Hi Pastor Ingram, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to make these videos. It’s videos like this that confirm me in my decision to stick with the KJV (occasionally the NKJV), dabbling in “critical” text translations as another window on (usually) similar thoughts. When I see and research differences, the case for the majority text is (almost always?) stronger.
@@PastorScottIngram God bless you I watch your RU-vid post on the nkjv I have a quick question since the nkjv remove the thees and thous how can someone read it especially new believers and stay accurate without any mistranslation from the missing thees and thous? Thank you pastor
Thank you, pastor, for your presentation. I was familiar with the Westcott and Hort edition (1881) of the Critical Text, but unfamiliar with Eberhard Nestle (1898). I realized Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in 1844. Codex Sinaiticus was published in 1862. I did not realize Westcott and Hort primarily favored Codex Vaticanus when completing their Critical Text. It was conjectured Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius (bishop, historian, theologian) to write 52 copies of the Bible, which eventually ended up at Sinai (Codex Sinaiticus) and the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus). As a strategy to unite a fractured Roman Empire, Constantine orchestrated careful methods for the pagan populace to fall into the ranks of Christianity. One of Constantine’s clever stratagems was requesting Eusebius to adjust the Scriptures to make them less confrontational to the pagans. "Nestle’s text of this Greek New Testament (1898) was combined with the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf, The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth" (Wikipedia). Consequently, Nestle utilized several sources for his Greek New Testament. Nestle avoided the extremes of relying on solely the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus. I question whether Nestle’s Greek New Testament ended up in Alexandria? I thought the Codex Alexandrinus was perhaps created through either Nestle’s work or by another critical text scholar. I conjecture they utilized Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Alexandrinus was designated by the siglum A or 02 in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts. Kurt Aland had worked with Erwin Nestle beginning in 1952. Erwin Nestle is Eberhard Nestle’s son. “Codex Alexandrinus contains the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Along with Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible.” [Wikipedia]
I think the Critical Text may have errors from Emperor Constantine's time, and modifications may have ensued after these Scripture manuscripts have been at the Vatican library and at the Monastery of St. Catherine's (supposedly Sinai) for so long. Who knows for sure if the Roman Catholics attempted to adjust Scripture to be consistent with their church tradition? Especially, during the Protestant Reformation (16th century). The Council of Trent for 18 years attempted to counter the Reformation. They had translated their own orthodox Bible, the Douay-Rheims, which was probably influenced by the Jesuit order. I think the Textus Receptus is the safest text to rely on -- namely, any version coming from the Textus Receptus.
Thank you for your videos. I just found your channel and subscribed. Can you please do a comparison of the latest TR/Majority text translations: the LSV and the KJ3 NT, please?
Thanks for subscribing. Check out the playlist on my channel called “What is the Difference in Bible Translations ?” For more info on this topic. I will keep in mind those translations for future comparison videos.
Thank you for this video! I decided recently to make the KJV my one and only translation. I used to use the NIV but was disappointed to see that when they translated "Jesus was indignant..." when asked by the leper to be healed (Mark 1:41) Every other translation says, felt compassion, moved with compassion and so on, which suggest the words "indignant" and "compassion" are interchangeable, but they are not. In fact, they are almost exactly opposite. Then I was an ESV person... LOVED the ESV, until I saw all the scriptures that were not included, important scriptures! Then, I took a class on textual criticism and almost fell away completely. I felt that I couldn't trust my bible or the words that were delivered to the Saints of God. Thank God for his mercy and his grace! Don't get me wrong, I believe that people can be saved and can get a lot out of modern translations. There are many bible study teachers that use different translations that I respect. This is a personal choice for me. And believe me, I know that the KJV is not a perfect translation. Easter is a pagan holiday and should not be in Acts 12:4. Although I don't always understand a passage the first time I read it, I keep going because God said, "STUDY to shew thyself approve..." He did not say, "Read to shew thyself approved...." Be blessed Denise
Denise, I am glad this was a blessing for you and encouraged your faith. I have worked thru the same issues you have and have landed on the KJV as well. I have other videos here on my channel titled “What is the difference in the KJV and NKJV?” and “What is the difference in the KJV and ESV?” and, today, I will be uploading “What is the difference in the KJV and NIV?” I encourage you to check them out as well. In two weeks, I will also be uploading “What is the difference in the KJV 1611 and 1769?” I hope you will check them out and share with friends. God bless you and have a great day!
