name. I believe in the authority of the KJV until I find a more accurate translation, I will continue to use it. I also Know beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is power in the name of "Jesus". My point is we should all study the word of God in such depths,language,translations and such to search for the most accurate and authentic translations possible. We live in the age of information and its not hard to find a translational site that is 100% accurate and as we remain in our faith,we should not be naive in thinking that one translation is PURE AND PERFECT. Because although it is leaps and bounds more authentic than any other modern translation, it does contain at least one or two errors. May God guide and direct your hearts and minds into the path of truth.
+JOSHJU BEAR Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. " " deliberately taken out of CONTEXT, as ANY bible study half accurate will tell you. Correctly translated: "Deliver, Lord! For the godly 3 have disappeared; 4 people of integrity 5 have vanished. 6 12:2 People lie to one another; 7 they flatter and deceive. 8 12:3 May the Lord cut off 9 all flattering lips, and the tongue that boasts! 10 12:4 They say, 11 “We speak persuasively; 12 we know how to flatter and boast. 13 Who is our master?” 14 12:5 “Because of the violence done to the oppressed, 15 because of the painful cries 16 of the needy, I will spring into action,” 17 says the Lord. “I will provide the safety they so desperately desire.” 18 12:6 The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable. 19 They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground, where it is thoroughly refined. 20 12:7 You, Lord, will protect them; 21 you will continually shelter each one from these evil people, 22 12:8 for the wicked seem to be everywhere, 23 when people promote evil. 24 " Translation noted on the linguistics you ignore: "19 tn Heb “the words of the Lord are pure words,” i.e., untainted by falsehood or deception (in contrast to the flattery of the evildoers, v. 2). 20 tn Heb “[like] silver purified in a furnace of [i.e., “on”] the ground, refined seven times.” The singular participle מְזֻקָּק (mÿzuqqaq, “refined”) modifies “silver.” The number seven is used rhetorically to express the thorough nature of the action. For other rhetorical/figurative uses of שִׁבְעָתָיִם (shiv’atayim, “seven times”), see Gen 4:15, 24; Ps 79:12; Prov 6:31; Isa 30:26. 21 tn The third person plural pronominal suffix on the verb is masculine, referring back to the “oppressed” and “needy” in v. 5 (both of those nouns are plural in form), suggesting that the verb means “protect” here. The suffix does not refer to אִמֲרוֹת (’imarot, “words”) in v. 6, because that term is feminine gender. 22 tn Heb “you will protect him from this generation permanently.” The third masculine singular suffix on the verb “protect” is probably used in a distributive sense, referring to each one within the group mentioned previously (the oppressed/needy, referred to as “them” in the preceding line). On this grammatical point see GKC 396 §123.f (where the present text is not cited). (Some Hebrew mss and ancient textual witnesses read “us,” both here and in the preceding line.) The noun דוֹר (dor, “generation”) refers here to the psalmist’s contemporaries, who were characterized by deceit and arrogance (see vv. 1-2). See BDB 189-90 s.v. for other examples where “generation” refers to a class of people."
+JOSHJU BEAR Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Deuteronomy 8:3 Matthew 4:4 Luke 4:4 add those up, 16:11" HUH? Those verse designations have NOTHING to do with anything in the real OR spiritual world. NOR does the number. Obviously, the KJB did NOT proceed from the mouth of God - NO word of God would have so many contradictions, outright errrors, and inclusions from corrupted Catholic texts. I Hope you know that the KJB is 100% Catholic from Gen 1: 1 to the last chapter of Revelation; that was made up from pieces of commentaries. Erasmus who created the Received Text (Falsely called the Texus Receptus - a book that was NOT published til 1631), was a Catholic theologian. HE dedicated the Catholic Greek text to Pope Leo X. He opposed the reformation and Luther. He inserted many passages Directly from the Vulgate, giving a reading NO previous Greek text EVER had. That is why the KJB had the Apocrypha, which was to support purgatory. And why the immaculate conception of Mary was included along with birthdays of popes . . . That is why those "lost verses" are in margins or footnotes - for they never existed in ANY Greek text EVER before 1300 and Erasmus.
If the King James is not perfect, then there is NO correct English Bible. What are you going to offer in its place, huh? All English versions after the King James are riddled with errors. The evidence is overwhelming, and has been available for a long time.
This is a major problem. Many blindly worship a translation because someone told them so, rather than being honest doing their own due diligence. Just because there are translation errors does not make the underlying word false. Plus they get triggered if one points simple and obvious things out, it's called cognitive dissonance. The disciples did not walk around with a KJV, does that make them wrong? That said, the KJV is what I normally refer to, but I always look closely at word meanings to make sure I'm getting full understanding. I'll use others for easier reading as well. It's the Spirit which is manifest in our conduct (truth/teachings) that matter we worship God in Spirit not letter and through our deeds (John 4:24). Strong's G225 - alētheia - The word for truth is "what is true in things appertaining to God and the duties of man, moral and religious truth" Always remember that.
One must wonder WHY then you use the KJ at all. Traditions of men? YOU study other translations, you read other translations - you by now MUST be aware of the many corruptions in the KJB - frankly its an impediment to witnessing and study as its language is incomprehensible . . .
@mammal46 No, I'm not a Christian, but am a Bible believer. All modern English translations have the same fatal error, they are translating an Eastern text (Hebrew) into a Western text (Greco-Roman English). When this is done it removes the original intent of the words. I have begun a translation project called "The Mechanical Translation of the Hebrew Bible" to help rectify this problem.
@DiscipleInstinct Most of the Hebrew and Greek texts I refer to are available on line. I have the Hebrew text of the tanach (OT) on my website. For the Greek Septuagint, just do a search for it and you should be able to find it.
Are Cain's words missing at Genesis 4:8? Some critics say the Masoretic text is defective here and is missing the words supposedly spoken by Cain. The KJV, agreeing with the ESV and NASB, says: "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." (Genesis 4:8) The NIV, agreeing with the NLT, inserts the words supposedly spoken by Cain: "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him." The NIV and NLT followed the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac instead of the inspired and preserved Hebrew. The charge is that the Masoretic text is missing the words that should follow "ויאמר" (KJV: "and... talked") because the verb supposedly has to be followed by the words that are uttered. This is not the case, however. For example, Genesis 41:24 says: ואמר אל־החרטמים ואין מגיד לי׃, which is translated, "and I told this unto the magicians; but there was none that could declare it to me." This is another case where "ויאמר" is used without it being followed by the words being told. The "this", italicized in the KJV, was added by the translators for clarity, but the Hebrew does not have any words following "ויאמר". The NIV translates Genesis 41:24 as "I told this to the magicians, but none of them could explain it to me." and the NLT as "I told these dreams to the magicians, but no one could tell me what they mean." The translators to these versions ought to have known that "ויאמר" does not have to be followed by the words spoken. Hence there was no need to depart from the inspired and preserved Hebrew at Genesis 4:8 to follow instead the uninspired translations of the Septuagint and Vulgate.
@tgambill "No thanks on the video?" I see, you want to believe you what you want, and refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts that view, hmmm, sounds like a cult to me.
Nit pick? Searching out the truth is a trait The Most High says we should strive for. Strive to enter in at the straight gate. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Prov 25:2, KJV)
@vachief I thought it was strange to have a translation of a translation, that is why I asked. The KJV, NIV, NASB, etc are "English" only translations. That's why you'll never find a "Spanish" KJV or NIV. When you translate into other languages you have a different Bible. For instance in Spanish there is the NVI and RVR. Please let me know what you find out. My question then is, if God has preserved his word perfectly, is there a perfect translation for all languages?
@vachief The Leningrad Codex and the Aleppo Codex are both Masoretic texts and are almost identical. These Msoretic texts are 1000 years old and all Hebrew texts printed since then are from these two texts. The KJV translators had no other Hebrew text available to them. What they did not have, that modern translations do have (to their advantage) is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The DSS help to correct the Masoretic text, therefore the KJV is inferior.
I think it's the cult-like mentality of the KJV-only crowd that is so offensive, rather than the translation itself. They are nearly like the Muslims screaming that it's perfectly preserved, error free, and even inspired. Erasmus was a RC priest and humanist, and he edited the Greek text on which stands the King James (and Erasmus' is dubbed "the most poorly edited volume in all of literature"). I appreciate all my translations (including the KJV), but I'm wed to none of them.
im currently talking to a kjvo, and all they do is take verses out of context, spouting basically what you have just said. almost like mormons and going to thier mantra. "kjv is perfect, because i say its perfect." and lets not forget that big bad vatican always getting in the way of everything. and some alexandrian error getting in the way. makes no sense.
This link below includes a discussion on the issue of Erasmus. As for the Bible, God clearly tells us that it is perfect and not to be added to or taken away from. And that He will preserve it forever. He also tells us to "study" and "search the Scriptures", which tells me that we do have them somewhere. Note, ONLY ONE Bible can be the perfect one. thegloryland.com/index.php?p=1_135_king-James-Audio-Videos-Intresting
Reva Stephens well the bible is Gods word, and is sufficient. and as for not adding or subtracting it mean the doctrines and not one has been lost. as well as the meaning of it. and if you say its the kjv then you have not researched this long enough, i suggest looking at the patristic fathers, like clement and polycarp and so forth. and well as other translations of the scriptures. and dont just take my word for it, do as paul stated, be a good berean and search these things out and see if they are true. especially whats said about the bible, like the other translations. im curious do you subscribe to the notion the the kjv is the only english version we should use? if so why?
Yahshua my saviour i see, well, can you clarify this statement how im offensive? and if you state this, you have not read your bible. because the bible when i first read it, and came to believe in the God of the bible. it was offensive to me. the gospel is offencive to unbelievers as well. have you ever given the law to an unbeliever? and then gave the gospel to them? and like i stated to the other gentle men. be a good berean. acts 17:10-15
TheSqaull17 I think it was Dr. Daniel Wallace, who wrote the most used text on the Greek language, who said something like ... 'it should be the Cross of Christ which is the stumbling block, not a Bible translation'. He writes a good scholarly article on why he finds the KJV to be an inferior translation, based on the mountains of MSS we have available to us now, that the KJV translators didn't have: bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today He writes as a disinterested scholar of Greek, rather than a knee-jerk emotional proponent of any translation.
When I read the Bible, I like to read the KJV, but I don't only read that version. Many times if I don't understand a word or phrase, I look it up in other version. Then from there, the Holy Spirit is my Guide. Anyone Else?
Jeff, as I told you some while ago - the reason for the people attacking your work or efforts is not to to their lack of intellegence BUT actually do to their own laziness,.... and your hard work constantly EXPOSES their laziness! I suggest you do a exhaustive translation of: 2nd Timothy 2:15 (out of the KJ version), to show them the error of their mindset. ....shalom
@nicerperson There are definitely times where you have to add a word in English that is not in the Hebrew in order for it to be read and understood in English. However, I have found that most of the italicized words are needed for understanding, but actually change the meaning found in the Hebrew. Also, there are times when an italicized word is actually there in the Hebrew and conversely, some words found in the KJV that have been added are not italicized.
The king james wasn't translated from the Septuagint (Corrupt manuscripts). It was translated from the Textus Receptus. And there are no errors in the KJV... it is God's perfect word preserved in the English language
There are erros in EVERY bible . God never spoke in OLD ENGLISH LOL.... Just use any bible you want . It doesn't matter . Use all translations to get a better idea of whats being said.
