King James Controversy (Dr. James R White)

[@camdiffright460]

I'm not knowledgeable at all rather than the simple bible study that I know. I just love my God and my saviour because of how God saved and delivered me. God is so Good to me and I'm happy to hear anything about HIM.

[@underwaves75]

Camdiff right PLEASE if anyone senses the deadness of the institutional church system but can't put your finger on it. I'm literally pleading with you (whoever you are) to understand something extremely important here. The mainstream Christian system is not of God. The Protestant churches are what the bible calls "The Harlot daughters of Rome". (Rev 17:5) - "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots, And Abominations Of The Earth." And Jesus Christ is calling His people out of her. Rev 18:4 “And I heard another voice from heauen, saying, Come out of her, my people, that yee be not partakers of her sinnes, and that yee receiue not of her plagues:” The very first thing you need to understand is that GOD CAN BE TRUSTED to preserve His word for every generation forever. As He promises us in psalms 12:6-7 You don’t need men to teach you what God means. 1 John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye haue receiued of him, abideth in you: and yee need not that any man teach you: But, as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is trueth, and is no lye: and euen as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” It’s vital to know, especially right now, that God has kept His word in tact! There is still an every word testimony. The following clip is short yet cuts through the lie of the devil “hath God said”. And it is what the Lord used to open my eyes to the truth. It’s not just more lifeless information. It is powerful and life changing. I’m so grateful for it! kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnKwgKSrrraoY5o “Heauen and earth shal passe away: but my words shall not passe away.” Mark 13:31 “But he answered, and said, It is written, Man shall not liue by bread alone, but by euery word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matt 4:4 Psalm 12:6-7 "The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. Psalms 138:2 for thou hast magnified thy word aboue all thy name.” The next video is a lesson on the pure word of God in the English language, which is found in the av1611 kjv. This is a much different testimony than the King James bible you are able to easily find in the so called "Christian bookstores". Please pray and genuinely take this before the Lord. He will show you. (Prepare to be attacked once you start down this path) The devil and his ministers don’t want this going out. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWrPeoqahpWlmZI The first link I left above is from Reg's youtube channel called "Rescuing the Church". There is a lot of good information there on things you should know. Very important and powerful and it dispels many lies. And Johns channel is also the one associated with the lesson on the 1611. There are a few testimonies, a few sermons, as well as a handful of lessons to be found there. John is gracious yet right to the point. And so is Reg. And most importantly they have the Holy Ghost in them. I had prayed for help a long time because I was growing increasingly confused, frustrated, misguided and the list goes on.. But like most of us, I kept returning Sunday after next hoping something would change. If I sang more, prayed harder, tithed more (not biblical to give cash btw, but that’s another topic), got more involved, etc. It got to a point where a friend at the time asked me to just "try and sing". He meant well, but it was always disingenuous so I never did. Long story short - my whole Christian life was that way until very recently. Powerless. Its only been about the last 2 years. That's when my life turned upside down. And the Lord truly showed up in a powerful way and began leading me in the trueth. This link is a series of interviews that Reg began to do with John after they finally met (a providential story) Start on the first interview of course. But it's a treasure of information for the Saints. kzbin.info/door/IfGUbjTsGu1dfoNqYUZzmgvideos It's actually named after one of three films John helped co-produce with Christ Pinto. (side note: Chris Pinto does not hold to the same conviction about the word of God as John and a few of us others. That tid bit was used to try and attack John once as an attempt to discredit him) The films are called: A lamp in the Dark Tares among the wheat A bridge to Babylon All are free to watch on KZbin, and they cover the history of the bible. They follow the reformation, persecution of early believers, the counter reformation, the attempts at destroying the word of God, the Jesuits and so on. Things the Saints will be edified to know. The things that matter. I really hope this reaches someone. If this is you... honestly, please go ahead and look. God is rich in mercy and His patience is unmatched. He's been drawing me for a really long time. But I got trapped in the institutional church system and was stuck there being taught corruption for years, by pastors who don't believe that the book they teach from is infallible. They say that it is, but they are dishonest in their claim. And their churches "statements of faith" will attest to this. They almost all say something akin to "we believe the original manuscripts were infallible.” Okay well wait a minute... unless they have read the originals in their entirety, then how do these men know when they’re teaching us truth and how do they know when they’re teaching us error? They don’t! If they did, why not simply fix the bible they’re using and make it infallible? ..something to consider. here is one very final clip on the "servants of Lucifer" kzbin.info/www/bejne/eqa5hZ-PjtSmZsU "(if it were possible,) they shall deceiue the very elect.” God bless you all in the trueth of the real Jesus Christ!

[@therambler3713]

That is exactly how Jesus wanted it to be. That anybody can freely come to him and easily recieve the free gift of life. Without having to go to the temple and engage in all kinds of religious rituals. But unfortunately we still have modern day pharisees that want to strictly legislate how a person can be saved, how a person can be a servant of God.

[@thomaspick4123]

Very calm, intelligent discussion. The KJV only people are always shouting and emotional. I read many versions, as it makes the reading fresh for me every time. I enjoy footnotes too. I am presently reading the Douay Rheims version. In footnotes, it acknowledges different interpretations of Samuel’s apparition appearing to King Saul when Saul sought advice from the Witch of Endor.

[@lovejoypeaceforever]

"LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR" (ROMANS 3:4)

[@susansauls8902]

@John Stewart God is true! I don't see anyone saying here that He is not! I am and always have been an ardent KJV student and advocate. I then bought a 1611 KJV to have a more pure source of God's Holy Word. I am seeking truth, which only from God. I want to get the Bible I study from and look to God's direction for me from the purest source possible. I am hearing about all these ancient sources. This man, Dr James White, has studied this for decades and has much knowledge. I didn't know where to find this information. I was beginning to think I would have to take Bible history classes to be able to learn how the Bible that I read came to be. I do not want to take anything for granted. God knows my heart. He knows I am seeking truth. So, in all that, I am wondering, why do you make these attacking comments without explanation? Do you think just because people want to be informed on their Bible, that they want to embrace something that is not holy, and not of God? Scholars of the past had to put any Bible together. It was a daunting task for them at their time to do the best they could with what they had to deal with. Please keep in mind that the KJV is CALLED "King James" because King James wanted it in print. Good, that it was produced to be able to place in the hands of the people. Praise God for that! But the cons are that he, as king, made calls of what could be and not be in his copy/version of the Bible. And then the point of translating into foreign languages so people who do not know English can have the Bible as well ... should they not be exposed to God's Holy Word because it is a different translation than the English KJV? Anyone must agree that God would not want the Bible to be kept from someone just because it is not in their language! So please, explain what your point is, instead of just attacking anyone who is listening to this man. We very much are most likely have the same heart in this, to do what is right in the eyes of God as seekers of truth, The Lord's Truth, and we pray He will share that with us. That can happen with us sharing amongst ourselves as believers. We, as the body of Christ, are to work together, in glory to God. God bless you!

[@walterrelief2270]

Thomas Pick ...”always?” Perhaps I can write a version of the word for you? Perhaps it would bring another angle of intelligent freshness we have yet to ‘experience?’ Perhaps I’m a Byzantine text only guy? Does that mean I’m ‘always’ shouting? Hmm. Happy freshness in men’s intelligence and systems.

[@seekerofconsistency]

@Van Guard, Jimmy lied or promoted a falsehood repeatedly throughout the video.

[@ricdavid7476]

you are an agnostic yes?

[@jonasgrumby3378]

King James Onlyism is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8). Salvation does NOT depend on what Bible translation you use.

[@SpotterVideo]

Early Church Father Cyprian quoted from the Textus Receptus Greek texts, about 250 AD. The 1599 Geneva Bible also came from the Textus Receptus. .

[@johngraham1274]

Professing Christ while not loving others is 'another gospel.'

[@johnhamilton286]

Very true, salvation doesn't depend on what version of the Bible one uses, but, spiritual growth does depend on it. If the book you use is not God's Word, then you'll get saved, but you'll not go anywhere spiritually.

[@eph112joephil]

That is not a valid argument.

[@johngraham1274]

@@eph112joephil explain what you mean is not a valid argument

[@cristianoboricuafranksanti2102]

Praise God For People Like Mr. White!!! Blessings To All!!!

[@isaiahsombro4842]

James White is a sound scholar

[@hudsontd7778]

Isaiah Sombro James White is a lost Reprobate

[@lovejoypeaceforever]

"BEWARE OF MEN" ~JESUS IN MATTHEW 24

[@johnhamilton286]

@@hudsontd7778 agreed, James White teaches heresy! Like God's Word isn't perfect, only the "original autographs" were, and also God couldn't keep His Word perfect and holy! That's blasphemy!

[@jonathanhurtado6625]

John Hamilton not true brother

[@johnhamilton286]

@@jonathanhurtado6625 sadly, it's very true bro! Watch vids on KZbin with White or look up his own statements, and you'll surely hear those damnable things come out of his mouth, precisely those things. I hope you sincerely seek the truth, this man and his wicked teachings are very dangerous. I know people that were close to believing in Jesus, but then decided not to, based on what White and others like him teach. When I asked them, usually the same answer, " How am I supposed to believe in your Jesus when according to your scholars He didn't, or couldn't, or wouldn't keep His Word perfect, wich means He's not trustworthy or all powerful, and if He can't keep His Word perfect, how can I trust Him to save me. How can I even trust your Jesus when I can't even trust His Word? According to your scholars that book is an imperfect copy of a copy of a copy that was translated into a copy, etc., and that only the first manuscripts were truly without error" You see how dangerous these things are that White teaches. Btw, say what you will, but the things these unsaved souls have said about the teachings of White and people like him are very eye opening, like wow, White's teachings are literally sending people into the cold arms of disbelief and hell sadly. Keep searching for the truth brother, I'm very sick and tired of seeing people leave the gospel and reject the Lord Jesus Christ because of the manifold lies of White and others like him.

[@reksubbn3961]

While we can be so very thankful that God has used the English language to spread His word over much of the planet, these type of discussions imply that God is only interested in the English language. Whether that be KJ or modern. I am of German heritage and have heard it said that one can only worship God properly in the German language. Living in a post Covid-19 planet maybe we should be discussing which Chinese translation is the actual inspired version of the Bible and go with that one. We are a selfish lot. We even treat the Word of God selfishly. This speaker makes the point that we have so many translations in Engliah yet many people still dont have a Bible in their own language.

[@kenshiloh]

Are you arguing one version over another? Fair enough. We all have our favorites. However, before getting picky about translations, are you following what is written in the Bible? For example, have you been born again? Are you filled with the Holy Spirit? Does He bear witness to you that you are a child of God? If you have not had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, you are not saved. It doesn't matter what version of the Bible you have - if you do not do what Jesus says to do! You must be born again!

