Solid bible teaching. Ive looked online and havent seen anyone i fully agree with on bible translations till i started watching these. And im even more stronger for the kjv!
While I disagree with your conclusions about the best way to determine the original text, I continue to appreciate your balanced view when it comes to using the KJV and NKJV. It shows a degree of pastoral care that I wish I could see from the people who condemn all updates of the KJV simply on the grounds that they inevitably come with certain tradeoffs. Your complementary view allows both the KJV and the NKJV to play to their respective strengths without ignoring the disadvantages that come with using one of them exclusively.
Thanks. I am glad you have taken the time to hear and consider my understanding and concerns on this topic. I hope you will study over it deeper yourself and, if you would like to hear more of my studies on it, here is a full playlist I have created about it: ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@PastorScottIngram Pastor, I’m fairly new to your content though I did first come across some time ago. I’ve been viewing your content more recently due to my growing interesting translations and textual criticism. Especially as it relates to the NKJV. I checked this playlist that you presented and I happened to notice that almost all of these videos are 28:32 long. Then I decided to scan through some of your other content and it seems you hit number (or 38:31 or 28:34) quite frequently. What is the significance of 28:32? Is this a reference to a specific Bible verse? If so, which and why does it play a part in your video ministry? I’m sorry about all the questions but, I’m curious. If you’ve already explained this in some other video then, I wouldn’t think it rude of you to simply place a link to that video and nothing else as a response to me. No need to take time typing a reply to me when copying & pasting a link is easier, faster, and probably more in-depth. Thank you for your content regardless. It has been a blessing to me.
@robertrayford8708 thanks for watching. The significance of 28:32 is actually more practical. That is the time frame allotted for television programs on the local station that plays these sermons each Sunday. I have been placing them here and on television for over 5 years now. Thanks for your the question. It is good to know that people are paying attention and finding these videos helpful.
This is the kind of thing that makes me wary of Baptist ministers. Too often, I have heard sermons that were opinions, and the Bible used loosely or out of context to try and support those opinions. There is nowhere in Scripture that supports the KJV tradition. The question doesn't boil down to which version do you trust, the question is do you trust God and His promises? Promises like Proverbs 8:17, Luke 11:9-10. Is God a liar? Isaiah 55:11, James 1:5-6. Is the Holy Spirit inactive? 1 Corinthians 2:9-11. We do not need to be confused or live in fear of most newer translations because they have omitted things they could not verify were parts of the earlier versions. God knew it would happen and His promises still work. He isn't the author of confusion 1 Corinthians 14:33. To everyone else reading this please hold your ministers accountable to ONLY preach things that are 100 percent backed by Scripture in context. Do not let them try to do things like sneak the story of Eve into a discussion about the KJV as if it applies. Satan tries to distort God's Word no matter if it is oral as it was with Eve or in any translation. If you love God and truly want to follow Christ and deny this world, God will help you accomplish it whether you use the KJV or not.
I don't think you watched the whole video. I don't just point out the KJV as the only one translation that has translated the complete text here, I also show that the NKJV has translated all the traditional text and is a useful translation as well, though not as painstakingly exact. My point in this video is derived from the simple fact that most modern translations are eliminating much of the scriptures that have been in the text for centuries. That is a concern for anyone who claims the scriptures as the authority. While small differences are expected in any translation work, removal of the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament Greek is not okay for the modern translations and it should be a concern. In answer to your idea of God knowing that modern translators would seek to reject such a large amount of the traditional text, God also knew false teachers would come for His church but He didn't tell us just to ignore them and claim it was His will. I discuss this topic more in-depth in a playlist that I have available here on RU-vid. I hope you will check it out: ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@PastorScottIngram Yes, I watched the entire video. I watched you preach an opinion that is not backed by Scripture. I claim Scripture as an authority and I am fully aware that the equivalent of 1&2 Peter has been removed. It was not an attack on the Bible. It was done by people who were trying to be as diligent as possible in their work. I study the ESV and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit I am able to grow and teach others. The Bible warns us about being a stumbling block and if a new Christian needs to study an easier version, I trust that God will help them grow. If you need a reminder about how God's promises work take another look at Acts 8 and look at what the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading and asking questions about before he turned his life over to Christ. His encounter with Christ didn't require the NT which is good because it didn't exist yet. Teach people to be thirsty for the Bible. Teach them to understand that it is the antidote to the poison of this world. Teach them to view it as God's love letter to us. Stop scaring them about opinions that many extremely educated, diligent, and godly scholars do not share with you. Trust that God can do His work in other translations.
