KJV Onlyism Debate - James White vs Jack Moorman 

Logical and reasonable thinking should lead any person to understand that Dr James White produced a far more convincing and water tight argument for bible translations than Jack Moorman could ever dream of. He was completely outclassed by a polite, godly and biblically fair minded gentleman. Guys like Moorman tend to get under my skin a little because they are so stubborn in their refusal to look at plain facts and the reasonable testimony of history. God bless

You can definitely tell the KJV only is lacking an argument. Looks like KJV only has become Idolatry

"The word would not be hidden in a dessert or in a Vatican to need to be found " 2 Kings 22 the priest found the book of the law while doing repairs, the word of God that the king of people had not known because when it was found and read the king torn his clothes. King James onlyists wouldn't have accepted the word of God that was found and only stuck with what they had and traditions that led to condemnation

Moorman basically said, “I like this particular archaic version the best, and therefore, because it’s my favorite, it’s the ONLY CORRECT ONE, and that’s my whole entire argument.”

James White always wins a debate against the KJV only believers.

"When you have a standard, you know where you stand." 🙄 This representation of the KJV-only position is laughable at best. A sad example of foolishness that takes focus away from the Gospel.

As a former atheist, the Dead Sea Scrolls were instrumental in bringing me to faith in Jesus Christ because I realized that the Old Testament had a long reliable history and that the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were indeed prophecies (old manuscripts confirmed by radio carbon 14 and paleographic dating). There are manuscripts older than the DDS KJV Onlyism is indefensible and it is a cancer within Christianity. It began in the 7th Day Adventist cult and spread primarily to fundy Baptists

Here is a great quote (author unknown) and the bottom line is that it is true: "Because it claims to be real history and not a myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." Here is the problem: KJV Onlyism undermines the historical reliability of the Bible, not just because the KJV is incomplete and has MANY errors and contradictions, but also because it destroys the historical textual evidence for the Bible. It's followers are unreasoning brutes.

James white wins 90% of the debates that he is in. This debate is no exception. 15 mins into his opening statement alone and has already produced enough evidence that is indefensible by KJV onlyists. Is the KJV a great translation, yes! Is it flawless, no, just as no text is flawless since all have variants from one another due to hand copying. The KJV was a good start to get us to where we are today. However, just as white stated, the original 1611 that is practically worshipped by the KJV onlyists is NEVER used by them. They all use the 1786 revision which is different in many places than the 1611. Don't get me wrong I love the KJV and use it in my study. But i dont refuse to read any other version since you are forced to study deeper by using the KJV for such controversies as using the word hell for Sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartaroos. These are simply different places, yet the KJV waters it down and says hell for all 4. I rest my case.

I love the KJV and I do believe God has used it greatly, but at the same time, I am not KJV-only like I used to be. Looking at the variations in different manuscripts, I understand why modern translations differ or put certain verses in the footnotes. I think James White did an excellent job exposing the inconsistencies and double standards in being KJV-only. If you've been brought up KJV-only, like I used to be, I really want you to consider the other side of the argument and heed what Proverbs 18:17 states: "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Speaking of more modern translations, I happen to love the RSV (Revised Standard Version) as it updates the archaic words from the KJV, but also retains some of the Elizabethan English, such as thou, thy and thine, but only in reference to God as a way to elevate Him, which I think is a nice touch. The NASB 1977 edition also does the same thing.

Wow, I don't even like James White. But, he squashed this old badger with the greatest of ease.

Beware of Charl Greyvensteyn. He is a troll and a twister of Scripture and he also twists the comments of people to try to mean what they don't mean. Yes, he's a KJV Onlyist, what do you expect from a cultist?

"Christ Jesus": KJV 58 times. NIV 86 times!!! "Christ Jesus our Lord": KJV 5 times. NIV 7 times!!! "Jesus our Lord": KJV 7 times. NIV 10 times!!!

The Gideons have switched and they have been distributing the much more accurate and coherent NewKJV Bible. Many are seeing the light and are moving toward perfection in Christ. We don't need a "Bible" that is recommended by adulterers and which has started at least TEN cults (i.e. the KJV).