[@BornAgainRN]

18:24 this isn’t John 1:1. Just an error of the editor, but happened to notice it. James White is one of my favorite pastors/apologists. He really embodies the actual text from 1 Peter that is on the screen.

[@kavskomusic5637]

Yes 1 peter 3:15

[@jesusisgodalmightyamen492]

Shalom My honest advice to all my brothers and sisters in Christ. KJV ONLY. Peace to you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

[@gildersleevefan67]

It's not the words that are used, it's the Message.

[@walterrelief2270]

Rick Tyler ...can you please explain? I’m not sure I understand.

[@joeiiiful]

According to who?

[@randomchaos9359]

That's a contradiction in terms,. The words cannot be separated from the message. The words of the Bible are inspired (Matthew 4:4) and the words are preserved (Psalm 12:6-7). Without the words, there is no message.

[@gildersleevefan67]

@@randomchaos9359 I didn't realize you had a background in communictation, divinity or translation.

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thanx, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹

[@stevetucker5851]

I think the CSB is currently the best translation to get the average Christian reader as close as possible to the meaning of the original autographs. It strikes the best balance of readability and accuracy and utilizes the most up-to-date textual basis.

[@justinthyme2666]

I agree, but I think the hcsb is slightly better and don't fully understand why they changed it. I agree with omitting the Holman name, but not why they dropped the use of Yahweh, or at least not using it as much

[@judylloyd7901]

Apparently, according to scholars, the most accurate word-for-word translation is the New American Standard Bible.

[@2Chron-20]

I believe the King James Bible is the most accurate of all and the best. However, many people read the kjv and don’t truly get the meaning of what God is saying. In my opinion it’s More important to understand what bible is saying. I would also say kjv only ism is legalistic. Jesus came to set people free not to put them under the law. Worshiping the law or the bible itself is what the Pharisees did. Look what happened to them !!! Becareful folks. Legalism is worse than adultery and I know that better than anyone.

[@defendingthefaith.7889]

I have never met a kjv only person who understands that they are set free.

[@concars1234]

Why does he ask the exact same question at 6:00 and around 9:20

[@markdaniels1730]

Probably an editing mistake.

[@lolhahah21]

LOLOL I don't know what Stvdia is saying unless they acknowledge what I'm about to say but forgot to edit one out. But yeah.. he obviously asked that question twice because he felt that James White didn't answer it the first time. Those are clearly two separate moments where he asked the question. He should've openly said like.. "I'm not sure if you remembered to answer the question previously but..." and then ask the question again. Instead, he tried to ask the question again like he's a robot...trying to mimic the first time he asked it lolol. But it's obvious that he asked it twice because when you compare the two, he adds different words here and there.

[@seekerofconsistency]

The interviewer lost his way on the script. This is a scripted sketch.

[@solascriptura7975]

Video editing error

[@marvinthemartian6788]

Imo, I believe the majority text is the best. The textus receptus that underlies the kjv is a bit of a cobbled together manuscript. I prefer the nkjv as it has been updated with further scholarship, although I think revelation is still a bit off in nkjv

[@marvinthemartian6788]

My church uses the 2011 niv. That version is my absolute least liked bible. I think it’s such a shame they didn’t stick with the 1984 niv

[@jeffreyandrewwinters3719]

What about the book The Scholarship Only Controversy by Peter S. Ruckman where he claims to Refute James White

[@jeffreyandrewwinters3719]

Does anyone have any opinions ?

[@MountainFisher]

@@jeffreyandrewwinters3719 Judging by Ruckman's vindictive and hateful attacks against his detractors I'm befuddled by his claim to be Christian.

[@jeffreyandrewwinters3719]

@@MountainFisher Some have called Ruckman's arguments Truth With Attitude, but do you agree with his book The Scholarship Only Controversy

[@MountainFisher]

@@jeffreyandrewwinters3719 I never read it. I do not listen to people like Ruckman, he needs to find some grace. If a Christian cannot carry on disagreements with respect and Christian grace I seriously do not listen to them since they go against the commands of Scripture. Ruckman's Truth with hateful attitude is counter to speaking the truth in love. I find his insistence on KJV untenable and frankly ridiculous.

[@samlawrence2695]

Peter Ruckman? KJV only cultist, false teacher and hypocrite. Just like pathological liar Gail Riplinger. The double standards of the KJV only cult. "Do not trust the scholars. Then they praise the so called scholarship of the KJV translators. What a bunch of hypocrites the KJV idolaters are

[@katherinepeterson-roberts]

Believers should not rely on scholars and pundits of either camp to determine the degree of faithfulness of translations to the Greek NT. A believer should nurture the gift of curiosity and discovery that the Holy Spirit endows in him/her to learn Koine Greek to make an objective determination around this matter himself/herself. Paul the Apostle himself was a brilliant learned scholar who exemplifies this notion and who made his arguments in Hebrew (quite possibly also in Aramaic), Greek, and Latin.

[@walterrelief2270]

Katherine Peterson-Roberts ...what about Wescott and Hort?

[@walterrelief2270]

Van Guard they were disciples of madam Blavatsky. They were open in their quotes that they did not believe in the deity of Christ. Is not a tree judged by its fruit?

[@mkshffr4936]

What I find really interesting is the the IFBs chose an Episcopal Bible as the only God approved translation.

[@paulrobinson9318]

They are nuts - what do you expect? I escaped that false cessationist cult.

[@GaryGilesthevoice1]

Dr. White does an excellent job of dealing with the controversy associated with bible translation.I was once a kjv only person however after considering other versions and taking some Greek in bible school I realized that although kjv is a good translation it is a translation. Jesus as I understood it spoke in Aramiac and the new testament was written in Greek so I ask myself the question how could an English translation be " more inspired" than the original. Kjv came on the scene some 1500-1600 years after most of the recorded events of the bible took place.Based on anything I know concerning the history of King James and the translators of his day he was not interested in creating an God- Inspired version.It is information like we see in this clip that gives us a balanced view as to how we should look at the various translation. Truth is constant. How we see and interpret that truth can be the challenge.Good interview

[@lina-zz9kk]

@@martinbaker7032 Hello i have removed my comment because i dont believe as i did back then. Jesus did not end what God created Jesus ended sin not evil. The greatest lie for the last 2000 years is that sin still exists. Any bible version is ok God has made sure that the essentials are available. there is no such thing as a perfect bible version they are all man made and filled with mistakes, but as i say God has ensured that the meat and 2 veg is there. James white of course teaches we are all sin filled from birth and for that reason teaches lies

[@isaacleillhikar4566]

5:00 Thats the reason I learn the Hebrew ans Greek. Because (I read ESV) theres different translations saying it different ways so instead of geting even one other Bible to see what they pull out of the words, why not just learn the words. Its silly. Plus you can read Platon and Homer which is quite a good thing.

[@MezztovenShort4DannY]

I agree with the Multiple translations, it really does confuse a lot of the meaning, start with King James and ask God to lead you

[@TMcConnaughhay]

you are going right back to the KJV as the ultimate source after you just listened to this man speak about other translations that are more accurate?? Stubborn!

[@danielomitted1867]

Why on earth should ANYONE start with 16th century translation in a dialect of English that is easily confused and misunderstood?

[@jamessheffield4173]

How about Janes White controversy.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@Van Guard I'm a New Englander, Boston Celtics.

[@fightthegoodfight2479]

I loved Dr. Whites comparison of the KJV onlies to the Latin Vulgate debate back in the day. History has repeated itself. And if the KJV is the only perfect translation that is better than all other past versions, translations, or even the originals (that we do not have), what happens if I can’t speak English? What if I speak only Russian? Or Chinese? Or Arabic? We can make accurate translations of the manuscripts we have. We have more manuscripts now to base our translations on than the translators did for the 1611 KJV. Scribes did make errors. Translators make errors. They were clearly not inspired and never claimed to be. There are misspellings, added words, and other various discrepancies between ancient manuscripts. Anyone with eyes can see differences in manuscripts. Scholars and Christians alike acknowledge this. As Christians, we do not deny this. It is not intimidating, nor does it disprove the inerrancy if God’s word. While our translations and copies are not perfect, we can produce accurate translations through external evidence. This external evidence consists of the THOUSANDS of manuscripts God has provided (as the Bible is the most attested ancient work from the ancient world). In summary: The Bible has been accurately (not perfectly) COPIED with sufficient accuracy for us to recover the message God intended. (Contrary to popular textual critics like the apostate Bart D. Ehrman who is a true snake in the grass on a hell bent mission to attack the trustworthiness of God’s word and deceive the Church. Simply check out criticisms of his deceptive book “Misquoting Jesus.” He controls the flow of information only to support his biased views.) Scribal errors do not prove an uninspired or errant Bible (as Ehrman argues). They do not mean that the Bible has errors or is flawed. All of it is true. Being that we are able to recover the true message God has intended, the translations we hold today are inerrant, inspired, and authoritative as long as it holds true to their original, God breathed meaning. We can have full assurance in the trustworthiness of God’s word. Saints, stay strong and fight the good fight of faith by the strength given by God. May He grant repentance to the lost and sustain His sheep. Not one will be lost! Blessings in Christ. If anyone would like to read more into this subject, I highly recommend the following books: “How We God the Bible” by Timothy Paul Jones, PhD (ISBN: 978-1628622164) “The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible” by Paul D. Wegner (ISBN: 978-0-8010-2799-4) All praise Christ our King! In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God! He will never fail! The gates of Hell will never prevail! Amen! If anyone is serious and wants more information or has any more in depth questions, I’d be more than happy to email you. just let me know and I’ll get you my email! As Christians, we are all in the pursuit of Biblical Truth, in Christ, by the Spirit! Sola Scriptura!

[@johnhamilton286]

How can you trust in a god that is such a buffoon, he can't keep his word perfect? Even through being translated! And this according to you, as in only the originals were the perfect word of God, but the copies we have now days are imperfect copies of copies of copies... If I understand you correctly. How can you trust a saviour to save you when he can't even save his word over a couple thousand stinking years. According to you. Is your faith even real, because I would never intrust my soul and eternity to an ALMOST almighty, all-powerful God, that can do almost anything, but, dab blast it, he just can't keep his word perfect. I've looked into your different Bible versions, and they all say something different, in wich case they can't all be right, they can't all be the word of God. Only one of them can be the word, the others are frauds, as seems to be your god if you're correct in your teachings. I mean seriously, how dare you try to leed me to a god that is so incompetent he can't even keep his word perfect through some stupid translations over a couple thousand yrs. Why would you try to screw me over like that! If your god can't break his own rules that he runs the universe with, and keep his word perfect, then he certainly can't save you and he can't save me!

[@walterrelief2270]

fightthegoodfight 247 ...Codex Sinaiticus or Textus Receptus? Von Tischendorf, Wescott and Hort? Or Erasmus? Of these who believed in the deity of Christ? Only one. Erasmus of the Textus Receptus.