@ardiem5168 I am not saying people cannot be saved reading another translation… even one that cuts so much out. I am saying that it will Hurt their walk with God when another verse is removed every year and weaken their trust in the Word as an authority on what God hath said. Also, have you read Acts 8 in a critical text and a traditional text version? The only reason we know why the Ethiopian eunuch understood salvation and baptism correctly is because of Acts 8:37 which hasn’t been removed in the KJV or NKJV but has in the critical text. in the traditional translations it tells us we must be saved before we are baptized while the critical text versions answer “what hinders me from being baptized?” With no prerequisite of salvation. Phillip’s answer: 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” NKJV Without that reply, we are taught nothing about salvation coming before baptism because those critical texts just say that he baptized him and cut away that verse. Please check out the playlist. I think you will find it enlightening.
@PastorScottIngram We are taught that salvation comes before Baptism in other places. Acts 2, 10, and 16 to name a few. God designed His Bible to handle translations into many languages by repeating lessons. This is why we must study the Bible in context and allow one passage to explain something that may not be clear in another. We are to measure what is said to us by the Bible. If someone speaks the truth, it can be backed up with Scripture. I find no Scripture that says the Word of God would be held hostage in an old dialect only to English-speaking people. No Scripture says the Holy Spirit will only do His work in certain translations. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion about the KJV, but that opinion is the same as my opinion that teal is the prettiest color. It isn't truth because the Bible doesn't support it. I cannot and will not teach people that teal is the best color, or that KJV or ESV is better for that reason. Be at peace knowing the Bible does not say that our confidence that He who begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ depends on the KJV. Remember that teachers will be held more accountable. Anything that you teach or preach that is not 100 percent backed by Scripture in context leaves a wider opening for Satan to exploit. I won't be watching your other videos because after watching this one, I do not trust you. You seem like the kind of preacher that likes the old hymns, so take another look at the refrain from "Have faith in God." Put your faith in God, not yourself, and not what you believe you can deduce from your observations. He cannot fail. He MUST prevail.
Yes Pastor Scott, and I agree with you 100% My comment is directed at proponents of new mistranslations. Keep up the great work on your excellent channel! 🙂@@PastorScottIngram
Isaiah 58:13 Authorized (King James) Version 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Read full chapter
@@PastorScottIngram I’ve heard that, but I couldn’t find a source for that. Do you have one, by any chance? Its Wikipedia article seems to imply otherwise, anyway.
@@PastorScottIngram 1 John 5:7-8 is probably the least attested to passage in the NT and it is in there, as you can see. The disputed passage is in brackets but that shouldn't be a problem.I didn't check the other disputed passages because if the YLT has this one, it will definitely have the others. As far as translations in common use, I'm aware of only the KJV, NKJV, MEV, YLT, and the LSV that contain the passage. I realize that it is stretching it a bit to say that the YLT and LSV are in common use but both are available. The LSV is an excellent study resource. I believe that all of the Critical Text translations exclude this passage. 1 John 5:7-8 YLT- Tecarta Bible app because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; [8] and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.
Thank you. My copy of the T.R. (which I have read three times), is the one published by Trinitarian Bible Society, seems to be in 1994. In their preface, they say this "follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with" [Scrivener's]. They mention other editions between Beza and Scrivener. They say the differences are small; but do not give examples. An ordinary pastor does not know what to make of this confusion; though I can live with it. ............ But I do like the way you give examples. We know exactly what you are talking about! ........ :--}>
Thank you Pastor Scott, I have used the other books, but they did not have the same impact on me regarding the conviction of my sin the same way that the KJV does. I now stick with the KJV and I do know how different it is in my reading, I do not know how to study, so I just read.
You're correct Pastor Scott, however, you may be aware there are a few mis-translations in the Bible (from the original languages - Greek, Latin, etc.). What I like to do is read the KJV of a passage or chapter, then go read a very old Bible (1400's or even older from manuscripts. Thus, I recommend a Bible Study for these hidden truths. GOD bless you all.
Over time, the old rugged cross and saved by the blood and old hymns have changed in our culture. The KJV is the source of teaching, in my opinion. Raised as a Missouri synod Lutheran, and some good times in a spirt lead church in North Nashville TN, I do not recognize modern Christianity. I do like things staying the same as life is hard enough with no foundation. Have a lot of newer translations, but get annoyed when some passages are gone or the concept watered down. Oh my, I wonder what will happen when we are pushed by a Bible by Ai to "fix" it. I do not plan on giving away my KJV reading Bible or Holman Study KJv.
