Why the King James Bible 

WOW!

Amen!

Pre-revolutionary war colonial children were taught to read from the KJV. As one reads from Genesis moving forward, vocabulary becomes more complex. Prisoners who have reading difficulties are sometimes tested in relation to reading levels. Some come up to college level.

This is awesome!

The king JAMES NEVER says to worship on Sunday people

The king james Bible took 7 yrs to make. And 7 means complete and perfect.

@@davidinchcliff4560 yep, thats why its the only translation I read

@fillup901 it is also the only one that doesn't have a copyright therefore anyone can print it for free

@@davidinchcliff4560 Google is not allowing me to post my recent reply to your comment. not sure why. I just wanted to let you know i didnt know that and thanks for sharing. The KJB is also ful lof divine numerical equations, just search jaw dropping 666 discovery king james bible and the video by Truth is Christ channel will show up.

@@davidinchcliff4560 The KJV actually predates the concept of copyright by nearly a century (copyright started with the Statute of Anne in 1710). In the United Kingdom, the King James Bible can be printed only by the King’s Printer (Cambridge University Press), Cambridge University Press in their capacity as a University Press, and Oxford University Press. In Scotland, the rights are delegated to the Scottish Bible Board. Had it been published after 1710, it would’ve been copyrighted for a while but now would be in the public domain. There are others that are in the public domain that anyone can print and distribute. Such as the Revised Version, American Standard, Word English Bible, Darby Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, among others.

R Gray True

Amen

Your comment is incompetent, the revised bishops bible (kjv) included the letter to the reader and the revisers/translators refute kjv onlyism, ABSOLUTELY. My 1611 disagrees with modern kjv, the 1611 is defended, but nearly no onlyist has a 1611 or the letter to the reader, more than 8400 marginal and reference notes concerning the ECLECTIC TEXT OF ERASMUS, STEPHANUS, and BEZA, not from the TR, which term was not even coined until 1633 by the Elzevir brothers. The revised bishops bible (kjv) was the Catholic pew bible created by Catholics and read from the pews by Catholics.

@@Rightlydividing-wx1xb yes that is why i hold to the 1611 first edition not the revisions. I am not a so called KJV onlyist. I just want what those so called modern versions claim is their source for updates. Sorry but being in "Christianity" for more than 40 plus years using all kinds of bibles and learning the truth...i think it is important to have THE only bible NOT copyrighted and that modern churches hate and Satanists want gone. They like the modern versions. No sir. I want translation not man's copyrighted "versions". Yes they even changed the KJV. therefore i am not KJV only. I am true holy bible only. give me the one that the most faith came and the most martyrs produced because they translated it and/or read it. See who you must go to if you use too many copyrighted verses from modern bibles.

@@henrylaurel4476 tell me why Satanists, modern churches, and Rome hate the Av1611? Tell me why they claim to base their bibles on the AKJV but have actually changed it. Look at the documentaries: A Lamp in the Dark, Tares Among the Wheat, and A Bridge to Babylon to get the history of the Bible and what happened to it. How they are trying to create a one world bible. Ecumenical. When you read the true Word of God you will have a filling like never before. Real growth not confusion or stagnation. Modern versions brought division and shed a whole lot of doubt on the authority and inerrancy of God's Word. They are copyrighted in which the AV1611 is not. See who is behind the modern bibles...

@@Rightlydividing-wx1xb the AV1611 took 47 scholars and several years of testing to TRANSLATE God's Word. Of course there were those who wanted to get rid of it but couldn't so they changed it ever so slightly. You have been lied to. Follow the trail and see there are only two kinds of bibles: one comes from Antioch the AV1611 all others come from Alexandria Egypt and the Vatican. Is there any wonder why the true AV1611 has been hidden, King James attacked, and even a group called kjv onlyists created? They want to lie and cast as much doubt as they can on the "every jot and tittle" bible. They hate it so much.

AMEN 😇 hopeseeker97

What inspiration? The KJV is nothing more than an imperfect uninspired translation. Like all translations. As for doctrine no doctrine is changed in modern translations none at all. Despite what the KJV only cult say, the KJV is not the standard.

