Thanks for the video Pastor Ingram Another verse to assess when comparing Bible translations is 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the KJV we read 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. in the MEV we read 18 For to those who are perishing, the preaching of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are BEING saved it is the power of God. The MEV reads like the modern critical text bibles in this verse and makes salvation a process, whereas the King James states we ARE saved (a one time occurence). God bless!
The Greek word for 'saved' is the present passive form. That means it is a continuous action happening to us. Not a one time event. Consider Philippians 2:12. And, yes, this is the Received Text Greek.
The KJV could not have said "us who are being saved." That grammatical construction came into English after 1611. At best, it could have said "us a-being saved."
Thank you for this review pastor, I too agree that the order of translation accuracy is KJV, NKJV, MEV. I’ve read and watched several of these type videos and yours sir is by far the most respectful, gracious and unbiased presentation of truth. Thank you.
A very thoughtful presentation. Thank you. I have found that what makes me gravitate toward the KJV and its Spanish language "cousin" (Reina-Valera) is how I am best able to recall Scriptures from these versions in time of need, worship, and witness.
I recommend a formal equivalence (word for word) translation based on the Textus Receptus/Byzantine/Majority manuscript lineage. That brings you to KJV, NKJV, and MEV.
No proven errors in the KJV? What about the mistranslation of Easter instead of Passover? Calling the Holy Spirit an "it" four times denying his deity. The added uninspired verses like 1 John 5 v 7 Acts 8 v 37. Latin words like Lucifer taken from the Latin Vulgate showing the Catholic influence on the KJV. A word for the planet Venus or morning star or day star. Nothing to do with Satan but a prophecy against the king of Babylon who tried to exalt himself above the throne of God. Even the KJV had day star in the margin. Also words have changed meaning since the KJV was translated. Making the KJV even more inaccurate. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. No matter what the likes of David W Daniels, Will Kinney, Steven Anderson, Gail Riplinger or all the other KJV idolaters say.
@youtoo2233, I have found that there are some errors in the KJV, but they’re minimal. However, if an individual is seeking truth and wish to be saved, it is possible by reading that translation.
@@SharronV without a doubt!! Of course! The KJV was pretty much the only version used by Christians for 300 years, and studies have proven that more people have come to Christ by that version than by any modern version. I don't doubt it, it's very powerful
Amen! I'm glad this was helpful for you. I have a complete playlist on this topic if you're interested further: ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@petermillist3779 maybe you aren't smart enough to comprehend it but I study it and find it very easy to understand now. Maybe Marvel makes a illustrated bible you could comprehend.
I discuss it in a sense when I discussed the differences in the KJV and KJ21. You can see that here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7XLwy941DBQ.html
Do you not look through the KJV with discernment? Nothing perfect about especially as so many words have changed meaning. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations
@@samlawrence2695 modern translation are not more accurate. Easier to read? Maybe. But not more accurate. How many new versions does God need? 5? 10? 50? Does he "bless" them all? Changed meanings are not imperfections. They are something to be learned. How many new translations has God "blessed" us with since WW2? You'd think if God was really "blessing" the modern he could have got it done in one new translation.
@@AndrewP-fj8rn What a lot of nonsense. Changed meanings does mean imperfection. Because it conveys the wrong message. Which is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. The KJV maybe adequate for it's day. But now with older more accurate manuscripts than the KJV translators had. We have more understanding of God's word. Not that any KJV only cultist will ever agree with. They are just blinded by the KJV only deception.
Thanks for the video. I know you have softened on your KJV view over the past few years, but faithfully trust the TR as I do as well. After spending more time what would you choose between the NKJV and MEV? Just based on translation alone not publishing.
I have actually always had the same view, but I have been using the NKJV in preaching again. I believe the KJV is the most exact English translation and the NKJV is more instantly understandable. I also believe the NKJV is actually more accurate than the MEV based on the translation alone based on some of the things I mentioned here in this video.