COULD the KJV be updated in the sense that words that have changed in meaning are changed to what they mean today as in: prevent becomes precede, letteth or let becomes restrains, etc., then nothing would be lost as far as the actual MEANING of what the translators were saying. The problem is that no one seems able to do that and leave it at that. They feel compelled to change far more than that and end up changing the meaning of many verses or just muddying up the waters in other verses. The NKJV is a great example of beautiful clarity in some places and changes in others that just don't make any sense. I will stick with the KJV as I trust it, trust the translators motives, trust it's historical connection to the earlier translations it considered in creating it. While the modern translations do make some verses easier to understand I do not trust them.
One attempt to update the KJV (and every other really since 1769) has met with failure. I discussed that one here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7XLwy941DBQ.html
Thank you Pastor Scott. God recently showed me that I needed to go back to the KJV after I read and studied through of the ESV study Bible last year and was left with so many questions! I spent weeks comparing the ESV with the KJV and was shocked at all the verses and words that were left out and meanings that were changed. I saw that the authority has been taken out of the ESV and other modern translations that I also looked at. I am overjoyed to be back in the authoritative Word of God and I can’t get enough. God used so many of your videos to help me understand how we got the KJV and it’s reliability. Blessings! God is using you to open eyes! One thought I had, I learned that Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. He was willing to burn at the stake because he knew it was the Word of God! I wonder how many modern translators would be willing to die for their translations? I dare say none!
Hey, God himself showed her she needed to go back to the KJV LOL> People, do you hear this? She compared an ESV to a KJV and drew the conclusion the KJV was the one to go with LOL> You gotta be kdding me!! An example of someone in a cult!! Unbelievable!! Sad also but that is why I post. Neither this 'pastor' nor cindy care. Minds closed... brain shut off... lack of study does this and allows one to be totally irrational in their conclusions.
It's not that "study" is inaccurate, but that "study" is being used in an archaic sense here. It's more obvious when you come across the word in 1 Thess. 4.10-12: "And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more; and that ye *study* to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing." The use of "study" in both 1 Thess. 4.11 and 2 Tim. 2.15 was introduced by William Tyndale in his New Testament translation. In both passages, the early English revisions (Coverdale through the KJV) chose to keep "study" in these verses. But in 1881, the revisers chose to keep "study" in 1 Thessalonians and use "Give diligence" in 2 Timothy. (The subsequent revision of 1946 would replace "study" with "aspire" in 1 Thess. 4.11 and "Give diligence" with "Do your best" in 2 Tim. 2.15.) So what meaning of study is intended by Tyndale? In his 1755 dictionary (the one that was consulted for the subsequent 1762 and 1769 updates of the KJV by Parris and Blayney), Samuel Johnson offered this definition: "To endeavour diligently." He cites 1 Thess. 4.11 as an example of this usage. Noah Webster would copy this definition exactly for his 1828 dictionary, even retaining the same example. It's also worth noting that the exact same Greek word is used in 2 Tim. 4.9 and 21 as in 2.15, so there's an argument to be made for handling the word consistently. In both cases from chapter four, the KJV (following the Bishops' Bible before it) translates σπούδασον as "Do thy diligence" instead of "Study." Tyndale had translated it as "Make speed" in both cases, and the 1881 revision would stay with "Do thy diligence," while the 1901 American edition of that revision would change them to "Give diligence" for the sake of consistency with 2.15. (So too, the 1946 revision would consistently use "Do your best.")
