Comparison Of The King James Bible And Christian Standard Bible CSB | 1

[@tdstone8910]

I have a Holman CSB and the versers that are pointed out that are missing are in fact included in the foot notes

[@doedenfolk]

Thank you for this. I grew up on NIV, ESV, etc. When hearing the arguments for KJV, I was a little discouraged because it can be hard for me to understand. I have been reading the MEV on my phone for now till I can get a physical copy.

[@martinheatingcoolingmartin4693]

I can say im definitely one who believes in biblical preservation down to the words of the Bible. I also appreciate how the Kjv puts in italics any words they add. I also enjoy and appreciate how the capitalize any time it speaks of God and Jesus Christ.

Although this video is 5 years old, it is still timely. I have many different translations which are very helpful for comparison. I just happen to have the Fire Bible (ESV) in front of me and noticed the scriptures you pointed out. It is always interesting when comparing Translations. I personally grew up with the KJV, so it is deeply embedded in my recall. Thank you for pointing the Scriptures out. I really enjoy all of my Bibles. The Amplified Study Bible is worthy of studying from. I truly believe the Holy Spirit is the Teacher when reading any Translation. Blessings to you Pastor. Enjoying all your videos! 🌺🌴

[@karenhickey3377]

Do you have a list of verses you recommend when comparing translations? I appreciate your videos. They are incredibly helpful.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes, I just did a few part series on that.

[@traceakacasper]

Thank you brother, my sister was asking about this bible and I asked for Him to send me an answer and here we are, imma call tmrw and speak with you so I can get a better sense unto what I should witness unto her, thank you for your work, God is still using you brother🤍🙏

[@marynbartolazzi1988]

wow 👌 spot on.. keep preaching God's Holy Word 🙌 may God's grace and His spirit rest upon you and your family ❤

[@jennifergalvez99]

Thank you for your review! I’m currently reading KJV but I think I’d like to try CSB next!! ❤

[@karenlowe2999]

Thank you for helping me to understand the difference and Gods TRUTH!

[@TheSojourningPilgrim]

It's important to note that the phrase "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" is included in verse 48 of the CSB text and not just in the footnotes as in verses 44 and 46. It is quite conceivable to me that a scribe added the phrase to verses 44 and 46 in later texts for the sake of consistency. But the reader of the CSB will learn a "doctrine of hell" that is well expanded upon by it being in verse 48.

[@thegospelhq7780]

Thanks for the review. I just ordered the HCSB Genuine leather cowhide bible. I hope its good!

[@ReadingforRest4711]

Wow!... thank you for sharing this information!.... I am following along, and learning the differences, and thanks for your explanations!

[@macnottsuk]

I'm looking at getting the HCSB so I have done some research on KZbin and got a digital copy in a bible app to look at. Unfortunately I have to say the verses you say are missing are not missing from my digital copy!!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Interesting!

[@macnottsuk]

I have ordered an outreach paperback copy from Amazon. It was a silly low price. So it gives my the opertunaty to check out the printed version before getting a decent study version. I'll let you know what I find.

[@Phicxtion]

Mac Notts any update?

[@macnottsuk]

Sean Savage the item is coming from an Amazon second retailer so guess it could be a month before it arrive. I'll let you know my findings when it arrives.

[@Phicxtion]

Mac Notts Ok thanks. I found another pretty good review/article if you want to read this in the meantime. www.crosswalk.com/blogs/jason-soroski/the-christian-standard-bible--a-review-of-the-latest-bible-translation.html

[@tobiasfoppen2658]

@Pastor Steve, I came across something really nice God's Word will stand forever. "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." (I Peter 1:24-25) The Bible -- Yet It Lives by Willard L. Johnson Generations follow generations -- yet it lives. Nations rise and fall -- yet it lives. Kings, dictators, presidents come and go -- yet it lives. Torn, condemned, burned -- yet it lives. Hated, despised, cursed -- yet it lives. Doubted, suspected, criticized -- yet it lives. Damned by atheists -- yet it lives. Scoffed at by scorners -- yet it lives. Misconstrued and misstated -- yet it lives. Ranted and raved about -- yet it lives. Its inspiration denied -- yet it lives. Yet it lives -- as a lamp to our feet. Yet it lives -- as a light to our path. Yet it lives -- as a guidebook for Heaven. Yet it lives -- as a standard for childhood. Yet it lives -- as a guide for youth. Yet it lives -- as a comfort for the aged. Yet it lives -- as food for the hungry. Yet it lives -- as water for the thirsty. Yet it lives -- as rest for the weary. Yet it lives -- as light for the heathen. Yet it lives -- as salvation for the sinner. Yet it lives -- as grace for the Christian. To know it is to love it. To love it is to accept it. To accept its Christ means Life Eternal.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Awesome!

[@RoastBeefSandwich]

Brother Waldron I would love for you to make a video on why modern scholarship assumes that the very few (yet older) manuscripts are to be trusted above the many (but yet newer) manuscripts that include witness to these verses you are mentioning in this video. I understand that they are making the assumption that older means closer to the originals, but to me and I'm sure many others, it would seem that the majority of texts that read similarly should be trusted above the few that read differently. At least, that is my understanding of this complicated subject. God bless you, Pastor Waldron!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve made several videos on the subject, they’re just older. I’ll try to make some newer ones. God Bless!

[@martinheatingcoolingmartin4693]

Thank you, I enjoyed and appreciated learning about this. Overall I like the Csb and the Nkjv. But there are some extremely important differences that actually matter to doctrine and correct doctrine. It’s actually sad many would overlook these things as nothing to get hung up about. But, then the new bible believer comes along reading the csb that’s missing certain verses that are important to doctrine. Now what has that new believer have as their basis? Missing verses, now I’m debating with a new believer about Mary’s birth of Jesus as her Firstborn and the new believer says, ya but my bible doesn’t say that and that’s what I’ve been taught. It’s tricky and so is the devil, no translation is perfect as it has been translated. Yet, what about Roman’s 8:2. In the Nkjv? These versions cause confusion. The enemy causes confusion. I’d say still stick with the textus receptus (Kjv) as your and mine authoritive text. And if you read anything else, read it knowing what should be there, and that translation as a lesser version easier to digest. But don’t leave out the vegetables. I started with the Kjv, I then read the Nlt, I’ve read many others too. I own enough versions. But the one wholesome version I always default to that I can trust is the Kjv. I don’t question it every time like I do with others. The others I always feel on guard and that I need to keep comparing to the Kjv. I guess I’ll just still to my beloved Knjv foundational study bible. It’s good!