What inspiration? The KJV is nothing more than an imperfect uninspired translation. Like all translations. As for doctrine no doctrine is changed in modern translations none at all. Despite what the KJV only cult say, the KJV is not the standard.

@@samlawrence2695 thou sayest...

God requires the things that are past, says the Bible, and this includes the "archaic" language. The thee and thou identifies God as one Person, or one Spirit if you will.

@@justinhemion6279 not thou but I

hopeseeker97: at the "show More" is a link to the handout. Just below the video.

His word has always been preserved. He never said he'd preserve a specific translation of those words.

Yes! God has in deed preserved His Word... but this Word is obviously not King James! It is His Word preserved by Hebrew Rabbis and Scholars in The Masoretic Text of Old Testament, and The scrolls written by the Apostles and preserved by Christ"s disciples in Antioch and then Constantinople, and then Geneva, Switzerland which was the birthplace of The Geneva Bible, the True Bible of The Reformation!

@@henrylaurel4476 WOW, how is David Daniels a cultist? David attended seminary and would be a great help!!

Look up the underground christian network , jason Zelda, excellent details,but for some downloads and details go to BIBLE VERSIONS ,WHAT THE DIFFERENCE, BEYOND THE FUNDERMENTALS , CHICK TRACK, good material too, Excellent reading material, be blessed

There are people that set a goal to read the whole Bible in a year. But that is not studying, and there are people that focus on Hebrew and Greek, once again they are missing the mark. Remember the Bible was in spired by God, therefore we can't read it like other books. We must use principles laid out in the word of God. Such as Isa. 28:8-12, 1cor. 13:1 and 1cor. 2:12-. Remember the Fondation is God is the same, and Jesus is to. Hebrew. 13:8 therefore there will be consistency in old and new testament. Pick a subject in the Bible and read every verse on the given subject. Let's pick death, therefore every word that has to do with it, read it. Death, die, dying grave and so on. Try the sabbath

Charles L Surrett have two good books on the topic, Which Greek Text, and Certainty of the Words.

Not exactly a direct reference, but in Revelation it talks about the tree of life to heal the nations (Rev. 22:2) so, my thoughts are yes we will speak whatever our native language is through all eternity with our Lord, we will be able to understand other nations in their languages somehow. :-)

Amen !!

@@samlawrence2695 nye 😂. Good morning.

The men you mention do NOT rightly divide God's word. I would pick different men to listen to if I were you. Try, David Reed and Dave O'Steen.

@@dkgrace6743 ohh. Did you watch their videos?

​@@Roberto-un4tk If you are talking about the men you mentioned, I have seen enough of them to know they don't rightly divide God's word and teach things that are simply not biblically true and accurate. Be careful with who you watch and believe. Always go to God's word rightly divided to get the proper interpretation of God's word. Ruckman was a very strict Baptist. If you know anything about the Baptist teachings you will know they do not rightly divide the scriptures. I know this for a fact b/c I was in a Baptist church for 15 yrs. No one person has it all correct. But why go to those we know have most of it wrong.

Of course they did not read the N.T. because it was not in book or manuscript form yet. But the word did begin to be published in the first century, as says the Book of Acts.

@@ralphowen3367they did read the NT actually cause they knew it was scripture and referred to it as so

@@ntkmw8058 As a completed manuscript, I do not think the first apostles had the entire N.T. until about 97 A.D.., but individual epistles were in circulation many years earlier.

I have realized now that no author is mentioned in Hebrews and Paul always used his name, either this was Paul's first epistle and didn't use his name in the beginning because Paul was not preaching the same gospel and he would be acursed if he wrote Hebrews after his other epistles which is not likely. A name is not given so its safe to assume it was not needed. God bless