I answered that here: Does the NKJV NOT want us to "Study" in 2 Timothy 2:15? (KJV/NKJV Comparison) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uyxW0QeWsdw.html
In my personal opinnion the devil wasnt disguised as a snake, I believe the snake was the most clever animal and agreed to the Devils plan and carried it out Because think about it, God punishes the snake and says that it shall go on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life and it would be illogical to punish a snake if the devil essentially wore a mask of it, thats like saying I get arrested because somone comitted a crime wearing my face
My only concern with that ideal is that Revelation 12:9 seems to imply that the Devil actually was the snake. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:3
The copies have errors? Only the originals are inerrant and inspired? This idea of "Originals Only" is an old heresy with it's origins in Richard Simon (1638-1712) a French Roman Catholic priest. The Jesuit tradition of biblical criticism starting with Alfonso Salmeron had paved the way for his approach. Protestants widely felt that an infallible Bible was threatened by doubts which Simon raised against the integrity of the Hebrew text; and indeed Simon as basic tenets argued against sola scriptura and in favor of the Catholic Church tradition of interpretation. Later in 1881 Warfield and Hodge regurgitated this heresy (Presbyterian Review April 1881) "It is to be remembered, then, that: 1. We do not assert that the common text, but only that the original autographic text was inspired." ~from DETAILED ACCURACY OF STATEMENT of this publication. This was a TIMELY monograph as it was released the same year as the RV New Testament (1881) and the RV Old Testament (1885) What sayeth the scriptures? 2 TIMOTHY 3:13-17 *But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.* 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; *15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,* which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. *16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.* Did Timothy have the Originals? Did the original of Genesis coincide in time with the original of Malachi? Timothy had the HOLY SCRIPTURES. ACTS 8:28-32 28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot *read Esaias the prophet.* 29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. *32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:* Did an Ethiopian from another continent have the originals? Maybe he got them from Timothy? LUKE 4:17-21 17And there was delivered unto him the *book of the prophet Esaias.* And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21And he began to say unto them, *This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.* Jesus did not correct the Text or say "A better wording would be" or "this has slight mistakes". Now, Jesus had the "original" but it was kept for the Ethiopian Eunuch and sent to AFRICA. Just be sure that Timothy knows were it is. HEBREWS 4:12 For the word of God is *quick,* and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a *discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.* Dead books are not "quick" (ALIVE) and they certainly cannot discern thoughts and intents. Could an UNINSPIRED, error filled book be the word of God? Is not Jesus Christ the Word of God? The LORD God was raised from the dead, and was glorified by the Father. Is our Bible now dead and once was Inspired, infallible and without error? The argument of the King James Bible being hard to understand is a bad argument. What Bible did children learn from between 1611 and 1881 (270 years). Has the collective reading ability of society atrophied in that time, or must we add to the hundreds of versions in ENGLISH, because men are making merchandise of the scripture? JEREMIAH 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read *three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.* (v. 27-28) Then the *word of the LORD* came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, *28Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.* (v. 32) Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; *who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire:* *and there were added besides unto them many like words.* The scripture was given by INSPIRATION after the "originals" were destroyed and some things were ADDED. What did the King James Translators state? Truly (good Christian Reader) *we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation,* nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been *fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:)* but to make a *good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one,* *not justly to be excepted against;* that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. The translators endeavored to make a principal good one out of many good ones (the previous 6 English Bibles of the reformation.) You were to accept their Bible and their work as authoritative without a good excuse not to (not justly to be excepted against). "Hard to read" is not an excuse. 1 Cor. 15 ESV Now I would remind you, brothers,[a] of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are *being saved,* if you hold fast to the word I preached to you-unless you believed in vain. 1 Cor. 15 KJV Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also *ye are saved,* if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. Is a Christian SAVED or "being saved"? Paul is addressing JUSTIFICATION in this verse, not sanctification (Gal 3:1-4) or glorification/Adoption of sons which is yet future (1 Cor. 15:49-30, Ephesians 1:5). The ESV makes Justification a process, not an event in time when a man trusts the gospel and is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. The ESV is a corrupt version. 2 TIMOTHY 2:15 KJV *Study* to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, *rightly dividing* the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NIV 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who *correctly handles* the word of truth. "Do your best" is not STUDY. "Correctly handles" is not DIVIDE. God divided the gentile from the Jew with the Law. He divided the light from the darkness. He divided Abraham's Bosom from Hell. One must rightly divide doctrine that is meant for the Jew under the Law, the Christian under Pau's gospel and both Jew and gentile in the Tribulation, not to mention the doctrine laid out in Jesus earthly ministry pertaining to the 1000 year Millennial reign. MARK 14:22-24 KJV And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the *new testament,* which is shed for many. Mark 14:22-24 *NKJV* 22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, [f]eat; this is My body.” 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the *[g]new covenant,* which is shed for many. New Covenant or New Testament? BIG DIFFERENCE. Israel was given the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is given to the Jew in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The Body of Christ/the Church is saved by a TESTAMENT. [Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6 KJV] A covenant is an agreement between two parties. A Testament is the property of an estate willed by the deceased to an heir, AFTER His death. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The Church was a mystery revealed to Paul of the Jew and gentile in one body by the cross. The New covenant makes NO mention of gentile being graft in with the Jew or the crucifixion. Corrupt bibles use "covenant" to steal the promise of the New Covenant from the Jew and give it to the Church, which originated with the Catholics.