@@12OunceProphet There are only two lines. The received text, textus Receptus from Antioch. Where we were first called Christians. Your new translations come from the greek sinnaticus and Vaticanus Catholic translations. The aleph and beith, alaxandrian texts. A total of 45 manuscripts. The received text has 99.2 of over 6,000 greek manuscripts plus over 10,000 old latin texts , the Pashita that is from about 150 ad. The waldenes text from about 180 ad. The all agree with the text we have with the authorized version. They started to call it the King James in order to try and discredit the OV. Your new translations come from the wescott and hort, Nestled alland, and the rest of the alphabet soup of transportations. They say the sinnaticus was discovered by Von Tishendorf in 1844and the catholic vaticanus was also rediscovered at about the same time. So you expect us Christians to believe that we did not have Gods word for over 1500 years until wescott and hort? Come on man. Psalm 12:6. David said that around about 1000 b.c. to now. Do you think God would let his words be lost. 2 Timothy 2:15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of ttuth.In the esv, niv and the rest of the alphabet soup of Alexandria texts im Mark 1:2-3 says prophet. We know that this is in Malachi 1:1 and in Isaiah.
My faith is stronger having an understanding of good textual criticism and how it works to preserve God's word. One of the KJO fallacies is that they have been led to believe that life without a perfect English translation somehow means that we do not have the Word of God. Shalom, In Yeshua HaMashiach YHWH
James you unsaved liar! You have no pure bible. You have a dead book.Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.You replace the pure bible with your own selfish opinions as the Jesuits were wanting you to be.
"James you unsaved liar! You have no pure bible. You have a dead book.Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.You replace the pure bible with your own selfish opinions as the Jesuits were wanting you to be." Typical of the illiteracy and ignorance of the KJO CULTISTS - even the JW's are not as irrationally fanatical about their Bible, and its only a BIT more corrupt than the KJB. the JW's, by the way, were FOUNDED on the KJ. There is NO such thing as a perfect pure Bible. And IF there was - the KJ would be at the BOTTOM of the list. I MIGHT grant the Geneva was pure - as it is a FAR more honest translation than the KJ. WHY was the Apocrypha put in the KJ to begin with and integrated into the cross references and marginal notes? And IF it was the PURE word of GOD, who had authority to remove it? SUCH logical and important questions are NEVER considered by cultists promoting their cult. Blind faith and censorship are their stock in trade. MOCKING any opposing view their evangelism. LYING about the Jesuit conspiracy their doctrine.
Interestingly the ESV best fits the Ivan Panin numbering pattern that is so unique to the Bible. While I NOW prefer the NET Bible - for its 62000 translators notes and completely unique textual material (predating, and NOT subject to the criticism of either the KJO cultists and their Catholic Erasmus text, or the W&H fans) allowing a fresh new start - MOST Bibles ikn the last 500 years have more of less followed the Catholic theologian Erasmus - through the KJ, NKJ, and others. BY itself - that Can be problematic; when people see verse numbers missing, they have been taught it's because those wicked Jesuits have taken it out - instead of being HONEST and stating it didn't belong there at all when Stephanus made verse numbers. Such is life dealing with those enmeshed in cults . . .
actually look at the genealogy for Noah. The original scriptures adds 650 years of time; meaning the Flood happened well before the Pyramids were built. The KJV is based off a much newer script that takes that time off and makes a global flood and the pyramids non-compatible.
Actually, IF you study Egyptology, and especially Rohn's Chronology, and the "Thinkers" group with Tim Mahoney, ( patternsofevidence.com ) you would see that the alleged chronology by secularists is out by several centuries - and when it is corrected to match archeology rather than opinion, the flood and the exodus all fit well. IF you research the timeline of the pre-flood in books such as Adam When, you find not just 650 years but possibly up to 2000 years MORE time than generally conceded for convenience. The issue there is that many of the "begats" were NOT the physical offspring of the patriarch, but a male child born in the year of the patriarch's death. This pattern continued after the flood as well for a time, til we can match events with Scripture for an accurate timeline. In Egypt today in digs at Avaris, a small temple/pyramid has been uncovered - in a courtyard of 12 smaller buildings and one large one - of a supersized statue, NOT Egyptian, with a striped coat and an obvious position of great power. Is this Joseph?
Leviticus was written that way so as to point out that just because Jim has been adulterous with Sue (Dave's wife), that does not make it OK for Steve to have sex with Lisa (Jim's wife) because the sin of Jim does not cancel the sin of Steve; Steve and Jim are equally sinful, and just because Jim was the first to sin with Sue, our neighbor Dave's wife, that does not diminish the sin of Steve (2nd horny neighbor going after sinner #1's wife). Remember that back in the day, cultures would view a person whom has committed sin/broke a law/etc as a lesser person and so certain rules/laws/codes did not apply to them equally as it did to other. The Bible is not so forgiving of sin in this area. This does not sound like an err in transcribing, but rather and err in interpretation. My vote is that this was a 'not-so-subtle at the time' way of clarifying, basically "Adultery is adultery is adultery so don't waste your time making excuses involving who sinned first of who sinned worse."
@memetoto That is a very unique and interesting interpration, the only problem is that it would be very inconsistent with how Hebrew is written throughout the entire Bible. Just because something sounds good in our day and age, doesn't mean it sounded good in ancient times.
Prov181 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeks and intermeddles with all wisdom. A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. (Prov 18:1-2, KJV)
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 KJV
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint). Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantiam. Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. The Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70. 2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agrees with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV) saying the angels are to worship messiah. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT (and KJV): Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
After Jesus says this, he teaches from Enoch. Even Paul quotes Enoch. Check out that last line... All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness: so that the man of God may BE COMPLETE, FULLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3:16-17). To the righteous and the wise shall be given books of joy, of integrity, and of great wisdom. To them shall books be given, in which they shall believe; And in which they shall rejoice. And all the righteous shall be rewarded, who from these SHALL ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE OF EVERY UPRIGHT PATH (The Book of Enoch 104:10-11).
The translators of the Septuagint had NO bias in their translation because JESUS had not come in their day circa 150BC. The Masoretic version circa 150 AD did have translators who were biased against Christians who were using the Septuagint version. So they rewrote certain verses that were being used to convert Jews and then outlawed the use of the Septuagint. The KJV translators missed those changes because they thought newer was better, and it was not better.
When working with ancient texts, you can't just take one manuscript over another. Just because one manuscript is older than another it doesn't mean that it is better. In some cases the Septuagint preserves the original over the Masoretic, but sometimes it is the other way around. I think that many people chose one manuscript or translation over all the others for one reason, it makes things simple, but simple is not always right.
Maybe, although ,Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. I find it interesting that to make sure the translation was correct the 70 or 72 scribes did their translation while sitting in separate rooms to ensure that they did not talk about how to translate. Given that Christian bible translations of the NT can not agree on translation, the Septuagint appears to be a miracle.
Two points here that I would like to make. 1. The Greek NT does show the apostles quoting from the Greek Septuagint, but this is just natural. In the same way, the Hebrew NT uses the Masoretic Hebrew text for its quotes of the OT and the Aramaic NT uses the Aramaic Targums for its quotes of the OT. It is just a matter of ease. 2. The story of the 70 scribes independently writing a Greek translation of the OT and all 70 of them agreeing on the translation, is just that, a story. There is no evidence that this story is based on any fact.
What's called the "Masoretic text" is a preservation of the original Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. The Septuagint is essentially a translation of the source of the Masorectic text.
Yet another female! The Septuagint is a hoax. It never existed in the Old Testament days. What it is, is a text created by that arch Bible text corrupter, Origen, after the whole Bible was written. It is the sixth column of his "Hexpla". I wouldn't use it even as toilet paper.
The Masoretic Text (MT) was an alteration of significant portions of the Square Hebrew Old Testament that began early (noted by the Talmud and Mishnah showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple competing rabbis making alterations) though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from the Square Hebrew around the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT are hardly original scriptures anyway. See Jeremiah 8:8 (Septuagint) concerning the MT. Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1000 years older than certain MT portions. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial. Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances. 1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70 which the MT claims. 2.) The older Square Hebrew in the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT for Deut. 32:8-9 in using Sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The Square Hebrew in the DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly has Saul becoming King at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from a Psalm that the Square Hebrew and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6: a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT: Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared for me. 8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16/17, the DSS Square Hebrew and lines up with the Septuagint against the MT. 9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS. 10.) ▪︎The chronologies of Genesis 5, 11 of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. ▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD line up with the LXX not the MT on this: Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint. ▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT. ▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT. ▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5 Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew. Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT. There are dozens and dozens of instances where the, Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
The KJV shows, per Acts 12:4, that Easter was celebrated in Biblical times!: King James Version "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." 1.) Nowhere within the KJV does it say God would use the KJV to preserve His word. 2.) The KJV is hardly the first authorized English Bible. 3.) It is certainly not the first Bible from an English king. 4.) The authorized KJV in 1611 authorized the Apocrypha. 5.) The KJV does in places quote from the Septuagint. King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, the Bible favored by the English people, the Puritans left England with their Geneva Bibles to flee the Church of England and from being persecuted, and came to America. If only KJV people had a clue...
Anyone can go to another bible and see what that bible says and use that and see what the other bibles say and call it an error or erros. Go within in its own txt and use that bible alone you find erros, flaws, condredictions, lies etc... I can show you errors in the other bibles using its own txt don’t need the KJV. That’s the difference... God isn’t a liar God promises to preserve his word, and it also says God isn’t a liar God cannot lie. Also says men can’t live on bread alone but by every word of God where is it at? There is only one full true word of God where is it at? It’s not that hard to understand this, a lot of deception by man and Satan. I can’t find no erros in the kjb alone in its own txt but I can show you erros and condredictions in all the other religious books using there own txt
@LordJesusChristtruth Okay... Let's say that God did preserve his word perfectly. Evidently it isn't the KJV as I have shown some of the errors in this video and you, like all the other KJVers are unable to show how these are not errors, so it must be another translation. Maybe the NIV? Or maybe its Luther's German Bible?
For an unbiased, balanced and scholarly work, read: "The King James Only Controversy" by James R.White. Peter S. Ruckman's book is full of assumptions and easily provable errors, and yes, I have read both.
So what I understand from this short clip is that there are No significant or "life altering" changes in the King James version as compared to the other versions.
No not really. No English translation is perfect by any means. Heck, if you realized how much we lose in just translation your mind would be blown. This is why having multiple translations is actually a pretty awesome thing. It makes up for it at least somewhat. If you like the KJV, then use it; it's good. I think this video is really just to rebuke those who say that good ole' King Jimmy is the "only Word of God."
Your post is ONLY plausible because you being a brainwashed cultist, rather than a serious Bible scholar. It is utterly without ANY Scriptural foundation. There are NO verses missing anywhere in any of the accurate versions - those that are 'missing " are usually in the margin and footnotes - as the KJB did - those verses being ones NOT in any ancient Greek text from antiquity. We KNOW there were many insertions and revisions of the poor 12th century Greek texts used to create the basis for the KJB - because the collator of those texts (Erasmus) writes at length about it. The diety of Christ is NEVER an issue in ANY Bible; that is a lie. Show me ONE Bible that denies the diety of Christ (apart from the NWT). YOU cannot. Jesus is NEVER equated to Lucvifer in ANY accurate Bible, another lie; THE KJB translators did NOT like that BOTH the King of Babylon and Jesus were called son of the morning, and so deliberatly modified the text to include Lucifer, rather than the ONLY possible translation - MORNING STAR; and Acts 8:38 is a very late addition NOT in any Greek text before about 1000 AD: "92 tc A few later mss (E 36 323 453 945 1739 1891 pc) add, with minor variations, 8:37 “He said to him, ‘If you believe with your whole heart, you may.’ He replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” Verse 37 is lacking in {Ì45,74 א A B C 33 614 vg syp,h co}. It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts. The variant is significant in showing how some in the early church viewed a confession of faith. The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations." To be so blatantly ignorant about your cult's Bible, and to be so sarcastic about anyone wanting to KNOW what the followers of the apostles had to read, is far past arrogant - it could be demonic to be so antagonistic against those that actually STUDY the Bible.