There's no unequivocal and unambiguous statement where Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) himself said , I'm God or worship me... Gospel of John 14:28 " ...Father is greater than I. " Gospel of John 10:29 "..my father is greater than all." Gospel of Luke 11:20 "...it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons..." Gospel of John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. "ep the commandments.” Book of Acts 2:22 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- Gospel of Mark12:29 28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; Gospel of John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" Gospel of Matthew 19:16-17 16.And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” 17. And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
What made me now want to use a Bible translation based on the traditional text was when I realized that the verses that were omitted from most modern versions have a lot of manuscript support. I have a book from Adam Boyd who supports the byzantine text and I looked at the manuscript support for Matthew 18:11 and it says 82.6 percent! While it says 1.5 percent for the critical text. Also 2 specific verses that stick out and bother me in most modern versions are Matthew 5:22 where “without a cause” is omitted and John 7:8 where the word “ yet” is not in there which makes Jesus look like a liar. I ordered myself a nice Cambridge NKJV and I use the KJV at church. Like the videos! God Bless!
Thank you Scott for your responses to all my comments. Hot topic. You said it! I have even more respect for you. I particularly like your total honesty and sincerity. As you know there are a lot of very dishonest apologists who will twist things to fit an agenda. Not so with you. I don't see that in you. You are absolutely right that this is one of my favourite subjects and my intention is always to find out the truth. We may disagree fundamentally but I do genuinely respect your integrity. I would love to meet you in person one day. I think we would get on really well despite our theological differences. You've topped 200 subscribers! You deserve more. Peace and much respect.
Thanks! I enjoy our discussions. It causes me to look closer and deeper and that is always a good thing for everyone involved. If you ever find yourself in White Pine, Tennessee, please, come visit with us at Omega Baptist Church (1120 Phillips Rd, White Pine, TN 37890). Our services are at 10:30 AM and 6:30 PM on Sundays and 7 PM on Wednesdays.
Interesting video, but I read the NAB revised edition, and that wasn't mentioned. It contains a lot of footnotes, and discusses somewhat about manuscript differences. I recommend you check it out. Have a good day and God bless.
Thank you.i would assume that it doesn’t use the Textus Receptus. You can usually find that about in the opening pages of the particular. Thanks for commenting!
I go with the scholarship not with someone's very biased opinion for which they have no evidence. Where in the Bible is the prophesy/declaration which states that the only accepted future version of the New Testament must be derived from the Textus Receptus? I implore you to research the history of the Textus Receptus.
How disrespectful; he has told you in this (and other) videos that he has done that research. Have *you*? Instead of dismissing a different point of view with contempt, why not actually state a substantive argument and actually advance the dialogue, if you want to show your superior rationality?
I am an advocate for the critical text personally, the age of the documents comparatively and the fact that God preserves his word. I read the masoretic text and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament during deep study.(I have a copy of the Westcott Hort but you know the issue with them) I normally read csb (I also read esv, net, kjv, and the elberfelder which is basically a German nasb as I speak german) but am waiting for the LSB to come out. As a person who speaks another language I cannot be a kjvo (it’s an insane idea) but I can respect a Textus Receptus Advocate. Regardless which one you use, the fact that Jesus is Lord and God is undeniable! John 20:28 csb “Thomas responded to him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28 kjv “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” God bless!
I am glad you were willing to hear my point of view even though you hold to the Critical Text. I have another video called “What is the Difference in the KJV1611 and 1769?” That I think might interest you as well. It is in a playlist called “What is the Difference in Bible Translations?” Have a great Lord’s Day brother!
Thank you for this. I have just watched your What's the difference between KJV 1611 and 1769? It came up as I have been researching how the Catholics understand their bible. I am Protestant. I too hold to the critical text and sometimes prefer the KJV over the critical text GNT based on a numerical word analysis which is barely used by anyone. Nonetheless, that aside, I believe God does preserve His word through every generation AND everywhere so I dont believe He only preserved it in Alexandria and not Antioch or vice versa but preserves it through ALL the variant manuscripts. It is worth reading the KJV translators' preface called 'Translators to the readers' which makes the point that earlier TRANSLATIONS were not ''dragon's gall'' but also the word of God. The wonder of God's preservation of His word is deeper than just the Textus Receptus as evidenced even in the KJV Hebews 10:5 on Psalm 40:6 - check both - such is the glory of God that He can preserve His words (though different word for word but the same in idea for idea) in the Masoretic Text versus the LXX, yet the Lord and the KJV use both!