Hebrews is formally anonymous in and of itself and philological analysis strongly argues that it was not written by Paul. The Greek is way too polished when we compare it to any of the Pauline letters, whether written in committee or by Paul alone. Hebrews' style is better than any of the "collaboration" letters (note that many, like Romans, clearly announce Paul and at least one coauthor). Moreover, Hebrews far exceeds those letters I believe to be genuinely Pauline and written only by him, the so-called Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). Some may argue that Paul was under stress and duress when writing the Pastorals, meaning his style suffered, but the Pastorals have much more in common stylistically with, say, Romans and Galatians, than with Hebrews. Also, when was Paul not under stress and duress during his ministry? Of any NT author, Luke would be the likeliest candidate (and this was argued for quite vociferously in the late 19th century) because his command of the language and style is very strong. We can compare Luke-Acts with Hebrews and see strong overlapping that signals a highly-educated and polished author that we don't see with the Pauline corpus. Whoever wrote Hebrews knew Paul's arguments quite well (again, Luke is a strong NT candidate because he's a known companion of Paul). A disciple of Paul, who did not lie by claiming Paul's name and authority, is responsible.

@@krismikewill Thanks for your well put response, I now believe it was Luke, or John Mark. But yes Luke most likely as he also journeyed with Paul often, and also The Holy Spirit did not feel the need to put a name, yet the doctrine is not Pauline. Therefore let Gods word say what it says rather than the publishers putting which name. Also Paul giving his salutation and name in every epistle is further proof Paul did not write Hebrews.

@@BrotherRyan Thanks for the interaction, Ryan. I try to engage fairly, accurately, and without too much jargon. John Mark has traditionally been identified with Mark the Evangelist, the credited author of the Gospel of Mark. Like Hebrews, the Gospel of Mark is formally anonymous. While the Gospel of Luke admits to using sources in its production, and it is practically undeniable that the Gospel of Mark is one, I am not in favor of crediting the author of the Gospel of Mark with the production of Hebrews. For various reasons, I promote an early date for the Gospel of Mark. I also promote a near contemporary date for Hebrews with the Gospel of Mark. I can admit that an author can grow over time, as comparisons of my beginning graduate work in 2002 vs. today would expose, but my presuppositions regarding near contemporaneous compositions rules out the same author for Hebrews and the Gospel of Mark. The idea that the differing genres (theological biography vs. a letter) can mask the style of an author does not hold since Luke-Acts "matches better." The question, "Does the author matter," may not matter here. It is highly important regarding the Pastorals (if Paul is not the author, they are "pious forgeries" that the Spirit did not stop and the canon of Scripture contains lies), but diminishes for those anonymous NT books. I would be shocked to find Mark as that author, but I believe that a Jewish stone mason of 1st century Palestine is God, so I can be convinced 😊.

@@krismikewill Amen, I didnt mean that it doesnt matter to the degree that we should not use context to try to figure out who wrote it, just as we know the New Testament is not in the beginning of Matthew technically but when Jesus died thats when the New Testament could begin. It does not mean the KJV is wrong, but yes I agree it makes a lot more sense that Luke would be the author, I can tell you did more research than me on this topic. I am just thankful to come to right division, the gospel of the grace of God, and the revelation of the mysteries are now much more clear. Thanks for your maturity and keep on coming to the knowledge of the truth on the sound doctrine!

1: When I ride my bike, I like when the winds flow through my hair 2: When I ride my bike, I like when wind flows through my hair No difference in plural or singular. Weak attack

NASB uses manuscripts that were not discovered until 1800s, they disagree with each other on numerous occasions and add/remove passages in the NT 7% from the TR. I'm not going to rewrite an entire sermon on this topic in the comment section, but I would recommend reading "Which Greek Text" and "Certainty of the Words" by Charles Surrett. You'll also notice that any "missing verse" will be in block quotes with a footnote of "not found in oldest and best manuscripts" they didn't have that verse in their manuscripts, so they used the "inferior" TR and used that wording to fill in the blanks.

With the 1769

It was in the KJB, but not part of the KJB. The KJB is a NT and OT.

I wonder when the next revision is due?

Ahh so God has no regard for English speaking people or basically anyone who doesn’t speak Greek or Hebrew and is some kind of far away deist. Do you realize how abhorrent your view is to God? This is abhorrent to us, so imagine how much more it is to God. Please repent my friend this is truly disgusting

I think God uses all versions to his own advantage.. he can draw us to himself with any version, like the niv is what I started out reading, but now he’s made it known to me that it makes him happy when I read kjv, so how could i go back to the niv now that I know this? I can’t.