[@TMcConnaughhay]

@@johnhamilton286 dang! feeling a bit bitter are we? you obviously HATE God because you have called him a buffoon and mocked Him and His word. Go and try to save yourself if you can, I guess.

[@bpabustan]

This ONLYISM idea is very much like Islam - the Qur'an must only be read and recited in Arabic. Any form of translating to another language equals corruption to them.

[@dgale1023]

I understand the NIV is off base and doesn't have some of the verses that are in KJV but NKJV does. Is NKJV still not a good translation? Help me out here thanks Dave.

[@ricdavid7476]

the NKJ is quite corrupt . The NIV is an obvious corruption having over 60,000 less words in it that the AKJ and many of the amendments in the NIV take away the deity of Christ. the nkj is just more subtle about its corruption

[@ricdavid7476]

@@henrylaurel4476 Ha ha you are half the comedy double act of laurel and hardy right?

[@ricdavid7476]

@@henrylaurel4476 since you partner died you have really become unfunny. They do say that in real life comedians are pretty sad and bent out of shape individuals and that appears to be the case with yourself.

[@jennamarielovesjesus12]

I love the NKJB. I would definitely recommend it. The NIV I would stay far away from. Blessings

[@jennamarielovesjesus12]

@@henrylaurel4476 So much texts taken out of the NIV and most real bible believing pastors will always tell u that the NIV isn’t great. But to each their own

[@stephenatkinson480]

I’m not King James only Crazy. But I have been studying the topic for a number of years and am convinced that the manuscripts behind the King James are more reliable. I do not trust the alexandrian text at all. The majority text is the preserved Word.

[@ariel9302]

What's crazy about kjv only? Do tell.

[@MountainFisher]

And what about the Coptic texts or Armenian texts? There is more behind modern translations than the so called Alexandrian Cult texts.

[@davidbrooks7385]

What is Dr. White's favored translation? Just wondering.

[@MountainFisher]

He said it in the program he uses the NASB, the most literal translation around. I have one and some of it is hard to understand being literal. I read the NIV, but keep the NASB near to check its thought for thought translation.

[@ghostl1124]

Holman Christian Standard Bible HCSB is also excellent.

[@henryjordan2152]

Mike Lindner I’ll look into that translation I’ve never used it

[@fishersofmen4727]

@@henryjordan2152 I agree with Mike, The HCSB is really good. I personally like the the TLV and the ESV more but HCSB is my 3rd favorite and I switch from those three all the time.

[@henryjordan2152]

Tom Fisher thank you

[@anthonykeve8894]

The CSB is the updated Holman

[@susansauls8902]

What makes HCSB an excellent translation?

[@philiperickson5182]

If you look at all the translations... Christ died for us ... Jesus is not in the original??? Provide proof plz...

[@godslittleman5451]

Does this error in the KJV matter to God? 1st Peter 1:11 “Searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of Christ WHICH was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” Notice how the Holy Spirit in this verse is called a “which,” and is also called an “it.” How does an “it” testify? I’m not trying to demonize the Old King here, but would like to break down a stronghold that breaks fellowship opportunities with other believers. Here is the Same verse in the New King James: “searching what, or what manner of time, the spirit of Christ WHO was in them was indicating when HE testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” This same Holy Spirit can use any version, and HE does.

[@joericci5546]

God’s little Man Why does the NKJV say, And it is the Spirit that bears witness (1 John 5:6) And you switched “Spirit of Christ” to “the Holy Spirit” in your reasoning.

[@godslittleman5451]

Joe Ricci I prefer the NLT in that particular verse1st John 5;6: ....And the Spirit, who is truth confirms it with his testimony.

[@godslittleman5451]

@@Bibleindepth well the NIC and the NASB have a lot of verses missing, I don’t use those. The New King holds strong to the textus receptus text and is the version I use.

[@franable]

Listen and watch carefully to the words added and changed between the 14-15 minute marks on the verse Acts 5:30. Then read what a real KJB says: Act 5:30　 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

[@danbrown586]

Fine. In the NASB, it reads, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross." Or in the ESV, "The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree." What difference do you see among these three translations? Is it the inference from the KJV that Jesus was killed, and then hanged on a tree/cross? Because we know that isn't what happened.

[@MicahFoxxMusic]

Van Guard - it doesn’t say or infer that the hanging was after death

[@TheBluegoatman]

@@MicahFoxxMusic it literally says Jesus was slew (killed) AND hanged on a tree. Killed first then hanged. Not what happened. But that's the words

[@MicahFoxxMusic]

A. Ed Stark - “killed and hanged” does not mean “killed then hanged”

[@mkshffr4936]

I agree that and does not imply sequence. However both statements are 100% correct. It might be interesting to know why each rendering was chosen but it does not materially effect the faith at all.

[@andrewinman1687]

I don't know James Whites heart. However, I can say that his endeavor to disqualify my favorite translation has really caused me to lose faith at times. Why can't he just let people read the kjv if they want to?

[@johnhamilton286]

He's on a mission to destroy your faith in Christ. If he can get you to doubt the authenticity and authority of that book, then your faith can be destroyed. But I agree, I don't understand why my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have a problem with anyone sticking to the KJV only. They don't complain when fellow Christians stick to a different version! Something smells foul here...

[@andrewinman1687]

​@@johnhamilton286 Personally, I've never complained about people using an ESV. I never even claimed the kjv was better. I just like it because it's beautifully written and is definitely Gods inspired word. At the same time, I don't feel a need to debate with people about which version is better because I don't worship a book. I worship the author of the book. I worship the writer of the message.

[@johnhamilton286]

@@andrewinman1687 I agree with you in so far as I don't want to debate at all Wich version is the perfect, pure, holy Word of the living God-Jesus. I'm sick and tired of this stuff, if someone wants to be KJV only, who cares, if someone wants to read a different version, who cares. I believe in Jesus the Lord because of that book, without that book, and without it being the perfect Word of God, we wouldn't know to believe in Jesus, and we wouldn't be able to grow spiritually; we wouldn't know anything about God.

[@andrewinman1687]

@@Imsaved777 personally, I have nothing against the ESV. If it were a bad translation, the friends I know who use it wouldn't have a heart passionate for Christ. I don't see why people think they have to make a war between these translations.

[@hushbimbo9395]

@@andrewinman1687 because The ESV makes God and Jesus Christ a Liar .. I've found 3 Lies so far

[@Godswill247always]

I watched a video where James white said NASB and one other bible translations he recommended are the only ones copied from the original manuscript. Yet, when I checked the nasb, Mark 16, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the whole of the last 6verses of the book Revelation which he said are not in the original manuscript are there. Howcome they are there since he said they are not in the manuscript and thereby condemning the bible kjv? Those things are difficult to believe putting in mind that you said the last 6verses of the book of revelation should not be there. Maybe that is to give whosoever wants to remove or add to the bible no fear to think twice. Even doing such a thing among unbelievers means something deep like as it is written in Mathew 23:15. I pray that may God forgive us in Jesus name. Even, if Mark 16, and the story of the lady caught in adultery are not in the Bible, the spirit of Christ in every believer will do His strange work unto perfection in the name of Jesus and thank God that they are there till the end. Hallelujah! My redeemer liveth.

[@MountainFisher]

Dude, do you ever read the side notes where it says, "The oldest and best manuscripts do not have these verses"?

[@Godswill247always]

@@MountainFisher all i know is that whatever is written in KJV is enough for me. Now is Endtime. I have my bible to study and not any man or woman because I may not know the spirit in them. So, all the talking, what benefits has it made to unbelievers who have been dwelling on "the bible is corrupt?" It is written: Matthew 23:15 KJV Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[@Godswill247always]

@@MountainFisher Na them sabi. Whatever they like, let them say. Why did they have to write it there even when they omitted a whole verse in the bible. This i know, I will take up a serpent, If i drink a deadly poison, it shall not hurt me. They should say psalm 23, 91 or the likes are not in the bible too.

[@poseidon3032]

Cannot the Holy Spirit of God lead you into all truth? If He can create the universe, then this shan't too hard for Him. Read through the bible at least once. Any version. Compare a few versions if you need to. The message will ring through.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

I actually purchased a book by James White... recommended by another video.. reviewer.. the book was called The Forgotten Trinity.... after pouring over this book several days.. I really thought that James White.. was intelligent and speaking truthfully..but after listening to his views on the KJV.. I am feeling,.. like I should Not read any more of his books.. because for all I know this could be a trick of the devil.. to deceive me into NOT believing God s word.//even though his book was teaching in depthly about the Trinity.... I know the devil does not come straight at us where we can always..see him coming.. sometimes the devil uses people such as this scholar.. to throw us off God's track....

[@susiequsie1980]

True,but not about Dr. White! He is a man of God! Check him out n you'll see for yourself

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@susiequsie1980 I am sorry I did not mean to offend any James White fans.. I DO feel He is very knowledgeable.. and as I said I did enjoy his book The Forgotten Trinity...but I disagree with his view on KJV - only ism..I feel He dismisses the KJV ...and as one who writes as He does so strongly about God.. .. He should be one of the KJV's staunchest defenders.. I have an issue with one who has studied and learned as much as he does.. feeling the way they do about the KJV... I feel the same way about EVE's episode with the serpent in the garden.. shouldn't she have known better?.. the same is going on here..

[@dorgonreborn4108]

ESV vs KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:2 We have serious problem here and it pertains to the rapture being pre-trib or post-trib, tribulation will either be a stumbling block or a sign depending on which translation you use and follow. This is not the only verse in the air.... God is all powerful and not the author of confusion... The following is the verse from each version and keep in mind the day of Christ is rapture but the day of the Lord is wrath.... huge difference 2 Thessalonians 2:2 ESV = 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 KJV = 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. so James do you see the difference? do you see the danger? Anyone that doesn't see the clear difference and dangers of pre-trib and post-trib you should think very deeply on this topic... can you handle the tribulation? or will you be worn out as a saint? Daniel 7:25, John 16:1-4, Mathew 13:21-22 .... how much will you be prepared for or willing to endure??