I agree with you about the MEV, but I also know that there is a Huge difference between NKJV and MEV, MEV seems mixed between 2 opposite texts, But the NKJV is closest to the KJV, And it is my #1 pick, thanks
I tip my hat to translators. They face decisions, not only of which manuscripts to use as the basis of their work, but how best to translate words and phrases where a simple mechanical word for word substitution doesn't work well, if at all. I might not be fluent in the original languages of the Bible, but I have been exposed to sufficient languages other than my native dialect of English to know that a literal word for word translation is sometimes impossible.
Praise God for the Truth! All these versions are confusing. God is not the author of confusion. I Know the KJV is the pure perfect word of God. God Bless You.
I watched a video on it and was disappointed it was not what I thought it was. Not like I am in a rush to stop reading my KJV. Not as smart as you, I just like the language of the KJV and it is rock solid.
I like the MEV. Wished it woulda taken off better than it did. I use the KJV and the NKJV mainly but do like MEV. I guess I consider myself a textus receptus only person considering that’s the 3 I love.
I did a review of the KJ21 that would be very comparable to the KJVer. You can find it here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7XLwy941DBQ.html
the NT quotes the greek translation of the OT so it would have been Jonas as well in the Septuagint. Use of the Hebrew word in the NT by translations will make it easier to understand what is being referred to as most people know who Jonah is through context you can probably make the connection with Jonas as well. The greek speaking jews of the day would not have had a Hebrew OT along with a Greek NT since they no longer understood Hebrew though we see it as more accurate to use the Hebrew OT along with Greek NT today as the original OT was in Hebrew and Aramaic.
In other words Pastor there is no substitute for the KJV. I have been looking for decades and I have not found any yet. MEV, NKJV, KJ2000, MLJV1962, RNKJV, UKJV and so on. It is not a question do we have the word of God, but which one is the word of God? Is the KJV a word of God among a bunch of other "words" of God or is it the word of God where the others only a poor substitute?
I have found it to be the most exact English translation available today of the traditional text. Here is my full study on this subject if you’re interested: What is the Difference in Bible Translations? ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Thanks pastor. So important to read the true word of God. Like clean to cloudy water. I have KJV, NKJV and MEV. Also, I have a Peshitta (Eastern Syrian New Testament) in English. So like the KJV
You should do a video showing where the KJV translation is not correct when looking at the Received text as it might be a form of bias to say it's the most literal and therefore the best, like any translation there are some errors to how it renders the traditional Hebrew and Greek.
This video may help you understand my position: What is the Difference in the KJV 1611 and 1769? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pIPy6hlYImQ.html
Thank you for this video pastor. I have previously been reading the NIV, but recently sought to understand more about translations and their accuracy, and since bought an ESV. I have benefitted from a more thorough rendering of the text, but some parts read more obscurely. I have considered the NKJV, and also the Berean Study Bible, and recently became aware of the MEV hence seeing your video. Have you read the BSB translation? Also, have you any recommendations for a good commentary? Thank you for any help you can provide.
I have not heard of the bereaved study Bible. As far as the commentary issue, I have been asked this question often. For dispensational truth, I really like Time Lahaye's Prophecy Study Bible and the KJV Prophecy Marked Reference Study Bible. For general beliefs, I like the Believer's Study Bible, the KJV Study Bible from Thomas Nelson, and the Open Bible. I cannot agree with all that they teach in them in every word, but I am in close agreement with most of these study bibles. I also like this single commentary called the Believer's Bible commentary: www.logos.com/product/1186/believers-bible-commentary But, most of all, I prefer a simple bible with no commentary. That way, I can read the text first and see what the Holy Spirit is telling me through it before I hear another’s interpretation. This is one that I use for preaching and study: www.thekjvstore.com/kjv-large-print-thinline-bible-dark-brown/
You forgot about the ale prostitutes that were in pagan religious ceremonies. That seems to be a viable explanation for separation of it from just homosexual. Since says homosexuals are also part of sinfulness, not sure how you decided the MEV text is giving homosexuals possible cover??