[@martinheatingcoolingmartin4693]

Correction: Romans 8:1b not 8:2 in the Kjv

[@captainnolan5062]

The CSB footnote for Revelation 8:13 states: Other mss read "Angel".

[@diebibel5596]

Looking into the best modern versions with least corruption, so if do not understand something in my KJB to have them as synonym words dictionary for my KJB. Which ones would you recommend? I found MEV best, please recommmend me your choice. Thank you for answering all my questions, your experience with so many Christian things really help.

[@diebibel5596]

Btw I will never trust anything that contradict the KJB, I know that the KJB is God’s only perfect, flawless Bible. Nevertheless having some modern synonyms for “hard” KJB words could help more understanding.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

KJVer, or the Defined Bible is good also. Kjv 2 and 3 by Jay P Green American KJV

[@diebibel5596]

New Life Of Albany Ga. thanks sir

[@rickeason4401]

Thank you for standing up for the King James Bible. God's perfect, preserved word! Yes, I'm a King James only Bible Believer! Don't let these critics in the comment section change your mind and take your Bible away. Ain't nothing new from these so called modern bibles that can't be found in a King James Bible! But there is plenty taken away from these books stemming from the Alexandrian text. Prase Jesus, glory to God our savior! (Psalms 12:6, Matthew 24:35)

[@robbo916]

What about Genesis 1:26-27? I think you will see a difference there too if you look closely.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Thank you!

[@jb-lf4yq]

i just a few minutes ago ordered a csb study bible, from what i've read of the csb on my bible app i enjoy it. it will be a nice addition to have along side my nkjv, kjv, esv and nasb95, i like to have a variety of translations to refer to because some make more sense than others i'm also planning to order a copy of the lsb whenever they're back in stock. i definitely prefer more literal translations but the more modernized translations can be a tremendous blessing when you just can't seem to understand what's being said

[@bradleymiller437]

How odd.

[@nancyduhalde4679]

But whose “understanding” are you accepting? Wouldn’t you want to have the most accurate preserved Words from which to understand,… or do you prefer just anything “understandable”? That’s a challenge I gave myself… may take a little more work to find out what certain words of Old English MEAN, but once you’ve got that down, you have a better more Divine understanding since the word for word translation is most accurate. All the best!

[@joshj7012]

@@nancyduhalde4679 so you love the NASB then, since it’s more literal than the KJV? Or why not just learn Hebrew and Greek?

[@nancyduhalde4679]

@@joshj7012 Hi again Josh…. I would disagree that NASB is more literal, but I do believe from studying church history, hermeneutics and Bible development through the ages that the King James is the MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the Bible, coming from the textus receptus and each verse being scrutinized 43 times by Biblical scholars with knowledge of original scripts Hebrew and Greek indeed. I agree it is important to compare to original languages and I think when you do that you will be enlightened to see why KJV over any other version is superior in its translation from Hebrew and Greek to English. May God continue to bless you!

[@susyhebner2543]

Good for you! Read all the translations & then the Holy Spirit will teach you & pull things together in your head. KJV is my fallback but throughly enjoy all the others. If you haven’t purchased a LSB I highly recommend it for comparison. No Bible is perfect, only God is perfect.

[@thebiblestudyhelper9389]

The king James is the most altered scripture on the market today

[@donwagner6343]

I have a 2010 printing of the HCSB and the verses you said are omitted are not omitted in my Bible. They are there in the proper, numbered sequence.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes, the hcsb and csb have some differences. Is there any footnotes or symbols such as parentheses, asterisks etc. that dispute their authenticity in any way?

[@donwagner6343]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Yes. There are brackets around the scriptures you spoke about and also footnotes referencing what looks like other manuscripts.

[@retrokaye113]

I was following along with your video with my NKJV and my CSB in front of me. The removed verses you spoke of are in the NKJV actual text and they are in the CSB in the end of verse notes. None of them were completely omitted. I just had to look down at the end of verse notes. ??? With the exception of Revelation 1:11. I am the Alpha and the Omega has been omitted and was not in the end of verse notes? 😲 It is in the NKJV.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

This is not a comprehensive list. Secondly, end of verse inclusion automatically cast doubt on the authenticity. I don’t always say some csb etc Bibles have it at the bottom or something, because it grows so tedious to offer the caveat in the dozens of videos I do on this topic. Also, not all of them include them even at the bottom.

[@retrokaye113]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa thanks for clarification. I'm new to Bible study and have now purchased several study bibles. I wasn't challenging you. I'm just trying to get an understanding.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@retrokaye113 No problem! God bless you!

[@neilenglish7433]

The CSB includes Matthew 17:21 in the footnotes, so no big deal.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Footnotes cast doubt on its authenticity.

[@neilenglish7433]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa I admire your great passion for the KJV Pastor Waldron. Praying for your country, Neil.

[@marcospou6541]

on my digital CSB bible you can find all those missing verses.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen!

[@1791Actual]

But they are generally annotated as that the earliest manuscripts exclude the verse. The CSB also has this annotation in the footer references.

[@blainetsesmelis4834]

God’s word will reach whoever is willing to read/learn from whichever they feel comfortable with. I found Jesus (again) from listening to a Muslim... God’s plan IS God’s plan. The KJV for me is a go to for witnessing to others, but I also share other translations to fit their understanding.

[@geo-yq4ed]

I have looked into the king james version and find many contradictions. Which version should i use?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

NKJV?

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

I appreciate your stand on preservation. I'm sticking with the KJV.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen!

[@moisesg.v.1575]

God preserved His word in the multitude of manuscripts, not in the KJV. Actually the KJV has different readings even when compared to the majority text, surprise surprise, thing that many KJVO cultists are not even aware. One dramatic mistake in the KJV translation is in Acts 19:37 where they translated HIEROSULOUS Literally ROBBERS OF PAGAN TEMPLES as "robbers of churches" making churches like pagan temples (maybe they were right and christian churches are indeed pagan temples). Church by the way, is Greek: EKKLESIA (assembly better translated for the assembly of God was already at mount Sinai as the Bible says, and it was not born at Pentecost), so it is not HIEROSULOUS.