Just a thing I wrestle with. I love the way that the KJV has been preserved. I use it every day. What puzzle me is this pastor, and I hope you can help me. My native language is Afrikaans (kind of Dutch dialect). Now, my Afrikaans Bible was first produced I believe in 1933 and re-done in 1953. Then it was again translated in 1983 and somewhere in 2000 again. This month they launched the 2020 translation. Now, from which texted do other Languages get their Bibles translated from? Any Language? Let's say it's not from the Texus Receptus, but the new stuff. How will these people get to know the "real" Bible like the KJV? Thank you pastor Scott
I look at these translations that use the critical text instead of the text “preserved to every generation” as story book Bibles. A story book Bible is for children and isn’t a real Bible but has the basic stories. Someone could get saved hearing the little truth in those Bible stories but, for good spiritual growth, they need the whole truth. Let me point you to a good group who translates from the Textus Receptus. Here is a link to their site: www.tbsbibles.org/
Pastor Scott, I am a Catholic and I desire unity with my Christian brothers and sisters. If I were to dialogue with someone like yourself, which Bible translation would you find more... ecumenical for lack of a better word - ESV or RSV? Like which translation would allow you to relax easier? If you had to choose an interfaith translation between these two, which would you (or someone like you) prefer? I'm looking for the best translation for equal footing. There are Catholic editions in both translations and I would like to determine the more agreeable translation to someone from your faith tradition. God bless you.
Personally, I trust the KJV and consider it to be the most accurate English translation. If you have seen my "What is the Difference in Bible Translations?" playlist, you will know why i have come to this conclusion. I have a video in that playlist on the ESV.
@@PastorScottIngram Thank you for the response. I asked this question specifically knowing you prefer the KJV - However I am curious which translation you find less... abrasive? For lack of a better word? RSV vs ESV. If you were forced to choose just one!
@@SearchingTheArchives It would seem many Baptists are welcoming the ESV today. I have read thru it and, frankly, don't understand why they would want to lean into that translation. Many stood against the RV and RSV as liberal translations when they first emerged but i suppose today they don't recognize that the ESV is just an update to those Critical Text translations rather than an update to the traditional text KJV. I will be showing a little bit of the history of this is my next comparison video on the CSB at the end of this month.
Well handled. The question was not really appropriate. “So, pastor, I come from a denomination that claims to be the only true church, but which has both added massively to the doctrines found in the Bible and compromised greatly in the last sixty years. Since we have proven we can ‘work with’ all sorts of points of view within our ancient institution, we want to join with other Christians…somehow. We aren’t saying how, exactly, yet. Somehow. It’s called ecumenicism, anyway, and it involves you compromising. Now I know you’ve said you prefer the majority text and the KJV, but never mind that. My goal of ecumenicism means I’m reasonable and kind, and you look unreasonable and unkind if you refuse to share it. So be reasonable and tell me which of these two critical text-based translations you can settle on, please. (If you pick one I’ll praise you. Deal?)”
@@LarrySanger I lament that you feel that way about my comment, Dr. Sanger. The positive upside is your comment allowed me to find your Sanger Academy educational videos for kids. I really appreciate anyone helping homeschoolers and I hope you continue putting out content like that. I have two young girls myself and I'm always looking for good educational content which prompts learning. Finding wholesome content that hasn't been... infiltrated... is getting harder and harder these days
I believe that God has preserved his word, in the thousands of manuscripts we have. It is just the false teaching that he has preserved it in some archaic four hundred English I reject. For the deception that it is. Absolutely laughable if not for the fact it is a total heresy. The Bible has been changed, just translated into English we can understand. No doctrine is changed. The gospel is very clear. The Lord Jesus Christ is exalted. His deity defended. In fact no matter what the false teachers of the KJV only cult say The NIV is far far stronger on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit than the KJV ever was. Probably the reason why Satan has raised up the KJV only cult. Who begin with the false assumption that the KJV is the standard. Not the manuscripts that God has preserved just as he promised. But you will not find one scripture that supports this man made tradition. This KJV only nonsense.
I agree...the Bible is God’s word. It is life and truth. It is inerrant. But it’s also true that we don’t have the original documents from the authors themselves. Those have been lost. All we have are copies of the originals.