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

I'm a doctrinal bible teacher, I'm no Calvinist or Arminian and give a full refutation of Calvinism at "atoolboxforthebodyofchrist.com" I just want to inform you that only ms D and another late ms contain XPISTOS, transliterated Christ,meaning anointed in English. If James and other Calvinists wanted to change the Greek text to teach POST TRIBULATION rapture -really they teach that believers go to the clouds, then simply come right back down- they would have to change many other passage the way Jws did in the nwt where they were trying to remove the deity of Christ. But, they did not change all other texts that would support a Pretribulation catching out, also, remember that the word rapture is a transliteration from the Latin, the meaning of the Greek is sudden snatching. One example of the ESV teaching Pre- trib, 1 Corinthians chapter 15:44-53, note vss 50-52, where believers MUST have our bodies CHANGED- in Romans Paul describes this as adoption, in Colossians 1:13 Paul says believers are ALREADY BROUGHT INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD'S BELOVED SON, in Ephesians Paul says believers are seated in the heavenlies with Christ Eph 2:6, in Philippians 3:20 he says the believer's CITIZENSHIP is in heaven, etc. The kingdom entrance for the body of Christ- those saved between the 69th and 70th weeks of years in Daniel 9:24-27 are needing heavenly bodies to enter the kingdom of God PHYSICALLY as the kingdom has not been set up by the God of heaven per John 18 where Jesus acknowledges this to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world...", see vss 36-37. Yet in Revelation 11:15, consistent with MANY old testament prophecies that the kingdom will be on earth, Jesus begins to reign on earth that has become his kingdom, this is before or at the middle of the tribulation. The point here is that the ESV and all other good English translations teach that the body of Christ must have changed bodies to ENTER THE PROMISED KINGDOM, those on the earth who are living at the Lord's return to earth where his kingdom is located are in the kingdom already and are not in changed bodies and are judged for being REMOVED OR REMAINING therein as well as remaining in bodies that can die and maybe millions who later are amassed by Released Satan to attack the Lord, etc. There are other passages as well that teach pretrib and the one given above and others are found in the ESV and all other basic English translations!

[@mkshffr4936]

Dorgon Reborn; It sounds to me like you are starting with a predetermined eschatology and evaluating the text on that basis. It would be better I think to judge the merits of the use of the English terms on the Greek words being translated. I am skeptical that any one translation always has the best renderings of every verse.

[@dorgonreborn4108]

Greg Blevins Yea I’ll always have issues with the ESV because I know too many scholars that disagree with some of the single word changes. Sure if you wanna get saved the esv or Nasb can do that for ya but when it comes to study I know where my bet is. Referencing from old English to Koine Greek or Hebrew it becomes a no brainer 🤷🏻‍♂️ let’s talk about the words in prophetic areas that have been changed in the ESV

[@dorgonreborn4108]

Mk Shffr Well that’s your call 😂 stay away from teaching I guess 🤷🏻‍♂️ I judge based on the early language and how important things have been translated... it’s not predetermined eschatology

[@J.F.331]

I use to be a radical KJV only advocate and held to the idea that the English words of the KJV were perfect and there was no need to go back to the Greek or Hebrew. James White’s book The King James Only Controversy opened my eyes to the truth of what and where the KJV came from. From there I studied more and more of the manuscript evidence to this very day and honestly admit that not only am I not a KJV only advocate anymore, but I cannot be because of the indisputable evidence in favor of the Alexandrian Text-Type that underlies the modern translations of the Bible. KJV Onlyism is ever evolving into idolatry and is now adopting the concept that Jesus and the KJV share the same one nature. I have heard statements like, “the KJV was beaten and nailed to cross” or when Jesus said, “it is finished” what was meant was the completion of the KJV. There are some in the KJV only movement who have actually made the KJV an idol that they worship and call God in physical form.

[@Studio54MediaGroup]

You said: There are some in the KJV only movement who have actually made the KJV an idol that they worship and call God in physical form. Can you name this group and where they are located? Did you see it with your own eyes? Just curious.

[@skyeric9186]

Sorry mr. white.. I’m with u on everything... I think you’re great... the Holy Spirit is with u.. u are Gods soldier.. I hear what you’re sayin about how the word needs to be translated into other languages and such... but I disagree heavily with u that the Kjv isn’t the best version... I believe u came up with a verse in acts.. and the tree.. downplaying the kjv.. have to look into that... that aside... Your ESV, along with any other version, simply isn’t as strong, as poetic, nor profound as the kjv... kjv is the best English version, for many reasons.. wording, poeticness, and that u have to really read it... read it slowly.. to digest... in other versions I believe meaning can be lost.. ESV is ok, and I’m with u in the sense that.. it’s not like “kjv” or nothing.. ppl can still be brought to knowledge of truth reading other versions... but I do believe KJv is MUCH stronger... I think I would go as far as saying it’s inspired by God in English... I believe u try to fight against it.. but you know it’s the best translation.. could be wrong.. but don’t really think so lol

[@TMcConnaughhay]

I agree with Dr. White. Don't limit God on getting his word out....before the KJV came along, people were saved and where able to be saved because they got the message.

[@walterrelief2270]

Tim M. ...you can’t limit God brother. You only limit yourself by listening to the wisdom of men.

[@eph112joephil]

@@TMcConnaughhayWhen it come to the Scripture: We ought to simply want to know what God Almighty word for word has stated. Also knowing that just one of the main things Scripture is given for is doctrine: words carry meaning; and that given meaning can form, whether it would be for good or the ill: thereby to form doctrines or beliefs. But sadly though, that is: with translational & especially Paraphrases: the only thing we thing we end up with is merely whatever the given translator wanted us to hear. And even more sad however, is that because of the newer invalid translations; or in this case paraphrase of the Bible(And I use the term bible loosely.): That the very definition of what the word of God even is has become so subjective if not out right relativistic.

[@ji5055]

The best argument for King James only people bye Dr Gene Kim. A full explanation. If you just scroll down a couple more you'll see it

[@therambler3713]

It would be easier to listen to him if he weren't so arrogant and snobbish.

[@maximumsecurity9411]

King James was Black and 1611 version with apocypha is the only translation. Other translations are fraught with lies?

[@vadouis-rt3of]

The oldest New Testament is the John Rylands manuscript and is dated to 125 AD. It contains fragment of the Book of John. This matches perfectly with the WIlliam Wycliffe version of the 13th century, which matches perfectly with the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthew Henry version of the 16th century. All of those versions matches perfectly with the King James Version of 1611. God has preserved His Words. Deuteronomy 4:2>Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. The new modern translations violate the Lords command. Their Bibles do not have the following verses: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44,Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17,John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7. The KJV has all of them. And I am not even counting the verses that change the verses, like Matthew 5:44, and 1 Timothy 3:16.

[@dgale1023]

that's true but why? I am trying to find a translation other than kjv. No luck I guess nkjv has the verses what does that mean/ Are they the only one/ I thought that was not a good translation

[@danielomitted1867]

You realize these modern translations are just doing exactly what people were doing when they came up with the KJV right? Btw no one is saying Gods word hasnt been preserved. You people dont even understand whats being said. You just cling to your traditions and a series of nonarguments.

[@J.F.331]

@vadouis So you are willing to choose a particular English translation based on one single manuscript fragment that’s the size of a credit card that only covers a total of 5 verses in John 8?

[@vadouis-rt3of]

@@J.F.331 It is more than that. You have it matching word for word with many manuscripts from different writers from different countries and over several centuries. That is an excellent record.

[@dlbard1]

@vadouis Don't know where your getting your info but the oldest NT is Codex Alexandrinus and it dates to the 5th century. You are way off.

[@stephenatkinson480]

As rude and Crude as Peter Ruckman is not saying I support all of his teachings. He would have wiped the floor with James white in a debate on the topic. But James White backed down and refused to debate him.

[@toolegittoquit_001]

Now why do I doubt that ?🤔

[@randomchaos9359]

These arguments are quite ridiculous. To say that Acts 5:30 is a mistranslation is grasping at straws. And using the arguments of extremists on the KJV issue does not prove that the KJV isn't God's Word. I don't believe that Russian speaking people should use the KJV. That's nonsense. And speaking of attacking the Trinity, the modern Bible versions alter I John 5:7-8.

[@cmungus]

I was really intrigued by this guy up until he said that about Acts 5:30. It literally says "whom you murdered BY hanging on a tree". Then he goes on acting like it says something else, and that is the real mistranslation. Sad that it's the translation from English to English that trips this dude up the most.

[@stephenwilson0386]

When does he say that the KJV isn't God's word? There's nothing wrong with using or preferring the KJV, the problem comes when people claim it's the ONLY English translation that is God's word, much less elevating it above the original languages.

[@cmungus]

@@stephenwilson0386 So you mean when it gets to the point of idolatry. That makes sense. At that point the Bible itself becomes their God.

[@stephenwilson0386]

@@cmungus Exactly. To hear some of these people speak, they worship the KJV Bible as much or more than God Himself.

[@ilikemusicalot8397]

@@stephenwilson0386 Some churches rail against modern translations and kick people out.

[@philiperickson5182]

Sir ... the Bible is clear... it says do not worry about anything... Christ died for us ... all translation point to this... you sir have missed the point ... your babbling is point less... all have fallen short of the glorified God ... Is there a translation that does that not say that... Romans 3:23... that sir is the gospel... No need to worry about translations that is the message believe it or not…

[@wilsongabriel7505]

I don't like reading KJV!! Because it language is archaic.

[@xceptamanbbornagainnokingd5836]

well, looks like your the multitude that is not revealed the parable to. do you want to be one of those that is expounded the parable? if so. you got to do 2 things that many people today don't like to. 1st, humble yourself before God, and in that state ask God to reveal his word to you (in faith, nothing wavering). 2nd study

[@Michael-uk3pj]

And the Bible was not written in archaic Greek or Hebrew

[@lovejoypeaceforever]

PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO CONFUSED... OR EVEN NOT BORN AGAIN !!

[@johnhamilton286]

Wilson I have to respectfully disagree with you a little. I am in my early 30's, and I started reading the Bible at the age of 13, the KJV. I never had a problem understanding any of it. It actually uses small, simple words most the time where it can. Also was a regular public school kid, no special training. The very few times I ran into a word I didn't understand, I'd go right to a dictionary-it didn't happen a lot. Just remember brother, you don't have to understand everything right of the bat, and you won't.

[@walterrelief2270]

Wilson Gabriel ...not archaic at all. Actually you will expand vocabulary. The Word is not for the slack.

[@geraldstone2204]

You really can't discuss the King James Only issue without investigating the origins of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (which are the manuscripts that are used for most modern day translations). I wish Dr. White would address this topic, this is the topic that really drives this issue. Watching the Chris Pinto documentary "Tares among the wheat" (which is available for free on KZbin) gives the whole story, so I'd recommend watching this documentary before believing everything Dr. White says. Try comparing Luke 4:4 in the NASB and the King James, the NASB leaves out the words "but by every word of God"...this is just one example of many, a modern day translation that leaves out and omits certain words that were in the Received Text.

[@geraldstone2204]

I’ve listened to Dr White several times and never heard him address that issue and I’m being totally honest. If you’re a Protestant and feel comfortable using bibles that are derived from Textus Vanticanus then you don’t understand the threat that the Roman Church is to the truth of the Gospel! You’ll be apologizing to the Saints in heaven who were burned at the stake for reading the wrong version, according to the Roman Church. The cup she drinks from in Revelation 17 is filled with the blood of God’s people, people who would not stop reading their bibles or bend the knee to the pope.

[@J.F.331]

The least of His servants The Textus Receptus is a Roman Catholic text. Desiderius Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest is the one who created the Textus Receptus.