The Old Testament of the KJV was translated from an EDITED Hebrew text. The 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used the 1524-25 edition of the Tanakh called the "Rabinnic Bible" (Mikraot Gedolot). This edited Tanakh was riddled with many errors. IS IT THE HUSBAND HATING THE WIFE OR GOD HATING DIVORCE? (Malachi 2:16) Here's what the scholars say: "The verb שָׂנֵא (sane’) appears to be a third person form, “he hates,” which makes little sense in the context, unless one emends the following word to a third person verb as well. Then one might translate, “he [who] hates [his wife] [and] divorces her…is guilty of violence.” A similar translation is advocated by M. A. Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16,” ZAW 111 (1999): 81-85. However, it is possible that the first person pronoun אָנֹכִי (’anokhi, “I”) has accidentally dropped from the text after כִּי (ki). If one restores the pronoun, the form שָׂנֵא can be taken as a participle and the text translated, “for I hate” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT)." Therefore, the 2011 NIV is as justified for their rendering as the other translations are. There are other very difficult Hebrew passages and for the KJV Onlyists to claim the KJV translators were "inspired" and "inerrant", contrary to what the KJV translators themselves said, you know that you are dealing with a cult who love a lie more than truth.

The King James Version is a beautiful repository of English language and literature. Its cadence often makes it easier to memorize than modern translations. The real problem is when someone makes an idol of it.

At 1:14:10 Dr Moorman “it sounds like the Bible”. I bet that was nearly the same response to Wycliffe when the Roman Catholics at the time insisted the Latin Vulgate was the word of God and defended it vehemently… “Well, it sounds like the Bible”. Not a good defense.

It was NOT reason and logic that led people into the KJV Only cult, it was superstition, emotions, and sin. You can't reason someone out of a position that reason never put them into. To deny the obvious is to obviously be in denial of reality. KJV Onlyists, in their denial of reality have become liars and the Bible makes it clear who the father of lies is (John 8:44).

Where is the fulfilled prophesy of Jesus Christ as "Servant" in the KJV? WHERE??? Here are seven prophecies from the Old Testament concerning Jesus Christ as SERVANT: Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 49:5 Isaiah 49:6 Isaiah 49:7 Isaiah 52:13 Isaiah 53:11 Zechariah 3:8 The KJV mistranslates the Greek "paida" as "Son" in Acts 3:13 & 26 and as "child" in Acts 4:27 & 30. The NIV, the NASB, and the NewKJV rightly translates "paida" as "Servant" in all of these verses. The KJV is wrong again and destroys the unity of God's word.

I am a lay debater and speaker with a passion for apologetics. Just had a debate with the Muslim community here in Reading PA, which is on my website. So I really enjoy a great debater when I see one. James White did a excellent A+ job refuting Pastor Moorman (is he a cultist as the title here suggests?). Mr. Moorman did a good job with an impossible proposition and he came across as a class, Christian act, so he deserves credit for that. Some of these KJV only people are far out, obnoxious, prideful fanatics in my opinion. What I would like to see an intelligent discussion on is: Which set of underlying manuscripts are the most reliable, most likely to be closer to the original. I never had the time to get to the bottom of that, because it is not the squeakiest wheel of doctrinal issues in my life. Any youtube videos that would address this conflict? Todd Messianicapologetics.com

The pastor here uses the Dark Matter Argument, a fallacious argument ground on nothing factual and sensible but only on a shaky premise. Oh my!

Listening for the first time, Mr Moorman is putting a great deal of hope in the translators. I’m thankful for the KJV and at the same time don’t diminish other versions which accurately divide God’s Word (not the Passion Translation nor the New World Translation)…namely nasb, ESV, net, and the nlt being possibly the better translations per biblical translation experts. God is sovereign and will helps us to know His Word

Pro tip: if any particular group clings to any translation, especially to the point of calling it "perfection" there is a good chance the motives are not so perfect

It’s really too bad they weren’t allowed to debate. When it got interesting, the moderator quickly stopped it to allow more questions.

I'm shocked that the KJV Only position is so weak. I presumed it was an airtight case. James White did a fantastic job helping me understand this complex issue better during this debate. Moorman proved that his scholarship is lacking, and his statement, "It sounds like the Bible," is laughable only because of its absurdity. KJV Onlyism has proved to be idolatry of one version, created by men, instead of defending God's Holy Word as it was originally written.