This is true about the copies. Yet, In those copies of the traditional text and of the modern critical text, we have several verses telling us that God would preserve His word to every generation. Not just once but several times this statement is made. Jesus even said not one “not or tittle” would fail. The modern cutting of the text that has stood for centuries doesn’t agree with those verses and is why I trust the traditional text as being faithful representatives of those original documents.
At 3:20, as a Catholic myself, I have heard a lot about the "Our Father" discussion. It's not being changed, not for Catholics, not for anyone, so don't worry about that.
Pastor Scott Ingram, the pastor at my parish made a statement about it not being changed because people were asking about that. If something different is being said at Mass, you will probably hear about it.
Remember that in Roman Catholicism the Bible is not the only authority. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant concept. If His Holiness ( the Pope ) declares something "Ex Cathedra" then it is to be accepted by all members of the Church.
I know the NASB keeps Acts 8:37 but puts it in italics like the old HCSB did. If you look in the introduction pages it will tell you whether it is utilizing the Textus Receptus or the Critical Text in the New Testament.
The NASB is an excellent translation and, probably, the most accurate translation in English. My personal favourite is the Revised Standard Version which dates from the forties and fifties. ( Second New Testament edition 1971. ) It is comparable to the King James in modern English but relies on more recent scholarship than the KJV.
@@zondervangreek well the NASB has all of the very same problems as any other version based on the Critical text. For instance it has all of the issues he outlines here. So, if you reject the critical text, as I do, as being the correct methodology, than you have to reject it for the KJV as being the most accurate on the market. That said, it is a better translation than some others based on the Critical text, for sure. For instance, it includes all those passages removed in the NIV completely, and has them as bracketed text. But on the other hand, it does remove entire parts of verses and substitues "Joseph and mother" for "father and mother" just like the NIV. There are also translation issues I question (I am by no means a scholar so perhaps I am wrong) but where the KJV says in Titus 3:10 to reject a heretic, and in greek the word is "hairetikos" meaning heretic, my NASB says a "factious" man. That really is not the same thing...a heretic could certainly be factious by advocating a false doctrine, but a factious man may well not be a heretic! e.g. somebody who advocates for a mid-tribulation rapture as opposed to pre-tribulation rapture. Those divisions could be factious but we would probably not consider one another heretics over that issue (I hope!).
This is Conspiracy Theory Christianity. It is the same argument Islam uses in support of their Bible. The issue is not one of direct preservation. It is one of message. Has God preserved his message in each passage? YES! Are any doctrines changed between translations? NO! The reason for this is because God is in the business of preserving his message, not a man's standard.
But the Bible says concerning the very words, Psalm 12:6-7 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. • Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. • Psalm 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations. • Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. • Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. • Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. • 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. • 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. It seems like the very words are quite important to me. It also states: Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. o Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Something to think about my friend.
@@PastorScottIngram Can you point me to a place in any of your quotations that has the adverb "very", next to words? If not, that would mean that you are adding to God's word what is not actually there.
@@PastorScottIngram can you point me to a passage that has the adverb "very", next to the noun "words"? If not, I would encourage to think about the fact that you are adding to God's word by magnifying an issue that is not actually found in Scripture.
That really isn't part of this video, but, if you read that particular passage, you will see that the Angel of the Lord let Jacob wrestle him until morning. I believe that was a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus. I'll bet you have probably "wrestled" with Him before too over a situation. I know i have and I know Jacob was wrestling because he didn't know what to do before he would meet his brother again. He just wanted a blessing. The Lord gave it to him and left him with a limp. :)
Do "not...pay attention to myths...which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith" (1 Tim. 1:3-4). This issue is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It cannot even be hinted towards. I believe God's Word is sufficient for all things. And it tells us to not pay attention to people who make a big deal of things God chose to not discuss. Focus on the content of Scripture because God's word is sufficient. This man is twisting texts left and right and therefore doing the very thing he claims to fight against.
I gave you an entire list of what the Bible says on the subject in your previous post and didn’t really say anything about it myself. I just gave you what the Bible says. How can I be twisting anything like that? I too trust the Word of God is sufficient. ...and what is so offensive about what is said in this video? It is all based in facts about what people are saying and what the Word of God says. I can trust the Bible in my hands. I truly am sorry if you feel that you cannot.