Paul Robinson look at this. www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_niv.html You can't deny these. FYI God hates arrogance. Be careful because your in danger. The NIV isn't the only one.
God also hates a lying tongue. Does your post NOT bother you? Be careful, for YOU are in danger. And just to tweak your nose a bit - I am NOT an NIV fan - but it is light years more accurate than the KJB, and created with the ONLY intent being to make the gospel plain and win souls - NOT at all like the Imperial mandates to establish and legitimize the state church of England as the KJ was. The NIV exceeds thew KJN on text, accuracy, motive and supportability.
OK _ I looked - utter deception is OBVIOUS. "Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NIV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." The NIV leaves out "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Everything pertaining to His Kingdom and Deity is left out." Matthew 6:33 KJV "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." NIV "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "The kingdom of God" is changed to "his kingdom." Matthew 8:29 KJV "And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" NIV "'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. '"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?'" NIV leaves out "Jesus, thou", degrading the power of the verse concerning His deity." NOT one of those verses were accurately translated in the KJB, and those missing words are NOT in any historical Bible. They were insertions over the years that are ACCURATELY relegated to margins and foot note if referenced at all - AS IT SHOULD BE! and as the KJ translators did. "Matt 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, 18 but deliver us from the evil one. 19 " "19 tc Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë13 33 Ï sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (“for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 Ë1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading." "Matt 6:33 But above all pursue his kingdom 44 and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." "44 tc ‡ Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy mae) read τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ (thn basileian tou qeou kai thn dikaiosunhn aujtou, “the kingdom of God and his righteousness”) here, but the words “of God” are lacking in א B pc sa bo Eus. On the one hand, there is the possibility of accidental omission on the part of these Alexandrian witnesses, but it seems unlikely that the scribe’s eye would skip over both words (especially since τοῦ θεοῦ is bracketed by first declension nouns). Intrinsically, the author generally has a genitive modifier with βασιλεία - especially θεοῦ or οὐρανῶν (ouranwn) - but this argument cuts both ways: Although he might be expected to use such an adjunct here, scribes might also be familiar with his practice and would thus naturally insert it if it were missing in their copy of Matthew. Although a decision is difficult, the omission of τοῦ θεοῦ is considered most likely to be original. NA27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity." "Matt 8:29 They 51 cried out, “Son of God, leave us alone! 52 Have you come here to torment us before the time?” 53 " "51 tn Grk “And behold, they cried out, saying.” The Greek word ἰδού (idou) has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1). The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant and has not been translated. 52 tn Grk “what to us and to you?” (an idiom). The phrase τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί (ti Jhmin kai soi) is Semitic in origin, though it made its way into colloquial Greek (BDAG 275 s.v. ἐγώ). The equivalent Hebrew expression in the OT had two basic meanings: (1) When one person was unjustly bothering another, the injured party could say “What to me and to you?” meaning, “What have I done to you that you should do this to me?” (Judg 11:12, 2 Chr 35:21, 1 Kgs 17:18). (2) When someone was asked to get involved in a matter he felt was no business of his own, he could say to the one asking him, “What to me and to you?” meaning, “That is your business, how am I involved?” (2 Kgs 3:13, Hos 14:8). These nuances were apparently expanded in Greek, but the basic notions of defensive hostility (option 1) and indifference or disengagement (option 2) are still present. BDAG suggests the following as glosses for this expression: What have I to do with you? What have we in common? Leave me alone! Never mind! Hostility between Jesus and the demons is certainly to be understood in this context, hence the translation: “Leave us alone….” 53 sn There was an appointed time in which demons would face their judgment, and they seem to have viewed Jesus’ arrival on the scene as an illegitimate change in God’s plan regarding the time when their sentence would be executed" ________________________________________ As you can see - YOUR reference - the three I gave you correct readigs for - were a lie by the writer - NOTHING was left out, for it was never IN any ancient text. Lying for Jesus is abominable - yet the KJ cultists who constantly lie about things being left out of accurate translations are generally lying - and IF they took the time to study texts would be aware of it. THE KJB is NOT the standard against which others are compared - it is just one of many translations that MUST be compared with the best (oldest) texts we have. When doing so, it is an abject failure and among the worst of translations in use today.
There are no errors in the King James Bible. Nor does Jeff Benner identify any in this vid. I've yet to meet anyone who can find an actual error in the King James Bible.
+thelastroadrunner "There are no errors in the King James Bible. Nor does Jeff Benner identify any in this vid. I've yet to meet anyone who can find an actual error in the King James Bible." The statement is utterly false - any intelligent Christian can tell you a dozen errors in the KJB, YOU must ONLY hang around with other KJO cult members. THIS is a video from a KJ using church, and IT explains about 150 errors in the KJ. YOUR statement is an admission of ignorance, NOT a vote of confidence for the Catholic KJB |ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KGgsA0biR_4.html
THE DSS - because they are 2000 years old and unchanged in that period. The KJ was taken from a wide assortment of incomplete scriptures and assembled by Erasmus - with entire pages missing even then. Many of the holes he filled from the VULGATE; other passages from the Vulgate that were NEVER in any Greek Bible were inserted at the request of Bishops etc - to bring the Erasmus Greek closer in line with the Catholic Vulgate in Latin. This is NOT conjectured, but the statement of Erasmus himself as to WHY he justified many of the insertions. So the KJB is a Catholic (Anglican under the new pope of England - King James) translation of Catholic texts. BUT we have Bibles and fragments that go back possibly as far as ~78 AD - and from THEM we can create a reliable concept of the gospel given to the saints - Dan Wallace and his people are digitizing every fragment known to exist. james White is one of the few scholars to dedicate his life to the Greek Scriptures and holds debates in the Greek language with muzlim scholars. His scholarship is impeccable. His debates detailed and articulate - and correct. And he discussed the accuracy of the KJ in many RU-vid Videos as well as his own site. The FACT that he is so hated - without cause - by the KJO cultists is a reason to listen to what he says - he NEVER loses a debate with them. He gets them to admit the KJB is inaccurate and contains material, not in any Greek Bible, and their response is that GOD must have wanted to correct the ancient texts. Just an example.
beloved becomes a Jesuit, from a sheep to a wolf! No cloak fer yer sin.You have no original. You have a dead book. Your imagination. Gen six :5.*******All false prophets lie!A false witness shall not be unpunished, and a man that speaketh lies shall NOT escape.
+herbbearingseed Thats a LOT of lies for one post . . . " beloved becomes a Jesuit, from a sheep to a wolf! No cloak fer yer sin.You have no original. You have a dead book. Your imagination. Gen six :5.*******All false prophets lie!A false witness shall not be unpunished, and a man that speaketh lies shall NOT escape." IN that case what shall we do to YOU, for YOU are a false witness. WHO becomes a Jesuit? IF all prophets lie than the Bible is unbelievable, for much of it was GIVEN to prophets. BUT somehow YOU know more than those chosen by GOD for special revelation? NOONE has an original. BUT accurate Bibles have texts going back perhaps as far as ~78. The KJ was mistranslated from texts dated newer than 1200. Which do you think might be more accurate? The KJB was based on Erasmus text - a text made up from PARTIAL Catholic Greek texts, assembled and edited, with insertion from the Vulgate in a dozen places, and the finished text dedicated to Pope Leo X, and approved for Catholic usage. HOW accurate does that sound? TODAY we have very ancient texts - some from before 500, and 6000 or so of them that were UNAVAILABLE to the translators of the KJB. Common sense and literary evaluation would prove the KJ to be vastly inferior to ANY modern Bible, its 100+ errors make it unfit to be taken seriously today. There is NO issue of the Jesuits at all in intelligent circles. That ia a made up issue by demonstrable liars -for the cult - and there are many; all of them have been thoroughly disproven and exposed. MOST of their followers refuse to believe the truth.
There is no such thing as "exclusive knowledge". The fact I have actually RESEARCHED this material guarantees it's NOT "exclusive". Erasmus himself wrote about the pressure he was under from Bishops etc to include passages from the Vulgate in his text. IF you want the short and concise issue - read some of James White's material - "the King James Controversy" was his PhD Thesis but written for the average reader - one of the leading Greek scholars/professors of the day, or Dan Wallace - one of the leading archivists of Greek NT fragments and texts - and the one who heads the organization digitizing the entire body of known ancient texts. Otherwise, the works of Erasmus are well disseminated and readily available. AS are studies on his work. eg. "In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two additional manuscripts of each section, along with his Latin Vulgate. For Revelation, Erasmus had but one Greek manuscript which, though of better than average quality (so says Hort), yet lacked the last six verses of the book. To remedy this defect, Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, with the result that the final verses of Revelation in his printed Greek text contain numerous Greek readings found in no Greek manuscript of any kind, and are therefore devoid of manuscript authority. (A list of these are given in Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 296, n. 1, and Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1). One of those readings produced by Erasmus that lacks any Greek manuscript support is the reference to the "book of life" in Rev. 22:19. All Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"; not a single one reads "book of life." The corruption of "tree" into "book" occurred in Latin when a careless or sleepy scribe miscopied the correct ligno (tree) as though it were the similar-appearing libro (book). When Erasmus back-translated from Latin, he introduced for the first time ever in Greek the reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19, and by the slavish reprinting of Erasmus' text by later editors, the reading "book of life" found its way into the textus receptus and the King James Version, even though it is completely without support of any kind in any Greek manuscript. " www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm
Paul, 1. What's funny is that you praise the scholarship of men like White & Wallace who use the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus to correct all late Mss at Rev 22:19. 2. But sometimes there can be a difference between the TRUTH and the WHOLE TRUTH. 3. The WHOLE TRUTH is that their star witness Vaticanus wss missing the entire book of Revelation untill it was added in the 10th - 15th century! How's that for late Ms?
@vachief I'm not sure what your view on the scribes has to do with the erasing of God's name. Are you saying that the Masoretic text is not trustworthy at all? If so, then why did the KJV translators use it for their translation? Maybe the scribes Jesus was referring to were those of the KJV translation who he knew would one day erase the name of God?
As you mentioned earlier, they don't want to be confused with facts. So, whether there are 38 thousand or 38 million views it doesn't matter. if they don't like a video, then they will adamantly claim that it hasn't gained any traction (No matter what the numbers are) :-)
CurtTheGamer 😂😂😂😂😂🤦♂️ WOW this guy. KJV is the only full word of God I can show you erros in any other bible within that bible don’t even need to use the KJV this man goes to hebrew lanaguage 😂😂🤷🏼♂️🤦♂️💯🤔 he goes to the Hebrew do called Bible did you know that Jesus wasn’t even Hebrew? There are no erros, let’s find erros within the kjb in its own not use another source beixsse I can show you erros in any other bible using there own bible. Anyone can say the nkjv or other bibles have erros according to there bible go inside your own bible and see period.