The KJV denies the Godhood of Jesus Christ but the NIV restores the truth. 1) John 1:18 The KJV has "the only begotten Son" The NIV has "God the One and Only" 2) John 14:14 The KJV has "If ye shall ask anything in my name" The NIV has "You may ask me for anything in my name" ("ME" - did you catch that? Jesus is declaring Himself to be God!) 3) John 17:11 The KJV has "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" The NIV has "Protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me" In the NIV Jesus is equating His name with the Father's. 4) Romans 9:5 The KJV has "concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever". So here Jesus is only being blessed by God - not being declared God. The NIV has "of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised". Notice how the NIV declares the Godhood of Jesus!!! 5) Titus 2:13 The KJV has "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" which changes the context into meaning two different persons. The NIV has "of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". Now "Godhood is being directly linked to Jesus. 6) 2 Peter 1:1 The KJV has "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" as if these are two different persons. The NIV has "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Notice that this is speaking of only ONE person, Jesus Christ. 7) Jude 4 The KJV has "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ". The KJV makes it sound like two different people. The NIV has "and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord". One and the SAME person - Jesus Christ! *** Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 4 are examples where the KJV translators did not know koine Greek syntax and they erred (there are other examples too where they erred in syntax such as having Jesus killed first and THEN hung on the cross - Acts 5:30 & 10:39). The Greek rule that is applied in most modern translations is called the Granville Sharp Rule. 8) Revelation 1:8 The KJV has "saith the Lord" The NIV has "says the Lord God" The majority of Greek Byzantine manuscripts have "Lord God" here and not merely "Lord". This also proves that the NIV uses an eclectic Greek text and not just the Alexandrian line of manuscripts (not that there is anything wrong with that line of manuscripts). *** GRANVILLE SHARP RULE "The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point."

Why are so many KJV Onlyists divorced and remarried and have unsaved children? I have observed this for forty years now. No adulterer will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) yet three of the biggest loud mouths behind the KJV Only position are adulterers: Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger and Jack Hyles. I have been married for almost 38 years to the same woman. I have never been divorced and remarried and neither has James White or Dan Wallace. Hmmmm

Good debate. I think Dr. White prenented a much better case than Moorman.

I posted this before but I want to emphasize that anyone can check this out for themselves: In 2 Kings 23:29 the KJV reads, "In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria." This is not true. Pharaoh Nechoh went to the aid of the Assyrian king; they were allies, not enemies, as ancient records from that time have now clearly proven. The KJV translators did not have that information available to them, and thus they assumed their meeting to have been one of enmity. This was an historically false assumption; a poor commentary by the KJV translators. heritageofevidence.org/pages/artefact.html?&art=babChron_605

Note James White just made an interesting presentation and especially useful to better understand verses like *1 Timothy 3:16* *1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)* 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: *God* was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. *1 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)* 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: *He* was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. "In the earliest manuscripts what is called the unsealed texts, the majuscules, the original texts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters, no punctuation, no space between the words (lots of fun to read), now in those capital letters forms, the early Christians developed something called "Nomina Sacra"; the Sacred Names, they would actually use abbreviations to try to get more into a page, most of the early Christians were poor people and in fact the church is under persecution for the first 300 years of it's existence, you couldn't go to the rich people who had nice manuscripts copies made in that particular point and time and so they would use abbreviations for like 'God', 'Jesus', 'Spirit', common words they would abbreviate them with one or two letters and put a line over top of them. God was one of the words they did this with, now when we hear the difference between "God" and "He/Who" that sounds like a big difference, but i like to show you what the difference is between these two words is, if that is possible, we are able to see that in the original language the term "God" is 2 letters and the word "He/Who" is 2 letters, the only difference between these two words are two little lines and they are originally writings that are on papyrus, which is made up of leaves that are pressed together crosses like this or later manuscripts volumes who all of them had lines in them and you are reading someone else handwriting, so it's very easy to understand, no reason for conspiracy here, it's easy to understand why someone would misunderstand or misreads someone else handwriting and the bottom of that screen was a shot from the codex sinaiticus and you can see it's original writing was "OC" and about 700 years later someone had written 'Theos’ so every time we have a difference in the earliest manuscripts about the deity of Christ translated He/Who instead of God we are dealing with a situation like this." → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

my wife is Mexican and there is no kjv in their language lol there is only one written by the queen of spain

What Jack says is a common error in KJV only He places allllll the Byzantine manuscripts over against the tiny number of Alexandrian manuscripts But actually the modern critical text doesn't use Alexandrian manuscripts only it uses all 5600ish manuscripts in existence and at times takes majority text or Byzantine readings due to internal probablity. So the TR is compiled from 50-60 manuscripts vs the critical text compiled from all known manuscripts in the world! So Jack is actually on the other side of mount impassable and he has to climb it not James

The KJV is plenary? Where is the Old Testament verse that the writer of Hebrews quotes from in Hebrews 1:6? WHERE??? The corrupt Masoretic Hebrew text that the KJV translators relied so much upon doesn't have it! Thank God that we have MUCH more manuscript evidence now and can correct the MANY errors of the KJV (Muslims and atheists love to quote from the KJV because of its contradictions).