Compare Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16 in both the King James Version and the New International Version. Can they both be correct ? This is just ONE example of the difference in WORDS between the versions. Why is it that the KJV is public domain and ALL other versions are copyrighted ? Did God almighty need man to come behind him to "improve/make the words more easy to understand?" I do NOT think that is the case. Without faith it is impossible to please God. 💗🙏💗

@@samlawrence2695 And you are very wrong on the accusation of being to to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Marks account actually tells you what blaspheming the Spirit is.

@@samlawrence2695 Sam I agree. I diagree with the notion that KJV-only folks blaspheme the Holy Spirit by for example calling the the niv "satanic". After all all bibles where translated by humans and not the Holy Spirit or angels. But as I said the KJV only folks have no good argument against the NKJV for example. It uses the very same texts as were used to translate the KJV. It's interesting to see how weak and pathetic their arguments against the NKJV are. They have a point about the textual basis- I prefer the byzantine received text over the alexandrian critical text - however that's about it. God bless you

@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 Not wrong at all, nothing sataniic about the solid brilliant NIV. God is using it and blessing it to bring many to Christ. How can Satan cast out Satan? That is blasphemy. Just like the blasphemous idolatrous cult called KJV onlyism.

You are right we should not add to God's word. One of the reasons I do not read the KJV. Besides the archaic English where so many words have changed meaning making it inaccurate. It also has many added uninspired verses, added by uninspired scribes. Also no scripture supports the unbilical indefensible KJV only heresy. If it is a preferred choice, that is different. But this onlyism nonsense is laughable. Or would be if was not one of Satan's most subtle deceptions.

@@Sam-tk6us I have looked at some of the arguments, and for me it boils down to the manuscripts used for translation. The Textus Receptus The alexandrines texts, codex vaticanus, codex Sinaiticus, codex alexandrous, papyrus 75, and some others. One set is inspired and the other has been altered significantly and why they match in places, and yet are so different in others, I am of the opinion that it is the alexandrines texts that have been altered by scribes of about the 7th century according to the Paleographer John Dean Burgon, so I hold that the Textus Receptus are the inspired manuscripts and also because they agree with each other in 90% of the texts, while vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ greatly between themselves, in the 4 gospels alone they differ over 3,000 times, that is clear evidence to me of scribal editing. I was born in 59, so I grew up in the 70s in the Bay Area of California, I did the long hair, and hung out with the wrong crown, raised in one of the most liberal states in the union, if anyone was going to have a problem with the archaic language of the KJV it should have been me according to my background, but I love the KJV and the archaic language is not a problem for me. We make the archaic language a problem only if we want to, my parents told me over and over again that I could do anything I wanted to or set my mind to do, yes within limits of course, so I have no problem reading the KJV, and believing it to be the best bible for English speaking people, I have known people who go to the Shakespearian festivals and loved it, and yet that is the old Elizabethan language in use, and some of our best beloved Hymns use that language, How Great Thou Art, Nearer my God to thee, among others, so that language is still pretty well entrenched, as are certain sayings that come from the KJV also known as bible sayings. I just looked up a list 85 of them that read from the KJV. KJV Bible Sayings still commonly used today A law unto themselves A man after his own heart A stumbling block A thief in the night A thorn in the flesh All these things must come to pass All things to all men And the word was made flesh At their wit's end Be fruitful and multiply Born again Bottomless pit By their fruits ye shall know them Charity shall cover the multitude of sins Crumbs which fall from ... table Death, where is thy sting Den of thieves Dreamer of dreams Eat, drink and be merry Eye for an eye Fallen from grace Fatted calf Fell by the way side Fell flat on his face Fell on stony ground Fight the good fight From strength to strength Get thee behind me Give up the ghost God forbid Holier than thou Honour thy father and mother How are the mighty fallen In the twinkling of an eye Land of Nod Led as a sheep to the slaughter Left hand know what thy right hand doeth Let my people go Let there be light Love thy neighbour as thyself Milk and honey Money is the root of all evil My brother's keeper My name is legion New wine into old bottles No room for them in the inn Out of the mouths of babes Physician, heal thyself Put the words in her mouth Scapegoat Seek and ye shall find Set thine house in order Sheep's clothing Suffer fools gladly Take root The blind lead the blind The last shall be first The leopard [change] his spots The lost sheep The powers that be The signs of the times The skin of my teeth The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak They know not what they do Thou shalt not bear false witness To give than to receive Turn to him the other [cheek] Turned the world upside down Two are better than one Two-edged sword Vengeance is mine Wandering stars White as snow Woe is me