CurtTheGamer Anyone can go to another bible and see what that bible says and use that and see what the other bibles say and call it an error or erros. Go within in its own txt and use that bible alone you find erros, flaws, condredictions, lies etc... I can show you errors in the other bibles using its own txt don’t need the KJV. That’s the difference... God isn’t a liar God promises to preserve his word, and it also says God isn’t a liar God cannot lie. Also says men can’t live on bread alone but by every word of God where is it at? There is only one full true word of God where is it at? It’s not that hard to understand this, a lot of deception by man and Satan. I can’t find no erros in the kjb alone in its own txt but I can show you erros and condredictions in all the other religious books using there own txt
??? The King James for the most part is a far better "translation" of the old testament. But the KJV is still a translation!!! Also the problem most kjv onlyists don't understand is the textus receptus is the worst manuscripts of the byzantine lineage. Erasmus' texts were in very poor shape and incomplete as well. Erasmus had to use the Latin text to finish the last 8 to 12 verses of Revelation. Also the translators of the KJV cited the "translation" will probably need worked on in the future. Also most people don't use the 1611, they use a nineteenth century updated version, which destroys the stupidity of the perfect translation claims. Because those claiming it, have by their criteria a bastardized version.
So where do you find the perfect word of God that God promised to preserve forever? 1Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Do you know how many versions there are or the English Bible? Some of them are directly translated from the Septuagint or the Tanakh. And if I recall correctly, then I am quite certain that the KJV version is translated from the Latin Vulgate (which in itself is translation of the Septuagint) through a French translation. That would make it a 3rd hand translation.
Wow everything you have stated is false. You seem to have studied this issue somewhat, but have completely misinterpreted all of the information, which leads me to believe either you are wilfully ignorant, or much more sinister than that.
@Douglas Hosea 11:12. Major mistranslation. I have a lot more. Also, none of us is a KJV condemner. I personally admire the KJV. We simply do not believe that is is the one and only perfect translation of the Bible.
@vachief I think the important question is that if God miraculously preserved his word for today in the KJV, that is great for English speakers, but unless there is a preserved word in every language, then either God is English centered, or God failed.
Psalm 145:13 TLB For your kingdom never ends. You rule generation after generation. Psalm 145:13 NLT For your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. You rule throughout all generations. The LORD always keeps his promises; he is gracious in all he does.
another mistake in the king James bible is the name Jehovah, the j didn't originally exist in Hebrew. the original name is Yahweh. Hebrews didn't use the vowels either so they wrote it YHWH. God's names are really important, He is our God and. using a name He Himself hasn't given I believe is wrong. I know you people who use this bible believe it's right and probably adore God in your hearts but all of us need to seek the truth and worship God in it. please don't be offended because the kj bible has a lot of mistakes, be happy because now you know and can buy a correct translation which will help you come even closer to God.
I know a little Hebrew, Jehovah and Yahweh are you different ways of saying the name of God. If you use the Hebrew without vowels it sounds like Jehovah/Yehovah
I am not a KJV only person..but the KJV is the best, most honest, accurate translation we have..hands down the best..! Kenneth Weust for example did a terrific job with his literal translation of the NT. I can't use it enough when teaching.....from the KJV. :)
There are no contradictions in the KJV. This man is correcting the God-honored text. He is saying in essence "only people who speak Hebrew understand the Bible."
These comments just support my belief that most Christians do not read the bible.Those that do lack the ability of analytical and critical thinking. This makes you "DEVO" Devo is an actual state of the human mind. Look it up in a dictionary if you own one. One Christean came to my house and attempted to set me straight. I asked "Do you Read the Bible " His reply " No My Pasture reads to me what I need to know" REALLY Try reading it ! Its filled with miss translations and contrdictions if you don't believe so than you HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOK! So STFU
Edward Kelly Yes they seem like contradictions to you because for each contradiction you "think"you read or hear about.. different people's and nations are being addressed about completely separate situations that have nothing in common with the other
Well, one instance in which the King James Bible errs by diverging from a sensible translation of the Masoretic Text is in the case of the second Psalm, in which it translates the word beit resh as son, whereas it only means son in Aramaic, the Psalms definitely not having been written in that language.
@vachief I am not arguing that God preserved his word, I think he did, but in the Hebrew, the OT and NT (My Hebrew Bible has Genesis-Revelation), not a faulty translation. What causes you to think his word is preserved in the KJV? No offense, but that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Do you have any evidence in the Bible that the KJV is the preserved word?
Its easy to show mistakes and contradictions in the King James Version if a person is honest enough to actually read the text. Most KJV people don't even read their Bibles, otherwise they would have detected the many many problems in the KJV and other versions based on the corrupted Masoretic text family. wramsay6, if you're willing I will show you verses which prove that the KJV is not perfect.
Excuse me sir, I beg your pardon also but I read the KJV every night and I know that the KJV have some errors but according to everybody it is but the typographical errors in it and when I read them, I don't have much problems with it.
Frenny, The errors in the KJV are much more than typographical, as it has whole phrases added or omitted, lots of alterations, and like I said, if ones reads carefully, even a lay person can see these errors. Would you be willing to put your KJV to the test and look up some verses and answer a few questions for me ?
Interesting and often noted. IF God preserved his word via the new revelation to the translators of the KJ, WHY could God also NOT preserve his word from the 2000_ errors in its various printings? The Logic is laughable - or GOD is impotent. And I do NOT believe the last to be possible; therefore its the former that is true. Which KJ is the REAL Word of GOD?
GOD is the One who preserves His Word. And He didn't need the "original" Greek and Hebrew text to do so. Quite the contrary. He even destroyed, (or, allowed to be destroyed), the real Originals Himself. And He tells us about it in Genesis and in Jeremiah. There we clearly see that God could care less about "The Originals" :P
God preserved His Word in the same way He inspired it: in Hebrew and Greek. We know He didn't preserve it in the KJV because it has many errors: 1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12 Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) 3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
@vachief I think they all got some things right and they all got some things wrong. In my opinion, that is why it is up to us individuals to do our own homework to better understand the text.
Easter added,1John5:7-8,5:4,8:10,7:53,Mark 16:9-20 not in original koine Greek. Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" and future tense change. Isaiah 9:6-7 also changed to future tense was about Hezekiah. Isaiah 53 modified. Hundreds more. Shalom
Easter isn't actually an error, because back when the KJV was translated, "Easter" and "Passover" were considered synonyms. I agree with you on everything else though.
***** I would like to know the names of the people who you consulted about the Greek and Hebrew translation's of the bible as you say supposedly being wrong.
+mfihn says someone who speaks neither language and isn't even a believer, therefore obviously the true Word of God would be the most difficult for you to understand
+mfihn oh ok well case closed then! You did "research!" We can all go home now knowing thanks to you and your research we can now override the word of over 50 brilliant scholars who were all fully FLUENT in dozens of languages.
***** ROFL! Love it how supposed 'christians' cast judgment upon others. I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and this video shows nothing but truth. I love how Mr. Benner demonstrates this time after time.
***** "Thou shall not judge less ye be judged" Mathew chapter 7 Verse 1 I don't believe in the Easter bunny yet I don't through a fit and start condemning the children for looking for the Easter eggs! To each his own and to the man who accepts truth and wisdom is a blessing worth more than silver and gold.
Okay lets look at your comment because you have many accusations which have no basis for fact. I will go through each point. 1. "The NIV says Jesus is Satan. The KJV says Jesus is God." Here is the most erroneous errors in all of your comment. The NIV Does Not Call Jesus Satan - Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16 I have heard this accusation for the third time this week and I want the truth to be put out there clearly and concisely so that if people google this subject hopefully they don’t find all the misinformation out there but get the truth. Here is how this argument against the NIV usually goes. The claim is laid that the NIV is corrupt and deliberately misleads people into believing that the Savior is actually Satan. They attempt to work that out with two verses (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). Here are the verses: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” - Isaiah 14:12 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” - Revelation 22:16 No appearance of a problem until you look at Isaiah 14:12 in the King James Version - “12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” That is the basis of the charge…that the NIV deliberately replaced Lucifer with “morning star” the same word used for Jesus in Revelation 22. That appears to be problematic on the surface but let’s dig a little deeper. The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means Satan or the devil in Hebrew as a proper name. So two questions arise: 1.Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”? 2.Why does the NIV use “morning star” and not “shining one”? 1 - Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”? Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin. That was a valid translation in the Vulgate. The problem is the KJV didn’t translate it into English. They kept the Latin Lucifer instead. The problem is 99.9% of people don’t know that any more and only think of it as a proper name referring to the Devil or Satan. So the first point to make is that the verse is not about Lucifer but is about a “light bearer.” Who is that light bearer? Let’s have a look at Isaiah 14 in context…that is always a good idea right? When we do this, we see exactly who Isaiah 14:12 is referring to and it is not Jesus or the Devil. Look back at Isa 13:1 - “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 (just 8 verses before the verse in question) - “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against - Babylon. It is a curse referring back to the object of their taunt…not Jesus or Satan but the King of Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon - “your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” Also, notice verse 16-17 - ” Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?” In context you see this is about a man and not Satan. It is about what the rest of the chapter is about - the king of Babylon. 2 - Why does the NIV use “morning star” instead of “shining one”? This is best understood by the rest of the verse Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly (like the planet Venus). There was an ancient myth in the Babylonian literature that Heylel the morning star Venus scaled to great heights to make himself like a king in the heavens but was quickly driven back down. That is what the king of Babylon will be like…one who rises to great heights and then is toppled from his high position. In other words, the NIV makes the connection that would have been made by Isaiah’s hearers and people in Babylon…those who knew the myth about now its new found application by God toward the king of Babylon. The NIV translators recognized this parallel and made us of it as in the Babylonian mind the “shining one” was the “morning star Venus.” Was that the best move? Probably not if you are going for a literal translation. But if you are trying to read and hear the Bible as they heard it, it is actually a pretty good take on this verse. It is a little too much interpretation in the text for me. Bottom line, I wish the KJV had actually translated this rather than borrowed from the Latin. I wish the NIV had left interpretation for the footnotes and not taken so much liberty with the text. But at the end of the day it can hardly be said that the NIV was propogating a view that Jesus and Satan are the same based on this text. Instead, when you look at the evidence it appears to be more the case that the NIV was taking history, cultural context, linguistics and much else into consideration to give their best shot at this verse to end up with “morning star” and not some grand conspiracy by wicked and careless translators. 2. "The NIV says were saved by the blood, the NIV says were saved by his death." Can you elaborate on this one because I don't find anywhere in scripture that this is true. Please let me know. 3. "The NIV denies the virgin birth, yet the KJV says it was a virgin birth." Again you need to elaborate because once again I do not find this in the NIV version of scripture.
First of all you misunderstand the words of God if you think that the original Hebrew and Greek are not the true preserved words of God. I know you talk about Psalm 12:6-7 but you clearly do not understand that text. You need to visit the following website to help clarify your understanding. www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_why_psalm.htm If you only take "american english" to be the "newly inspired" words of God then you are talking about stuff that is on the verge of being a heretic. You talk about google, when in fact Google is a great resource that the Translators would have used back in their time had they the use of it. The interesting thing is you talk about all this inspiration, but you clearly don't even know what the original translators say about the issue of translation (of which they say they didn't do the best, but they did the best they could). If you want to get the facts then google "KJV 1611 Preface" which gives you the entire document and you can read it for yourself and not just what someone says. Again you just make assertions without evidence. Yes Lucifer is Satan, however he is also known as a great many othr names as well. Do you need the passages from the bible that state this fact? As far as the passage of the NIV calling Jesus the son of Joseph. You are not reading the context, nor do you apply the same standards for your own argument. Does it state that Joseph was the father of Jesus? Yes, but it also states that God is his father. He was the human father, and if you read context you'll get that point. You are more than willing to point to verse 33 of chapter two yet disregard verse 41 which says from the KJV: "41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." Now unless God was physically walking with Mary then the KJV is saying his "parents" are Joseph and Mary, not God and Mary. Interesting how you just blindly skip passages. Again, you need to read context and just take passages hoping they will validate your position.