The KJV has spawned at least ten cults, including Mormonism. Mormons will cite Psalm 74:8 in the corrupt KJV to prove the existence of "synagogues" in at least the 6th century BC and BOM The modern translations correct the corrupted KJV. The Hebrew word is "mow'ed" meaning "appointed meeting" and/or "congregation". The Septuagint translates the Hebrew "mow'ed" with the Greek word "eortav" meaning "a feast day" or "festival". It is a sin to lie and to call that which is imperfect, "perfect".

That first question was actually very imposing for a KJVO, likely showing a corruption, changing Jacob to James, which isn't Greek. The problem was, Moorland was very slow to understand, pontificated about his unsubstantied view of the authorship of James, and White didn't retort.

after see the debate , I have to agree with Dr. James White, the earlier proofs speaks for itself,

The real flaw was that after nearly 2 hours…. Moorman Ends with “they were corrupted”. He needed to start with that and then defend it. You proved you lost when your ends justify the means. Aristotle’s philosophy about how you started it is how you finish it.

Kjvonlyism comes down to this...OCCULT! They use circular reasoning and will come to the conclusion that ones salvation depends on the Bible you read. They state my sheep hear my voice and recognise it.... If you can't recognise the KJV as God's only Bible then you can't be his child/ sheep. How wrong this teaching is

There is so much linguistic ethnocentrism endemic to the KJV Onlyist mindset, not to mention ignorance of the way languages work in general.

For those who are given to various myths and superstitions, here are some FACTS to correct your errors: 1)The Great Bible of 1539 was the very first "authorized Bible" and it was authorized by King Henry the 8th 2) The Bishops Bible of 1568 & 1572 was the second "authorized Bible" 3) The KJV of 1611 was the third "authorized Bible" and homosexual King James gave guidelines for its translation even though he had no expertise in Hebrew or Greek. Thanks to him the KJV retained the ecclesiastical language of the Bishop's Bible from which unBiblical church structure and abuse continues to this day in many denominations and even in independent churches. All of these "authorized Bibles" were for the illegitimate Church of England that was birthed because a King (Henry the 8th) wanted his marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic Church. All of the translators of these "authorized Bibles" still held to Roman Catholic doctrines but were not Roman Catholic in jurisdiction. They had a man over them just like the Roman Catholics do but their king was NOT the Pope and it was NOT Jesus, it was the King of England. Many who today claim the KJV is the perfect inspired word of God would not have even regarded these translators as being Christian. The KJV Translators all belonged to the Church of England and held to the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism which included prayers for the dead, infant baptism, and Mary as mother of God. Sects within Anglicanism disputed some of these Articles.

I feel bad saying this but I struggle to even understand what Jack Moorman is saying most of the time. I'm really trying to but failing. I often have no idea what point he's trying to make and feel more confused when he's done talking than I was when he started. He kind of winds around verbally using a lot of large words and filler phrases that don't come together for me into any clear meaning. And this issue seems worse in contrast to how clear and well spoken James White is.

The KJV is internally corrupt and beset with CONTRADICTIONS! Compare 1 Kings 5:16 with 2 Chronicles 2;2 1 Kings 9:28 with 2 Chronicles 8:18 1 Kings 7:26 with 2 Chronicles 4:5

A good sign that I am seeing more and more of as I travel around the nation ministering is that many are now admitting that the KJV is corrupt. It doesn't matter what delusional musings you may have regarding the KJV because facts are facts and the reality is that the KJV, which is very much a Roman Catholic Bible, has errors from Genesis to Revelation and it is unreliable for serious Bible study and instruction in righteousness.

The standard is the Holy Spirit and a relationship with him. Jesus told a bunch of Pharisees who were arguing over the scriptures: you search the scriptures for in them you look for salvation but they point to me but you would not come to me

My native language is not English. My first, second and third bible is not English. All I can say from what I see here is the division of the children of God. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. God bless you guys.

Bro his whole argument is King James version uses big words therefore it's better than any other version

Be careful of false teachers like Gregory Miller who is an adulterer and who belongs to the KJV Only cult. Many of these cultists make excuses for their sin and I suppose that is one of the reasons they prefer the corrupt KJV. The KJV was commissioned by a homosexual king and contains enough ambiguous language to provide the insincere with all sorts of excuses for evil conduct. .

Jack Moorman used his feelings and conspiracy theories to defend the King James. James White used historical facts and logic to disprove the doctrine of the King James onliest. James won this debate

More words equals more reliable got it

Moorman got schooled! He got confused by his own personal preference and decided to make his preference a supposed God-ordained 'only version of the Bible. I wonder what this clown thinks of people who dont speak English and cannot read the KJV or any other modern translations? Very poor argument by the pro NJVonly speaker.

There's too many contradictions in the new Bibles. I'm not a King James onlyist, but I believe it's the best and most reliable version.