@@PastorScottIngram None of them claimed the phrase "very words." I read what the Bible says in the verses you gave and didn't find the phrase "very words." It looks like you are adding to Scripture my friend. There is a huge difference between "God's Word" and "God's very words." I haven't found what you are claiming those verses teach.
@@PastorScottIngram You are not convincing me that you believe God's Word (the 66 books of the Bible) is sufficient. It looks like you are making a big deal of myths and endless genealogies rather than furthering the faith.
Where is the myth in anything said in this video? I certainly didn’t discuss genealogy. Be careful not to twist scripture to make it say what you want. That verse has nothing to do with this discussion.
@@PastorScottIngram the issue is not over genealogy. It is over the fact that you are causing people to pay attention to a myth rather than the doctrines that are clearly taught in Scripture. We can call your myth the myth that all Bible translations which do not agree with your standard of the KJV are evil.
To many people are following the teachings of man instead of following Christ. The more you are away from God, the more you rely on man, the closer you are to God, the less you rely on man. think about that for a second.... Mans knowledge will lead to destruction, it is captivating, moving, and challenging but it does not mean it is truth. Jesus says, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, nobody comes to the Father accept through Me. Now, do you want to doubt the bible because someone's idol doesn't believe in it for reason x, y, or z? Or do you want to trust that God is in control, and that he isn't going to let the teachings of man penetrate his word??? Jesus said his word will stand forever.... Seems like people don't believe it and get caught up in the politics behind it which causes corruption because it is the wisdom of men. People lack faith. Always have..... You know, the more I read the bible, the more I believe it and disregard what the world has to say about it. Seems to me, a lot of people are not reading their bibles everyday but instead, form opinions on matters they should have no opinion on.... What's new? People are dumb. The best way to describe people is this. A smelly man standing next to you says he is showered, he knows he didn't shower, you know he didn't shower, he knows that you know he didn't shower, but he still continues to say he showered. Think about that... Stop trusting people and trust GOD!!!
Pastor Ingram, I appreciate your sincerity and passion, but I fear you are woefully uninformed about the issues of textual transmission. Most of all, you are committing the most basic of fallacies - you assume the KJV is the only accurate Bible. The fact that the KJV differs in multiple places from the "modern" versions is not because there were intentional corruptions to "the Bible" (i.e., the KJV), but because there had been many passages added to an early 17th century English translation of the Bible.
Thank you for your comment. I have actually read several books on textual criticism and I am not making a fallacy concerning the KJV. If you noticed in the video, I am looking at the Greek Textus Receptus (aka. The Recieved Text, the Traditional Text) of the New Testament. The modern Critical method does not consider the fact that God can and has promised to preserve His Word “to every generation.” We do not have every manuscript ever penned and the ancients before us had manuscripts that we will never see. It is the height of arrogance to begin chopping up the Bible (deleting words, verses, and passages) based on a minority of manuscripts 2,000 years after they were penned. If a manuscript is unearthed from 90 AD that doesn’t have John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8, will you then quit preaching those verses or consider them not to be scripture after they have been passed down by God’s hand throughout the centuries to God’s people who have lived and died holding to their truths? This isn’t just another book. It is the Book and we should treat it as such. I hope that helps you understand my position better.
I don't agree with Scott. If we find a very early manuscript that doesn't include John 3:16 then that verse may not have been spoken by Jesus. Surely we should be relying on original sources?
ask yourself, "why did erasmus and theodore beza change the textus receptus?" because it's painfully obvious that you have absolutely no clue about its history
I am aware of the slight differences you are speaking about which are not anything like what the critical text has done. I discussed those things here: 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
@PastorScottIngram I watched the video you gave me, and you did *not* address the issues.. you did not address the fact that beza made a conjectureal emandation in revelation with no manuscript support; you did not address the fact that Erasmus did not have Greek manuscripts for the last 6 verses of revelation and had to translate from the Latin (thereby creating readings that didn't exist in the Greek manuscripts); you did not address the fact that the johannine comma was not in Erasmus' first two editions of his printed new testament because he couldn't find any manuscripts that had it. Again, your videos are deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation solely to support your bias for your preferred text. You could at least have the decency to say that plainly instead of misleading the church of Christ. Where is your fear of God as a pastor?