Money Murda do not trust anyone who claim there are errors in the Kjv ,there are groups out there that want to sell their bible and put down the word of God, If you have a King James bible that comes from the tectus receptus ,99.9% Greek scholars agree with this text this is Gods pure word do not trust anybody that will try to correct your Kjv.
I think its healthy to criticize the scriptures for the purpose of bringing light, It brings more understanding, its like seeing it from different angles you get a clearer picture. Like the 4 gospels 4 perspectives of the same event. I don't think it creates doubt that its the inspired word of God in my opinion. Going back to the source is always a good thing.
@vachief I don't know a lot about the Greek manuscripts, but I do know that there are thousands of manuscripts, almost none of them are identical and their readings vary to a high degree. There have been many attempts by many different individuals to attempt to reconstruct the text, but none of them will ever get it perfect as the originals have long since been gone. The Textus Receptus is one of those texts.. Continued...
+Servant Yet A Friend these fools don't know the voice of the good Shepard...neither do they know the history and the spiritual implications thereof...they'll see when their new age abomination satan worshipping Jesus blaspheming bibles are burned
THIS VIDEO STILL HASNT PROVEN SNY THING, BUT THEY THINK THEY KNOW HOW TO READ HEBREW PUT THEY DONT SAD ISNT IT, THAT SATAN WILL TRY HIS BEST TO DESTROY THE WORD OF GOD BUT TRULY CANT , IM STICKING WITH THE THE TRUE WORD OF GOD THE KJV
Ky CraigI assume, that as you claim i do not know Hebrew, then you yourself must know Hebrew as this is the only way to make such a claim. Please inform me where my Hebrew is incorrect. Thank you.
Then you'll be blithely sticking to RCC paganism. Whatever happened to studying "to show yourself approved?" Many of us want the Father's Word, unadulterated by Roman paganism and mistakes. That leaves you following a type of denominational Talmud without questioning the doctrines of men. Not where the Father wants you to be. There are errors in ALL translations. The KJV-Only crowd has all the earmarks of a full blown cult.
Translations may not be perfect but God is :) stop debating everyone, focus on spreading the Gospel, focus on loving others as Jesus loved us. Imma stick with KJV even if I know its not perfect.
WHY would any rational person do that? The KJB does NOT have the same meaning as the Bibles used by the NT church - those changes came from Catholic insertions, corruptions and the deliberate corruptions of the English Cathoilc translators - a corrupted pseudo-catholic Church of which sodomite James was the head. The MODERN accurate Bibles go back 1200 or more years than the KJB's oldest texts - far more accurate - far less catholic contamination. WHY would you stick with catholic corruption?
@@paulrobinson9318 KJV Onlysts. They take favor on errors in verses and narratives deem spurious that goes even into the Greek New Testament. Their translations mis interpret something Jesus says and in their translations it is read as Jesus insulting a woman. KJV readers would never go to that passage because they know where they messed up centuries ago. Aside from that some KJV Onlysts admit to error after criticizing Christian minorities and other faith groups for omitting the falsehood from their revised translations.
+@@Zhello79 While I agree with your premise - your exact premise eludes me . . . "KJV readers would never go to that passage because they know where they messed up centuries ago. " Can you expand or expound your meaning?
The KJV says this "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1 Kings 7:23 Basically says Pi=exactly 3
At 3:50 he says the Septuagint ms is another source that can help restore the original text? This ms is only useful to Rome because it contains the corrupt Apocrypha!
+ MFB Lu 2:49 The KJB DID contain and is still available with the Apocrypha. The Septuagint gives us a view of HOW the Jews understood the language of their Bible - like stereo - you get a different perspective from a different view. YES the Sept is error prone - that did NOT stop Jesus and the disciples from quoting it. "At 3:50 he says the Septuagint ms is another source that can help restore the original text? This ms is only useful to Rome because it contains the corrupt Apocrypha! "
+@Nicole Ryan YOU believe so many things with such certainty - EXCEPT they are NOT so. "Jesus did not quote from any Septuagint.." You are Demonstrably mistaken. Your false assertion does NOT make it so. Evidence? "Jesus is the Holy Word that became flesh.." YUP - BUT the KJB is a corruption by pagan/Catholic men of that Holy Word. "So nothing is before Jesus..Understand.." The WORD - the creator of heaven and earth - was before Jesus - Jesus was NOT Jesus til he was born of a virgin. "God gave holy men through the spirit his Word=Jesus and it was all put down for us on paper.. Well, sort of . . . Jesus was unknown til Gabriel told Mary what to call the incarnate Son of GOD. The KJB rejects that FACT at least twice. "But then the Word came as promised-But when he came the Jews did not know him..they did not know the Word.." True - what is your point? "The jews stoned and killed all their prophets and would tells them prophesy not to Us.. Also true - again - your point? "So the King James bible is the Only Bible that is off and from God.. " And by what possible stretching of logic did you arrive at that conclusion? Its irrational and illogical and NOT connected in any way. The Bible existed for 1500 years before the KJB Wickipedia has a list of ENGLISH Bibles alone - never of the hundreds of other languages . . . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations "IN fat its uttreloyu absud to make that satemt e" YOU are the one making absurd statements. "It has the Old and the New Testament. God's 2 witnesses ...that stand on each side of Jesus." That is pure nonsense - I note you cannot support any of your silliness from scripture - because its simply FALSE. Utter rubbish and intellectual, anti-Biblical drivel. There were hundreds of Bibles before the KJ, and hundreds since - of them the KJB is the second worst, second most corrupted, ever printed. The KJB is simply a political version of the Bishops Bible, a coupe of decades earlier - and by imperial mandate to have as few changes as possible, except it was required to make the KING look good, and replace the Geneva - the protestant Bible. The Bishops Bible was a politicized version of the Geneva Bible. James applied 15 rules to the translation committee and being accurate was NOT one of them. SO the editors of the KJB expected another revision soon. AS it was, the KJB was published with 3000+ errors - down after many revisions to about 200 today. Hence the ONLY bible in history in any language that says "GOD save the King" is the KJB. NO idea at all where you got this anti-Biblical drivel, but its NOT true, its NOT accurate and its NOT spiritual. Whoever taught you that is a true false prophet. YOU desperatly need an education in the Bible - its history and its transmission to us. YOU have been lied to - BIG Time.
+Nicole Ryan Another lesson in Biblical illiteracy from Nicole coming right up here folks . . . "@Paul Robinson Listen- i am not asking you i am telling you.. The Old and New Testament are both the Holy Word of God.." AS I also stated preciously - so in THIS you are correct. The problem with you is you have a religious demon- and it gets stirred up when your sanctuary is disturbed - and attacking the KJB, your sanctuary - your idol - created bad feelings in you. YOU take out on the messenger of GOD - who is trying to bring you spiritual freedom from your cultic bondage - the anger stirred up by your demonic presence.. The fact you attack me for stating TRUTH, Fact and History - proved you are NOT rational - and often the irrational mind is being steered or controlled by a demonic presence - that is the MOST likely diagnosis of your ignorance and illiteracy and anger. YOU present the principles of the faith accurately enough - so you are NOT Mormon or JW - BUT your hatred for anyone messing with your KJB or your demon is EVIDEBNCE - according to scripture, that you are NOT right with God. YOU have NO control over your tongue - and lying slander and false judgements are part of the demonic presence. YOU are in a serious cult - and I suspect a cult within a cult - like the Adventists or the IFB churches - although I assume from your illiteracy and misuse of Scripture you've been indoctrinated by Ellen White. BUT ought I to remind you how the Bible directs you to address those older than you in the Lord - to speak respectfully of and to them - something that goes out the window when a cult is fighting exposue of their lies and deception - and the flesh, and the demonic spirits take over . . . "God calls them his 2 Witnesses..That testify of Jesus Christ.." While I agree - you need to be able to support that from Scripture - you express opinion, make assumptions and provide NOTHING from the very Word of GOD to support your dogma. "And Jesus is God Almighty.." UHHH - NO! Jesus is God the Son - the second person of the trinity. Along with God the Father and GOD the Holy Spirit they comprise the godhead - God almighty. Its a mystery how 1 = 1 = 1 can equal 1 but 1 X 1 X 1 still equals 1 "And whether you agree or not it is neither here nor there.." You DO know this also applies to you? What you cannot support from the Bible is false. "You just a Blind and deaf man spiritually Lost and dead in Sin." And you are a liar and false prophet - for ONLY GOD can make that determination. "One who does not know God cannot speak about God understand.." BUT you do, and you are hopelessly confused and deceived about God's word - so I assume about GOD as well. "SO i warn you before you heap condemnation upon your head in Judgement to come before King Jesus..Watch yourself Sinner in sin.." My dear - your irrational and anti-scriptural attacks on someone for pointing out the falseness and corruption in the Bible you make an idol of is NOT grounds for your hatered and visciousness - you are simply showing the power of the demonic control you are under. "Your Arrogance is your weakness.. Your Pride made you debased " Both apply to you, NOT me - I POINTED OUT EVIDENCE of corruption in your catholic-based Bible - you cannot even respond intelligently so you shoot the messenger. IF you COULD, or I was wrong - you would respond and correct me for being wrong - HONESTLY - you cannot so you attack me with all manner of vileness and lies . . demonic control on display. "And If you want to know about God you must communicate with those who have a close connection with Jesus.." That is OBVIOUSLY not you - your demon has more power in your life than GOD does. Hence the anger hatred and slander - NOT to mention false prophestic comments about my spirituial condition - NONE of which you can possibly know - BUT your demon has being exposed - and so YOU lash out against truth. "Who know Jesus..and who Jesus knows to be his people.." YES. I talk top God every day - and I have cast out demons, healed the sick etc - as the children of GOD are commanded to do - YOU? NONE of those for sure. Why? Becaus you know so little of your Bible - ONLY the heresy and deceit you have been taught in your cuilt. "Your Froward Mouth is an Abomination to God.. I speak truth - your cult and your demon cannot abide the TRUTH of GOD. "You are offended hearing the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus because Sinner your Sins have you in Darkness. You cannot even come into the Light of the Gospel of Jesus.. And again you tell multiple lies in ONE sentence. ANYONE can come to God - the Bible says plainly WHOSOEVER WILL - and I am NO exception to WHOSOEVER . . . you are deluded and decieved. "Lest all your Evil Deeds be shown.. That is why you lying on Jesus.." YOU see - when its your demons speaking - you cannot help but lie - in FACT - YOU cannot point out ONE place I have lied about Jesus - that is entirely false - another demonic attack . . . "Lying on the Holy Word and Blaspheming the Holy Word.." Again - I have done neither . . . "The Holy Word has slain you..And has cut you down and through and through. You Will DIE!!" MORE demonic manifestatiuons - for your words are NOT Biblical or true. "And when You Die the Holy Word will continue to bring a Light to all who want Repentance from all Sin.. MORE deceit you believe - when you are dead there IS no repentance - ONLY judgement. "As Jesus said if you do not repent YOU WILL DIE IN ALL YOUR SINS!!!!!!" One true statmen t - WILL you now repent for your lies and deceit? "Your so spiritually Blind you trying to Understand the things of the Spirit and you cannot.. Sad" Actually - its YOU who is spiritualy blind - IF I said something that was incorrect - an HONEST Godly person would have corrected me - NOT attacked me with hatred and lies and slander - the signs of a demonic control in your life.