[@geraldstone2204]

Jason0331 the Textus Receptus is the foundation of the King James Bible and that’s the Bible that the Catholic Church despises, it’s on the Catholic Church list of forbidden books...the TR is hated by the Catholic Church.

[@dlbard1]

The KJV is Masoretic(Hebrew) based not Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Those are Septuagint(Greek) based Bible's.

[@dennishagans6339]

James White has a Net Worth of $13 Million, Per Second: $0.13. Per Hour: $456.62, Per Day: $10,958.90 Mr. white certainly knows which side his bread is buttered on. life is good and the money is good for being a modern-day Judas!!! all ya have to do is be a modern-day yes man, yes to the modern ecumenical translations, and no with much disdain for the KJV. life is wonderful when you are in the good old boy's bias club, going with the flow, and thumbing your nose at those who use the KJV.

[@dennishagans6339]

@@martinbaker7032 Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. All liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death I am not going to lie to save anything, the devil is a liar and the father of it. I do not follow Gail Riplinger, she had no business teaching men in the called assembly, she is divorced twice and married three times, about the only thing I have used of hers is some of the references where the modern bibles are very different from the KJV I am a gleener, I may not agree with your doctrine or denomination, but if you have some truth then it is that truth that is worth gleening. Col 1:14 (Accurate New Testament+) inG1722 whomG3739 [We] haveG2192 theG3588 redemptionG629 theG3588 forgivenessG859 [of] theG3588 offensesG266 (King James Version w/ Strong's) InG1722 whomG3739 we haveG2192 redemptionG629 throughG1223 hisG846 blood,G129 even theG3588 forgivenessG859 of sins:G266 As you can see the two texts are very different, one the Greek removes the Blood, the other one does not, but I have the top 20 or so popular bibles that I can compare against each other, The modern versions are all based on the Alexandrinus text the ANT above is based on the NA27 Nestle/Aland 27th revision, we are on revision 28 right now, making my ANT obsolete. 29 Good Bible Sales Statistics 82%. That’s the percentage of people who regularly read the Bible who will reach for a King James Version before any other. There are 900 different versions of the Bible just in English. There is even one Bible that has been translated into the fictional language of Klingon. I have another web site that also quotes the 900 english bible figure. It is modern scholars who have inflated that number of English bibles, after all when you do not believe that the copies are inspired or preserved what else can you do but revise revise revise, as you believe what we do have can be improved upon. The very first attack by satan was against God's word, he was so sucessful that he has not strayed from keeping that attack going I have a copy of Sinaiticus, I cannot read Greek, but I do have functioning eyes that can see the edited/deleted text on various pages of Sinaiticus, in some places whole columbs have been erased but just like the ghost craters on the moon, they are still visible. John Dean Burgon, wrote that 10 scribes edited Sinaiticus between the 6th and 7th century. Dr. Burgon was a paleographer an expert in documents, well able to deduce how many scribes by their different writting styles. Is that how God preseves His word, by having various scribes edit it and make sweeping deletions? Modern man has been deceived into believing that only the originals were inspired/preserved, but we do not have the originals anymore, thus to them God did not inspire/preserve the copies. That is doubt the opposite of Faith, If you cannot believe that God preserved His word in the copies, then why even bother beliving in Christ and Christianity when you think that we do not have the perfect words of God today and what we do have can be improved upon, hence the NA28 with no end in sight of revising a dead language as Koine Greek has been replaced by modern Greek. And last but not least everytime they revise their text, they can then print new bibles based on the new revision, I have about 20 of the most popular bibles, they are just plain text and most are in E-Sword with one in android and another recently scanned. When they print they print various flavors of each bible such as an NLT study bible, NLT men's bible, NLT women's bible, kid and teen bibles, multiply that by the number of versions that will be printed and we are talking about a cash cow that never runs dry.

[@seekerofconsistency]

Jimmy White is an unsound "scholar." Ask him to define the words, "the Bible." He says the Bible over and over without defining it. If he would say "the car," he would mean one specific car. What does he mean by "the Bible"?

[@leia072306]

If the KJV is not the perfect word of God. What is than? What gives anyone the right to try to correct God’s perfect word. Only a prideful devil would do so. I have a perfect written standard. And know I have eternal life. 1 John 5:13. KJV. Do you? Mark 2:17 KJV. ❤️

[@renren1641]

The KJV is nowhere self endorsing, even it's translators attested to that. To not promote further study is almost treating the KJV as an idol

[@davidbrock4104]

This is translation worship, something most KJVO are deeply steeped in.

[@joericci5546]

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. James White deceitfully claimed that the verse above states that Jesus was slain and then hung on the tree in that order of events. However the verse is not in chronological order. Note that God raised Jesus from the dead after the Jews murdered him and after they hung him on the tree. Why would James White stoop so low? Its because the scholars have never improved the Holy Bible.

[@winburna852]

If they stop filtering the Bible through their traditions then there would be many modern English versions of the KJV today.

[@joericci5546]

The Holy Bible is authorized by the Holy Ghost. Notice that James White avoids the Holy Bible and presents a plethora of off topic criticisms.

[@j.sethfrazer]

Name 5

[@joericci5546]

Seth Frazer, None of the following opinions of James White are scriptural. 1. Onlyism: mischaracterised. 2. No bible is special or has an unique status. 3. We don’t speak 1611 kings English today so new translations are needed. 4. Translators can’t be inspired. That is, heathen scholars can be translators of the scriptures. 5. The Apostles read and quoted the Greek Septuagint not Hebrew. James provided no quote of scripture for over 14 minutes. And then only a few after that.

[@j.sethfrazer]

Joe Ricci 1. Onlyism isn’t even “scriptural” either though.... 2. I fail to see how that’s an “off topic criticism.” The English language didn’t even exist when the books of the Bible were written, didn’t come around until CENTURIES AFTER THE COMPLETION of the first compilation at Carthage in AD 397. 3. Just read the preface to the 1611 edition of the KJV. They even admitted that their efforts were just to keep the Word current and would’ve been all for doing everything to keep it current; there is NOTHING from ANY of the translators that claimed their work was “inspired” or “the ultimate standard of truth” or a “word-for-word exact translation” or any of the baseless hogwash that can’t stand to scrutiny. 4. There’s a HUGE difference between claiming to be “inspired” and merely being honest with the text (not theologically consistent, which is EXACTLY what the KJV does) and as thorough with historical etymologies when making the rough decisions in translation. 5. That goes against history and the Bible itself. Judaism was well hellenized rough 2 centuries before Jesus Christ walked the earth. They spoke and read both, ESPECIALLY St. Paul. Peter, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, Philip, and Nathaniel were all fishermen earlier in their lives. They would’ve been WELL acquainted with Greek by the time the the New Testament was written; there’s a reason it’s called Koinē (Κοινή) Greek (it was commonly understood to certain extents across the Mediterranean). Its a total genetic fallacy to argue that they didn’t know Greek or wouldn’t have been familiarized with LXX at the time. Just read the New Testament allusions to the Old Testament passages. There’s a reason why they seldom every match all the way (LXX) There. Every point you made is totally false.

[@gildersleevefan67]

@@j.sethfrazer you have the patience of Job

[@stephenwilson0386]

@@gildersleevefan67 Seriously though. I recently bought a KJV to read alongside my other translations (ESV, CSB, NKJV, etc) and decided to watch a few videos on King James onlyism for kicks. This Joe Ricci guy is spouting his nonsense in the comments of literally every video I've looked at. I think he just enjoys arguing no matter how foolish he sounds.

[@truthcrusader4521]

The problem is new Bible versions have copy right issues. This means ten percent of a new Bible version must be changed in order to get a copyright! Publishers do this so others can't sell their versions. Get some books on the changes made and it will open your eyes big time. Also, James White considers minority text superior to majority text. Egghead logic VS intelligence.

[@judylloyd7901]

I don't think James White discounts any text. He merely points out that there are so many more, and very much earlier manuscripts available to translators today than were available to the translators of the KJV.

[@truthcrusader4521]

@@judylloyd7901 The problem with James White is critical/minority, or Alexandrian text. He is in agreement to change the Bible over a fragment that may or may not be older then the majority text. Methods of dating such as carbon dating can sometimes be very inaccurate. Also, anything from Egypt usually was influenced by Gnostic beliefs. All newer Bible versions use the Sinaiticus as one of their sources because it is considered one of the oldest found manuscripts. James White agrees with this from what I understand. However, many people feel the Sinaiticus is a fraud from the 1800s. They wont even let them do any testing on it. Maybe Whites college degree keeps him from seeing the truth of it all.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

The KJV does have a copyright. Its in England and is held by the king/queen. Last I knew it was getting close to renewal time and the queen was going to continue the copyright.

[@keithelrod777]

I like the KJV, NKJV and the NASB. I wanted to mention what I don't like about the KJV. The KJV does not capitalize the pronouns for God, such as He or Him etc. Here is an example using the KJV compared to the NKJV and NASB: For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NKJV) God's Name should always be capitalized, whether using a pronoun or His actual Name. Also, I don't like how the KJV uses the word Holy Ghost for the Holy Spirit. A ghost can only be in one place at one time. God is everywhere. Here are three examples from Matthew 28, the Great Commission: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV) Go [a]therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” [b]Amen. (NKJV) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” (NASB)

[@keithelrod777]

@Van Guard I believe it shows respect for God by using capitalization for His Name. You just capitalized the word Greek in your post. This is my opinion. You can capitalize or not, I prefer to show respect for God by using capitalization for God, His, Son, He, Father, Holy Spirit....for any word, pronoun etc., anything referring to His Name.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@keithelrod777 It comes down to a matter of preference. There is nothing wrong with doing it either way. Personally, I prefer following the rules of grammar and spelling, and I have found that many people have turned the capitalization of the deity pronouns into idolatry (though not everybody does it that way), by thinking they have somehow dishonored God is they forget to capitalize a pronoun. Also, there are points in scripture where the Pharisees refer to Jesus in a mocking way, and the NASB and NKJV still capitalize the pronouns, which makes no sense in that context because the Pharisees in question didn't believe that Jesus was God.

[@keithelrod777]

@@curtthegamer934 Yes, it is preference. I prefer, even if it is the Pharisees etc. who are trying to belittle Jesus that all pronouns etc. for God be capitalized.

[@keithelrod777]

@@curtthegamer934 I think that we shouldn't capitalize pharisees, ha! I would much rather be respectful of my Maker than respectful of grammar rules.