There's no unequivocal and unambiguous statement where Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) himself said , I'm God or worship me... Gospel of John 14:28 " ...Father is greater than I. " Gospel of John 10:29 "..my father is greater than all." Gospel of Luke 11:20 "...it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons..." Gospel of John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. "ep the commandments.” Book of Acts 2:22 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know- Gospel of Mark12:29 28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; Gospel of John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent" Gospel of Matthew 19:16-17 16.And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” 17. And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
Satan is real and is after the church. Says that one day he will overcome the saints. I guess that’s only going to happen if we don’t keep to true to our faith.
KJV was not needed until it was translated, but then and now everyone in the world learns English. Hence the Word of God was written in English in Gods foreknowledge.
@@lifegracefaith I agree with your statement that the Gospel is contained properly within just about any bible. The reason I do not consider the Apocrypha canon is that it does not point to Jesus symbolically or prophetically, so it is not necessary. I also do not argue that the KJV only-ism, just my preference as an English speaking man (first language). I also study from NASB so as to have the best (in my opinion) Alexandrian texts as well as Byzantine.
Abomination of desolation, famine of hearing the word of God. Hold scripture to your heart .... Paul even says they will preach a gospel that is another but it is not another , that people will pervert the scripture . How can you explain a KJV that says God created the heaven and the earth and a modern Bible says heavens plural. ....one letter is a change . My new testament verses that speak on Noah have the H taken out of the word .... It says Noa. Some books say noe. It's just not right . Why does the authorised KJV say bottles and the niv still say wineskins .... It is changing ... The word is Jesus himself not a book written by cultic corrupted men .... God has no darkness in him .....how or y is there so much darkness in the Bible expressing God's character in the old testament.... Jesus says to decide scripture ..... And Jesus telling his disciples rebuking them saying you do not know what manner of spirit you are of when they asked if they were to cast fire from heaven like Elijah did ?.... Who sends fire from heaven in revolations .....the dragon !. Test the spirits .... Divide scripture fight scripture with scripture.... Things are weird but yeshua yehusha Jesus the Messiah hamachiach is Lord and those who confess his name they shall be saved. These are the end times for sure.
When you get into biblical scholarship it's always fascinating even when you're wrong. As you well know the vast majority of surviving texts date from many hundreds of years later than what you imply. I think you've been slightly dishonest in implying that these texts were contemporaneous. Also the earliest texts were tiny fragments, sometimes only a single verse. Erasmus was very selective. Erasmus used 6 texts which dated from the 12th century or later. This is one reason that modern scholars regard his text to be of dubious quality. Erasmus himself issued more than one edition of his new testament. You haven't addressed the issue regarding the "Johannine comma" which only appeared in Greek translations of the New Testament in the 15th century. Erasmus incorporated this into his Greek translation even though it wasn't in any earlier manuscripts. Not directly connected to the Textus Receptus issue but of interest: That is the continuing problem of older translators' dependence on the Septuagint which was the Greek translation of the Old Testament and was in use during the 1st century. One example of the problems caused by the Septuagint is the doctrine of the virgin birth.The word in the hebrew which the Greek translators translated as virgin, in the original hebrew simply meant maiden or young woman and said nothing about her sexual condition. Much respect and as Martin Luther said ( one of my personal heroes ): "Here I stand, I can do no other." ( At the Diet of Worms in 1521.)
