Daniel Tran

Пікірлер

@pansophia93 13 сағат бұрын

I'd like to know what text Dr. Barker is using to translate Psalms 12:6-7, because his translation is inaccurate. And the preserved word in question is about the Old Testament, and it has been preserved. Word for word, letter for letter. Sadly it doesn't seem to be the same for the New Testament. And did Dr. Barker say the NIV is an eclectic translation? Is that why people call it a Frankenstein translation?

@hurleyjc 4 күн бұрын

I can't believe Peter Ruckman didn't get in on this. I thought he might be in it but since he's not it can't be very interesting

@Darcyholte 4 күн бұрын

James white was sooo sharp

@Darcyholte 4 күн бұрын

I think the king James only guys are fools.

@theydontknowmeson007 5 күн бұрын

38:20 totally wrong. It was so every church had the same translation.

@CC-iu7sq 5 күн бұрын

Amazing how Mr.Gipp is KJVO after being wiped by the floor after this discussion.

@MSA-uj7cp 8 күн бұрын

I'm here to listen to Sam Gipp..... 🤣

@MSA-uj7cp 8 күн бұрын

Enter ESV........

@Silky4ever 8 күн бұрын

I am curious where the KJVO guys received their doctorates from? None of them seem that bright.

@ecgf 13 күн бұрын

As an Israelite, I appreciate these kind of discussions. It's just a pity that we Israelites had no representation at this particular table. A great discussion replete with useful information.

@theydontknowmeson007 15 күн бұрын

I believe this whole 3.5hr video can be summed up too "The KJVO guys don't want to admit when they are wrong so they refuse to allow further evidence to enter the picture."

@anthonykeve8894 17 күн бұрын

I’m sorry if/that someone beat me to the following: ALL of the KJ only defenders are little more than Monday morning/armchair quarterbacks thus gross critics* of simply what they don’t like w/little if any evidence to support the same and sometimes playing the victim. OTOH ALL of their* “opponents” ARE translators providing adequate to superb defense** of their decisions maintaining cool heads in the process. **evidence

@ferdinandtitular7047 17 күн бұрын

Please bring back the NIV 1984 version of the bible 😊

@Subliminal8853 18 күн бұрын

56:44

@LordsDaggermen 23 күн бұрын

@0:18 research the triquetra symbol.

@CC-iu7sq 4 күн бұрын

It stands for Trinity.

@carlcolemanjr 29 күн бұрын

Wow, I watched this whole video. I was not expecting it to be nearly as interesting as it actually was.

@cranmer1959 Ай бұрын

The modern translations only people are attacking the KJV, not KJV only.

@joehernandez1765 Ай бұрын

Good 👍🏼 information

@eclipsesonic Ай бұрын

Regarding the KJV's rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל (hêlēl) as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12, as John pointed out, it's simply transliterating the Latin term in Jerome's Vulgate into English here, just like the KJV translators did with the word "Calvariae" in Luke 23:33, where we get the word "Calvary." However, if you translate the Hebrew into English in Isaiah 14:12, you get Day Star or Morning Star, which is something that even the KJV translators pointed out, because if you look at the marginal note, they put in "O Lucifer: Or, O day star", so even they recognised the fact that that was the meaning for the Hebrew word, so when you look at all the facts, it's silly to suggest that modern translations are trying to equate Lucifer with Jesus, because then you could make the same point about the KJV translators calling Lucifer as Day Star as a legitimate translation.

@CC-iu7sq 4 күн бұрын

Not to mention that scripture states that angelic being is “Morning Star”. Job 38:7. Lucifer is called morning star PRIOR to his fall. It was a GOOD name to have, prior to his fall.

@Kanne606 Ай бұрын

JON’AH - JOHN 1 - JOHN 2 - JOHN 3 - JOHN - JON’US (join us - all of one tribe) 2 John King James Version (KJV) 1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth; John is a woman, Jesus' daughter, John the Baptist Mother James 1, who sits at the right hand of Jesus in the painting of the Lord's Supper, is King James

@fraks72 Ай бұрын

lol the KJV militants. There are people in Asia dying for the gospel who don’t speak English or kj. They believe and have faith and many many many more have never seen the bunk or maybe they got a chapter from the book of John. They a willing to die for the Kingdom of God because they hv faith. Lol but Americans have to have whole Bible to understand and believe. In America people won’t rely on faith.

@drj602 Ай бұрын

@1:42 Concern for people understanding is why they must change “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 as the KJB reads to “Morning Star”. Well, Lucifer is a word people understand for “Satan”. Morning Star is a title associated with… wait for it, “The Lord Jesus Christ”. I wonder if today we have puffed up intellectuals in charge of these things where once we had spiritual scholars.

@drj602 Ай бұрын

😮 The “morning star” debate: At @ 1:34:50 the gentleman who is King James only makes a very strong point.

@drj602 Ай бұрын

👏👏👏 ☺️ The various “John Ankerberg Show” DEBATES from the 1980s were such a tremendous help in my spiritual development and I will remain eternally grateful for them.

@cranmer1959 29 күн бұрын

The Ankerberg show completely dodged the actual issue: textual criticism.