@@dennishagans6339 A lot of hot air that says absolutely nothing. But a circular reasoning to try and justify the KJV only heresy. This myth about the Alexandrian text is "corrupt" has been proven to be a completely false. Just another deception and outrageous lie from the KJV only cult. The Textus Receiptus from which the KJV was translated from.. Are later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with many added uninspired verses. Also of course the KJV translators also relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate. Showing the Catholic influence on the KJV. Why should I read some archaic imperfect uninspired translation, where so many words have changed meaning making the KJV even more inaccurate!? When God has blessed us with more accurate translations in English we can understand? You do know that the KJV translators knew their work was not perfect. Why does the KJV only cult think they know better? The gospel is about Christ and him crucified not some archaic trans of scripture called the KJV. Also it was in Alexandria where the deity of Christ and the doctrine of trinity was defended. It was Antioch where the deity of Christ was denied. So much for the KJV only deceivers about the Alexandrian manuscripts. Manuscripts that are not corrupted by all the added uninspired verses that are in the KJV

???

@@andreaakilic9243 preachers with whiteboards have bad, incoherent theology. Otherwise, they would be able to explain what they were talking about without one. Its more of a proverb than a rule. The barrier for entry on a whiteboard and a marker is significantly lower than a proper chaulkboard or powerpoint. Hence, the preachers who often use whiteboards are too dumb to handle powerpoint (or other related tools) or are unwilling to put significant effort into the delivery medium of their content.

@@Bl_Radio i find them the best, God bless you

@@Bl_Radioare you mentally ill or something? 😂 that is the goofiest ish I’ve heard this entire week

I feel like you are kidding. But I'm not sure lol

"Study" vs "Be diligent". We can be dilegent by studying. Either one works as far as I am concerned.

Congratulations you just changed God's word.

Brother I have the King James greek text 1611. Not trying to argue nor ever change God’s Word.

@@paulscott6762 Hi Paul, No agreement from me. We should then just stick the God's perfect word, which is the KJV in English. Thanks for your response brother. Have a great weekend. Study is the right word.

Yes. The Mandela Effect is terrible. The thing to remember is that only physical information can be changed....but not spiritual reality. Any changes that were made in the KJV does not effect how salvation is attained. The Gospel of Grace that was revealed to Paul has not been affected....and only that information is pertinent to the Body of Christ for Paul is our template. We learn from the rest of the bible, but it is not central to our salvation. 1 CORINTHIANS 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The Mandela Effect is a rabbit hole that is designed to confuse and draw people away from the truth. If a person is aware of it...that is good...but do not focus exclusively on it. It is a Satanic deception (not saying it isn't real).

You’re a victim of psy ops my friend. The word of God can’t be changed, especially supernaturally

No, it really did not. They were purposely put between the new and old testaments and were not considered by the translators (or God) to be part of the word of God. Only historical books.

@@dkgrace6743 EVERY english bible from Wycliffe to the king james contained the apocrypha. it is scripture because the ancient churches said they are.

​@@obadiahrobinson It was not up to "ancient churches" to decision what makes up the bible. That was God's responsibility. The apocrypha was NEVER a part of the true scriptures but was place in between testaments for history purposes. They are not God's word. Jesus never quoted from them and neither does Paul. Why are you on this channel if you believe this fallacy?

@@dkgrace6743 Folks need to stop calling kjv a perfect translation. It is not. Ex. Gen.37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. Grave should be translated Sheol, which is the underworld. This has led false doctrines to rise such as soul sleep. Queber is Hebrew word for grave. This is just one of many mistranslated words in kjv.