Hi Frank! This issue is certainly a hot button topic for you judging from your comments throughout the thread. I understand. This is a very important topic. I believe it is a subject that has caused many an individual to question faith because there are so many who have bought the idea proposed to us today (even in the bible that we may be reading) that God simply cannot preserve His Word (sadly, even among many Christians). Now, think how silly the idea is that God cannot preserve His Word when you claim to believe that God, the Creator and sustainer of everything, has no way of getting his message to His people through out time and we cannot trust the text in our hands! Could God have caused the great majority of the saints to live and die for scriptures that were corrupted? How could He have used this corrupt text of our forefathers to change western civilization? Now, if I believe in a powerful God who can get me from Earth to Heaven when I die, how in the world could so many buy the idea that He can't get what He wants said to us across time. This is a product of man simply not looking at this with true faith and logic. Imagine what God thinks of His people claiming that they will now reclaim the true word of God 2,000 years after it was written using old manuscripts as their authority that were cast off in the early centuries of the church. Also, remember that the God in the bible tells us that there were folks attempting to corrupt the word of God even from the earliest days of the church according to 2 Corinthians 2:17 (For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.). Could those early copies have been corrupted and not passed on down because of that fact? I have been honest in the video and have done much research on the subject looking at both sides of the issue. You may have never heard it described this way before, but, as with the NKJV editor, Arthur Farstad, that I mentioned in the video, it isn't a perspective that is alone with me. Many other scholars have a different perspectives than the majority in academia today. Some still believe God can preserve His word to every generation. I believe Erasmus thought that way and the textual critics of the past who prepared the Textus Receptus. I am pretty sure Luther felt that way as well since he used Erasmus's work to prepare his translation of the bible into his language. There are answers to the difficult questions. As with all things, there comes a point when you simply believe it or not. I did not address the Johannine comma in the video. It is a deep subject. I have no doubt it belongs in the text though. I have preached on the passage on this channel before. The reasons I believe it belongs is that the passage simply doesn't make sense without it and (something that I am afraid you have not considered) we simply do not have every manuscript ever written down across the centuries. Just because we don't have a manuscript with the "comma" until the later manuscripts of today doesn't mean that the verse wasn't present originally, in extinct manuscripts, or in other places. Here is a great article arguing for it's inclusion. I hope you check it out: www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57
@@PastorScottIngram if the early "corrupt" manuscripts were not passed down, are you saying that the alexandrain texts are not corrupted? because that's what you're implying in your videos... no you have not been honest in the video- all you did was prop up the textus receptus without acknowledging its flaws or its history. that's either deliberate on your part or you've done it in ignorance. if the latter, then you should have done the appropriate research before making the video. if it's the former, then you're being deceptive to the body of Christ an it's tantamount to bearing false witness. if you believe the comma johanium is original, then you can have no assurance that God preserved his word. because you're saying that a significant theological verse can disappear completely from the manuscript tradition and pop up over a thousand years later. this does nothing to strengthen people's faith in the word of God. your faith is in a translation, not the actual word of God
Actually it does. The NKJV and the MEV both use the same TR that the KJV uses for the New Testament. Many lie about this truth and it shameful. Take a strong’s concordance and compare it between the KJV and the NKJV and you will see.
The KJV has been supernaturally changed, every KJV on earth is changed. I think there are many preachers that know this but won’t tell the congregation out of fear of being labeled a nut, or losing their job. Examples: The KJV now has the following words: Unicorn, tire, muffler, manifold, science (talks of science deniers), turtle instead of turtle dove, wine bottles instead of wineskins, gay clothing, replaced love with charity, musick, traffick, (cults use the k at the end of some words ending in c.) Moses tablets are now called tables.that’s just a few the KJV is full of changes!
The first verse in Genesis says : In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It used to say “heavens” I know it was because I remember thinking how many heavens are there? We all know it said heavens.
The NKJV uses heavens but the KJV has always said heaven. KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. NKJV In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I love Jesus, and I got saved 20 years ago, but words in the KJV especially are supernaturally changing. Wolf replaces Lamb. Bottles replaces wineskins. In John 3:16 "should" replaced "shall". Ravens replaces Sparrows. Job 21:24 Now says "His breast are filled with milk" Really? And many many more words have changed. Here are some new words that are now in my bible - Matrix, Nursing Fathers, Stuff, Butler, Corn, Fryingpan, Dwarfs, Bank, Muflers, Naughty, Pavement. And many more. I would not say these things if it were not true.
@@PastorScottIngram OOOOH, Does the Lord God whistle for the fly or hiss for it? Do we serve a jealous God or is His name Jealous? You better start believing!
Also notice his double standard. He possesses an entire set of commentaries on his top shelf behind his desk of John MacArthur commentaries. John MacArthur is a strong supporter of various translations.
That is strange considering I have shared with you several verses and passages on the subject on your other posts. Are there no verses that state we should just take a light view of scripture and not be so concerned about cutting passages or verses or words from the sacred text that you can share with me? I can’t say that I have found any that take such a light view of scripture.
My adjective of “very” before words is not make any difference in what those several verses are saying. Did you only read the couple of sentences I wrote? You would have been better to take a long look at the verses themselves to see whether or not God is concerned with adding or deleting His words.
Christians can't even agree among themselves. You must be so proud. So many gods to choose from, but you were fortunate enough to be born in the right century, in the right region of the world, where the right God was being offered, and successfully deciphered which is the right version, of the right God. Poor little kids in born under Zeus, Allah, or Vishnu are already sentenced to eternal torture.99.999% of all humanity have missed the revelation and too will burn. This is what they call god's plan of salvation. Just and right is he. You send yourself to hell, but god will save you from himself if you believe some things, and sin not. Get cracken.