To say that there are no differences whatsoever in the manuscripts we have today is to be uninformed or simply dishonest. I discuss those differences in more details here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pIPy6hlYImQ.html
This church is blessed beyond measure to be led by a patsor who is so faithful to the Word of God. I would say the NKJV is great for young or newly-saved Christians, as well as for anyone who still finds the KJV to be a difficult or dense read. However, let us also lovingly encourage (but not force) as many as possible to transition to the KJV as we can. And of course, there's nothing wrong with reading both. But yes, serious Bible study should include being familiar with other translations, and doing so should help with learning what other denominations believe and practice.
Luk_24:45 Then opened he (Jesus) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, The Holy Spirit leads a person into all truth. Joh_16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I actually think Moses did write his death. What an amazing proof text to leave his people to read after they entered the promised land and had the time to read the ending of Deuteronomy
no critical scholar believes moses wrote the pentateuch - peiod. Buy Joel Baden's book on the documentary hypothesis and his exodus book, for starters. Read the scholars and stop listening to this guy and others like him. Thank you
@@gmac6503The Lord Jesus Christ disagrees with you and all "critical" so called scholars. He said that Moses did write the Pentateuch. "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?"- Jn. 5:45-47.
@@jamestrotter3162 juvenile and immature comment from you again. Everybody is wrong, except you king James people 'kisseth my ass' as I told a certain person going to a King James only church 1/2 mile from where I live when I was doing my run. Then he said, what foul language! And I reminded him all three of those words are in his King James Bible And I laughed just like I'm laughing at you because you believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch and everyone is wrong and your interpretation is automatically correct. Juvenile's posting is irritating. If you would buy a decent commentary, you would learn something but just stick to your apologetics and the people who agree with you and stay in your little hole.
You said John wrote the book of Revelation,but John the Baptist did not write the book of Revelation, John the elder wrote it in 96CE.The book of John was written in 85-90 CE
The CSB is better than the NLT, but I encourage you to spend more time with the KJV. The more you read, the easier it becomes … and the easier it becomes, the more you’ll read. A Google search will provide multiple resources to help define and understand the more difficult words in the KJV. For example: Matthew 6:9, “… Our father which art in heaven …”. Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” The word “which” means “who” in today’s English. This is readily understood in the Lord’s Prayer; but in Paul’s letter, most modern readers think “which” means the things done strengthen vice Christ provides the strength to do all things. You might also try using a parallel Bible app to compare different translations simultaneously for those passages or words that give you some difficulty. As with Pastor Scott, I believe the KJV is the best and most accurate translation available. The language is beautiful and it pleases my soul to hear and read God’s word in this translation.
I have read all the translations. I have a complete study on this subject if you're interested. You can find it here: ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@Fr4nkSanchez It's outdated for sure. HOW do you know there are alterations? crap, you don't have a clue!! It's so maddening how ignorant christians are!! You have not even looked into textual criticism or manuscripts!! Then this dude who has no idea what he is saying says we have to be careful what we believe with the new bibles! Wanna bet he has not even read ALL of his KJB! I'll betcha. It is always the ignorant who yell the loudest about the KJV not being outdated. How crazy is that statement? Ugh!
Reading from various Holy Bibles is a joy. All are the inspired and infallible words of God. I have been challenged in this belief and was told that I was not saved because I was not relying on the King James Version only. My choice for reading is the Revised Standard Version of 1952. For Bible study with friends the English Standard Version of 2016 is most often the choice. The King James Version of 1611 is , of course, often the choice of people all over God's creation. The Revised Version of 1885, which was ordered by the King of England to update the King James Version in 1874, is a great version to use for comparison to the newer modern translations. The American Standard Version of 1901 is an American update of the Revised Version. The modern translations that I often read are the New International Version of 1978, the New King James Version of 1982, the New American Standard Version of 2020, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2004.
I am sorry someone accused you of lacking salvation because you didn't read and study from the KJV. There is still a fair amount of legalism in US Christian churches. They believe that God's love is dependent on our actions even though they never say it directly. They promote fear of an angry God. Satan really has his hooks in them. However the lies of the world/satan do not hold up to scrutiny. If the KJV were required for salvation what does that mean for non-english speaking/reading people? The lies certainly do not hold up to Scripture Romans 5, Romans 8:15, 1 John 4:17-18. What they lack is peace. Without peace people keep focusing on religious rules (like Bible translations) and satan keeps accusing them. This is to distract them from what is important which is being ambassadors to the world. The Bible warns us against religious rules in many places but a good summary is Galatians 5. If we try to prove ourselves through religious practices and rules we are subject to the law. Christ died for us so that we would have a relationship with the Trinity and so that by loving God more than this world and seeking Him we could walk in the Spirit and bear fruits. We would also have to be careful about being prideful over reading the KJV and thinking it makes us somehow better than other Christians reading other versions because God resists the proud Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6.