​@@tyronehelm4778 So you are a Greek scholar? Maybe you just don't have it right yourself. Besides there has been many false doctrines and religions established even from the true word of God. God's perfect word in the KJB is not the cause of these fallacies or your unbelief in God's word. But you must then have God's perfect word in your hand that God promised to keep for ever? Which one is it? Did you write it yourself? What do you use as God's perfect preserved word? The WORD became flesh. Do you think God's word (Jesus Christ) is imperfect? (John 1:14 [KJV]) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Folks have to stop disbelieving God and take Him at His word that the God who created ALL things can even keep His word by keeping His words. Try listening to part 2 of this lesson.

Omission of part or All is easy to understand - Pls what do you mean EXTRA by 'Changing the Reading' ? - If possible an example would be helpful to understanding your three forms of corruption.

There are no perfect translations, the 1611 version was unreadable and included the Apocryphal books. You call that perfect?

@@tyronehelm4778 the 1611 King James Bible was in Gothic text which was difficult for the English speaking people to read. To the 1611 type was changed so its more readable. U question the 1611 King James Bible? The words of God 😮??

@@debbyantoine My point was if it was a so called perfect translation by God, then there wouldn't be a need for correction and eliminating the Apocryphal books. What some folks don't realize is that their using 1769 edition and not 1611. The kvj also isn't the only bible you can read to get the gospel message for the body of Christ mentioned in 1 cor.15 1-4.

@@tyronehelm4778 accept there are lots of differences between 2 of the Bibles. No letter J in the 1611 King James Bible. Yet there is in the 1769 Edition. Which changes the meaning of the verses.

***** Erasmus may have been catholic but his translating the new testament was against the RCC. He was a reformer at heart and his work was not accepted by the RCC. In fact, it was forbidden for a catholic to read the Erasmus new testament in fear of committing a mortal sin. Erasmus rejected the catholic bible, the Latin vulgate. Erasmus had enough sense to reject the false practices of the RCC.

Covenant Caswell, Oh, but that's different 🤣

halfstep67 ...and Geneva Bible, Tyndale. Those are solid. But agree with you regarding the new translations (ie mid-19th century until now)!

Covenant Caswell if you’re referring to Erasmus, he simply recognized the “received” text which had been preserved (as God promised) miraculously through the Waldenses, Byzantine Christians and Northern Scotts and others...

Manuscripts of the Textus Receptus come from Antioch, Syria...home of the first Christians with Apostle Paul. The other corrupted manuscripts used by the RCC come from Alexandria, Egypt.

Faith in what?

1st Corinthians 15 verses1-4

There's no decree from Yahweh that declares that there be only one book in a single 17th century Germanic language. Lord Jesus said go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature; which necessary means that words of the Bible would be preached and read in different languages; i.e., multiple books of Yahweh's words. The English language was certainly not around at the time that commandment was given.

⁠@@InfinitelyManicYahweh is a desert pagan nobody. Jehovah is his name

@@ntkmw8058 "Yahweh is a desert pagan nobody. Jehovah is his name" -- Upon what basis do you say this?

Is that so? Im pretty sure you dont understand Koine Greek or Hebrew

@@jonathanyeong324 Which bible is inspired?

The KJV is copyrighted google it. Great translation

@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 The words themselves are public domain. If maps, glossaries, concordances, etc. are added, then the Copyright status applies. We either have God's words preserved, as He promised, or we don't. You have a free will, given by Him also. Psalm 12:6,7 KJV 🙏💓🙏

@@michaelhudzik4488 Reality is that the words ARE copyrighted. The ASV for example doesn't have a copyright anymore, it expired. Does it matter? I don't think so. One time God spoke to me and actually quoted the NIV believe it or not. But it was more to make a point I believe as I was obsessing about bible versions at that time. I like the KJV, its literary beauty among other aspects. Let's strive to focus on the weightier matters of the Law of Christ: Unfeigned love out of a pure heart, genuine faith, humility (lowliness of mind and heart) and obedience to the words of Christ. (John 8:51, 10:27, 14:15,21,23,24 etc.) God bless you! 💌

@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 Brother, if you think that the Lord God almighty quoted to you a scripture out of the NIV, please compare Revelation 22:16 and Isaiah 14:12 in both the NIV and the King James. The King James states that Jesus Christ is the bright and morning star in Rev 22, and the NIV states that Lucifer is the morning star in Isaiah 14. Can they BOTH be correct. This is just ONE example. Did God preserve His words or did he need man to change His words to make them "easier to understand." Satan came right behind God after the Lord had commanded Adam not to mess with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and placed doubt in Eve's mind by misquoting God's command. I pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to reveal truth to us, His children, that we may be able to help save souls to His kingdom. Stay strong in the LORD !!! Peace and blessings to you brother! 🙏💓🙏

@@michaelhudzik4488 Michael, Amen.