+Nicole Ryan Poor Nichole - NOT all that intelligent, doesn't know much about the Bible and is filled with rage because I speak truth "@Paul Robinson Let me be very clear if i have not already.. Wake up..time is running out for you and many ..Am in Christ Jesus friend.." MY Dear Nicole - I have been a child of the Most High God for over 50 years - I have seen the gifts and ministries in MY life that Christ promised to every Christian - I HAVE no question about my salvation or where I will go when I die - my life is in accord with the Word of God - the Bible - NOT the KJB but the accurate translations of the Bible given to the early Church by the Holy Spirit. I treat the fool with respect and attempt to make them wise - you however refuse to take correction or teaching - even from an elder with a long list of credentials. YOU are certain you know more than anyone else - even at your very tender age. "Nothing you can do or what you say has any effect on me.." Usually the way with fools . . . "Stop wasting my precious time man.." Its YOU who responds - you can stop anytime . . . "Do yourself a favor..Stop yourself from lying and blaspheming the Holy Word.." The ONLY one here lying is you, my dear . . . And YOU are the one living your life in contradiction to the Word of GOD - NOT I. IF you object to my criticisms of the corrupted Catholic Bible you use - then STOP telling lies and show me WHY its the Word of God for today - you cannot, for it IS not. That is HOW a godly person would respond - NOT lying and slandering someone you do NOT know ONLY because they KNOW from study that your Bible IS filled with inaacuracies. "Consider your ways..And what you saying out of your mouth.. Now go in peace.." Nothing but TRUTH has come from my mouth - you have told a whole bucket load of lies - as I pointed out - there is NO truth in you. YOU are deceived IF you think you were in the presence of GOD today with those lies still fresh. "As Jesus said Peace be unto you -My Peace i leave with you.." YOU have no peace - your demons MAY have quieted down but that is NO salve for the lies still on your plate from your posts. "As i said I am in Jesus and today was a great day for me because i have been in communing with Jesus all day on this holy 7th day Sabbath.." And so you lie again . . . SO I guessed correctly from your illiteracy that you WERE part of Ellen White's cult . . . and of course that explains your demonic demand for the KJB - for the Cult you belong to required the KJB to make its heresies and false teachings possible. NO accurate Bible supports your misguided heresies and false teachings. Listen - its just like the Judiazers in Gal 1 and 2 to keep the Sabbath - the apostles never did - and forbad anyone to so so unless they were Jewish. That is well recorded in church history - that for the first 300 years it was FORBIDDEN as a capitulation to the Judiazers - to keep the sabbath. Christ rose on the FIRST day of the week - having ended the law an all its requirements - so when in Acts 15 - the apostles went to the church leaders and asked what should be applied to the gentile Christians - they were told EXACTLY what was required - NOT keeping the Sabbath was one Jewish law ordinance that was forbidden. IF you wish to sacrifice then the sabbath is OK - BUT NOT UNLESS you do so. "listening to the Word and reading the Holy Word-King James bible.." Well - you mean the catholic corruption that the apostles would call heresy? "So i don't know what your doing man.. But me i am good..and I know what will happen to people like you..So do you and be you is all.." Well tomorrow - I will be observant of the Scriptures and the teachings of the apostles and Evangelists and Prophets in the NT and Church History - I will GO to church - we may see demons cast out - people will speak in tongues and prophesy - there may be miracles - like blind men seeing etc - those things that Jesus said would mark the life of a TRUE believer. And people will get saved and filled with the Holy Ghost - with the Biblical evidence of speaking in tongues when the spirit falls on them, as in Acts 2 and promses by Jesus in Mark 16 Bet you've never seen any of that, have you? "But as for me..You have no power over me hope you understand that.. And nothing you can say and do will stop the Holy Word from saving many from their Sins.." Funny that you would think that I would ever say that - just another lie from you of course . . . - for it is I and NOT you that is striving and zealous for the accuracy and perfection of the Words GOD gave the church via the apostles and prophets - words corrupted by the catholic church and which YOU follow - a corrupted and unsure word of God is NOT something to build your doctrines on. And since any intelligent Christian would be able to find MANY errors in your Catholic KJB - It seems foolish to make it your ONLY voice from God. "there is only one Israel but when Jesus comes but there will be many Esaus like you..Not ready for the coming of Jesus and not able to obtain the Blessing which was made available to you..Because see you did not recognize your birthright and the provisions made for you to obtain it through the repentance from all Sins through Jesus.." WE probably have very little disagreement about the gospel - our disagreement is about the corrupted source you use to base your gospel on. Your demonic cult controls you so that you are unable to see truth - even when simply presented to you. I pointed out one glaring example of corruption - corruption that is recorded and annotated - in the foundation of your KJ Bible - and yet you ignore correction and respond with your demonic religious spirits controlling you. "No repentance No Salvation No life Eternal.." Pure lies and demonic foolishness. "And Jesus is God the Almighty declares the Word Revelation 1 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." So what is your point? And you go no Power over God and his Word " Neither do you - BUT the KJB is NOT the Word of God - its a poor copy of it - full of mistakes and deliberate errors. "As Jesus said it is Written." What is written? Your demons are being incoherent today . . . There WAS no KJB for 1611 years . . but your ignorance woulkd NEVER allow you tho think of that. "So Sinner in Sin you not saved in all your cherished Sins.You are in complete Spiritual Blindness as the Jews..." And you are still lying with every sentence you copy from your demonic spirit . . .usurping the role of GOD as Judge making unrighteous judgements - speaking evil and good from the same mouth - from a lying spirit . . . "Take this link ..open it and listen to Jews waking up to the Knowledge that Jesus is God.." Just what point are you attempting to make? Are you incapable of sticking to ONE train of thought? What do the Jews finding Jesus - many thousands do so every week - have to do with your utterly corrupted Catholic Bible? "Jewish scientist (James Tour) makes the greatest Jewish discovery!! " Good for him - point? It does NOTHING to make your Bible accurate. Of course you push him because he is in your cult - Adventism. Violators of scripture everywhere. Let me point out ONE fact you miss - since you have done all this with the aim of getting more notches in your belt as you have done so many favors for God - (WORKS salvation), just why would any person seeking GOD pay the slightest attention to your false cult after you lie about and slander them?
REPENT: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand! Keep the commandments of God like the seventh day Sabbath, new moons, and feast days. Accept Christ Jesus as Lord and keep the faith. Copy and paste for the world to know
Uhmmm... You do err not knowing the scriptures Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is *not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,* even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be *justified by the faith of Christ,* and *not by the works of the law:* for *by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified.* Here is how to be saved Acts 16:31 Andthey said unto him, *Believe* on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalf be saved Romans 4:5 But to him that *worketh not,* but *believeth* on Him that justifieth the ungodly; his *faith is counted for righteousness.* Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved, through *faith,* and that not of yourselved it is the *gift* of God; *not of works* let any man should *boast.* Salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ, salvation is a gift, there is nothing you can do to earn it, no rules you need to keep, and once you are saved you can never lose your salvation.
@@user-sy4ec3em5o Salvation is like a brand new car bought for us. We must maintain it. We must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" as it is written by apostle Paul. Revelation 22:14 says "Blessed are they that do the commandments of God so that they may have right to the tree of life..."
@@1newearth let me explain this scripture to you: Blessed are they that *do his commandments,* that *they may have right to the tree of life,* and may enter in through the gates into the city. Revelation:22:14 Once you are saved if you are obedient to God and do his work... you will be *rewarded* in the new earth by being allowed to eat freely from the tree of life in the new Jerusalem... but this is not a salvation scripture... salvation is by faith alone: For by grace are ye saved through *faith;* and that *not of yourselves:* it is the *gift* of God: Ephesians:2:8 *Not of works,* lest any man should *boast.* Ephesians:2:9 The bible is quite clear that our works have nothing to do with our salvation in so far as to tell us that we don't even have the right to boast about being saved... if you say that you are saved and you are "maintaining" your salvation... that's boasting 🤷♂️. It's by faith alone without any works But to him that *worketh not, but believeth* on him that justifieth the ungodly, his *faith* is *counted for righteousness.* Romans:4:5
@jason daniel barry James 2 says 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Please prayerfully read all of James chapter 2 especially what is posted here. Do you live in Texas?
@@1newearth James chapter 2 verse 21 is important to understand this chapter. *Was not Abraham* our father *justified by works,* when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? James:2:21 With this verse in mind let's go back to Romans 4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as *pertaining to the flesh,* hath found? Romans:4:1 For *if* Abraham were justified by works, *he hath whereof to glory;* but *not before God.* Romans:4:2 So in James 2 we have the controversial statement Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. James:2:17 Which many interpret as: if you don't have works you are not saved... but cross referencing James 2 and Romans 4 we see that if Abraham was justified by works he has glory, but *not before God.* So then if Abraham doesn't has glory, but not before God, then his glory is before men. Let's read James 2 again: What doth it *profit,* my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? *can faith save him?* (this question is important) James:2:14 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, James:2:15 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding *ye give them not* those things which are needful to the body; *what doth it profit?* James:2:16 What james is actually saying is, if you say you have faith, but you are not doing good works to help people then your faith is unfruitful, it's not helping anyone... IT'S DEAD...meaning it is not doing anything Even so faith, if it hath not works, is *dead,* being alone. James:2:17 If I say: the dog is dead...then the dog was alive...but does the dog cease to exist when it is dead? Did the dog evaporate into nothingness? Yea, a *man* may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. James:2:18 And here we see "a *man* may say", referring back to what I said earlier... we are justified before other men by our works... but we are not justified before God with our works. Before God we are justified by faith alone. Therefore we conclude that a man is *justified by faith without the deeds of the law.* Romans:3:28 Ps. I live in South Africa.
DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO PUTS DOWN THE KING JAMES BIBLE, THE KING JAMES IS GODS WORD IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING LANGUAGE, YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON THAT, NEVER TRUST ANYONE WHO PUTS DOWN THE WORD OF GOD
The Word of God is in Hebrew and Greek, absoultely no proof that the KJV is a better English translation than others. Now something like the NIV has absolutely been shown to be false as numerous passages were removed in it. Nor is there any hard evidence to prove that the KJV wasnt just translated from the Latin Vulgate, which is a false translation.