@edwardlacalifornia9634 Ай бұрын

James White is a Jesuit

@ubespam5477 Ай бұрын

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace's succinct closing statement was a mic drop. 👏

@airiksknifereviews9548 Ай бұрын

Lucifer should have been left alone imho . The Latin word has become an American word for Satan . I believe this is where the kjv only guys are correct , the readers of today know LUCIFER as Satan .

@mark9531 28 күн бұрын

"the readers of today know LUCIFER as Satan" Then the readers of today are upholding a Roman Catholic teaching from a Roman Catholic Bible. Jerome used the Latin word, Lucifer, which means morning star, in his Latin Vulgate Bible. And it is a Roman Catholic teaching that Lucifer is Satin. So it is the Roman Catholics who translate Is 14.12 to be Morning Star. ______________________ There is no way to get around the fact that the KJV Onlyist, in conjunction with the Roman Catholics, are wrong about Is 14.12

@mark9531 28 күн бұрын

The correct interpretation of Isaiah 14.12 is the Hebrew is translated a morning star (not capitalized, not a proper name) is referring to exactly what the Bible says it is referring to... *The King of Babylon and nothing else*

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool Ай бұрын

And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 If you are in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: OPC, PCA, Rpcna, Urcna, or a Canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian/Reformed churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe an Lcms Lutheran church. If you’re Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. - Hebrews 10:24-25

@Rambling-Thomas Ай бұрын

What a fantastic debate. Thank you for uploading this.

@cranmer1959 Ай бұрын

The entire debate is a huge red herring. The issue is not which translation we should use. The issue is whether we should treat the Bible like any other book and subject it to arbitrary axioms of the science of textual criticism. Is the Bible special revelation or is it just another book to be reconstructed using an ever-changing "science" of textual criticism?

@henrylaurel1188 Ай бұрын

Bluster, ignorance, and deception from the KJV only cult. Reasoning, logic and sanity based on the truth from the Bible believers. In other words those who have not fallen for the KJV only heresy.

@zachlehkyi9951 Ай бұрын

James white sucks.

@matthewwhite4564 Ай бұрын

not as much as the KJVO brigade...

@zachlehkyi9951 Ай бұрын

@@matthewwhite4564 same difference. Both heretics

@chris12780 Ай бұрын

The way these KJVO advocates argue is very irritating. Obviously they don’t know anything about Hebrew and Greek. They don’t know how to read in Greek and yet they are extremely arrogant!

@scobo4743 Ай бұрын

Sam gipp and this other fella are probably the worst people to have argue for kjv only. It smells like a setup. Hold fast the word of God.

@matthewwhite4564 Ай бұрын

arguing for the kjv only is like trying to pour water through a colander. useless.

@robbymcdobby Ай бұрын

This is the most 1995 video that ever 1995'd.

@KFish-bw1om Ай бұрын

I 1995'd once....couldn't handle it. I had to format c: /s almost immediately.

@ThomasCranmer1959 17 күн бұрын

This video was a commercial success for the now defunct NASB 1995 edition.

@AgeDeo2009 Ай бұрын

We have to be very careful not to put God in a box, limiting His ability to preserve His holy word only one way. Scripture says, our ways are not God's ways and His thoughts not our thoughts. Knowledge of the Biblical manuscript history clearly proves God sovereignty in protecting and preserving His word for us.

@modustrollens7833 Ай бұрын

V I N T A G E

@Zachary_Setzer Ай бұрын

Dan Wallace bringing absolute fire when he asks which English dictionary they recommend to their congregation. Let's go.

@cranmer1959 Ай бұрын

Which variant does Wallace go with during his textual critical approach to the Greek text? Oh, right. Wallace is the pope and gets to decide what belongs in the Greek New Testament and what does not belong there. Is the Bible just another book to be reconstructed using the axioms of textual criticism? Or is it special revelation?

@Zachary_Setzer Ай бұрын

@@cranmer1959 What the original authors wrote is special revelation. The whole point of textual criticism is to get as close as we can to the autographs. We have absolute certainty that the critical text is closer than the TR or KJV. Why would you prefer a Bible that you know is deficient?

@cranmer1959 Ай бұрын

@@Zachary_Setzer You are not giving me science. You're only stating that you have faith in an ever-changing "science" that never arrives at any absolute truth. Yet, you assert that you have "absolute certainty" in what is obviously full of errors. Explain to me how a theoretical inerrancy translates to an actual inerrancy since the entire basis of textual criticism is a fallible process of reconstructing a text out of bits and pieces of a jigsaw puzzle? You have bought into the lie of skepticism. The Westminster Confession of Faith does not affirm skepticism. It affirms beginning with Scripture as the axiom of the entire system of propositional truths which are summarized by the Confession by good and necessary consequence. WCF 1:6. Since we do not have the autographs--as you have yourself just admitted--then it is simply a matter of which axiom we will begin with? Your axiom seems to be an ever-changing eclecticism. My axiom is that the Textus Receptus is a providential preservation of the original autographs. Since there are way less variants in the TR, it is a much better representation of the autographs. Picking and choosing variants by majority opinion is prone to error.

@cranmer1959 Ай бұрын

@@Zachary_Setzer Close only counts in horseshoes.

@Zachary_Setzer Ай бұрын

@@cranmer1959 Perfect would be great. Lacking perfect, closer to perfect is preferable to further from perfect. It's shocking that that isn't obvious to you.