[@henrybemis8913]

Salvation is a Gift through Faith in Christ....NOT "sticking to" a 17th Century English Translation of the Bible. Your position in Christ is through His Shed Blood - not by being a King James Only schismatic.

[@daogdaog]

The presenter was not talking about salvation. He was merely talking about missing verses in CSB which are found in other versions not just KJV.

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

I was doing my Bible reading the other week and when came across Jeremiah 34:16.The Cambridge edition says ye while the Oxford says he.Which is the correct rendering? Thanks in advance.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Cambridge. There’s so other differences as well. I’ve done a vid on it. Thanks!

[@kevingordon1404]

some of verses have been put in footnotes as they have found scrolls a lot older than what was used for king James bible and them verses were not on original scrolls and may have been put in by people by accident by scribes

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I would just respectfully disagree. That is the standard consensus, but after many years of research, I would say that is incorrect.

[@karenhickey3377]

Do the newer versions of CSB have these missing verses??

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes

[@mchaywood83]

The verses are "there" they are just in the footnotes. You can then decide for yourself whether they were in the original manuscripts. You get nothing like this from KJV. I am not arguing for one version or the other and recognize the KJV translators did not have access to the Alexandrian text. However, with modern copies of the KJV it would be great for them to point out the differences in the manuscripts just like the other translations do in the footnotes. I think the NKJV may have the best documentation of all of the translations of textual variants and which manuscripts say what.

[@pianist4him52]

You're absolutely right Matt. I followed along w/my Holman's NKJV Study Bible and I found that they're all included in the references of both the NKJV and the CSB.

[@dmax169]

Im a massive KJV fan, however what people always miss in these comparisons is that to compare one version against the KJV is an incorrect comparison as they are translated from different manuscripts, so of course they will render slightly different. When everyone compares the modern translations they always compare it to the KJV instead of the greek and Hebrew that it was translated from.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have done many videos on the various text bases.

[@dmax169]

New Life Of Albany Ga. that may be true but comparing the text of the CSB to the KJV and saying that they are different is pointless. Of course they will be different, that’s the whole point of different translations and since the foundations are from 2 different manuscripts that doesn’t make the translation inaccurate. It just means it’s been translated from a different starting point. The only way that a textual critic could say that it’s bad is by comparing it to the original manuscripts of the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

And where are these original manuscripts? My point is they may be making accurate or somewhat accurate translations from inaccurate manuscripts. I would also posit the superiority of the reformation translators, and the urgency for accuracy for which they translated. The penalty of death. See William Tyndale and John Rogers among others.

[@dmax169]

New Life Of Albany Ga. that could be correct that they may be inaccurate manuscripts, however that’s the point that I believe you need to make and show those differences. You can’t compare the CSB to the KJV and say 1 is wrong because it’s different, of course it’s different lol! It’s supposed to be. Copies of The original manuscripts are everywhere now. The MEV is another version that has just come out which was translated from the TR. compare that with he KJV against the Greek and you’ll see they are saying the same thing. Also even the NT aid the KJV proves that The Apostle Paul, Peter, Phillip and Jesus were fine with quoting from the Septuagint which the KJV in the OT didn’t use. Jesus quotes from it in Luke 4:18 as you’ll see he’s reading directly from the scripture in a synagogue and it doesn’t line up with the KJV rendering of Isaiah 61 word for word, only in the Septuagint is it word for word quote. Philip on the Gaza Strip again read to the Ethiopian eunuch beginning at the place in the scripture where he was at and reads out the quote from Isaiah which again is quoted from the Septuagint word for word and in fact 2/3 of the quotes from the OT are quoted from the Septuagint which is a text that the KJV didn’t even use or if it did then there is no evidence of that in the OT otherwise the quotes would be word for word accurate with where they’re quoting from and they’re not. Again this is the point that we need to be comparing translations again the original manuscripts they were written from and not against other versions.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve done a review on the MEV and numerous reviews on textual basis and their respective differences. This is just 1 of dozens on Bible related topics. God Bless!

[@charlesj.murphy51]

The KJV is my go to for personal use and when I read to my son. The CSB is awesome and easy for my son to read. I cannot wait until he gets older and can appreciate and comprehend the KJV on my level.

[@charlesj.murphy51]

@A A Which one do you prefer to use my friend?

[@charlesj.murphy51]

@A A I'm in the same boat as you my friend, grew up heavily influenced by the KJV. I think that's why I love it so much because it's how I grew a relationship with Jesus. But I can admit that the CSB is refreshing and flows really well.

[@NumberSixAtTheVillage]

Kids can catch on to complex things a lot easier than we adults can. You should buy him a KJV because it's the one you read to him, and that will be his go-to Bible. Plus the Holy Spirit will help him understand anything that's too complicated and it will make him inquisitive which will ultimately make him smarter! He'll also have an emotional attachment to the Bible you read to him when he was young.

[@tonycdrive]

Am I the only one, that caught...You’ve read Revelation 2:11 in the first Bible. And compared it to 1:11 in the KJV?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Oops!

[@pianist4him52]

So THAT'S why I couldn't find it! 🤔 Thanks!

[@danvan2683]

With a standard we know where we stand am I right?

[@PastorErickMiller]

Wow you really need to do your research if you want to try to condemn modern versions while trying to rise KJV. The KJV only movement is just as dangerous as Pharisee type thinking. As a teacher myself. Don’t try to write a bible. Teach and save. Versus teach to divide

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve been doing research on it for 30+ years my friend. You evidently haven’t seen the many dozens of vids I’ve done on the subject. God bless friend!

[@michaelogorman5907]

May I suggest you read, "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger

[@galen939]

May I suggest you read “The King James Only Controversy” by Dr. James R. White

[@jwatson181]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Do you know Greek and Hebrew at a level to translate it?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@jwatson181 Greek, yes, but not Hebrew.

[@gleasonparker1684]

ISNT OLDER MSS BETTER. SO LATER ADDED SPURIOUS VSS LIKE 1 JOHM 5.7?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve done several videos on this question.

[@rebekahguse2703]

For your Mark 9:44,46 reference - the csb does in fact refer to “where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” in verse 48, with a footnote that other manuscripts place this in either verse 44 or 46. So this is a misrepresentation. Have not looked up the other references you used yet - just this one so far but so want to point this out.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I point out the footnote aspect in many videos, and have even done a video solely on that. Footnotes certainly still weaken the Verses.