The passage that the MEV tries to translate as male prostitutes' instead of homosexual is based on modern ideals attempting to justify homosexuality. If that passage were referring to male prostitution was a form of enslavement in the ancient world, that means God was damning those people to Hell for something that was being forced upon them due to being enslaved. I believe the MEV gets this wrong in a desire to appease modern ideals. KJV 1 Corinthians 6 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. MEV 1 Corinthians 6 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. NKJV 1 Corinthians 6 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Just a correction on Zechariah 13:6. In context, this isn't about Jesus crucifixion, this is about the false prophets who will prophesy falsely in the future in Israel. Zechariah 13:1-6: 1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. 2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land. 3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. 4 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: 5 but he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth. 6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
There is actually quite a bit of contention about who is being referred to in that verse. Here is an article that discusses the differing views: forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2018/07/13/wounded-man-zechariah-13-6/
I watched another video on the subject titled: *The MEV: The Newest Effort to Replace the KJV - Dr. Dan Haifley* One can review that if you care to. In general, the MEV is not strictly staying with Traditional Text to translate from. The translation changes some things and favors Pentecostal groups in what they want verses to say. The cover page dedicates to Victoria 2. But she had no interest in it whatsoever. Another video that I'll recommend on a similar subject is titled: *Dr Phil Stringer Lessons to be Learned from 1000 Different English Translations Since 1611*
Practically all new versions including the NKJV remove the phrase "the faith of Jesus Christ" everywhere it occurs in the New Testament" They change the word "of" to the word "in". This removes any action that Jesus Christ has in our salvation and puts it all on the believer himself or herself. This can be clearly seen in Galatians 2:16. Here, they change of" to "in" twice in this verse.. This verse in the King James says 16."Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." In this verse, we see that we are not saved by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Also, we see our part of believing in (trusting) Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for our sins and that our justification is sealed by His faith. Now, drop down to Galatians 2:20. Here they make the same error. 20, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me". Changing the faith "of" the Son of God" to faith "in" the Son of God puts the emphasis on the believer and not on the Son of God. The words in and of are not interchangeable. They mean different things. For instance, note the difference in these two phrases: we say "the Gulf of Mexico", not "the Gulf in Mexico". Or, "the United States of America", not "the United States in America. God is not the author of confusion ( I Cor. 14:33 ). This should be enough to for anyone to see how the doctrine of salvation is completely changed in Galatians 2:16 and how we should live in verse 20. It's time to throw away the new versions and stay with the King James BIBLE; it is the Truth and proves itself over and over as you study it.
You are wrong about Psalm 12 6-7 being about the words of God and Bible translation it is about the Lord preserving his people like he said he would that's what the psalmist is crying out for do yourself a favor and research the original 1611 authorized King James version and go to Psalm 12 and look at the marginal note for verse 7 and you will see your error
Even those verses speak of something else. There is still much support for the text being the one “preserved to every generation “ Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalms 33:11 Psalm 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. For the LORD is good; His mercy is everlasting, And His truth endures to all generations. Psalms 100:5 Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. Psalms 119:160 Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” Isaiah 40:8 Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. Matthew 24:35 1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, 24 because “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, 25 But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. 1 Peter 1:23-25 Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Just some things to consider…
Thanks 👍 Thought the MEV was a better version than the NKJV but they each have their issues. What i hate is when versions eliminate 1JOHN5:7...and though the modern versions may include it in a footnote - The ESV doesn't even do that 😡 so that's one version that i boycott forsure
I agree. I have a playlist that goes deeper into this subject here: “What is the Difference in Bible Translations?” ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
Hello Pastor, God bless you! Thank you so much for these videos. What do you think about the American King James Version and the Updated King James Version? Those two are not as well known but they basically are exactly like the KJV except they take out the quote unquote archaic words but nothing in the doctrine or sentences change otherwise. There's also one called the 21st century KJV however I still believe the KJV is the best and it's the true word of God. Yesterday a thought came to me that it seems like true satanists when they are doing their ceremonies they refer to their god aka the devil with the words thee thine, etc. It is clear they do that as an imitation because Satan is an imitator and it came to me to think that if they use those reverence words towards the evil one, why would it be so difficult for Christians to use those reverence words to the almighty God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I would suggest you check out this other video I have on the NKJV. I have not read the versions you are speaking about, but I would consider them close to how I would evaluate the NKJV as well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BXT1txdzdAc.html
The ASV is FAR from being "exactly like the KJV" with an updating in words. It was done by people who didn't even believe in the deity of Christ as relected in the footnotes.