Wow Jim. I have been looking into this for quite some time. I am not KJVO. I am for what is best. I read both the NKJV and KJV as my favorite translations but still along with a Greek and Hebrew Concordance and most importantly, I read things in context the best I can as I have heard people on both sides of this issue exalt Greek and Hebrew singular words actually over the context of what is being taught or they proof-text or isolate certain scriptures to try to prove other heretical doctrines. People are always trying to prove a pet doctrine that they have whether it is to prove Arminianism, Calvinism, Augustinianism, or some other person instead of just reading the plain simple context. It frustrates me. Good video though. Thanks for posting it.

The great debate of man’s philosophy mixed with the word No wonder there so many different churches with so many differing opinions. Please Christ come now and bring clarity to all of the clatter

Comparing the KJV with the KJV you get CONTRADICTIONS! Compare Isaiah 21:8 with Genesis 19:2 & 18 Ezra 2:5 with Nehemiah 7:10

Answering The Cult of KJV Onlyism For KJV Onlyists (i.e. those who are given to various myths and superstitions), I give you: 1)The Great Bible of 1539 was the very first "authorized Bible" and it was authorized by King Henry the 8th 2) The Bishops Bible of 1568 & 1572 was the second "authorized Bible" 3) The KJV of 1611 was the third "authorized Bible" and homosexual King James gave guidelines for its translation even though he had no expertise in Hebrew or Greek. Thanks to him the KJV retained the ecclesiastical language of the Bishop's Bible from which unBiblical church structure and abuse continues to this day in many denominations and even in independent churches. All of these "authorized Bibles" were for the illegitimate Church of England that was birthed because a King (Henry the 8th) wanted his marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic Church. All of the translators of these "authorized Bibles" still held to numerous Roman Catholic doctrines but were not Roman Catholic in jurisdiction. In jurisdiction they had a man over them just like the Roman Catholics do but their king was NOT the Pope and it was NOT Jesus, it was the King of England. Many who today claim the KJV is the perfect inspired word of God would not have even regarded these Anglican translators as being Christian. They would be regarded as heretics. The KJV Translators all belonged to the Church of England and held to the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism of 1604 which included prayers for the dead, infant baptism, and Mary as Mother of God. Sects within Anglicanism disputed some of these Articles. It's high time for KJV Onlyists to drop their ridiculous argument from Ecclesiastes 8:4 ("Where the word of a king is, there is power; And who may say to him, 'What are you doing?'”).

Its sad but either Jack Moorman is deceived o he is just lying. Either way though I hope he sees the truth in most translations.

KJV has at least 50 mistakes but the NKJV corrects all of them! The MEV bible is also very good; the KJV calls the holy Spirit a ghost and call the holy Spirit a it and call Jesus a thing in the womb; these a horrible errors that are over looked

Thank you for this, being used by the Lord to speak truth, I have always felt the KJV was errant, and felt this by the Holy Spirit.. Thank you for breaking it down and showing the truth.. God is good Christ is King!

Moorman is grasping at straws. Reminds me a little of debate MacArthur had with Sproul on Credo vs Pedo baptism..

I'm starting to believe the KJV-only people have an agenda and that agenda isn't really of God.

All Anglicans had to acknowledge and submit to the Thirty-Nine Articles (this was BEFORE the KJV was published - actually 1604). perhaps you KJV Only cultists should read these Articles. May just as well call Anglicans "Roman Catholics" except in jurisdiction matters. LOL

Bret Carpenter, I will not approve you comments. First of all you don't even know what Biblical faith is. For you to juxtapose "fact" against "faith" tells me that you don't know what either is. It is mostly my comments on here because the purpose of posting this video and my comments is to show that the KJV Only position is vacuous and cultic. I'm not interested in social media debates on this topic. Last spring I had a very long debate with a guy that I used to preach with. I absolutely demolished every one of his arguments. He even tried to use scholar Bruce Metzger to fortify his KJV Only argument, lol. I have Metzger's book and he is as far from KJV Onlyism as one could possibly get. Of course when you take quotes out of context you can use that deceit to your advantage if the other person is dumb - which I am not. After 625 comments this guy giave up but then goes on another thread that I couldn't comment on and starts his nonsense all over again. Pathetic! All KJV Onlyists are pathetic and I love to make them look stupid and what they are - CULTIC. If you would like to debate in person in front of your church members I can see if I can arrange my schedule for that (lower 48 states of course). Unless Bret Carpenter debates me face to face in front of an audience the next time he is in the States, he is a coward who in typical KJV Onlyist fashion does "drive-byes".