[@GracefulCalvinist]

What about those in other countries who don't read English? Do they have "the true word of God?" It just seems like KJVO people don't think they do if only the kjv is the word of God...

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve done vids on that.

[@TheThornbird21]

10.4 Ministries Ok, I speak English, French, Arabic and some Syriac. I read the Bible in all the languages I mentioned. Truthfully Arabic is the second choice after Greek/ Hebrew. There’s the Smith Van Dyke which is the equivalent of KJV and the Smith New Van Dyke( NKJV) Both are solid and reliable. The beauty of Arabic is it’s a Semitic language, identical to Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic. These languages feel right at home with eastern expressions and ways of thinking in the eastern world that pose problems with non-semitic languages when translating and wanting to be word for word or literal. I have many different French translations, many English translations, but Arabic or Syriac reads very nice. I’m blessed for being trilingual. For the CSB, I’ve read few passages online, my impression is that it is literal, I think someone who speaks a Semitic language will understand and enjoy better than someone who speaks only English, because he will find the position of words in a sentence kind of weird. At last, we shall never forget to pray before reading the word of God and ask for the Holy Spirit for guidance. Gods bless.

[@zacsmith7094]

In the CSB Study Bibles, the correct verses are in there, they are in the reference notes - and the study sections explain the complete scriptures, the reason it was written like this and included in the Study Bibles as notes with the complete text, was to make it easier to read. It still has it in there, just not in the standard CSB, that's why I do not like the standard Bibles and why I use the Study Bibles, because it allows you to dig deeper. I was following along while you went through that and correct verses were included in notes with complete explanations.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

It still casts doubt on their authenticity.

[@ceeece]

If the verses are included in the footnotes does it still mean they aren’t in the Bible?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes. They are not in the Text.

[@tabestorm5339]

That's funny. I'm dutch and it seems that in the Netherlands we have the same issues with the SV and NBV as you guys have with the KJV and CSB. All the things you mentioned about the CSB are the same in our NBV, about Mary, about the worm, about the eagle, etc. So.. our SV (state translation) is pretty similar to the King James Bible and the NBV has a lot of similarities with your CSB. I wanted to buy the 'CSB He reads truth' Bible because of all the reading plans, the introductions to the books, the timelines etc. But now I'm not so sure anymore.

[@jobertmpundu5944]

Heei, ik was ook van plan om de he reads truth bible te kopen. Heb je die misschien al gekocht?? zo ja, wat vind je ervan?

[@pianist4him52]

Matt 17:21 is included in the references where it states that it's included in some mss so it's not really missing

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes it is, in the Text itself.

[@captainnolan5062]

The CSB (and here I think you have given the wrong citation, it should be Revelation 1:8, and not 1:11) says: "I am the Alpha and the Omega" says the Lord God, "the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

[@tinaharrison3502]

I am following along with you in my amplified and the scriptures are all there. I love it!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen!

[@pianist4him52]

I also love the Amplified! Do you have the Amplified Classic? I was wondering what's the difference between the Classic and the Study Bible.

[@discipleintheword]

With Matthew 1:25, You don't give the full amount of information on the verse and why it's the way it is in the CSB. The CSB doesn't remove the term "firstborn", the translators wanting to stay true to the manuscripts, didn't include the term because it wasn't in the manuscripts they used. Just 2 verses earlier in the CSB it refers to Mary as a virgin. Also the parallel passage in Luke 2:7 in the CSB has the word firstborn, as well as Mary being called a virgin in Luke 1:27 in the CSB. Pastor Steve you neglected to mention these things. Hopefully in the future you can include more relevant information on the verses you're referring to which in turn could help your viewers get more thorough insight, but this might minimize the speculative implications you bring out.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Have included the relevant information in dozens of videos. I find it tedious in the extreme to qualify everything in every single video.

[@erikstenquist752]

Thank you so much for this! I have been a firm believer of the KJV for year's but find many churches are not adhering to the KJV. Most now have a mix they use. The church I go to now has books for all the Sunday school classes. As I am going through this week's lesson for my class I found major inconsistencies with the KJV. I looked in the front of the book to see what translation there useing and it's CSB. The lesson is from Mark 9:14-27. I am gearing the lesson to the KJV as I don't like how the CSB reads and have become perplexed on how they present this portion of scripture. Glade I found this video.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen. Thank you. God bless!

[@jwatson181]

The KJV is an inferior translation. It was lead by a murders and adulterous king. The Geneva Bible is the only way!!!

[@jayandrew87]

Steve, I really appreciate your broad knowledge and videos exposing the modern versions. However, believing God preserved every word and letter of the original autographs is not a tenable position. The KJV translators relegated many alternate renderings to the margin as they explain in their preface. Sometimes the correct rendering was in the margin (eg Genesis 10:11 which Micah 5:6 proves). Most new KJV bibles omit those original notes. So, really your position is that the original 1611 KJV and all the revisions were not the perfectly preserved word but the 1769 revision is. If I misunderstand or am uninformed please enlighten me!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve got several videos on these topics.

[@jayandrew87]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Awesome, drop some links please! Edit: or titles so I know what to search for.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@jayandrew87 I’m so sorry I don’t do links. I’ve done over 5,000 vids, so as far as titles, I’m not much help either!

[@dwcarc]

I know you have your passion for the KJV. Please mention the footnotes on the CSB in the next video 😎

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have done dozens of videos comparing the KJV and csb among other translations. I have mentioned the footnotes ad naseum. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself everytime.

[@brotherarn]

You say in your video that God preserve every letter. Would you point me in the right direction that I may verify the facts?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass away in Matthew.

[@plegge100]

In your Revelation 8:13 reference, the word aetou is eagle. Not angel. Angelōn is the correct word translated "angel".

[@BDtruth2015]

Did God preserve where Passover was replaced by Easter or where elders was replaced by bishops in the KJV. Neither of which were around in the time the Bible was written. Care to explain that.?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have in other videos. Yes.

[@lyladupuy8040]

WOW! Amazing review as always! I was thinking about getting the HCSB Study Bible to supplement my NKJV Study Bible and had no idea that vital passages were missing! So glad I found your review! God's timing is perfect, as always! God bless all your future endeavors! Love your channel! Would love to see a review of the Tecarta Bible app!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

God Bless! Thanks. I’ll try.