Not the ASV, the AKJV (American King James Version)...It is not a mainstream type version. However now in 2023 there is something called the SKJV (Simplified King James Version). It reads exactly like the King James version except it takes the words like ye and thee out and replaces with You all and you. It came out a few months ago. All that said, the Authorized King James Version is God's Inspired and Preserved True Word.
I understand your concern but, as I said, the Bible is meant to be studied, not just read. So, accuracy plays a key role that needs to be considered as well.
I have the kjv/mev parallel. The most significant difference i found is Philippians 2:6. Regardless of a persons position places to consider are the above mentioned. And Titus 3:10-11 ; 1 Cor 1:18 ; 2 Cor 2:17 ; John 1:3 ; John 7:53 footnote ; John 14:2 ; John 19:39 ; Col 4:12 ; Titus 2:4 ; 1 John 5:7-8 footnote and Rev 20:10. Thats not exhaustive and depending on your position and belief it may or may not matter to you. But it should be looked at.
Good explanation. Thanks for the bit about t being singular and y being plural. My dictionary sources do not have that information. I suspect the original definitions and grammatical usage have been lost by the secular world.
You are naive. The thou and the ye are used both singular and plural . For example Jesus said Ye (you singular) to Nicodemus Ye must be born again. This is accurately rendered You must be born again in the modern translations. Come unto me all ye (you plural due to the verb all is accurately rendered come unto me all you. For thou (you) O Lord is addressed to deity. Believest thou this is addressed to Martha and is accurately rendered do you believe this? It is the NASB 1977 that uses the thee and thou and the thine addressed to deity in prayer. Not the KJV. Finally the KJV translators in their preface to the reader declared it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better declaring that the eight previous English translations'are the word of God.
@@normanrausch1223 You are incorrect. I need not go very far to find the truth of the matter and it turns out that you are incorrect and that Pastor Ingram is correct. John 3:7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. When Jesus said; "Marvel not that I said unto thee" He was referring to Nicodemus personally because He was speaking to Nicodemus. The Greek word used is singular, not plural. However, when He said "Ye"; Jesus was speaking of the corporate; the whole of mankind and not to Nicodemus personally or as a Jew. The Greek word used is plural. Matthew 11:28: Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. In Matthew 11:28 "all ye that labour" ye does not exist in the Greek, thus it is added for idiom and clarity even though it was unnecessary. A word for word translation without idiom considerations would be as follows. Matthew 11:28: Come unto me, all that labour and overburdened with ceremony, I give you rest. or "I give ye rest". Again, in this case; the Greek word translated "you or ye"; is plural not singular. "Believest thou this is addressed to Martha and is accurately rendered do you believe this?" John 11:26: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? In John 11:26; "Believest thou this", thou is not in the original greek. In addition, some words are left out in the KJV translation. A more accurate word for word translation would be; John 11:26: And whosoever that liveth and believeth in me shall never never die in the perpetuity. Believest this? I could not find the following verse in KJV as you only provided an extremely limited portion of the verse. "For thou (you) O Lord is addressed to deity." However, "But thou, O Lord" is found in Psalms 86:15. Psalms 86:15: But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, long suffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. In this verse, "But thou" does not exist in the original Hebrew and is added for idiom's sake. A more accurate word for word translation would be; Psalms 86:15: Adonay God; full of compassion, merciful, gracious, long suffering, forebearing, plenteous mercy, truth. As you can see, it's not at all easy to translate from Hebrew and Greek into English. Be careful who you choose to criticize and insult; for should you choose to poke a compulsive perfectionist and you turn out to be inaccurate; that compulsive perfectionist will prove you to not be as knowledgeable as you think.
