If we believe, By Faith only that Jesus has cleansed away our sin, Why can't we take the same faith and believe that the all powerful, GOD of the universe is able to protect "HIS" word for all generations, as He promised. Ps. 12 : 6-7. It's a lack of faith to think GOD failed.
Psalm 12 is about GOD keeping his people. Not about his word. It certainly has nothing to do with the KJV. That is just the KJV only cult twisting scripture to try and justify the false teaching of KJV onlyism.
Pr. 26 : 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Ps. 12: 6 (THE WORDS) of the LORD are (pure words): as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 (Thou shalt KEEP THEM,) O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Keep his words pure. It's your bible that changed this. Pr. 26 : 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Not going to argue about God's word. If you choose to believe that your god is so weak he can't keep his promises, It's your choice. You have bought, and are selling the Snake Oil, Yea Hath God Said?
The Catholic church already has a new bible for the coming One World Church, It's called "God's Word for a New Age. When that happens you will no longer get to choose what bible you want to read you will have to use their book.
@@Harold-mb6sj Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
@@jamessheffield4173Not thrown out because they are not in the older superior manuscripts. Therefore added in the KJV. There is your problem when you make some archaic English translation the standard. Instead of all the manuscript evidence. But that is the usual double standards of the KJV only cult.
Some authorities say less than 5 percent really less than 2 percent of seminaries are not overrun by liberal's. In so many words, Adrian Rogers said when looking for the devil do not neglect looking at whoever is behind the pulpit.
My friend, how is today's KJV reader supposed to look up words he doesn't know he doesn't know-words he doesn't realize he's misunderstanding? I listened to your whole talk hoping that you would answer this question. As best I can tell, your answer is, "Grab a dictionary and go to town." But again I ask: how can the dictionary help someone who doesn't realize he's misunderstanding a word such as "halt," "remove," "commend," and the 50 or so other false friends I've uncovered?
Webster's 1828 is a great place to start. Also, the KJB has it's own built in dictionary-context will help you to define certain words and you will learn that words can have several meanings-depending on the context. Blessings.
@@kurtaaron9478 , I'm not being snarky, brother! I'm asking with all sincerity, because I truly don't understand! How is Webster's 1828 going to help people who don't realize that they've just misunderstood? I misread "How long halt ye between two opinions" for decades because the contemporary meaning of "halt" worked just fine. I never looked it up because it didn't occur to me that I might need to. For more false friends in the KJV, see my Fifty False Friends series on RU-vid.
What is the definition of αρσενοκοίτες ? It appears per the translation committee of the NRSVue the "Meaning of Gk uncertain" Was this uncertain when you were at Bob Jones, or has it become uncertain in the period since then? The issue of English words changing meaning is one thing, but Greek words changing meaning now? ;)
I actually prefer the NKJV. It is the "bridge" between the two pathways of texts. And the references add a lot of information that I especially like. Also, you might not be aware of the fact that the only reason the KJV even exists is because King James himself did not like the NOTES in the GENEVA BIBLE of 1560. Did you get that? He didn't like the notes, and not the text itself. I don't like the notes as well. They're very dated. But the text is wonderful.
With all do respect, if your ok with this footnote that NKJV has on Bible gateway: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20" of Mark 16:9-20 I don't know what this footnotes could possibly do but create doubt in Jesus' Resurrection. You mean to me that some early christian fathers didn't include it because it actually didn't happen? Rubbish, that few mss they refer to are forgeries or mistakes that were tossed. Jesus is Risen
@@JPH4886 Footnotes are just that, footnotes, that are not scripture. I'll give you another treat to think about. My preferred bible is the 1599 Geneva Bible that preceded the KJV by 12 years. It was THE bible of the British people at that time. Only by the force of the King was it supplanted by the one that carries his name. That Geneva Bible has the long ending of Mark. And that's fine with me since the Geneva Bible uses the same original manuscripts that the KJV did a decade later.
In your so-called "better" ESV, 2 Samuel 21:19 has Elhanan killing Goliath. This contradicts TWICE 1 Samuel 17:50 and I Chronicles 20:5 which correctly have David killing Goliath. The Lord Jesus confirms the scriptures cannot be broken, yet your ESV is broken with this double-contradiction. It is not the occasional word in the KJV which I may have to look up that bothers me--it is the clear contradictions and textual-critic nonsense in the ESV that bothers me, and should bother you too. The KJV does not have a double contradiction like your broken ESV--I suggest you get a real Bible that's NOT broken.
@dwp2495 lol there is no contradiction my atheist friend. If you had an esv, all you have to do is check the notes. You need to stay off of silly KJVO sites with people that don't even know Hebrew.
@@jwatson181 Which is it for you--is the word of God in the big print of the ESV or tucked away in the fine-print that says something else and no one reads? "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways" James 1:8.Are you suggesting the diligent scribes of the old testament--who counted every letter and word in their copies--wrote down in Hebrew that Elhanan killed Goliath as the ESV translators have done by putting it in the big print? God providentially preserved His words for us. That's why I read the KJV and translations based on the received text as those translators believed they were translating the very words of God--every jot and tittle--and not trying to piece back together an imaginary franken-text with conjectural amendations (i.e. wild guesses) like the modern text critics. Where in the Bible does it say God's words are only inspired in the original autographs and not faithful copies? Where in the Bible does it say the shorter, more difficult reading is to be preferred? Chapter and verse please. The logical consequence of textual criticism is to become a doubting scholar who is ever searching and never arriving to the knowledge of the truth. God's words are truth. Textual criticism is scorched earth skepticism and leads you to the deep darkness of doubt. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.
@dwp2495 curious, are you okay with reading in the TR and the KJV not found in any Greek manuscripts? Would God have lost his words? You seemed to misunderstand my perspective. It isn't a contradiction and the majority of Hebrew scholars agree with me. Do you know Hebrew or are you repeating something someone told you?