[@michaelogorman5907]

The agenda is a one world religion, amongst other things, and the best way to achieve this is through a watered down Gospel and Word of God. If you do not believe this is being achieved through many of today's versions may I suggest you read, "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger. Keep up the good work brother.

[@shawnstephens6795]

Irony is the KJV says I suffer not a woman to teach and a woman must keep silent in the church then you say we need a woman to teach us about this bible issue.

[@michaelogorman5907]

@@shawnstephens6795 1 Timothy is talking about women teaching specifically in the church. I choose not to remain ignorant in this matter and will accept truth no matter where i find it, especially in regards to satan's plans of deception.

[@JDHILL-rg9sp]

Thank you for the review, because I was going to get the CSB keyword Hebrew and Greek bible. I change my mind I'm going to get the kjv.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Great!

[@Baekreyes]

kJV “defined” version strongly Recomended.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve got a review on the channel. God bless you!

[@Baekreyes]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa God bless you too

[@rijoab]

What others say of these verses in KJV and NKJV(here they put footnotes for clarification) Matthew 1:25 (KJV) firstborn - Is Not In The Best Manuscripts Matthew 17:21 verse- Is Not In The Best Manuscripts So maybe its not in the old best manuscripts which are discovered recently.

[@melclarke64]

They are both from different sources, thats why they differ.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Correct!

[@baoshibijou1351]

What about NKJV? And ESV? Thanks

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’ve done some videos on them. Both you be some better than the CSB. Both have issues however.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Oops! Spellcheck...

[@SearchFT]

I still can't understand if the KJV is so hard to read, that no one has up to this day wrote an exact KJV version that is easier to read. I think the NKJV is the closest, but also have small changes. So, why isn't there an exact Bible like the KJV, but reads easier?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

There is, The KJVer, or KJV easy read.

[@SearchFT]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa thank you pastor. And thank you for all the good reviews. God bless

[@captainnolan5062]

The CSB note to Matthew 1:25 states: Other mss read "to her firstborn son". You seem to be intentionally ignoring the footnotes to all of these verses to try to unfairly impugn the CSB. THis doesn't seem very charitable.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have done multiple videos discussing the footnotes.

[@miltonwilliams2399]

Pastor which Jewish Bible honors Jesus as SAVIOR cause that's the one I want. And why in Jewish bibles is they say holy spirit and then within the a couple verses down they say the holy spirit in Hebrew

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Hmm, I’d just stick with the KJV. When I went to Israel, the israeli’s said the best translation of the masoretic text was the KJV. God bless!

[@CupofCloud]

I look to the KJB as the Bible, the final authority. That said CSB is my favorite critical text version. I appreciate the functional formatting of the text. (ex. when they use bold print to signify scripture quoting scripture) My KJVO brothers like to throw admonitions my way here and there because I enjoy light reading from CSB, and that's fine, I understand they're worried I could reject KJB as my final authority. What I have trouble understanding is why it's so terrible to enjoy a relaxing read of CSB. Not to play tit for tat but it just seems silly. Me flipping through a CSB is seems more wholesome than their social media timelines they're always checking up on or even the Home in Garden and automobile magazines they allow in their home but won't allow a CT translation because they believe that there's some ongoing elaborate plan to destroy the Gospel with modern translations.

[@nancyduhalde4679]

Because neither Home and Gardens or Auto magazines are the Word of God so enjoy reading anything for light reading, but when it comes to God’s Word, one should care if it is the most accurate translation from which they are reading, for God Himself says how vital “every jot and tittle” is in His Word, so down to punctuation which can change the meaning of text as we know…. The Bible is not called God’s Thoughts or Basics, but God’s WORD for a Reason. Every WORD is inspired by God, not every thought or understanding. Every WORD.

[@RUT812]

@@nancyduhalde4679🎯 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙣

[@tobiasfoppen2658]

@Pastor Steve if our KJV is our Primary Bible for reading and studying is there a secondary bible translation you would recommend or just stick with the KJV only

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I stick with the KJV. I know folks who do like to Reference older Bibles like Tyndale and Bishops, or other Recieved text Bibles like the MEV, Young's, KJV 2, Jubilee etc. and some like Recieved text Bibles from other languages.

[@beckywitthegoesbeforeme3661]

an eagle???!!!! wow, that's far from an angel.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Yes it is!

[@ilikes2watch]

Is the word not actually "eagle" (ἀετοῦ) though?

[@tonycdrive]

Beckywitt He goes before me, my king James study Bible says that “Both the oldest and the majority of Greek manuscripts read “eagle” instead of an “angel” in the first part of the verse”

[@jmcdade1888monthetic]

In Matthew 1:25 the CSB says quote "a son" and the King James says quote "firstborn Son" this is not the literal translation of the original text that we see in the manuscripts found in Greek and Hebrew, if it is translated to the original text then the CSB is correct in its translation.

[@jmcdade1888monthetic]

Not say that I don't love the King James, I love that translation but I think the CSB is good as well.

[@ricardomontoya9480]

Las diferencias son importantes

[@nattypibumpo]

I like the csb very much my pastor uses it for service every week. But Try acts 8:37 in the csb. Oh you can’t find it either how sad! Another important verse removed. A verse about believing that Jesus is the son of God

[@solitarypawn5076]

NOTHING has been removed. Think about what you are saying. Just because the kjv says it one way, it doesn't mean that the CSB or any other translation has removed a verse or some of the words. Different manuscripts read differently. By the way, just let me say that no one has made the kjv the standard whereby we should all compare our modern transactions against it. The CSB, as well as some modern translations, are basing their words on OLDER MANUSCRIPTS rather than the newer one which is where the kjv derives it from. The older manuscripts we get, the closer to the original we have. The kjv fails miserably in that area.

[@jameshall1968]

How can you remove a verse that wasn't there in the first place? The older manuscripts didn't have those verses you claim were "removed." Over time and copying the scribes added verses. Chapter and verses were added to the Greek manuscripts in 1205 AD by Stephen Langton, a Catholic priest. When the King James Bible was translated they followed his chapter and verse numbering convention. When the modern Bibles that use the more ancient manuscripts were translated they stuck with the known numbering system so that there would be consistency between the two. So there "appears" to be missing verses but that's not true. In addition, there are entire added sections in the King James that the majority of credible scholars agree were not in the original manuscripts. Mark 16:9-20 is a great example of added text not in the original manuscripts. This is where Pentecostals get the idea that every believer should speak in tongues (Paul contradicts this in 1 Corinthians 12:30) and the crazy snake-handling practice that some did to put the verse and their faith to the test (they frequently died from snake bites). As a pastor, you likely know this and should tell people the history and not falsely and simplistically say that the modern Bibles "removed" verses. The earliest manuscripts simply don't have those verses, there is no conspiracy.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have made several videos showing your commonly held positions are incorrect.