@@scotttovey I know exactly what l am talking about and the ye refers to you singular and not plural when Jesus said to Nicodemus Ye must be born again. Many other translations including the NASB and NKJV and ESV and CJB (Complete Jewish Bible) substantiate that claim. Furthermore l am keenly aware of the fact that the ye and thee and thou and thine are not in the Hebrew or Greek or Latin vocabulary . As for your other comments you are bang on the money with regards to Matthew 11:28 and John 11:26 and Psalm 86:15 as l am keenly aware of the fact that some words from the Greek and Hebrew and Latin are left out not only from the KJV translation but other translations as well. Finally with regards to your statement that you are a ""compulsive perfectionist" l trust you are sarcastic. 1 Corinthians 8:2-3 Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. This richly applies to both you and l and if you think otherwise then you are displaying the traits of arrogance and ignorance and pride and of that there can be no doubt whatsoever. But again l trust you are sarcastic.
Sorry, I'm kind of new to this subject. But regarding the subject of Textus Recepticus and Critical texts....is this all exclusively about the NT only? Or is any of this also to do with the OT? thank you.
That is a great question. The TR and CT are both Greek bases for the translation of the New Testament. Modern versions as well as Older English translations use the Masoretic Hebrew text for the translation of the Old Testament and there is very little changes. There are big difference in the CT and TR for the New Testament though. You can learn more about it in my playlist here on RU-vid: ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
The best Greek text is the Majority Text. It is gaining ground among scholars now. The Critical Text is slowly becoming infamous for its many problems. The Majority text is very close to the Received Text. With Hebrew, the Masoretic text is good, but it has been changed in a very few places and can be corrected with the Greek Septuagint that dates 1,000 years earlier and the Dead Sea Scrolls whose limited in number scrolls also are 1,000 years earlier than the Masoretic. For instance in Deut. 32:8 God divided the number of nations according to the number of the Sons of God (DSS), not sons of Israel (Masoretic). The Septuagint has angels. Also the Septuagint says the concubine of Judges 19 was angry with the Levite, not that she committed adultery. This explains why he went after her 'to speak friendly with her.'
Thank you for a generally helpful presentation. But I have a few quarrels. Why is it better to be literal in translating "thees and thous", but not "the place of the skull"? Your criticism in that regard is inconsistent, at best. Also, in context, Zech. 11:17 clearly refers to worthless, or lazy shepherds, as can be seen by reading Zech. 11:16. The KJV use of the word, "idol" in v. 17 is nonsense, and to justify that word choice is simply eisegesis. I don't agree with all the choices made by the MEV, either, but it has far fewer archaic terms and more understandable grammar than is true of the KJV (especially the 1611). Those are significant advantages in ministering to the modern reader.
Thanks for watching. In regard to the quarrels, the proper word would simply be “skull” not even place of since that is the only word to translate. I was just sayings we lose our history when replace the word Calvary, which is also a proper interpretation of the place. Both actually give us a fuller picture of what that one word means though. I also believe using the word “idol” which is the more exact word actually points out what the future Antichrist will be. He will be one worshipped and, to the true believer, he is worthless. Again, there is a benefit in understanding the original language word better there. I am not against the MEV. I respect any English translation that uses the traditional original language text. I am glad it does not cut away the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the New Testament as the Critical Text translations do today, but I do believe the KJV is more exact to the original languages over all when it comes to an English translation. The best thing to tell people is to study out the words of God. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from the NKJV or the KJV or the MEV, if they like it. I would simply let them know that there is an exactness scale they should be aware of. Thanks again for watching! I am glad to hear it was helpful.
@@ST52655 With all due respect, whether a word is archaic must be determined by reference to an external source; otherwise, the argument becomes tautological. Thus, the question is whether terms are still in common use, and having the same common meaning in the target language. For instance, words like "let”, "prevent," and "leasing" now have meanings not closely related to their use in the KJV. "Privily" is hardly used at all, to cite another instance. I am greatly blessed to read the AV in my regular devotions and study, and there are many good arguments in favor of the KJV. But it's no use pretending that at least a handful of terms and some of the grammatical constructions are not archaic.