Please pray for cultist "Tommy Black". The guy is awash in lies and irrational thinking. Tommy, please PROVE that the KJV is: 1) inerrant 2) plenary 3) the inspired word of God 4) the preserved word of God 5) the "final authority" 6) the word of God in English for the world. Neither you nor anyone else can even prove even ONE of these six premises of the KJV Only Cult. Uneducated and emotion-driven people like you are the ones who cause divisions and start heresies in the Body of Christ, the church. Repent you sinner!

I am amazed anyone would believe white, fancy words with circular reasoning.

Jack Moorman gets absolutely DEMOLISHED by the clear facts James White brings forward. The only people who will think otherwise are those who base their beliefs on the KJV only, fear-based cult presuppositions. Those more interested in this just watch all of Dr James White and Dr Michael Browns very honest and balanced scholarship on the issue (RU-vid). Maybe even read Dr James White's "King James Only Controversy" book. It is excellent! This is largely a cult.

The Avengers movie never had anything this vile: 2 Kings 18:27 --- "...that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss." (KJV)

What concerns me about modern translations is that, every new version has to be 10% different from any other for copyright retention. How many times can you keep changing it until it says something completely different?

RANDY HARTINGER'S PSEUDO-SCHOLARSHIP AND LAUGHABLE DEFENSE OF THE KJV Sometimes I torture myself, seriously. Yesterday I finished reading RANDY HARTINGER'S presuppositional defense of the KJV ("Due to the Impossibility of the Contrary"). It was a very painful read. My daughter and I did laugh once, but it was more painful than funny. I used to take LSD waaaaaayyy back in the day (1969-1972) and I know what it's like to be high on this stuff and make up nonsensical accounts of the meaning of life only to realize after you come down from the high that you were very low in understanding, truth and meaning, lol. Randy's spiel reminded of this. There are many logical fallacies in his fictitious account and by using parity arguments almost everything he asserts can logically be used against his position. It's answering a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:5). There are so many errors in this paper that I would have to write a VERY LONG critique but if some want more info, give me a phone call. Randy doesn't know what a transcendental argument is and his attempt to be scholarly is absolutely laughable. I will briefly touch on two points: He claims that modern scholars reject "supernatural intervention" and the "idea that evil spirits have affected the difference in manuscripts or translations" and that appeals to logic and empirical evidence makes you "an autonomous judge of God's word". Besides begging the question (which he does throughout this paper) he is appealing to mystery, and his hidden assumption is that if one were to accept "supernatural intervention" and the activity of evil spirits one does not need logic and empirical support. By this argument the Bhagavad Gita could be true and the Bible (any translation of it) could be false due to being influenced by evil spirits. I suppose one would have to make themselves an "autonomous judge" to decide which spirit is true and which spirit is false when appealing to supernatural spirits. So, since no empirical tests are allowed we must subjectively decide which is true or false by the arguments used by these spirits. But sound arguments use logic so you would have to go by unsound arguments from these spirits. But to determine if they are unsound arguments you would need logic as a standard to make that determination. LOL At the beginning of his paper, Randy refers to C.S. Lewis as "C.S. Lewcifur" and that people who don't agree with Hartinger "can just persist in your occult fantasyland and delusion" concerning Lewis. Later, Randy Hartinger cites C.S. Lewis for some weird support for his treatise! Randy refers to Lewis as "Lewcifur" but then in a false appeal to authority (toppled authority!!!) expects you to now believe "Lewcifur" and forget about the occult connections. Apparently Hartinger doesn't know that Lewis was an Anglican, just like all 47 translators of the KJV were. The Anglican Church is a "bastard" church and a "protestant" church in the true sense of the word PROTEST. What is it a protest against? The fact that the Roman Catholic Church would not grant King Henry 8th an annulment of his marriage. King Henry in protest started his own church with himself as the head (thus the Anglican Church). Back in 1611 the Anglicans were much more in accord with Roman Catholic doctrine than they were in Lewis' day. However, facts are of no concern to pseudo-scholar Randy Hartinger. After all, logic and empirical evidence is not to be used or trusted since it makes you an "autonomous judge of God's word". If Hartinger's premise about logic (unity) and empiricism (particulars) is true then WHAT makes him so sure that the particulars of history have any meaning, truth value, and connection with the present? This undermines knowing about the 1611 origin of the KJV! Actually, the relating of the particulars of history with a unifying concept is exactly where the true transcendental argument comes in (which Hartinger is completely unaware of). If we can be sure that the KJV was published in 1611, we can also be sure of the origin of other manuscripts. Hartinger unwittingly undermines his whole argument (as nonsensical as his argument is).