The KJV is not a perfect translation. It has many errors: 1. KJV: "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Greek: HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" 2. KJV: "Lucifer" Is 14:12 Hebrew: "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) 3. KJV: "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover" 4. KJV: "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 Greek: "all I acquire" 5. KJV: "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 Greek: "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) 6. KJV: "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 Hebrew: "May the king live" ( reflects the British culture of the 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 7. KJV: "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Greek: "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600's. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) 8. KJV: "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 Hebrew: "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) 9. KJV: "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 Hebrew: "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
Does the Masoretic text erroneously repeat a line in Leviticus 20:10? The KJV says: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10) The Hebrew says: ואיש אשר ינאף את־אשת איש אשר ינאף את־אשת רעהו מות־יומת הנאף והנאפת׃ In the Hebrew there is an apparent repetition of the phrase "איש אשר ינאף את־אשת (a man who commits adultery with a woman)". The literal translation of the verse from Hebrew could read: "And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor shall surely be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress." On the face of it, the verse appears to say that it is an offence to commit adultery with the wife of a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor. Such a sentence seems awkward. Thus some translations (e.g. ESV, NLT) have omitted the repeating clause. However, the awkwardness is due to there being no punctuation in the Hebrew. The sentence makes sense when it is punctuated correctly. Consider the same literal translation with punctuations provided in the following manner: "And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man (who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor) shall surely be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress." When the words are grouped into clauses in this manner, the repetition makes sense. The first clause includes the words "And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man". The second clause, which is a parenthetical clarification of the first clause, includes the words "who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor". The second "who" points to the first occurrence of "man" (the adulterer) as the antecedent. It has been alleged that Hebrew parallelism does not repeat the exact same words. But although the words at Leviticus 20:10 may be identical according to a certain grouping of words, the clauses are not identical if the words are grouped as suggested above. The parallelism at Leviticus 20:10 provides for the clearest statement of the law. In Hebrew, the same word "ishah" is used to mean "woman" and "wife". To ensure that the reader understands "ishah" at Leviticus 20:10 to mean "wife" (a married woman), the clearest way to do so is to say "man's ishah". A "neighbor's ishah" could technically mean "neighbor's woman" which could refer to a female neighbor's unmarried daughter. But Leviticus 20:10 is specifically prohibiting adultery with a married woman. The reference to a "man's ishah" closes off this legal loophole. The reference to a "neighbor's ishah" in the parallel clause further clarifies the law by drawing attention to the fact that adultery is a sin against one's neighbor. As "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is the law fulfilled in one word (Galatians 5:14), it is most fitting that the prohibition against adultery makes a connection to the ultimate prohibition of offending one's neighbor. The KJV supplies the words "even he" in italics instead of parentheses to provide the same effect of rendering the second clause as a clarification of the first. The NKJV, NASB and NIV (1984, TNIV, 2010) also treat the Masoretic text here as being without error.
I am so sorry professor Paul.With forgiveness out of the question.Maybe you will be able to just get over it.I admit it would be asking for some serious sacrifice on your part.
I cannot help being a professor - as you can not help being ignorant. What is your point? YOU claimed he was lying. I suggested YOU were lying when making that comment. The evidence is you were; he wasn't. You offer no evidence that he is lying - he is NOT. SO you make a false accusation against someone and think that's cool? Honoring to GOD? Intelligent? YOU fail all three. And I have nothing to get over. YOU did NOT insult me. You MAY have irritated my scholarship with your willful ignorance, but nothing more. And after teaching for years its is nothing new to be confronted with ignorance from those who do NOT want to learn.
ONLY a cultic fanatic would make such a demonstrably FALSE statement. God makes NO mistakes - the KJ is full of them. The translators were NOT the best available so I have NO idea what your point was there. They could NOT speak KIONE Greek, and used ONLY Greek texts going back to 1220 at the earliest, interspersed with additions from the Vulgate., and opinions on how to improve on God's thoughts by Beza How up to speed were the KJ scholars when they could NOT unify on the word passover/easter etc - and the best Hebrew scholars refused to be part of it; later commenting it was a travesty of translation? WHY would some on the translation committee refuse to use it in their on pulpits? And IF God could guide the translators, WHY could he NOT also guide the printers - so that the 2000+ mistakes would NOT have occurred? MY God is perfect - and IF HE was controlling a translation ( a false and unsupportable assumption) - there would be NO errors in it in any way. Assuming the KJ is GOD's Translation is a direct insult to GOD and his perfection. The DEVIL loves people claiming the works of man - corrupt as they are - are the responsibility of GOD. lets him off the hook.
You haven't proven anything is false genius. If God is perfect than so will His words be perfectly preserved and translated or else inspiring them in the first place would of been pointless. There are no errors in content only printing typos which were fixed. Also please show me where this perfectly translated inerrant Bible in English is today if its not the KJB.
Again, your argument is based entirely on illiteracy. GOD is perfect - to ascribe the KJ with all its errors and corruption to Him is an embarrassment and insult. God gave the original writers the message for mankind. They wrote it under inspiration - and from then on its been MANKIND translating it - and as languages change man has been catching up. BUT God is NOT involved in the translation. IF God could preserve the TEXT perfectly, WHY was there 200 + errors in the 1611 KJ? How did the "Adulterer's Bible" happen? How do you explain 2 Thess 2:7? WHY was the Apocrypha included? WHY have YOU never seen THAT "inspired" translation? YOU probably have never seen the 1769 translation either. Do you read the OXFORD of the Cambridge version? On what basis do you ASSUME there is a perfect / inerrant Bible today? There is NO scriptural basis for that. One COULD make that case for either the Geneva or the Cloverdale - BOTH scholarly and godly translations. But its IMPOSSIBLE for the KJ. IT was corrupted by its imperial mandates among other issues. Even before Jesus they were translating the Torah (and making mistakes) into new languages and updating the language. YOU ignore that. Didn't bother Jesus - he quoted from the latest version. Neither your logic nor your childish insult stands up in the grown up world of reality.
Paul Robinson No scriptural basis for for an irritant perfect Bible? Maybe to you that is the case cause you have no faith. If translations cant be perfect than the original autographs cant be perfect cause they had to translate quotes from the Hebrew. If God originally inspired what the apostles wrote than it logically follows that He would divinely preserve it even in other languages. He would not leave His word in dead languages no one uses anymore. As far as English goes it was preserved in the reformation Bibles up to the KJV. Jesus never questioned the authority of scripture. Why would he question that? Its you who questions it saying we have no perfect standard of scripture. If that is not the case than where is God's word that we can understand? the problem with you and other Bible atheists is you don't like to be under an authority. You want to pick and choose what you like. On judgement day yous will have to answer.
Please explain HOW this could be IF this is GOD's infallible and perfect word: Again, why the KJV? Please understand, it's not merely spelling. Compare Ezekiel 24:7 in the 1611 and the 1769. One says "poured," while the other says "not poured". If the KJV is your [only] authority, how do you determine which is correct?
Right, Lorenzo. The devil's crowd wants a corrupt Bible that will support the Antichrist. All bad "bibles" are of Roman Catholic origin. One of the corrupt Greek manuscripts is called the Vaticanus!! Nuff said.
Your ignorance is obvious. YOU obviously have never put 10 minutes into studying the issue - and simply regurgitate others cultish opinions. The KJB is a Catholic (Anglican) Bible translated from approved Catholic texts - texts concocted by Catholic theologian Erasmus and added to at the request of Bishops etc from the Vulgate. This is NOT a matter of debate - but History - Erasmus writes plainly of his insertions, additions, and revisions to the text in his own writings. TO make your statement requires either a lying spirit, a commitment to a false cult, or a deliberate attempt to remain ignorant in the face of OBVIOUS evidence. It's NOT the devil's crowd that wants Biblical historical accuracy - its the devil's crowd that follows the old Catholic concept of keeping the scriptures difficult to understand by the masses. What is your evidence that the Vaticanus is corrupt? While it's NOT something I depend upon, you are simply repeating false statements. In fact, it is probably far more accurate than the Textus Receptus - published in 1631 FOLLOWING, not preceeding, the KJB.
Its another KJO cultist hoax. They are running out of hoaxes that have not been exposed for what they are - lies and deception - of which the KJO crowd is replete. Its the KJB that is the Catholic Bible - provable without any possible question from its pedigree - LOOK up Erasmus - catholic theologian - and his Catholic Greek texts and all his insertions and creativity - the basis for the KJB. Greek texts unlike ANY before 1200 AD. It is those texts OLDER than 1200 that form the basis for accurate modern Bibles - those WITHOUT the reworking of Erasmus to please his bishops and the pope.
The English Bibles we use today are translations of Hebrew texts, which in themselves are copies of previous texts. God did not "write" the Bibles we use today nor did he write the original autographs, humans did. The texts we use today (English, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) have differences, no two are identical. The comparison of these texts is "Textual Criticism." If you want to call of these texts scripture, then "Scriptural Criticism" can be an excepted term.
The Masoretic reading makes perfect sense and does not need to be change. The ESV and NLT, however, follow "sons of God" as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Septuagint has "ἀγγέλων θεοῦ" (angels of God). Critics who make this change most often assume that "the number of the children of Israel" refers to the number "12" and see that such a small number is not congruent with the number of nations in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10). These critics choose the reading of "sons of God" as it would support a higher number than 12, such as 70. These critics suppose that the original reading was "sons of God" and the Jews changed it to "sons of Israel" because of a religious bias. However, a case could be made for a religious or cultural bias on the part of Gentiles or heretical sects with the reading of "sons of God". Commentator Albert Barnes says: "Some texts of the Greek version have "according to the number of the Angels of God;" following apparently not a different reading, but the Jewish notion that the nations of the earth are seventy in number (compare Genesis 10:1 note), and that each has its own guardian Angel (compare Ecclus. 17:17). This was possibly suggested by an apprehension that the literal rendering might prove invidious to the many Gentiles who would read the Greek version." (Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Deuteronomy 32:8) As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, they were created by the Essenes. This sect held a curious devotion to angels. Josephus, describing what a convert to the sect had to observe, writes: "Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the means of the angels." (Wars of the Jews, Book 2, chapter 7). The phrase "sons of God" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is a term for angels (Job 1:6). It is not surprising that an Essene text prefers a reference to angels rather than to the children of Israel. The Essenes, being an isolated sect, did not care so much for the other Israelites.
Genesis 4:8 - NIV, LXX - "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD" KJB - (NKJV, ESV, NASB, Dead Sea Scrolls) "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." NIV (NET, Holman Standard 2009, ISV 2014, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD." While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother and killed him." In verse 8 the NIV does some peculiar things which condemn it as a false bible. After the words "And Cain talked with Abel his brother" the NIV adds these words: "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD", and then the NIV omits the words "and it came to pass" which are in the Hebrew, and in the NKJV and the NASB too. The NIV footnote tells us that the words "Let's go out to the field" come from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Masoretic Text does not have these words. So right here in one verse, and there are many more, the NIV both adds to and takes away from the inspired words of God. Other modern versions that also add these extra words are the Holman Standard 2009, the Amplified bible 1987, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, ISV 2014, Young's, the Jehovah Witness NWT, and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible. Even though the NIV English version ADDS these extra words "Let's go out to the field", yet the NIV Spanish Version, La Nueva Versión Internacional 2015 does not. It reads: "Caín habló con su hermano Abel. Mientras estaban en el campo, Caín atacó a su hermano y lo mató." A Bible critic names Jeff Benner also supports this reading and tells us that the Masoretic texts are wrong and that when the Hebrew word translated as "talked" in the King James Bible really should be "SAID" and that it is ALWAYS followed by what the person said, thus proving (in his own mind) that the KJB and many others cannot be right but that something had dropped out of the text and this something is supplied by the Greek Septuagint. Mr. Benner is wrong, of course. The Hebrew word in question is #559 ah-mar and is variously translated as "to say, to talk, promise, thought, command, to declare, reported, answer, desired, appointed, certified, uttereth and intend". And there most definitely ARE times when it is used and what the person said is NOT mentioned. See for example Job 8:10 "Shall not they teach thee, and TELL thee, and utter words out of their heart?"; Job 37:20 - "Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man SPEAK, surely he shall be swallowed up."; Esther 2:15 "appointed"; Esther 2:22 "certified"; Jonah 2:10 - "And the LORD SPAKE unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land." If these new versions are so sure the so called LXX is right, then why didn't any of them follow the LXX reading of the previous verse 7, where instead of saying something like the KJB's "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." But the Greek LXX actually says: "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?" (Say What?!) Nobody followed this goofy reading in verse 7, yet they latch onto to a few words in verse 8 that are NOT found in any Hebrew manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and obviously not ALL modern versions think these extra words should be added. These extra words "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD." are NOT found in the Hebrew texts, nor in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor in the NASB 1995, the ESV 2001 - 2011 editions, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, the Updated Bible 2004, the Message 2002, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010, the Names of God Bible 2011- "Cain talked to his brother Abel. Later, when they were in the fields, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.", the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "And Kayin talked with Hevel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the sadeh, that Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother, and killed him.", The Voice of 2011, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Modern English Version 2014, and the Tree of Life Version 2015. "and it came to pass" The NIV concordance tells us that of the 3577 times this verb occurs in the Hebrew - "and it came to pass" (#216 the NIV has not translated (omitted, taken away) this verb 887 times, or a little more than one of every four times it occurs. It also does it in 6:1. These are verifiable facts, not wild accusations.