[@joericci5546]

Keith Elrod A pronoun is not a name. But, for example, in the NIV “the One” becomes a name. Which name can be assigned to the Antichrist. The title “Holy Spirit” is found one time in the Holy Bible. Because the Holy Bible is the true and authorised book of the holy scriptures of God, a man that knows that, knows that the singular use of Holy Spirit signifies a precise revelation wherein confusion about the Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost is prevented. That revelation is left out of modern versions. The reason Holy Ghost is the proper name is because the ministry of the Holy Ghost is to express the soul of the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth until he returns. Remember the things Jesus said about the Holy Ghost expediting the ministry of Jesus. My sense of the use of capitalised pronouns is that it is done for religious reasons to make false bibles appear holy to them that judge by appearances. Man tends to want to make an altar ornate, even though God commanded man not to touch the altar. In the Holy Bible, unlike the modern casual translations of corrupt texts, words are precisely used by God and accurate. This is why the AV is word searchable. An example of capitalisation denoting a particular person in the Holy Bible is the precise use of LORD and Lord.

[@ji5055]

Why the King James Bible only made me believe Dr Gene Kim. Scroll down and he has all the answers you need

[@AlwaysDecent]

Never be swayed by 2-hour class.

[@judylloyd7901]

I've listened to him - he sounds as though he has an axe to grind!

[@johnflorio3052]

It’s easier to learn Koine Greek and read the Bible untranslated.

[@paulrobinson9318]

You CANOT learn the nuances of Greek unless you have decades of practical use - EVERY CULT was based on poor understanding of the Greek texts. The KJB translators did NOT understand the KOINE Greek - they said so themselves - and used Classic Greek, NOT KOINE Greek - and the texts they used were notably corrupt. There were 31 variations of the Textus Receptus made from the 6 partial texts Erasmus used, and those were sifted by the EDITORS of the KJB to come up with the KJB - and the other issue was the imperial rules applied by James. The KJB is a millstone around the neck of the Christian church. It was archaic when created, it was inaccurate when translated and some 3200 errors have been corrected over its major revisions - leaving some 200 blatant errors still today.

[@paulrobinson9318]

+@Falcon It simply does NOT work - My father was a Greek scholar and student - no where near White's class of course - BUT almost 50 years of study - and STILL he did NOT have a handle on it. WHITE does an interesting video on the dangers of thinking you know Greek when you do NOT - I don't remember the name but its on KZbin - he slaughters the guy claiming to teach Greek. The lifelong scholars of the language like White and Wallace etc - do translations - read them and be blessed - NOTHING you could cobble together from Greek would be half as accurate.

[@kenavery8144]

Contrary to the revision, I prefer the AV; given, it is hands down the most biblically accurate English bible, even James White cannot refute this statement.

[@akhiker01]

AV ?

[@bernarditopomar1210]

are you christian dr white whats a christian muslim apologists a christisn apologists alone is wrong

[@DS-uo5ie]

I do find mistakes in all Bibles!

[@rd8370]

Yet it’s Gods word ?

[@joericci5546]

There can only be one authorized. And for the Holy Bible to be authorized and holy it must have been translated and published by God ordained authority under the leading of the Holy Ghost. The idea that the Holy Bible is man made instead of authorized and published by the Holy Ghost is blatant blasphemy.

[@TheBluegoatman]

So it's the authorized KJV only then? It has authorized right in its name.

[@joericci5546]

A. Ed Stark, Yes Ed, you are correct. The name King James Version is not the true name. And its true name is The Holy Bible, Authorised Version.

[@TheBluegoatman]

@@joericci5546 that's awesome. Now if you could give chapter and verse to prove that it would be great. Not that I don't believe your man made stories but I'd really like something other than footnotes from a 1930s Seventh Day Adventist to prove your claims

[@joericci5546]

A. Ed Stark, What is it you want proved?

[@defendingthefaith.7889]

So you speak and read Hebrew and Greek?

[@mahak492]

Your clearly okay with all the contradictions that come from having so many translations. I dont get how you believe in something like this!?

[@ecclesiaofthelogos1930]

The king James does not come from the textus receptus, the textus receptus comes from the King James. So there’s that.

[@curtthegamer934]

The textus receptus that is widely available is indeed based on the KJV.

[@fraukeschmidt8364]

I don't too much like Bible translations that a.) dominantly use dynamic equivalency (e.g. New Living Translation, Hoffnung fuer Alle (German)) b.) have very few or no marginal/footnotes (NIV, ESV (although I like that one for its literacy); and that c) do not indicate words that have been added by using italics or brackets (again ESV, sadly) My NASB which I bought in the mid 1990s, and which has both footnotes and italics as well as cross references :-) is now falling to pieces and as my eyesight is getting worse, is also difficult to read for me. :-( So I mainly use Bible Apps on my phone now, as well as Bible websites such as BibleGateway: great for comparing translations side by side, and Biblehub: excellent for looking at Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic. I like Lexham English Bible, which has plenty of footnotes, especially when something hasn't been translated literally.

[@mordecaiesther3591]

I LOVE The Message Bible .. for me ??? The best . Really explains it good

[@j.sethfrazer]

I read from an HCBS, NASB, ASV, and, occasionally when I’m feeling a little naughty, a NWT (New World Translation; Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible) normally when I exegete Scripture. An objective biblical studies instructor will tell you to consult various translations when making interpretive decisions. It’s primarily the overly charismatic Pentecostals and Baptists with that godawful southern twang that say abjectly nonsensical things like “there’s only one bible and it’s the King James!! All other bibles are new age!”

[@jennamarielovesjesus12]

Everything is great but the NWT?? Really?? LoL. Definitely being naughty lol that is NOT a good version to be reading especially because the JW read it and we know they’re a cult. Be careful with that one brother. Blessings

[@j.sethfrazer]

Jenna Saglembeni I was joking, haha. However, my field of expertise is in comparative and general religious studies. So for my line of work, it actually helps me to continually expand my understanding of the Watchtower’s understanding of the text, regardless of how much I reject their heresy LOL

[@jennamarielovesjesus12]

Seth Frazer got u brother Hahahaha makes sense Have a blessed day

[@davidbush6583]

Seth Frazer ~ Regarding James White: It is a delight to run across his videos; responses to his presentations are very interesting also. One comment sent me to Genesis 11:6+ (almost any translation, version or edition) where the crucial purpose for confusing the language is given. But maybe, you might ask our Creator what was He thinking? --- especially, since His division of the original language has led to our present day's "godawful southern twang" which is so repugnant to your delightful diction.

[@jimfoard5671]

The Ancient Peshitta Bible and the translations directly from it are the only versions (sorry KJV only people, but no, your Bible is not inerrant) that have Matthew 27:9-10 correct. All other English versions, including the versions translated from the Latin in the Catholic Church into English, are based on a corrupt Greek text. Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic/Syriac tongue for a Hebrew readership. Whoever that unknown scribe was who translated the original text into Greek made an error. This error was copied down and recopied and made it's way into virtually every single Greek text in existence over the entire ancient world, as well as into the later translations into Latin. The translation from the original Aramaic reads (Lamsa translation): "Then what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled, namely "I took the thirty pieces of silver, the costly price which was bargained with the children of Israel, and I gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me." The Greek text and every single other translation that comes from it (this covers virtually every other version of the Bible in existence except the Peshitta) reads "Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." The problem with this is that this prophecy did not come from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, it came from the book of the prophet Zechariah, 11:12-13. The scribe who translated the original gospel of Matthew into Greek must have added the name of Jeremiah to the original text, perhaps being a Greek disciple unfamiliar with the original Hebrew Old Testament reference, perhaps being careless or tired, whatever the cause was, and this error was then compounded in every single other copy made in Greek, and thus made its way down to us in the present day. There are three other errors in the Bible. Two of these errors are in the King James Version and some other versions of the Bible, but are not found in all other versions, thus they are not universal errors. The fourth one is found in virtually every translation of the Bible that exists, thus this would be classified as a universal error. The second error is found in Proverbs chapter five. This is a chapter warning against the perils of adultery and unchastity, and encouraging purity and faithfulness to one wife. The New King James, New American Standard, NIV and other modern translations correctly translate this chapter. The King James Version does not. I will use the New King James version to show the correct translation of Proverbs 5:16, and include the previous verse and the two succeding verses to demonstrate how this translation is entirely in context with the flow and meaning of the chapter. The NASB and NIV translate it virtually the same. "15: Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well. 16: Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, streams of water in the streets? 17: Let them be only your own, And not for strangers with you. 18: Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth." Here verse sixteen is translated correctly as a rhetorical question, and is entirely in context with the rest of the chapter: "Should your fountains be dispersed abroad . . .?" and the response is obviously no, however the King James Version translates verse sixteen as a declarative statement, not as a rhetorical question by using the word "Let" instead of "Should" at the beginning of the verse. This would make it a prescription for promiscuity and profligacy, not chastity: "Let your fountains be dispersed abroad . . .". This cannot be the correct meaning of the verse, and the newer translations have the translation correct. The second error in the King James Version (KJV), the New King James version (NKJV) and some other versions is in 2 Samuel 15:7 , but this is not a universal error. After Absalom killed his brother Amnon and was plotting against his father David, it states in these versions that he dwelt in his house for forty years before the open rebellion: "Now it came to pass after forty years." This is not possible, as this would take up the entirety of David's remaining reign, and in fact the remainder of his life, and leave no room for the rest of the recorded events in his life after Absalom was slain. The Syriac Peshitta version, along with some modern versions such as the NIV translate this verse correctly as being only four years, relying on different manuscripts i.e. the Syriac/Aramaic for the Peshitta, and variations in the Septuagint for the NIV. By the way, I am not a fan of the NIV, but in this instance it is more accurate than the King James. The third error is a universal error, in other words it seems to be in every version of the Bible that I have looked into. In 2 Kings 13:1 it states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign in the 40th year of Joash's reign. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz became king over Israel in the 37th year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate, despite some small errors by men here and there that has no direct bearing on the message that God gave to mankind; none of the essential doctrines of the faith are in the slightest way affected by these small "glitches" and I believe that when God was speaking directly in the Bible, such as when He addressed Moses or spoke through a prophet, that His words were accurately preserved and inerrant. Additionally, not all of the versions of the Bible that we have today agree with each other. So, which version is inerrant? The ESV, ERV, NIV and many others omit Matthew 17:21 "However, this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting", whereas the KJV, NKJV, the Douay Rheims and many others include it. In fact, the ESV removes 90% of all references to fasting in the gospels and in the book of Acts. The ESV, ERV, NIV and many others omit John 5:7 "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one," wheras the KJV, NKJV, Douay Rheims and many others contain it. Thus we have many Bibles today that don't perfectly agree with one another. Again, which version do you hold to be inerrant?