Look at john 4:52 in the nkjv when the nkjv translators had no Greek authority to use the word son they used the word servant for Jesus in acts 3:13 with the same Greek word and said its because it can't mean son it can mean boy girl child servant...but never son. But they used son in john 4:52 that's dishonest at best a perversion at worst I'll stick to the king james
Thank you for the video. The KJV is the Bible I use for clarity, but not my initial reading. That said I do want to point out an error with one of your point. The original Greek was written in all CAPITAL letters and without spaces. Due to this I do not believe capitalization choice bias the txt (I presume the old testament Hebrew is similar given the ancient writing traditions, but I do not know, so I will limit my critic to the New Testament )
The pure words the LORD pronounced with his lips cannot be changed nor altered and certainly not translated and fulfil this precious promise: Psalm 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Search the book of the LORD'S holy scriptures and learn what was, what perhaps is, and what can be translated because it is not the pure words written in the Lord's pure language: (translate): 2 Samuel 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba. (translated and translation): Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (translated): Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Understandest thou what thou readest?
Search for the pure words (translate), (translated), and (translation) and let the LORD himself teach the what was, what hast been, and what can be translated because the words the Lord declared from the beginning when he pronounced all the counsel of the thoughts of his heart with his lips cannot be changed, neither altered, and certainly not translated. Read Psalm 89 line 34.
Is the English language the only one to claim that KJV is the only acceptable translation and any other English version is wrong? Seems to me that it would be less hassle to be Spainard, Korean, or any other language speaking person; that way, you only have to deal with one translation in your language for the most part. Personally, I've never seen this translation argument within other languages. If you are Korean, you read the Korean translation of the bible, etc. The logic would seem to lead one to believe that a native Portuguese, who speaks and reads only that language, would first have to learn English, then learn Victorian English style before they would have access to a real translation of the bible. I have come to the conclusion that because the English language is probably the hardest to learn and possess so many variations of words and meaning, that it is in every English-speaking person's best interest to use all the legitimate English translations that one feels the need to use in order to gain a better personal understanding of the Word of God. At least with the ESV a person could begin to have an argument for the doctrine of "Predestination", as taught by Calvin. (Revelation 13:8 - English Standard Version ...and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.) According to ESV, the names of the "predestined" were written before the foundation of the world, so, if you are not in that number you are doomed. But according to KJV, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.; which, would mean that Jesus dying on the cross for our salvation was a predetermined fact before the world existed, or man fell. (Revelation 13:8 - King James Version And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.)
I think you’ve missed the point. My concern is with the original language text that is being translated. The KJV and NKJV (along with the MEV) us the Hebrew masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament. All other English translations do not use the Textus Receptus. They use the Critical Text that cuts away the equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter from the traditional New Testament. This difference is found also in Spanish Bibles. One uses the TR and another uses the CT. I’m against removing scripture. Here is a full playlist where I discuss these issues if you’re interested. What is the Difference in Bible Translations? ru-vid.com/group/PL-dMPDGX0OTGut0jB-MEDj-Qf-bupIG6X
@@AndrewP-fj8rn A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making. Sorry if it came across that way. I thought that I was actually affirming the author’s point by highlighting one difference between a TR translation and a CT translation; which, in my illustration shows how different doctrines can be derived depending on which text the translators used. Also, I do suppose that I was letting out some frustration over the fact that there are so many English translations these days; to the point, it seems like a marketing strategy. Lol. I mean, who takes a Bible and calls it the Jesus Centered Bible, and sells it. Isn’t the entire Bible about Jesus?
This mek bible is no difference then any other bible which changes words and then it changes the meaning which isn't Gods version anymore becomes man... Kjv only for me ..
The KJV translators would be disgusted with you. In their preface they stated very clearly that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. Furthermore they stated that the eight English translations'before the KJV were all the word of God and honourable translations.
I can't wait until the judgement seat of Christ and watch all the squirming going on when God opens that 1611 And starts judging all those critics of his word.
I really don’t see how anyone who likes the MEV can down the KJV as the MEV is an attempt at updating the KJV. I think this way about the NKJV as well though.