I don't expect KJV Onlyists to understand this dilemma since they seem to have cast logic and rational thought to the wind, but hopefully some of you can see the logic here. This is by JAMES MAY: "Preserved or Restored? In one of many inconsistencies, defenders of a perfect KJV almost uniformly argue for a doctrine of infallible preservation, while frequently presenting material in support of a doctrine of perfect restoration. They do not appear to perceive the inherent contradiction in these mutually exclusive concepts. If they argue for perfect preservation, they cannot account for the variants in the majority manuscripts and in the various editions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. If they argue for perfect restoration, they can no longer appeal to various Scripture passages that allegedly teach perfect preservation. The fallacy of the argument is easy to see. For God’s Word to be perfectly preserved, it must be preserved just as it was inspired, that is, in regard to every detail, (Matthew 5:18). For this argument to be valid, it must be thus preserved during its entire history, which precludes completely the idea of any restoration whatsoever. If God’s Word has to be restored in any sense for a perfect copy to exist, then by definition, it was not perfectly preserved." This is by Jim Deferio: "Onlyists will cite Psalm 12 as a basis that God preserves His word(s) and that the KJV is indeed that which is the preserved word of God. They also cite 1 Cor. 13:10 and Matthew 5:18 for their doctrine of God's preservation of His word and use these verses also to claim that the KJV is indeed THAT preserved word. Of course, it is at once easy to see that these verses are taken out of context and the criteria used to apply them to the KJV is non-existent (not arbitrary but simply that they have no rational grounds). But I won't get into that. The history of the KJV cannot be one of preservation because it is well known that the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used six EDITED Greek manuscripts for the New Testament and for the Old Testament relied on the Greek translation of the OT and also on the Latin Vulgate (Dr. Gregory Neal). The KJV translators edited together their translation - they did not have or find a PRESERVED OT and NT text from which they translated. Now if they had no preserved text then a case for a preserved word of God is vacuous. One may try to argue for a RESTORED text but then why the many changes over the decades in the KJV and why does the Majority Greek Text differ from the KJV in over 1,800 places in the NT? Why do the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the KJV in some very important places? Seems to be clear that not even a case for restoration can be made. The marginal notes in the original 1611 also speak against restoration and the preface of the 1611 entitled "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER clearly goes against preservation and restoration. To preserve something doesn't carry the notion of restoring something. The two issues are not the same. Clearly there was no preserved word (not in the way Onlyists claim) and clearly recovery and restoration efforts are still ongoing."

Class in session by James White. Put on your seat belts and enjoy the ride.

Wow Jack Morman wiped the floor with James White. It's obvious that God spoke for the first time in 1611 and hasn't since. You can just tell it's right by the beautiful language

One difference I see between King James Onlyists and those who read more modern translations is that the KJOers are, for lack of a better adjective, more "closed-minded" than those open to what modern translations say. Non-King James Onlyers have NOTHING against the KJV, whereas the King James Onlyists don't accept *anything* but the KJV.

To: "TheFightingSheep", you are nothing but an anti-intellectual coward who hides behind a loser name. You wouldn't stand a chance with me in a debate. Also, I have some news for you, this video is up on MY channel and only MY comments are to be displayed. So there is no way I can be a "troll" on my own channel with my own videos. READ A BOOK! As for me, I'll keep on posting about the KJV because it is a horrible translation and it has also set a horrible precedent and religious tradition for modern translations.

I speak English

I understand Dr. White's argument, and it's sound, but the only argument I hear from Jack is based on tradition. Dr. White points out several errors in the kjv, but Jack doesn't seem to care.

Jack Moorman missused many of the Bible verses he used. I think he is sincere, but the Scriptures he used don't make the point. I can see that and I am not a scholar.

The first question was ridiculous.

The KJV defenders contradict themselves and prove themselves wrong. Irrational. It’s silly.

I had to block " XceptAManBbornAgain NoKingdomOfGod" for calling names. If you can't be civil and use logic (logic comes from LOGOS) then you are really not being a Christian and you have become cultic.

OK Jack...you can stop saying... with a standard, you know where you stand... We get it already. Good grief...

Wow, I've watched this video before, and it still amazes me how thoroughly James White crushes Jack Moorman. There is absolutely no doubt about who's in the right here.

lol, sooo all those bibles before the KJV, aren't God's word? what did Christians do for 1600 years?

Does anyone care to note how James White speaks his wealth of knowledge and wisdom from memory. The guy is an incredible sources of information on manuscripts. No one can touch his defense.

44:00 Jack Moorman realizing he should have stayed at home, lol

"Truth speaks first" but that would disqualify King James's version as there were 5 English Bible's before it.