Not all of them. First, they are two main sources for bibles, the Hebrew manuscripts and the ones from Alexandria. Now, there are a few that have been altered and changes the context and meaning of bible. Satan is a trickster and dresses as angel of light, we need to be careful what we read
Not only can you read other versions, it is essential that you do. The KJV authors did not have access to the older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have today because they had not been discovered. Instead they simply took a number of different modern (at the time) translations in German and English and created a new Bible in which they translated certain words and phrases to suit their own agenda. Ultimately, the Bible you prefer will be the one which suits you (which should make you wonder whether your opinion is a good enough reason to make a choice) but in reading versions like the NASB 2023, you will at least be reading direct translation from the original languages and the oldest manuscripts we possess and so are far more likely to be what the authors originally wrote. Ask yourself, do I care about the truth and accuracy of my holy book or do I care more about what feels comfortable?
Not everyone holds your view on the translation issue. I discuss the alternative view in this playlist. Check out the video in the ESV and the NASB here if you’re interested hearing the other way of seeing the facts. What is the Difference in Bible Translations? ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@PastorScottIngram Good day Pastor. I apologise for the length of this reply but there is a lot to cover. Following your kind recommendation, I watched a number of your videos, including the one where you compare the KJV with the NASB and try to insist that the KJV is more accurate. I have to tell you that I was disappointed and astonished at what you said. To be generous, I will put it down to a lack of knowledge rather than deliberate dishonesty, but I feel obliged to highlight just a few examples. You suggested that non-KJV readers portray KJV adherents as a cult. This is nonsense and a strawman fallacy, presumably designed to appeal to your congregation and double down on the KJV through righteous indignation. You ask if preferring the KJV is a problem. No. Of course not. And no-one ever claims that it is. Trying to make your followers feel as if they must resist oppression is just silly. You correctly state that one translation must be more accurate than another but you fail to develop the point. If people choose the KJV because they like it, or are familiar with it, that’s fine. Why wouldn’t it be? But if accuracy to the original text is more important than personal preference, then we must ask which one is the most accurate and how do we determine that. You suggest that the KJV is the most reliable, but I note that you skim lightly over exactly how it was created and from which sources and what the failings are, according to the vast consensus of scholars. NB; at no point did the authors of the KJV go back to the Greek and Hebrew. You say that academics choose their preferred Bible according to their desires but that is simply untrue. And you know it. The point of being an academic is to learn facts and truth. That is achieved by following the evidence, wherever it leads and by not presupposing, prejudging or allowing one’s personal bias to affect decisions. Can you claim that for yourself? You referenced the Westcott, Hort Bible. Another strawman. You know full well that this version is no longer used and that it has no part in the NASB. You even read out the preface of the NASB which mentions older sources. You highlight deletions from the biblical text in some translations and suggest this is wrong. You are, once again, trying to mislead your followers because you deliberately fail to explain why such deletions are made. It is done in order to be true to the oldest manuscripts we now possess. Let me be clear. We must all be free to read whichever version of the Bible which suits us. If, for some people, that is the KJV, that's great. However, people should be truthfully informed, not misled. If you are honestly unaware of the up-to-date position of biblical scholarship, I apologise for being harsh, but I suspect you know full well. We now have a number of complete Bible manuscripts which are centuries older than the KJV or its sources and a lot of even older fragments. I would stress that these are far older than anything available to the men who created the English and German translations upon which the KJV was based. A number of modern English versions, including the NASB, are based on translating directly from those older sources. And yes, they omit or delete sections that are not present in the older sources because they must be later additions. In closing, I would recommend that you subscribe to the You Tube channel of Dan McClellan, a highly qualified, well-respected and honest biblical scholar. He presents short videos of two types. Some answer ridiculous claims made by fringe Christians and others, which I'm sure you will find amusing. However, many address serious issues, such as we have covered here. I think you and your flock would find Dan’s insight informative, reasonable and lacking any bias. If, however, truth and accuracy are less important to you or your congregation than having a Bible which feels familiar, I wish you and them nothing but good things.