Actually, the scripture says “God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” I serve a loving God who always does what is right. You are very arrogant to mock the One who gives you every breath you ever had. You are looking at things in your limited perspective. He loves us all and has clearly shown that too us in the gift of His Son. Praying for you to see Him.
Its a neat trick to "gas light" by referring to a book as scripture. Out of the gate implying its above censor. I'm aware your book says of its deity that it is love. Same book that has him on record murdering babies, and advocating slavery, and sets up a mafia scheme to pay him uncritical praise, or be burned. You find me arrogant because I question this narrative. You deny many god's, and versions of your same god. Did you not question? I bet you can't demonstrate one claim you make, and think you posses special revelation that is withheld from lessor infidels, and speak for a god. Now that's arrogant.
@@andremontana1327 I certainly questioned and tried to comprehend God. We all do because He is real and seeks to have a relationship with us all. I would be cautious of what you are doing though. You are judging the morals of God when He is the One who has given the very basis of morality. Could it be that you have made a mistake in your reading rather than your Creator acted immorally? You say He murders babies and advocates slavery and is basically evil by your definition. Could it be that you are evil and have a warped view of the world? Your warped interpretation of God isn't God and if you think that He is the evil one, you have misread. Mankind is responsible for its own sin. Mankind's choices have brought the evil. You are not God. He is God. I don't expect you to agree, but I would hope you would try to see why others disagree with you.
You say he's real but can't demonstrate it, although your book promises you power, the ability to heal, and even greater Works than Jesus did. Why is that? Are you a believer? Your book says these signs shall follow them that believe (Mk16) do they follow you? My sheep hear my voice... do you hear his voice? are you bringing every thought into The Obedience of Christ? Do you sin at all. If you do you're of the devil (1jn3) regardless of gifts and grace. Why should I be cautious? Are you threatening me on behalf of your god? You see, deep down even you know it's not about love, it's about subjugation, Fear, intimidation, and compliance. This is what religion is really about. Control. I am judging by his own mandated standard. He said you'll know them by their fruits. Directing the rape of Virgin prisoners of War(deut21), condoning and directing slavery(ex21), infanticide, and genocide are not good fruits I would say. There is no context for murdering babies(num31) , and you can't simply declare rape is righteous because your god said so. The Bible deity took a king's Free Will away, made him sin, then murdered all the first born in the land as a reprisal for what he puppet mastered the king to do. I'd say that's fairly immoral, but he doesn't like you bringing it up according to Romans 9. So yes I frown on your deities actions. If that's warped then so be it, but I would call it knowing the difference between right and wrong. You know the difference as well but are compelled to make excuses for a Go'aul out of fear. Thank goodness there is zero evidence for the existence of this celestial dictator, nor Zeus, Allah, Horus and thousands of others.
God loves you even though you spread warped Ideals about Him based on your limited understanding and obvious anger towards Someone you claim isn’t even real. I pray you will see that before it is too late.
Hi Clinton, The NKJV does use the same Greek Textus Receptus that the KJV uses for the New Testament to translate it into English. One might not agree with all of the NKJV's choices in how it translates those Greek words, but it does use the same base for the New Testament. I think that by not acknowledging that fact, many who argue for the KJV discredit themselves by simply not being completely honest about it or not understanding the facts about it. I did a blog series where I went through the book of Matthew and a little bit of 1 Peter comparing the verse in the KJV and the NKJV a few years ago. I would encourage you to read it. You can find the articles here: scottlingram.wordpress.com/?s=kjv%2Fnkjv
@@PastorScottIngram it does use the critical text in some areas and they were dishonest in their bases of the text. I don't mind an accurate text based off of the kjv, but it is yet to happen. There's no holy ghost involved in it, I feels dead to me. It is not the kjv, it's a whole new translation, so it's name is a lie.
Clinton Post I have not found them to be dishonest in using the Textus Receptus. The NKJV just translates a Greek word that can be translated a little differently. If you ever have opportunity to use a Strong’s Greek concordance, you can compare them Word by word and see for yourself that it using the TR too. God bless you brother!
Another Catholic here, and I heed God's Word (and especially the words of Christ) over any man's word. Jesus said to Satan, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4) Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him of the plagues described in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away from his share of the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