[@wyattsteel411]

Matthew was not originally written in Syriac or Aramaic. The Church Fathers all affirm that (depending on how you translate their words) Matthew was written in a very Semitic-style Greek, or in Hebrew and translated into Greek by Luke. Yes, there are a lot of errors in various editions and translations throughout the centuries, and things scholars still debate over (like the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah, for example, which you brought up.) Holding up any one version as perfect and inerrant seems laughable to me when they all have their own problems. Using textual criticism, we can at least reconstruct the text to roughly the time of Jesus' mortal ministry, at any rate.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@wyattsteel411 I do not hold that the Aramaic translation in English is perfect and inerrant. Only that it is more accurate in certain places than the Greek version. Your contention that "Matthew was not originally written in Syriac or Aramaic. The Church Fathers all affirm that (depending on how you translate their words) Matthew was written in a very Semitic-style Greek, or in Hebrew and translated into Greek by Luke" is incorrect. Reference please. You have none to support your case while I can supply you with abundant historical references to support mine.. You are wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it’s wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject. Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Against Heresies 3:1:1) Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]). Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]). Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]). .

[@wyattsteel411]

@@jimfoard5671 The Greek word used by the Church Fathers to refer to the language of the Jews is transliterated "Hebraisti," and (citing the paper "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?" from the study "The Language Environment of First-Century Judea" published by Brill in 2014) the word always refers to Hebrew specifically, and not Aramaic. I was correct in saying that is what the Church Fathers claimed - Matthew was either written in Hebrew-like Greek, or Hebrew and translated into Greek, depending on how you interpret some of their statements on the matter. The translations you provided that supported the idea that Matthew wrote his original Gospel in Aramaic is just a poor translation based on past scholarly assumptions rather than linguistic evidence.

[@jimfoard5671]

​@@wyattsteel411 I have no problem with Matthew being written in Hebrew. Ancient Aramaic is very similar to ancient Hebrew. When I wrote that it was originally written in Aramaic/Syriac I would include Hebrew as well: my contention is that Matthew's gospel was probably not written originally in Greek and is based on the early church fathers. You have no evidence for your claim of original Greek authorship. Also your slightly snarky comment that suggested that I claimed that the Peshitta translation was inerrant and that this was "laughable" I found to be offensive and bearing false witness. I never claimed that the Aramaic was inerrant, in fact I don't hold to inerrancy except in the original manuscripts. I only claimed that the Peshitta version was more accurate than the Greek versions in certain places.

[@jimfoard5671]

@@wyattsteel411 This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew’s Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold). This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They’re all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can’t conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek. Yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.

[@dknybanker2071]

Christian/Muslim apologist...ok

[@jraynes102003]

12:47

[@joericci5546]

Remember how the Holy Ghost instantly translated Peter’s speech into about sixteen languages on Pentecost. That reveals to us that translation between languages is not a hinderance to the Holy Ghost. And remember the Holy Ghost has the original text in remembrance. Whereas as scholars are liars. Scholarship wasn’t the thing needed when the holy scriptures were gathered together, translated and published as the Holy Bible. What was needed was faithful obedience to the leading of the Holy Ghost under the the fear of God’s ordained authority, King James the First.

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

The blanket statement that all scholars are liars is a lie. If you use ANY VERSION of God's breathed words that teach His doctrines you are using scholarship. The Greek word-pnevma- means Spirit, not ghost, scolarship is accurate, you are not. There are liars without a doubt and kjv onlyists are wrong about VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING they claim. They TOTALLY CONTRADICT the 1611 translators (revisers of the BISHOPS BIBLE- a Catholic pew bible) according to my copy of the 1611, and the letter to the readers, which has been removed in earlier and MODERN KJVs. I've yet to find an onlyist that could argue their rediculous position from a 1611 kjv!, they always argue FOR the 1611 FROM a modern kjv which does not agree with it!

[@joericci5546]

Greg Blevins 1 Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

[@joericci5546]

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

[@joericci5546]

Greg Blevins You can babble about everything unrelated to the Holy Bible you want. What you can’t do is defend scholar corrupted texts against the truth written in the Holy Bible. If you have something important to present we can look at it.

[@TheBluegoatman]

@@joericci5546 arguing that you know the KJV translators were led by the Holy Ghost is itself a lie. You don't know. You can't know. You don't know those men. You don't know their history. You just made a fictional statement to support false claims. So what does that make you?

[@bernardinoangel225]

Wise in his own conceit; it’s strange to know at what lengths a Christian would go to appear in front of millions.

[@susiequsie1980]

really? Why would you say that? I'm assuming ur speakn about Dr. White?

[@gersanmehrjohn3162]

White is really conceited and arrogant specially when debating. Also a heretic. Do your research. This man believes that one has to be water baptized to be saved. Jesus precious blood is not enough for him.

[@Harold-mb6sj]

​@@susiequsie1980The ones wise in their own conceit. Are the false teachers of the KJV only cult

[@rhondahauser6443]

James White said in one of his videos that the truth should be examined before and after the KJV, so I took his advice. The KJV IS THE TRUE BIBLE VERSION! The Whycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva were written before the KJV 1611 and the ASV 1901 afterwards. These are the first (4) recognized English versions. Why would you want to read a version. 1. That removed “only begotten Son” from John 3:16, the most quoted scripture of all time. Tyndale, Geneva and KJV have only begotten Son, Wycliffe has removed it! 2. Doesn’t know the difference between Jesus and Satan in Revelation 22:16 - Isaiah 14:12, who is this “being” that fell from heaven the Morning star (Jesus) or Lucifer. FYI: the star of the morning is Satan not Jesus. The Wycliffe has removed Lucifer, it’s written in the KJV, Geneva. 3. Does Not believe and obey the testimony of Jesus Christ, as it says in Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that “do his commandments”, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. “Do the commandments” has been removed from every Catholic Version beginning with the Wycliffe and added “wash your stole” and in 1901 added changed to “wash your robe” and all versions after 1960. The Tyndale, Geneva and KJV all agree “do the commandments” is the correct translation and the Wycliffe has a different translation, who are you going to believe? The Wycliff translated from Latin Or the Tyndale, Geneva and the KJV? Weigh truth, 3 against 1. Now you can go further to eliminate the Tyndale. The King James was authorized by a king and it may make sense, since Jesus is a King! The Geneva is very close. All versions follow the WYCLIFFE Catholic version publish after 1960, they are paraphrases not translations, therefore eliminated as a true translation. 4. Why would you read a version been published after 1960, because it could possibly be a true translation, but a paraphrase. Do you realize that these people make million selling Bibles? They are required to change a percentage by copyright laws, to publish a Bible, so there are changes made to be able to call it a Bible under a different version, which is called a paraphrase, not an original translation. The first English version was the Wycliffe 1530, translated from Latin into English, by St. Jerome, later became the Catholic Bible. American Standard (AVS) 1901, mostly follows the “patterns” of the Catholic Bible, along with versions written after 1960. Which can be compared before and after the KJV and through a process of elimination can be removed as a true translation. There you go folks, following James White instructions!!

[@rhondahauser1750]

@@martinbaker7032 Then you need to read Revelation 22:16 and then Isaiah 14:12 in an NIV. NIV Rev 22:16 “I, JESUS, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright MORNING STAR.” This is Jesus speaking in Revelation 22:16 , and he said He is the “Morning Star”! Agreed? NIV Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, “morning star”, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! In the NIV the word “Lucifer” has been removed and “Morning star” has been added and then cast to the earth? No, that was Satan “Lucifer”, not Jesus! Let’s read it now from the KJV, written 300 years before an NIV. KJV Rev. 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR. Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, “son of the morning” (NOT MORNING STAR)! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Someone removed the word “Lucifer”! The true Bible speaks for itself, that’s why I read a KJV. I have clearly proved an NIV does say the “Morning Star”, who is Jesus according to Jesus in Revelation 22:16. Lucifer was removed and morning star was added in its place. So, this proves the NIV is a false interpretation of the Bible, according to the instructions written in Revelation 22:18,19. Just to let you know there were (3) recognized English versions before the KJV and all three use the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12. Wycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva. All versions published after 1960 have removed “Lucifer” from their false paraphrased counterfeit versions, with the exception of the NKJV. You can Google these facts! Look on your Bible app, or read it in the NIV, ASV, NASB, NLT, LVN, ESV, MSG, AMP, NRSV, all published after 1960. This eliminated all versions written after 1960 as the true Bible version! Let me know your thoughts now.

[@rhondahauser1750]

@@martinbaker7032 So your staying the correct vet age began after 1960, if so you are just plain foolish. It’s written in the 4 recognized English versions before it. It’s not JUST written in the KJV. Jesus is the “morning star” and Lucifer is the “son of the morning”, two different beings! Jesus did not fall from heaven Satan did.

[@xceptamanbbornagainnokingd5836]

who cares what the translators thought? it's the truth that God used them to make his perfect word in the english speaking world. God used wicked and vile men in the past to fulfill his will. how much more those that were just a little lacking in confidence? besides, we shouldn't care what the translators think/thought, we should care about what God thinks

[@Michael-uk3pj]

Ok and where does God say that the KJV is the perfect bible if the translators didn't?

[@fightthegoodfight2479]

Philip Todd notice how Xcept hasn’t replied... hmmm. I loved Dr. Whites comparison of the KJV onlies to the Latin Vulgate debate back in the day. And if the KJV is the only perfect translation that is better than all other past versions, translations, and even originals, what happens if I can’t speak English? What if I do speak Russian? Or Chinese? Or Arabic? We can make accurate translations of the manuscripts we have (We have more manuscripts now to base our translations on than the translators did for the 1611 KJV). While our translations are not perfect, through the manuscripts God has provided (as the Bible is the most attested ancient work from the ancient world) we can produce accurate translations. In summary: The Bible has been accurately (not perfectly) copied with sufficient accuracy for us to recover the message God intended. Saints, stay strong and fight the good fight of faith by the strength given by God. May He grant repentance to the lost and sustain His sheep. Not one will be lost! Blessings in Christ.

[@Michael-uk3pj]

@@fightthegoodfight2479 there is no answer! Thanks for the encouragement :) God bless 🙏

[@xceptamanbbornagainnokingd5836]

@@Michael-uk3pj the fruit that it bears, and the fact that it is not going anywhere anytime soon. the King James Bible is the only english bible that builds faith. how many of these modern (vatican) bible version users actually believe that the bible that they use is perfect and without error? (since it is the word of God, so they say) could it actually be there is some hypocrisy? claiming "God's word" yet believing there are errors? believing it is not perfect? you people will go back to your mother in a heart beat once the church leaves ps james white mocks and attacks bible believers. you're not fooling me

[@xceptamanbbornagainnokingd5836]

@@fightthegoodfight2479 or could it be that the there was a fault with the notification system and i missed it? you couldn't have thought that to be possibility? my computer could have been stolen, and i wouldn't be able to answer then, would you say then that you fools got me? your pride is damnable

[@scotttapia3169]

The "Shakespeare Style" text of the KJV is very poetic and attracts millions of followers, like the poetic Arabic text of the Muslim Quran also attracts followers. However, the KJV text is very confusing and misleading. I have read every English Bible translation in my 35 years of scripture study and can quote almost 4500 Bible verses from memory. God has revealed the truth to me about the KJV -- a twisted and warped perversion of scripture intended to drive millions of new believers away from God. When they have difficulty making sense of the KJV they eventually put it down and lose interest in God altogether. I have known several of these people personally ! Some of them are willing to "give God another try" and start reading the NIV or other version. They bounce back and their interest in God is rekindled and refreshed. I would love to burn every KJV on earth !!