[@V21IC]

Quite interesting that these verses are missing! Also, the KJV has parts of verses that are added. In other words, comments and opinions were added as if there originally there. These verses are actually used to support unheard and untaught doctrines.

[@keithclark1875]

I do not understand (if someone is going to update a Bible to help other to better understand) why they would just leave out verses. Scary.

[@Tax_Buster]

Keith Clark they left out verses that were really not supposed to be there in the first place but were just added in later manuscripts, which were the only available ones to the KJV translators at that time.

[@johnmarkharris]

FWIW. It's not an update of the KJV. Hope that helps.

[@Tax_Buster]

@Jaeger Meister I don't have to be there because it's discernible thru textual criticism.

[@niceone2903]

I suppose a lot of us could pin prick at bible translations. Just recently I noticed in Genesis 1:26 that the kjv and csb versions say that the fish are of the sea and the birds are of the air. Sounds like evolution to me. At least the niv says the fish are in the sea and the birds are in the air. Even kjv says in Genesis 1:20 that birds are of the water. Sounds like evolution again. Oh well I still read the kjv anyway.

[@etterwoodworth]

Thank you for your video.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Your welcome! God Bless!

[@V21IC]

I'm glad that I've seen this video. I was about to buy a CSB bible on Amazon. Instead I bought a free Kindle HCSB. Well, IL return to the NKJV or KJV.

[@jemnas9830]

thank u for review

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Your welcome.

[@jemnas9830]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa pastor would like to ask advise please. I love KJV above all, but if I should buy another bible, which one is better to buy KJVER or KJV Hebrew-Greek keyword bible? Thanks.

[@shawn3968]

Comparing all other Bibles to the KJV translation hmm 🤔. How come the KJV issue is only here in the states? How come Christians who are from India, China, Mexico, etc are not beating the KJVO drum? The Bible’s they have or a page of the Bible they have are just as inspired because they are growing in their faith. Do I believe we need an accurate bible that’s closer to the original Manuscripts? Yes, but I also believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. You also believe in Jesus Only or Oneness correct? You reject the Godhead or Trinity doctrine that’s another topic for sure. There are others who claim to be KJVO who are Dispensationalists and chop up the Bible. Just shows that even with a Bible KJV or otherwise man can still teach doctrine that doesn’t line up with scripture. I prefer the KJV Bible but to say it’s the only inspired Bible we have and to have others who struggle with reading the KJV and bring doubt to their minds that they are even reading God’s Word isn’t right.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

It’s not. It’s a worldwide phenomenon. A Chinese KJV just came out because some Chinese believers think the KJV is the most accurate. One of the most ardent KJV defenders is Dr. Tow from Singapore. Philippines, Africa, UK, Australia, New Zealand all have vibrant KJV communities. I’ve heard of it in Russia as well.

[@TheThornbird21]

New Life Of Albany Ga. That’s not the case for the Smith Van Dyke( KJV equivalent)...why? First of All the classic Arabic is not spoken in any of the Arab world ( which is actually many different nations, grouped as Arabs by the the British Empire ( political decision only) each country has its own dialect that consists of some Arabic mixed with other languages depending on historical involvement with many other civilizations and created a daily spoken language. The Arabic KJV is very hard for many readers and the NKJV is used much more. North Africans find difficulties with both KJV and NKJV, because Even with the campaigns of arabization through out time, the classic Arabic will still be hard to read easily since the native language is Berber, many civilizations left their traces, the Roman, Byzantine empire , Spaniards, Turks, French.... North Africans use Good New Bibles and NIV.

[@TheBlessedgardner]

Thank you for always uplifting the KJV. I find it laughable that these "literal" translations replace the literal words with modern words, yet the KJV faithfully has the correct literal wording the majority of the time. I feel like a deflated balloon when reading these so called modern translations.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen!

[@markbsecondary394]

It's amazing to me how people think they know the Greek or Hebrew. When it's already translated in the trusted King James Bible. You can find nine times in the old testament the word "copy" a copy of a letter. or copy of the law., and copy of the writing. There are no original manuscripts, these people who say there is no perfect bible are calling God a liar. God said he preserved his word, and he did in the King James Bible. Thank God for the KJ Bible.

[@shanedarden5238]

I would have never read the Bible all the way through if the KJV had been my only choice. I do respect the KJV but very awkward for me reading.

[@markbsecondary394]

@A A Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. The King James Bible is the 7th English Bible. The originals are nowhere to be found. The word "copy" is found 9 times in the King James Bible, Even years ago they used copies.Psalms 119:42 So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word.

[@RUT812]

𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙣

[@gleasonparker1684]

I have read about William Tyndale then I respect the work he did in translating the King James version of the Bible and so if it was good enough for him I think it's good enough for me. I think a lot of people come out with new Bible so they can sell them to people who don't like to read the King James book them I can see you one good side of that it's a bit easier but I've grown up with the King James I switched off the others I do have the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I like both of them because they have giant print and they're also on my Kindle device so I quite enjoy studying the Bible I've taken several Bible correspondence courses including the worldwide Church of God and some of their off shoes and they would have us actually write out the verses and you'd be surprised how that helps you to remember versus and I would think that people who write and study what the verses say are in much better shape than just suiting up and sitting in a Pew for an hour and not really learning too much about the scriptures. The Church of Christ is pretty good about teaching so I've enjoyed going to visit them also and I also like the way they have the weekly breaking of bread and music without the instruments is not bad to me at least but I don't go there anymore because they basically teach the trinity

[@jerem0621]

Please take this in the Spirit of brotherly discussion. Using similar reasoning, why does the KJV do violence to the Diety of Christ in John 1:18 compared to the CSB? There is no other rendering I can find in an English translation that more clearly translates this verse and states the Diety of Christ. Why do we say that they "took verses out of my Bible?" Most videos like this, including this one, paints a picture of some demonic modern translation council with a KJV and a pair of scissors devilishly removing verses. This is not true at all. Most modern Bible translation committees all affirm the veracity, the sufficiency, and the authority of scripture. Most of the people involved are professed believers and experts in their fields. What then is the motivation? If their motivation is to destroy essential Christian doctrines then they have done a very poor job. Examples from the CSB. Luke 1:27 "to a virgin engaged to a man named Joseph..." 1:34 CSB"...I have not had sexual relations with a man..." 2:7 CSB "Then she gave birth to her firstborn Son..." Please tell me what is the motivation? Why are the doctrines still in these modern versions...as I demonstrated above, in some cases even more strongly affirmed?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Not to destroy but to weaken. And it’s not the translations themselves, but the underlying corrupt texts. I’ve done several dozen videos on this over the years. God bless!