@@theoutspokenhumanist If whoever you are promoting told you some of things you are believing as facts, then you should run away from them. You said "You correctly state that one translation must be more accurate than another but you fail to develop the point." Actually, I give several points, you just don't agree with them and I do hope you will study over what I have shown in the playlist more thoroughly especially the video on "Why are they Changing the Bible?" You said "at no point did the authors of the KJV go back to the Greek and Hebrew. " That is a flat out untruth! The KJV translators used the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. This can be discovered with a simple google search. That is a simple fact. If anyone told you differently they have not really done any serious study on this matter. Also, look for a book called "The Making of the New King James Version: In the Great Tradition" by Dr. Arthur Farstad the executive editor of the NKJV. It will give you a very clear factual outline of where the KJV and NKJV stem from and the differences that we see in modern translations using simple factual data. I hope this is a help to you as you study these things out for yourself.
@@PastorScottIngram Hi Pastor. I apologise for bugging you again but I have come across a brand new video that may be of interest. It refutes claims made regarding the KJV. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6xsU8eTV5j4.htmlsi=aqp8w49SJLVImoab I should say that I do not expect it to change your view, nor should it. Although we do not agree, I absolutely respect your right to use whichever Bible you prefer. It is for interest only. Have a great one.
As for KJV and NKJV, or any other translation, I have Hebrew-Greek dictionaries to settle most differences. If I want to really get at a passage, such dictionaries are essential. I saw that KJV word "conversation" and went to my Hebrew-Greek dictionary because "conversation" didn't sound right, though from the context I figured it meant something like "lifestyle." I then compared what the Greek meant to what the KJV and NKJV translated, and for curiosity's sake looked at an NASB also (1977 version).
I use commentaries in the same way. One needs to decide on the authority of what is being said though instead of just looking for a translation that says what they want it to say. Some people do that as well.
@@PastorScottIngram Good point. That's why I depend on Hebrew-Greek dictionaries so much; to me, they remove the particular translation being used from the equation, and it's hard to twist the original language's meaning (I once heard a "Word-of-Faith/prosperity" pastor distort the word "want" from the 23rd Psalm; it clearly doesn't mean what he turned it into). When I look up the Greek or Hebrew for the meaning of a word in question, I then use that definition in making my lesson notes, so I can better explain to the class what the particular verse or text actually says. I use commentaries as well as study notes from my study Bibles to help me flesh things out when needed. By the way, I subscribed.
Have you ever been asked this question: What is the Difference in the KJV 1611 and 1769? This was my reply: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pIPy6hlYImQ.html
You were used by God a while back to help point me to only true Bible, the KJV. Truth is Christ a channel worth checking out. I like "the 1611th mention of LORD...."
I can make it easy for you. Pick up a King James and read the book of John. Then lay it down and try to read the Book of John in any of the 200 new apostate bibles. I got a dollar that says you can't get through two chapters without knowing ;) I take that back, you can't get through the first chapter without knowing ;)
Of course it is alright to read other translations of the Bible than the KJV. Especially as they are far more accurate than the KJV,. Also not in the archaic English of the KJV, but in English we can understand. Do not he deceived by the KJV only cult. They are nothing but liars, false teachers with double standards and hypocrites. God wants us to understand his word and has blessed us with excellent more accurate modern translations in contemporary English. Satan does not want us to understand God's word so he has raised up the KJV only cult. A total heresy and deception who call other translations "apostate". Translations that God Is using and blessing.Therefore to call them "apostate,," or "perversions" "corrupt" even 'satanic' as the extreme lunatic fringe of the KJV only idolaters do. Is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The KJV only deception could not even have existed before 1611. The KJV translators themselves knew their work was not perfect. What makes the KJV idolaters think they know better?
The original languages the Bible was written in were Hebrew and Greek...not Elizabethan 16th century English.....the English Geneva Bible published in 1560 preceded KJV 1611 by more than 50 years. It was banned by King James. I love KJV because I have memorized many verses from it.....still its fine if you love KJV I do too....just be honest though that KJV 1611 is not the KJV we read today...the apocrypha is not inspired....God Breathed....like 66 books that make up the true cannon of scripture....KJV onlyists can become cultish when they look down on other Christians who read another version....we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ....🙏🕊️✝️ This is the core msg of the gospel. I read and understood this first from NKJV....I reconfirmed and strengthened my understanding through KJV.....this truth can be found in other versions too not just KJV....