If we want to talk about translations adding and subtracting words from the Bible, the KJB is full of them. The name of God in the Hebrew text is יהוה (YHWH), which means "he exists," and is usually pronounced as Yahweh, Yahu'ah, etc. But the KJB translators REMOVED his name from the text over 7,000 times and replaced it with the word LORD.
Will Kinney . . . And still WILL is trashing accurate Bibles in preference for his catholic corruption - and making a fool of himself doing so: The NIV footnotes explains quite clearly where the passage you mock came from - and that is as reliable a source as any you use to support your corrupted KJB. Maybe moreso . . . Its NOT adding to the word of GOD to translate a passage in the Bible - Will - you were a teacher - you ought to be at least be aware of basic English usage. "and it came to pass" is a conjunction - and NOT needed in any passage where it is NOT included. In ENGLISH, THEN or FOLLOWING means exactly the same thing. This IS after all the 21st century - the ancient and archaic English of the KJ is NO longer the language of the street - and Jesus ALWAYS used the simplest language possible. SO just as one may have said in the courts of King Henry - "IT came to pass" - today we would say "THEN"; its unimportant to make the Bible CLEAR and succinct. Please think before making irrational statements. Your vast education is being wasted . . . ;-)
Also reference Isaiah 53:7 along side Acts 8:32. One word was changed in the Masoretic version..the word HIS is in the NT letter which was quoting from the Septuagint..and the verse in Isaiah quoted from the Masoretic changes HIS shearer to HER shearer. The Masoretic translators had a bone to pick with people preaching JESUS was the lamb led to HIS shearer..THEM.! So they changed it to read HER shearer to stop Jews from learning the truth about Jesus.
This is only for those interested. Yahweh is ESOTERIC.Names at end as well as Ginsberg, are "evil beasts, slow bellies, transforming themselves into angels of light" Kabbala The term is now used as a technical name for the system of esoteric theosophy which for many generations played an important part, chiefly among the Jews, after the beginning of the tenth century of our era. It primarily signifies reception, and, secondarily, a doctrine received by oral tradition. Its application has greatly varied in the course of time, and it is only since the eleventh or twelfth century that the term Kabbala has become the exclusive appellation for the system of Jewish religious philosophy which claims to have been uninterruptedly transmitted by the mouths of the patriarchs, prophets, elders, etc., ever since the creation of the first man. The two works which the advocates of this system treat as the authoritative exposition of its doctrines are the Book of Creation and the Zohar. The Book of Creation The Book of Creation is a short treatise consisting of six chapters subdivided into thirty-three very brief sections. It is written in Mishnic Hebrew, and is made up of oracular sentences. It professes to be a monologue of the patriarch Abraham, who enumerates the thirty-two ways of wisdom by which God produced the universe, and who shows, by the analogy which is assumed to exist between the visible things and the letters which are the signs of thought, the manner in which all has emanated from God and is inferior to Him. The Zohar The Zohar, or second expository work of the Kabbala, has justly been called the "Bible" of the Kabbalists. It is written in Aramaic, and its main portion is the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch according to the latter's division into fifty-two weekly lessons. Its title Zohar (light, splendour) is derived from the words of Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be light") with the exposition of which it begins. It is a compilatory work, wherein several fragments of ancient treatises can still be noticed. The following is a brief account of the chief contents - doctrinal, hermeneutical, and theurgical - of the Zohar. Doctrinal content of the Zohar The First World Considered in Himself, the Supreme Being is the En-Soph (Endless, Infinite) and, in a certain sense, the En (Non-existent) since existence is in human conception a limitation which as such should not be predicated of Him. We can conceive and speak of God only in so far as He manifests and, as it were, actualizes Himself in or through the Sephiroth. His first manifestation was by way of concentration in a point called the first Sephira - "the Crown", as it is called - which is hardly distinguishable from the En-Soph from Whom it emanates, and which is expressed in the Bible by the Ehieyeh (I am). From the first Sephira proceeded a masculine or active potency called wisdom, represented in the Bible by Yah, and an opposite, i.e. a feminine or passive potency, called intelligence, and represented by Yahweh. These two opposite potencies are coupled together by the "Crown", and thus yields the first trinity of the Sephiroth. From the junction of the foregoing opposite tendencies emanated the masculine potency called love, the fourth Sephira, represented by the Biblical El, and the feminine one justice, the fifth Sephira, represented by the Divine name Elohah. From them again emanated the uniting potency, beauty, the sixth Sephira, represented in the Bible by Elohim. And thus is constituted the second trinity of the Sephiroth. In its turn, beauty beamed forth the seventh Sephira, the masculine potency, firmness, corresponding to Yahweh Sabaoth, and this again produced the feminine potency splendour, represented by Elohe Sabaoth. From splendour emanated the ninth Sephira, foundation, which answers the Divine name El-Hai and closes the third trinity of the Sephiroth. Lastly, splendour sends forth kingdom, the tenth Sephira, which encircles all the others and is represented by Adonai. These ten Sephiroth are emanations from the En-Soph, forming among themselves and with Him a strict unity, in the same way as the rays which proceed from the light are simply manifestations of one and the same light. They are infinite and perfect when the En-Soph imparts His fullness to them, and finite and imperfect when that fullness is withdrawn from them (Ginsburg). In their totality, they represent and are called the archetypal man, without whom the production of permanent worlds was impossible. In fact, they constitute the first world, or world of emanations, which is perfect and immutable because of its direct procession from the Deity. The Second, Third and Fourth Worlds Emanating immediately from this first world is the world of creation, the ten Sephiroth of which are of a more limited potency, and the substances of which are of the purest nature. From the world of creation proceeds the world of formation, with its less refined ten Sephiroth, although its substances are still without matter. Finally, from this third world proceeds the world of action or of matter, the ten Sephiroth of which are made of the grosser elements of the other works. The Angels Of these worlds, the second, that of creation, is inhabited by the angel Metatron, who governs the visible world, and is the captain of the hosts of good angels who in ten ranks people the third world, that of formation. The demons or bad angels inhabit the fourth world, that of action, the lowest regions of which constitute the seven infernal halls wherein the demons torture the poor mortals whom they betrayed into sin in this life. The prince of the demons is Samael (the "angel of poison or of death"); he has a wife called the Harlot; but both are treated as one person, and are called "the Beast". Man Man was directly created not by En-Soph, but by the Sephiroth, and is the counterpart of the archetypal man. His body is merely a garment of his soul. Like God, he has a unity and a trinity, the latter being made up of the spirit representing the intellectual world, the soul representing the sensuous world, and the life representing the material world. Souls are pre-existent destined to dwell in human bodies, and subjected to transmigration till at last they return to God. Destiny of the World The world also including Samael himself, will return ultimately--viz. at the advent of the Messias born at the end of days--to the bosom of the Infinite Source. Then Hell shall disappear and endless bliss begin. Hermeneutical content of the Zohar All these esoteric doctrines of the Kabbala are supposed to be contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, in which, however they can be perceived only by those initiated into certain hermeneutical methods. The following are the three principal methods of discovering the heavenly mysteries hidden under the letters and words of the Sacred Text: The Temurah (change) by means of which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is interchanged with another, according to some definite process, as when Aleph, the first letter, becomes Lamed by interchange with the twelfth, the second, Beth, becomes, Mem, the thirteenth, etc.; or as, when the last letter takes place of the first, the last but one takes the place of the second, etc.; the Gematriah (Gr. gemetria), which consists in the use of the numerical values of the letters of a word for purposes comparison with other words, which give the same or similar combinations of numbers: thus in Genesis 49:10, "Shiloh come" is equivalent to 358, which is also the numerical value of Mashiah, whence it is inferred that Shiloh is identical with Messias; the Notarikon (Latin notarius), or process of reconstructing a word by using the initials of many, or a sentence by using all the letters of a single word as so many initials of other words; for instance, the word Agla is formed from the initials of the Hebrew sentence: "Thou (art) (a) Mighty (God) forever." Theurgical content of the Zohar The theurgical, or last chief element of the Zohar, needs no long description here. It forms part of what has been called the "practical" Kabbala, and supplies formulas by means of which the adept can enter into direct communication with invisible powers and thereby exercise authority over demons, nature, diseases, etc. To a large extent it is the natural outcome of the extraordinary hidden meaning ascribed by the Kabbala to the words of the Sacred Text, and in particular to the Divine names. Conclusion Of course, the Book of Creation does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity. Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages. Its speculations concerning God's nature and relation to the universe differ materially from the teachings of Revelation. Finally, it has decidedly no right to be considered as an excellent means to induce the Jews to receive Christianity, although this has been maintained by such Christian scholars as R. Lully, Pico della Mirandola, Reuchlin, Knorr von Rosenroth, etc., and although such prominent Jewish Kabbalists as Riccio, Conrad, Otto, Rittangel, Jacob Franck, etc., have embraced the Christian Faith, and proclaimed in their works the great affinity of some doctrines of the Kabbala with those of Christianity.
It all depends on what you base one’s view of truth upon. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:16-not necessarily their roots. Where do the different versions lead towards?
@UnleashedGraffixx Let me make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying there are no errors in the KJV? If so, how do you explain the error presented in this video?
Mark 3:31-35 -- 31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers[a] are outside seeking You.”33 But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
@vachief So you think that because the KJV is the only translation that uses the word preserve, you think that that preservation was in the KJV? Do you believe the KJV is inspired? Do you believe the KJV is without error?
@vachief English is my first language, Hebrew my second. I have never heard of a translation from the KJV into any other language. I am curious to see one. Where can I see a translation of the KJV in any other language?
In other words if we follow the Scriptures to help us understand this not known to us mystery found in Leviticus 20:10, we will be inclined to do this : “Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not” Jeremiah 33:3 Because :”Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” Proverbs 3:5
Lienatk Anyone can go to another bible and see what that bible says and use that and see what the other bibles say and call it an error or erros. Go within in its own txt and use that bible alone you find erros, flaws, condredictions, lies etc... I can show you errors in the other bibles using its own txt don’t need the KJV. That’s the difference... God isn’t a liar God promises to preserve his word, and it also says God isn’t a liar God cannot lie. Also says men can’t live on bread alone but by every word of God where is it at? There is only one full true word of God where is it at? It’s not that hard to understand this, a lot of deception by man and Satan. I can’t find no erros in the kjb alone in its own txt but I can show you erros and condredictions in all the other religious books using there own txt