[@jerem0621]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa Thank you for your response. I can see your point. God Bless you too!

[@luismiranda5207]

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

[@markbsecondary394]

All you are doing is repeating a lie someone told you about the "older manuscripts". I will show you one of many lies in the modern bibles that should be a wow moment. Check out Proverbs 25:23 the perverted bibles says the "north wind bring rain" it does? But the KJ 1611 says the "north wind driveth away rain. Rain does not come from the north wind! The bible teaches churches will go apostate in the last days, that's why there are so many different false bibles. Stick to the trusted King James Bible.

[@Scrollermania1963]

Older is better ? Garbage.... Nestle makes great chocolate.....and that it period...nestle aland text is junk......

[@PastorErickMiller]

Great job Luis, don't let the KJV only movement peddle the their bias. There is a reason they ignore the truth. KJ "version" and the KJV only needs to overlook actually data of older manuscripts because their theology is also based on prejudice and a little bit of elitist behaviour. Bless brother.

[@markgushue9482]

Textual criticism is bad. It's saying you can take the bible and make it whatever you want it to say.

[@Matthew-307]

Someone’s been reading Gail Riplinger 😂😂😂 Absolutely nobody could come away from reading the new testament in the CSB thinking that Jesus isn’t God the Son. Or that we’re not redeemed by the blood. If these modern versions are “attacking the deity of Christ, and the blood atonement”, why wouldn’t they take out ALL of the verses that teach those doctrines?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Not at first, no. The entire argument is there are a few manuscripts that began the process of deception, and that later copying would take out more. It is from these corrupted manuscripts that modern versions based on them are translated from. To remove them all initially as marcion so often did would make the, immediately suspect and heterodox. I’ve recently done several dozen videos on this and other issues on the subject.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I’m quite positive I’ve presented things you’ve never heard before. In reading James White the King James only Controversy 25+ years ago, its scholarship was so shoddy and pitiful it convinced me strongly toward the KJV/ Recieved Text position. I have seen many converted to this position, PhDs and the like. There is a world out there beyond James white, Dan Wallace, and Mark Ward etc.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

If you’ve really read the Translators to the Reader, which I have often including a critical edition, you would know the KJV translators really thought they had translated a perfect Bible, not to be justly excepted against. And if you really know the history of the day, between them and Roman Catholicism, you’d know that was the entire issue.

[@jeremiahreese6396]

I swear yall act like just because someone dont read the King James version that they are going to hell. First of all none of us have the right to condemn anybody because Jesus, our only teacher tells us that if we condemn someone then we will be condemned.

[@Dreadshoop]

I don't see anyone condemning, just trying to point to truth. If there are discrepancies and or missing text then logically they can't both be the word of God. It is of utmost importance.

[@jeremiahreese6396]

@@Dreadshoop there are plenty of errors with every English translation, the new testament was written in greek, we read english.

[@Dreadshoop]

@@jeremiahreese6396 This doesn't go into it but the main issue in Bible translations is what did they translate from? All new translations are taken from the Greek New Testament compiled by Wescott and Hort, who were heavily involved in the occult. They compiled the text from at least two different Greek texts that were supposedly the oldest and most reliable, however they differ from each other and differ from the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated from. This text is the majority text meaning of all the 5,000 + Greek New Testaments over 99 % of those texts agree with the text the KJV was translated from. I as do most of the KJV crowd believe that God can and did preserve his word, that the Bible believing church has always had and copied his word, and that it is perfect. I don't believe that I have to look at all the translations and compare the Greek texts and guess what it is that God really said. The God who parted the Red Sea, and created heaven and earth can surely preserve his word. If you have a correct Bible, it even says he does in Psalms 12:6-7 and then Jesus reiterates that not one jot or tittle would be removed from the law. So I think the ultimate question is do you believe God preserved his word, do you believe that the Bible you read is not perfect? Scary cause most Bible scholars today don't believe they have the perfect word of God, which means they can change it to suit them, the times and the culture in which we live.

[@jeremiahreese6396]

@@Dreadshoop I just feel safer with older manuscripts.

[@Dreadshoop]

@@jeremiahreese6396 Okay, you have to do what you think is best. I encourage you to do your own research into the matter and remember the Bible all the Christians have used since Christ were using the same one the KJV was translated from. Also look into how it was translated, no other Bible was so meticulously gone over in teams and groups. There are plenty of wonderful videos here on it. It truly is amazing!

[@bruceanable7739]

Read mark 12:40 it’s there

[@petermillist3779]

No, tens of thousands of word ADDED in the KJV.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Not according to the evidence. I’ve done videos relatively recently on this.

[@Xenotypic]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa depends on what evidence you use, honestly. I'm not fully sold on the alexandrian text myself, though. I do have issues with the textus receptus though, I would much rather go with the majority text. If I were you, I'd go with the byzantine majority text. With the textus receptus you have to somewhat rely on the vulgate, at least in revelation where there is absolutely zero greek manuscript support for some verses. also, it seems according to the evidence, that the comma johaneum should be "the water, the blood, etc"

[@honorguard6213]

Really? I'm not a big fan of the CSB or it's newly designated "optimal equivalence" translation. Nevertheless, let's get our fundamentals right. ANY Bible translation is based on discovered or existing texts. The King James was based on the Textus Receptus dating from about the 1500's. Other translations are based on Westcott and Hort and so on. You've missed this completely and entirely. It's not a particular Bible that eliminates a verse; it's the text on which that Bible was based that does so. Some follow the theory the more the merrier - so the more similar texts you can find the more likely you are going to be close to the original manuscripts - none of which we have (KJV). Others follow the theory that the oldest text are probably the most reliable because they are closer in date to the manuscript (NASB). Whenever, we look at Bible versions, the FRIST question should be on what text was this based? The next question is do I want a more literal (word for word) version- formal equivalence or a (thought for thought) version - dynamic equivalence? With the exception of the KJV based on younger texts, all formal equivalence versions are based on older texts. A great resource is: HOW TO CHOOSE A TRANSLATION FOR ALL IT'S WORTH, by Fee & Stauss (Did you cut your teeth on John Rice and Jack Hyles?)