'Every word of God' is missing in Luke 4:4 not the Matthew reference. Luke 4:4 (KJV) "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4:4 (ESV) "And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” Luke 4:4 (NIV) "Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’” "none are 100% accurate in any or all aspects" - For this to be confirmed, there has to be a 100% accurate text somewhere to compare to and make this judgment. This statement is either self-defeating or axiomatic. Neither bodes well for a Bible believer.

@@GraceAmbassadors as to axiomatic , perhaps we have different understandings of axiomatic, but as to self defeating that's your opinion which can be proved incorrect. There doesn't need to be a 100% perfect bible on earth to compare them all with to know for sure each have inaccuracies. If you have what you believe a 100% accurate bible let me know and we can discuss. Until then I know my understanding is reliable in this matter. P.s. the errors in the KJV are widely accepted and catalogued, yet it is my preferred reading version for numerous reasons and I rely on the word of God in that English format. My understanding of it's minimal errors in no way undermines my faith in God or the preservation of his word for all believers through all time. Having a 99.9% accurate image of a bird doesn't mean I have to doubt the whole picture or my perception of the image because of the 0.1% inaccurate portion. Just as having a 100% accurate but 1% area of it is useful and not dismissed just because it is incomplete. The statement 'doesn't bode well for the believer' is reminiscent of statements I heard in a cult I once was part of. Check yourself on your faith, whether finding out your bible isn't accurate would ruin or undermine your faith. My boding is just fine, how is yours?

The one thing mid acts dispensationalists dont understand is that the Jesus and the 12 never ever spoke in Shakesperean English or Elizabethan English - so how could by their definition say that KJV is the only reliable translation?

@@jonathanyeong324 I consider myself a mid acts dispensationalist, but I agree with you. I actually think other versions are much clearer and better translations of the true meaning. Not sure why KJV only seems to be such a core tenant of this belief system, but I don't agree, and that's ok.

@@staza1 frankly I can see alot of good points in the mid acts theology but their version of 2 Tim 2:15 has been widely abused . If you look at the Greek Interlinear - the word for rihtly divided is actually "accurate handled" - not dividing the church and israel or new and old covenants. I would have been on the side of Mid Acts Dispensationalists if they didnt promote the suprenacy of KJV and accused other Christians of being unsaved. My belief is this I saved solely because I believe in Jesus and His death burial and resurrection - nothing more nothing less

@@jonathanyeong324 I understand what you're saying. However, keep in mind that not all mid-acts dispensationalist promote KJV only, and not all of them wrongly accuse other Christians of being unsaved. ( Although I do tend to agree that there are some that profess Christ that are not true Christians and have not been truly born again. I think the Bible supports this view). Obviously the church publishing this channel believes KJV only, but that belief really has nothing to do with the overall concept of correctly dividing the word. I'm also skeptical about their interpretation of 2 Timothy. However, to me that really doesn't matter much whether it means divide or accurately teach. The primary concept is simply that we need to recognize there are different time periods in the bible, and not everything said was said to us for us to obey and live by. To me this has become so obvious that I can't even imagine how anyone could think otherwise. So I don't think mid-acts rests on KJV or 2 Timothy at all.

@@staza1 i agree but i can see it in their fruits except you of course. I do find you to be kind, gracious and teachable. However their mid acts preaching and KJV only stance seem to be a make them a judger of people's salvation which i vehemently disagree. Did you know Jesus even love those Christians who are legalistic and unkind too? It doesnt make them unsaved if they do indeed believe in Jesus' death burial and resurrection. My people are Chinese and they dont know a word of English let alone KJV english but that doesnt make them unsaved if they dont get all their theology right

Only begotten god is a gnostic reading. Stick with the KJV.