[@davidbrock4104]

This is just as crazy as the most rabid KJVOist

[@maxbird2003]

Yeah just read the Queen James Bible after all it don't matter what Bible it is, I'm just being sarcastic stay with the King James Bible at least that way you won't run into all kinds of other false Bibles, if God's word is pure then it does matter what version you read it's not about just how you get saved, or what Bible version you use, it matters to keep it pure.

[@siradamthebombdiggity]

Start listening at around 17:29. He doesn't say that it doesn't matter which version you use, or even come close to suggesting that they're all equal.

[@maxbird2003]

@@siradamthebombdiggity I see what you mean I was actually surprised this time what I heard from him, I didn't hear that before on his other videos, however I still think the King James is the one to go to for this reason, the niv that he also likes, has all these verses missing, 1 The sixteen omitted verses en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations 1.1 (1) Matthew 17:21 1.2 (2) Matthew 18:11 1.3 (3) Matthew 23:14 1.4 (4) Mark 7:16 1.5 (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46 1.6 (7) Mark 11:26 1.7 (8) Mark 15:28 1.8 (9) Luke 17:36 1.9 (10) John 5:3-4 1.10 (11) Acts 8:37 1.11 (12) Acts 15:34 1.12 (13) Acts 24:6-8 1.13 (14) Acts 28:29 1.14 (15) Romans 16:24 1.15 (16) 1 John 5:7-8 2 Some other omitted verses 2.1 Matthew 20:16 (b) 2.2 Mark 6:11 (b) 2.3 Luke 4:8 (b) 2.4 Luke 9:55-56 2.5 Luke 23:17 2.6 Acts 9:5-6 2.7 Acts 13:42 2.8 Acts 23:9 (b) 3 Not omitted but boxed 3.1 Mark 16:9-20 3.2 John 7:53-8:11 4 Other English translations 5 Versification differences 5.1 Romans 14 and 16 5.2 2 Corinthians 13:14 5.3 3 John 15 5.4 Revelation 12:18 5.5 Psalms 5.6 Second Esdras 6 See also 7 References

[@lovejoypeaceforever]

"LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR" (ROMANS 3:4) [KJV-ONLY] !!

[@markdaniels1730]

That verse does not mean what you think it means.

[@johnhamilton286]

Amen brother! KJV only myself. If my Bible and your Bible say two totally different things, then they both aren't true, they both aren't the Word of God, one is a fraud, and one is God's Word (KJV)!

[@johngraham1274]

@@johnhamilton286 without the leading of the Holy Spirit, it's all FLESH no matter what version. Seek the Lord, die daily.

[@johnhamilton286]

@@johngraham1274 not quite sure what you're getting at? I am saved by my saviour Jesus Christ, His shed blood, His grace, and His righteousness; I have the Holy Ghost dwelling in me and Jesus leads and guides me through His Holy Spirit. All of us Christians have a fight going on in us between the Spirit and the flesh! In regards to God's Word, it's about FIGHTING the flesh, i.e the putting on of the whole armor of God. As God's Word says about Faith in Jesus, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." One's faith cannot stay, or grow for that matter, if the book one is using is not the word of God. Further, one cannot put on the whole armor of God if the book they're using is not the Word of the Living God; in wich case, as you point out, the flesh will take over and win the victory at the end of the day. This is why it absolutely breaks my heart to see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ reading perverted books that pretend to be the Word of God. These books make a liar out of God, and therefore teach erroneous doctrines that Jesus never intended to be taught. These same people will complain about the deadness in the church, and no revival, and how horrible that is. It certainly is horrible, but that's what happens when you kick Jesus out of the church, and He was thrown out with His Word being thrown out. The flesh shall rule you if you're using books that are not the Word of God, in this you're quite right. God bless you brother, I pray you continue to seek the truth in Jesus Christ.

[@johngraham1274]

@@johnhamilton286 in case you were wondering, I only use the KJV with Strong's Concordance for my studies, as well as looking into orientalisms and figures of speech so crazily distorted by those who read but don't prayerfully study. However, even the KJV is useless unless one sincerely seeks the Lord's righteousness. Folks need to choose what they're led by - Holy Bible? or Holy Spirit? The Jews relied on their scriptures and totally missed recognizing Christ for Who He is.... learn to pray without ceasing.

[@kengoodwin181]

Well for me it's king James cuz that's the first one and for years read now I have to say I've read out of several translations and was comfortable with them so I really don't see a wrong here however I have to say when I pick up my king James and read it it actually feels like it's the living word in power I have a number king James and as I read it it seems watered down compared to king James this guy here seems to have an agenda to down play king James so be careful who listen

[@Agentdonnielucas]

Ken Goodwin king james was by no means the first one. Actually the King ordered it to be translated to extinguish the Geneva bible because they were part of the reformation. KJV came with an agenda

[@Michael-uk3pj]

Do you mean a New King James?

[@anthonykeve8894]

@Ken Goodwin “...feels like it’s the living word...” what does the living word feel like?

[@gildersleevefan67]

@Van Guard I guess ye telleth!

[@SharonBalloch]

For myself I do not want one of the new age bibles that changed Gods word... Yes I know the KJV has the words like unicorn..but a unicornus is the one horned Rhino... thankfully science was more faithful than the new agers.. and I like Jesus to be called the Only begotten Son of God..not the one and only Son of God..because that is not true..God calls us his children and Adam his son.. but the new age bibles changed that ..and yes the Matrix is also in the KJV but thats because its supposed to be... I want my Bible to be Gods words.. and really we were never so stupid someone had to change it so we could understand it... that was a lie.. The bible itself tells us to teach our children what the bible means..not change it ...they do not understand Shakespeare when they first read it but we do not change it so they can understand it because it would lose its beauty and poetry.. Just as the bibles have.. worst thing is I can not tell you how many times I have heard ..the bible can not be true because they all say something different.. nobody died so I could read the new ages bibles..no one..

[@bobbybarrett7914]

Must be a papist

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

Who?

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

The kjv was translated by Anglican priests that held different kinds of beliefs, are you meaning the kjv translators. James is a Calvinist, which belief is utterly false, but as far as TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS are concerned, is superfluous in quality today among TEXTUAL CRITICS. He uses the same teachings all believers use to try to teach his beliefs, which do not allow him any clear verses in plain LANGUAGE as the refutation of his beliefs clearly do. This is one way to see for one's self to be certain of honesty of the text. I use Greek and English, including Greek verb parsing for checking direct translation in all 3 Brands of Greek printed text: Majority text; Received text(TR); Nestle Auland/ UBS most recent or several past editions. No translation is without dynamic equivalent and more formal translations. All have dynamic equivalent translation to some degree or another. I only recommend : the Greek texts already mentioned, the Niv, Nasb, Nrsv, New king James, Kjv, and a few others. As James said not all English translations are true to the work of true Textual Criticism and translation.

[@walterrelief2270]

Greg Blevins ...you recommend the Codex Sinaiticus and the Textus Receptus?

[@joeiiiful]

@@Rightlydividing-wx1xb Calvinism is simply Biblical Christianity. To deny that is to prove that you don't know how to read the Scriptures and have a bad hermeneutic.

[@walterrelief2270]

Joseph Mellen huh? I thought the doctrine of Christ is biblical Christianity. So the system of Calvin is the doctrine of Christ?

[@matavule72waitoga41]

King James was a Queen and was Lord Buckingham's boyfriend

[@ricdavid7476]

Your just jealous

[@rd8370]

But that should make him accepted with many of the modern day Bible people.

[@dr.alanhales544]

All modern translations are erroneous compiled by Catholics are Calvinists, J White is a Calvinist, the reason why he likes the modern Bible, is because the translators back up his erroneous Calvinism beliefs. You can see the Catholic and Calvin influences in the modern translations All modern translations take verses and lines out of the Bible, and change words. The first two disciples after John and the earliest disciples quoted from the Textus receptus from which the KJV come from. Not one of them quoted from the Alexandrian text, which all modern translations com from. Every Bible scholar that I have watched, disagrees with J White. DO NOT use a modern Bible as your main Bible, as they are misleading.

[@ilikemusicalot8397]

The translators of the KJV were Calvinists.

[@dr.alanhales544]

@@ilikemusicalot8397 who said the KJV translators were Calvinist's.

[@ilikemusicalot8397]

@@samlawrence2695 Agreed. I just want clarify, though. Their heresy is not their use (or even exclusive use) of the kjv. If one uses only the kjv, that is not heresy. But telling people that one translation is the inspired translation and all others are satanic corruptions, that is the heresy. Look the KZbin channel ‘church split’. One of their recent videos is about two young men that were kicked out because they were not kjv-only.

[@TIMMY12181]

KJV has no errors.

[@TiffanyNTurner]

Has quit a few actualy

[@J.F.331]

The ESV and NASB have no errors. KJV has many errors.

[@dlbard1]

I know of 140 OT scriptural based errors alone and that is excluding the deliberate mistranslation of certain words like; church, baptism and spirit.

[@wyattsteel411]

@@J.F.331 Even they have errors or poor renderings. No translation is immune from that.

[@timkhan3238]

Very important matter: Neo-Evangelical is NOT and NEVER a Protestant. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God, modern bibles are imperfect corrupted fake bibles. Those who believed in the words of James White, believes the word of man. God said all man are liars.

[@timkhan3238]

@@martinbaker7032 lol, there's only one KJV, that's why it is called KJV onlyism. The KJV is the PURE and PERFECT words of God, all modern bibles are absolutely erroneous, deceitful and fake bibles. Don't be fooled by the spirits that inspired Wescott and Hort the fathers of fake modern bibles.

[@stevie6621]

Just repeating the same old lies.

[@joelapeterson]

james white is proof that "education" can make you an idiot

[@stevenevanich4605]

Psalms 119 97-104 KJV 97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. I think that pretty much sums it up!

[@joelapeterson]

you're an idiot... that pretty much sums it up.

[@camdiffright460]

@@joelapeterson I'm sorry to say this but not taking site dear,if you were really wise as you claim then you should be open to learning and not use awful words like ' idiot'. Only God Almighty really knows who is an idiot we have no such power to judge one another. If his ideas are not clear to you then send positive contributions and not insults! God bless you dear! !!

[@danbrown586]

You (@stevie6621 and @T Joel) had the opportunity to educate the audience with your comment, by pointing out some of these "lies" and demonstrating them to be so. Sadly, you chose not to do so. I'm sure there are many here who would be keen to see you show where Dr. White is in error, if you can do so.

[@reykaisertv]

Dude is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.