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

More like DA Waite, David Cloud, D O Fuller, Dean Burgon.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

And Hills.

[@_billy.mandalay]

Come on, CSB...Give me one in Ultra Giant Sized print.

[@gleasonparker1684]

I LIKE NKJV ESPECIALLY IN LARGE PRINT NELSON PREMIER BIBLES. ALSO LSB IN 10.5 FONT AND NASB 2020 FROM LOCKMAN. 11 POINT FONT. 10.5 IS ABOUT MY LIMIT UP TO 13 POINT FONT.

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

This guy is so deceptive. He is not being honest, folks. Get a second opinion before you commit to the good ol' KJV. Here is why! Acts 12:4 - Easter is used in the place of Passover. Easter is a Catholic Church Holiday that wasn't even in existence at the time it was written. Wanna know something else? The original Greek says "pascha" which is translated Passover EVER SINGLE TIME. Sounds like this KJV Bible has some errors, don't you think?

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I have videos explaining that. Easter is in Luther’s Version , and was a common translation of the time.

[@Nangiesx]

Is there a stronger reason why it was translated in LUTHERs AS Easter apart and not Passover, what do these two word s have in common. Thank you Sir!

[@Nangiesx]

Pls share links

[@EdgeOfEntropy17]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa It doesn't matter which version it is in, the ORIGINAL is Passover. There is no way around it. Sorry.

[@MrGhostwolf999]

I'll never understand why KJVO's will take scripture out of context to try to prove a weakness in other translations. Your first example of Matt. 25 is only possible if the reader has skipped over Matt. 23. Very clear in ANY translation that Mary was a virgin prior to the birth of Jesus. Based on this your credibility is compromised.............

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Nah. As I’ve gone over ad naseum, it weakens, not removes. And I’ve explained in detail the scribal practices, acknowledged by all textual scholars, why this occurred.

[@MrGhostwolf999]

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa "Weakens"...........sure it does. Incredible. If "textual scholars" agree with you, then they are wrong also.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

@@MrGhostwolf999 Same information, different conclusions. You saying they are wrong certainly does not make it so.

[@truthis9340]

I read alot of the comments, my opinion we need a standard. There are to many translation. I know some think the KJV is archaic but its not. Several thousand people died making sure the common folk could read and learn about God The only other books that help with the KJV is a old noah webster dictionary 1828 and a strongs concordance.

[@tanglecash127]

Even those who believe that Matt 17:21 should be in there let’s be honest, don’t even practice it.

[@jimeniah1215]

I tried to watch but you began this video in the negative. The verses you say are not there, are indeed there as notes. I.e some mss include vs 21. The same as the NKJV have notes, not all mss include vs 21. I agree that all available text should be available to read but in the case of the CSB it does include all the verses. You are beyond biased as all KJV ONLY are. Why do you bother to do these videos comparing KJV with all other translation when the KJV should not be the standard of comparison in the first place. The KJV is not the holy writ, it is a copy of a translation of the original. All translation must come from the original and compared with them not the KJV. As you well know there are errors in the KJV as well. Most people cannot understand the KJV and can be discouraged from reading the Word of God because of it, as well as documents discovered after KJV was written that are in new translations and not in Kjv. Lets stop the division caused by these attacks against other translation. If the KJV is holy writ without error then it needs no defense, nor does it require the shunning of all others to be legitimate. Preach the KJV in its context of Gods Word and not defend it by attack.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I try to go into the notes thing in each video. I may have missed on this video. But still not in the Text. Translations are representative of Texts. That’s why I do these videos. I’ve done 1,000s. I have explained the reasoning behind it in many. Needless to say, I disagree with your assertions. God bless!

[@TheThornbird21]

JAMES REDDING I agree when you said every translation should be examined with the original manuscripts from the original languages. KJV is only a translation not the reference itself.

[@59nerevar]

The KJV is itself a revision. No Bible is "corrupt", except for the New World Translation. Quibbling over what version to use will preoccupy you from actually reading the Word.

[@simplylindy2987]

This is shocking and scary 😦😦😦

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

Amen.

[@daleknight8971]

Are you a 501c ?

[@roccorubino6288]

I sent my CSB back. I was very unhappy with their phasing as compared with KJV. I'll stay with the original, KJV.

[@solitarypawn5076]

I'm sick and tired of listening to people who think the KJV is the elite of all bibles. Look at the manuscripts first and then compare. Stop elevating the 412-year-old translation to the modern scholarly ones. Older manuscripts read differently. Ugh!

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

I do many deep dives into the manuscripts on the channel.

[@moisesg.v.1575]

God preserved His word in the multitude of manuscripts, not in the KJV. Actually the KJV has different readings even when compared to the majority text, surprise surprise, thing that many KJVO cultists are not even aware. One dramatic mistake in the KJV translation is in Acts 19:37 where they translated HIEROSULOUS Literally ROBBERS OF PAGAN TEMPLES as "robbers of churches" making churches like pagan temples (maybe they were right and christian churches are indeed pagan temples). Church by the way, is Greek: EKKLESIA (assembly better translated for the assembly of God was already at mount Sinai as the Bible says, and it was not born at Pentecost), so it is not HIEROSULOUS.

[@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa]

He preserved His Word in a multitude of accurate Translations in the vernacular as well. At least you believe God preserved His Word. Most don’t.

[@cristaolegendario6417]

In that social context, God had a temple too [ the temple was still there] at that time. Maybe the KJV translators used the word "church" here to tell us that those pagan temples were used like 'churches' by the pagans, with people assembling themselves in it to conduct their services. The Temple of God was not a public space [its inner part], being just priests allowed to enter it. So, if the KJV read "temple" in this verse, it would give us a wrong idea about the use of such bulding by the pagans. Every time you see a "error" in the KJV it gives you a bigger revelation of the truth of God's word.

[@rickeason4401]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/paLTpmaJg7N5aJI