@@kappac1611 read them. They are obviously not on the same level as the inspired books. They also were NEVER considered inspired by the KJV translators but included for historical purposes as they were in the Geneva.
I grew up on the kjv version till I realized it was written in the 1500z by a gay translator and 14 books left out Enoch 4 instance the word says don't add or take away from this good word but they did
This discussion is only about English translations. TheKJV and the Geneva Bible as well as a few others ere translated Ike Luther’s Bible from Greek manuscripts called the Received Text. We have thousands of copies of these Gk manuscripts and early church fathers quoted it. Now the Old Testament is different and I’ll talk about that last. In the middle 1800s, two spiritists, Cambridge professors named Wescott and Hort, both of them holding heretical beliefs decided to hide what they believed and in a few years, create a new copy of the Gk manuscripts. But they did not use the same manuscripts as Martin Luther and the KJV translators. They used two “new” ones. Vaticanus was in the Pope’s library. Erasmus who first made the Gk manuscripts available in the1400s. He was offered Vaticanus by the Pope but he refused it because nobody knew where it came from or that it hadn’t been altered. Erasmus turned it down. Secondly in St Catherine’s monestary was found Sinaiticus. It has thousands of alterations and scratch through. A man actually admitted having created Sinaiticus and he had evidence too. But Wescott and Hort chose these two rather than the received text.. These are now referred to as Critical Texts. This is just people trying to distance themselves from Wescott and Hort whose personal letters to each other and family have been published. They are supported by extreme liberal scholars. These liberals say that the two manuscripts are older than the textus receptus (received text). They also assume that older is better. But right from the start Gnostics changed scriptures usually by shortening versus. They would leave out phrases that pointed to the diety of Christ. They also changed in John 1 the only begotten son to the only begotten god. This is Gnostic theology. These two manuscripts don’t agree with ANY other Greek Bible manuscript and they don’t agree with each other. There are big empty gaps on pages which people didn’t do frequently in ancient times due to cost. These two manuscripts are each missing enough words to account for 1 and 2 Peter. Meanwhile, WandH did a great selling job,and their new translation became the basis for almost all new Bibles published in the 1900s. Worse still, the publishers started using committees to make sure their Bibles were ecumenical enough. So Catholics and Protestants would all be buying their products. Words in the Bible’s were changed. These committees had non-Christians and Jesuit priests on them. In the late 1900s, the paraphrased Bibles became big. The problem is that all these changes starting with Wescott and Hort do change Christian theology. There is a video on Amazon Prime, or for purchase called “Bridge to Babylon” that discusses all of this. The OT is another story. The OT was translated into Greek in Alexandria about 300 BC. This is the Bible that Jesus and the disciples used. Nobody has a copy of the original documents. They are probably still in the ark. At any rate, that was the Torah used in Israel at the time of Christ. After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, Jews could not follow the law of Moses. No temple, no sacrifices. Some Pharisees got together about 100 AD led by Rabbi Akiba. These established a new religion, Rabbinic Judaism. Akiba hated Jesus, he wanted Kochbar to be Messiah. They changed the Septuagint removing many prophecies that Gentiles would turn to Christ. Because gentiles at the time we’re flocking to Christ and the diaspora might figure it out. They elevated “oral law” and themselves they called rabbis. They changed the calendar to obscure that Jesus lived about the year 4000. They wrote the Mishna and a Talmud. For 400 years the early church used the Septuagint. The altered text of Akiba became the basis for the Masoretic text. When Jerome created the Latin vulgate, he used the Masoretic text of Akiba instead of the Septuagint. But the Greek church did not. But it still was unavailable. The first real scholar to make it available to other scholars was Erasmus. The translators of the KJV did not have access to Septuagint until 15 years after the KJV was published. But the changes to the Septuagint will not change our theology. We know that Jesus was a light unto the Gentiles. Having even more of the same would make us happy, but it doesn’t change our beliefs. Rebooting the Bible and a Biography of the Christian Bible.
I don’t believe you could find any proof that King James translated the Authorized Version anywhere. Mostly because he didn’t translate it. He authorized the making of it. Also to the papers written after his death about him being homosexual was quickly refuted by several parties. Lastly the book of Enoch all though mention in the Bible was not preserved by the Jewish people. Why you may ask I do not know but like the book of Nathan and several other books written and spoken of but not preserved as part of the canon of scripture. I do believe the validity of the book has been questioned on it’s true origin to the point now days that most conservative Christians do not believe it was written by Enoch but was written post Revelation by hundreds of years by a fraud.