The KJV isn't a standard for anything. When the intellectually-challenged claim words or verses are "missing" from the newer translations they are basing their claim that COMPARED to the KJV these words and verses are "missing". The KJV is NOT the standard. What the scholarly evidence does show is that the KJV ADDED words and also a few verses and that the KJV mistranslates MANY words.

The KJV has 19,000 less words than the 1977 New American Standard Bible. Why did the KJV omit so many words, lol.

As someone that speak two languages and English is my second language l can easily say Mr Jack there is no such thing as "accurately translate". To translate from one language to another sometimes you have to go around the neighborhood and then get back so it can be understood in the language that is being translated to.

Then only read the a.v.1611...the king James used today is also modern....I guess according to these king James only people all saved before the king James weren't saved? They don't even understand psalm 12 at all!!! It's not saying king James is the perfect word of God..NO ! It's referring to the words of wicked people vs the Lord's pure words that will keep or preserve the poor and needy...

It’s a testimony to hubris that this debate is centered on English translations. We don’t have this debate over whether or not to translate new bibles into other foreign languages. As languages adapt, new translations are required. No one speaks koine Greek today or ancient Hebrew for that matter.

HUGE ERROR IN THE KJV Reflecting the Calvinism of most of the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV, Acts 2:47 reads: "such as SHOULD be saved". The Greek here is in the present participle passive and is accurately rendered like the NIV has it: "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." The translators allowed their Calvinistic biases of predestination to influence their work. Also, "to the church" is not in the earliest manuscripts.

No language is static, except for dead ones. English changes. French changes. Chinese changes. Swahili changes. Thus, when a language has undergone so much change that certain texts are unreadable for contemporary audiences--as the KJV and Shakespeare's writings are on the cusp of becoming--it is imperative that translations be made that are readable.

There you have it from the KJV translators themselves: The KJV is full of "warts", "freakles", and "skarres". The KJV translators said it themselves! LOL

'But it sounds like the Bible' This sentence lost the debate

The KJV denies (or obscures) the Godhood of Jesus Christ EIGHT times but the NIV restores the truth. 1) John 1:18 The KJV has "the only begotten Son" The NIV has "God the One and Only" 2) John 14:14 The KJV has "If ye shall ask anything in my name" The NIV has "You may ask me for anything in my name" ("ME" - did you catch that? Jesus is declaring Himself to be God!) 3) John 17:11 The KJV has "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" The NIV has "Protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me" In the NIV Jesus is equating His name with the Father's. 4) Romans 9:5 The KJV has "concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever". So here Jesus is only being blessed by God - not being declared God. The NIV has "of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised". Notice how the NIV declares the Godhood of Jesus!!! 5) Titus 2:13 The KJV has "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" which changes the context into meaning two different persons. The NIV has "of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". Now "Godhood is being directly linked to Jesus. 6) 2 Peter 1:1 The KJV has "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" as if these are two different persons. The NIV has "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Notice that this is speaking of only ONE person, Jesus Christ. 7) Jude 4 The KJV has "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ". The KJV makes it sound like two different people. The NIV has "and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord". One and the SAME person - Jesus Christ! * Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 4 are examples where the KJV translators did not know koine Greek syntax and they erred (there are other examples too where they erred in syntax such as having Jesus killed first and THEN hung on the cross - Acts 5:30 & 10:39). The Greek rule that is applied in most modern translations is called the Granville Sharp Rule. 8) Revelation 1:8 The KJV has "saith the Lord" The NIV has "says the Lord God" The majority of Greek Byzantine manuscripts have "Lord God" here and not merely "Lord". This also proves that the NIV uses an eclectic Greek text and not just the Alexandrian line of manuscripts (not that there is anything wrong with that line of manuscripts). * GRANVILLE SHARP RULE "The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point."

Excellent defense of the use of modern translations and why they are dependable by Dr. James White. I personally prefer to use the KJV bible because I grew up with it, but I also use the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and even have an NRSV with Apochrypha! I've been following Dr. James White's ministry for over 20 years and have learned a lot from him.

Many people already know that the KJV is basically a Roman Catholic translation. However, most do not know the occultic roots of the KJV. King James considered witchcraft to be "theology"!!! This is a link to my Fb wherein i expose some of the occultic drawings used in the 1611 KJV and some early editions of the KJV. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=804836592874271&set=a.100639053294032.1321.100000438132660&type=3&pnref=story

1:14:10 "It sounds like the bible"...LOL!

Thank you for posting this. It's one of the few times a KJV-onlyist has been willing to actually debate the issue. Dr White clearly showed how Pastor Moorman's position is based on misinformation and inconsistent standards, and Moorman had no real response to Dr. White's points.