KJV Onlyism Debate - James White vs Jack Moorman

James White debates Jack Moorman on February 2, 2011. Jack Moorman, a KJV Onlyist, is clearly outmatched by Christian scholar James White who uses logical argumentation, documentation, and has an excellent grasp of the facts.
Onlyism is an absurd worldview that was started by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, but picked up by many fundamental Baptists who seem to lack logic and the Holy Spirit for guidance. It can be shown that the KJV is basically a Roman Catholic "Bible" and that it is full of errors from the very beginning of Genesis (Gen. 1:1) to the very last six verses of Revelation (Rev. 22:16-21).
I have greatly limited the comments because what I have seen under this same video which was posted by two other people. Under those two postings there are TROLLS, TROLLS, TROLLS and one guy, I found out, goes by three different names (he's a KJV ONLY recluse from Illinois who has a history as a troll and of repeating the exact same comment). So, don't take me to task because I have many of my own comments under this video. My comments (when taken together) are informational and meant to be a treatise against the horrible error of KJV ONLYISM and this cult. Since GooglePlus no longer exists and it looks like I may never have my own website, this is the next best thing.

[@boon197999]

Does anyone care to note how James White speaks his wealth of knowledge and wisdom from memory. The guy is an incredible sources of information on manuscripts. No one can touch his defense.

[@lawadelante2813]

Thanks for presenting this debate as a tool its great to help others settle questions they may have.

[@f308gtb1977]

Moorman basically said, “I like this particular archaic version the best, and therefore, because it’s my favorite, it’s the ONLY CORRECT ONE, and that’s my whole entire argument.”

[@Truth537]

Logical and reasonable thinking should lead any person to understand that Dr James White produced a far more convincing and water tight argument for bible translations than Jack Moorman could ever dream of. He was completely outclassed by a polite, godly and biblically fair minded gentleman. Guys like Moorman tend to get under my skin a little because they are so stubborn in their refusal to look at plain facts and the reasonable testimony of history. God bless

[@corybanter]

Wow, I've watched this video before, and it still amazes me how thoroughly James White crushes Jack Moorman. There is absolutely no doubt about who's in the right here.

[@corybanter]

P.S. Moorman's whole "defense" seems to boil down to his oft-repeated "You know where you stand with a standard," which doesn't mean anything.

[@w.j.castellanos8879]

As usual.. James lets the text speak so much its hard to argue with him. Ehrman failed. Barker failed. Silverman failed.

[@JeausElNesias]

Dr. James White is a true scholar.

[@JeausElNesias]

When the Scriptures defends itself as God inspired, is referring to God’s message, not to translations. The translators’ duty is to most carefully and most accurately translate the original (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic) manuscripts according to the language rules, usage, epoch, circumstances, culture, and readers of those times in order to make it available to today’s civilizations.

[@paulandaya07]

The first question was ridiculous.

[@j.navarro9976]

At least the guy was upfront about not being a scholar, but yeah I was caught off guard with how out of touch it was

[@markalexander832]

I still don't have a clue as to what his point was.

[@dboulos7]

@@markalexander832 I gathered that he was asking that: since the dedicatory is to King James of Scotland, and that there are no James within the family or disciples of Jesus (not true, there are : James the Great, James the Less, James the Just), then is the Book of James by James of Scotland? That's the best that I could make of it. If so, completely ignorant on so many levels - making me question if my understanding is correct???

[@puritanpioneer1646]

@@dboulos7 I think what he was trying to implicitly say was that the book of James is called James because King James wanted it to be called that, and that since there is no "james" in Hebrew or Greek and that he wasn't apart of Jesus' family, then King James must've inserted that in there. A conspiracy-minded assumption that suggests the translators changed the name to honor the king. This is absurd on so many levels, "James" is used in the Bishops, Tyndale and Genevan Bible before 1611 lol, not to mention the transliteration of James in Greek is just James in English XD.

[@anthonybarber3872]

Jack Moorman missused many of the Bible verses he used. I think he is sincere, but the Scriptures he used don't make the point. I can see that and I am not a scholar.

[@JimDeferio]

I had to block " XceptAManBbornAgain NoKingdomOfGod" for calling names. If you can't be civil and use logic (logic comes from LOGOS) then you are really not being a Christian and you have become cultic.

[@christian_7500]

Jesus and John the Baptist called folks names.

[@JimDeferio]

@@christian_7500 Context is important. Jesus saw the hypocrisy and evil and he called out those who were practicing it. There are KJV Onlyists who troll and post comments that are only meant to annoy, ridicule, demean, and defecate on others. There is NO redeeming value in their comments. At least two other channels have put up this video and KJV Only trolls have soiled those comment sections (one KJV Onlyist goes by different names and he posts the same thing over and over and over again in the comment section. That is why I had to make it so that only comments I personally approve are posted).

[@christian_7500]

@@JimDeferio why do these folks hold on so hard to KJV only? I’ve been in a christian flavored cult before - thankfully the Lord brought me out! The kjv only movement seems appears cultish to me

[@alexwest2573]

@@JimDeferio I’m finding a lot of those demeaning comments while watching Bible translation videos, I think it’s gotten out of hand (the kjv only movement) they shouldn’t be so radical when it comes to forcing their opinion on bibles on people. There’s no need to be calling people heretical sinners for reading the asv,niv,nkj and so on.

[@ABiblicalView]

"Truth speaks first" but that would disqualify King James's version as there were 5 English Bible's before it.

[@vinchinzo594]

That is incorrect. There were a good number more than 5. They were, in order; Wycliffe Bible (1380s) Gutenberg Bible (1452) Tyndale Bible (1523) Matthew's Bible (1537) The Great Bible (1539) Taverner's Bible (1539) Geneva Bible (1560) The Bishops’ Bible (1572) Douai-Rheims (1582-1609) and THEN came the King James in 1611.

[@MichaelDavidDAmour]

​@@vinchinzo594 This comment was very helpful; I don't have to go searching for them now. Also, it proved the first guys point, because he spoke •first• and was a little askew-pretty cool. When I think about it, this idea appears to contradict the scripture, 'The first fo speak his case seems right, until another cross examines him.' [Proverbs 18:17] The idea that Truth speaks first also sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy

[@anthonykeve8894]

@ExplainingTheScriptures There were NINE English translations prior to the KJ translation… Wyclif’s Bible, Early Version EV NT 1380 & Complete 1388 Tyndale Bible (1526) Complete w/OT a few years later Coverdale Bible (1535) Matthew’s Bible (1537). Great Bible or Whitchurch Bible King Henry VIII “Authorized” this first AV! (1539) Taverner’s Bible (1539) by Richard Taverner. Becke’s Bible (1551) by Edmune Becke. Geneva Bible - the NT received four updates (1560) by William Whittingham. The New Testament was produced in 1557. The Old Testament in was produced in 1560 w/an updated NT. Tomson revised the NT in 1576, which became the usual form of the ”Geneva” NT. 1599 and afterward editions of the Geneva with the Tomson NT but with a fresh translation of Revelation by Junius. Bishop’s Bible (1568) by Matthew Parker. To compete with the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Matthew Parker edited a thorough revision of the Great Bibleusing the more accurate Greek texts used by theGeneva Bible. (March 20) Douay-Rheims Bible (1609) by George Martin. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament was published at Douay in 1609. This translation of the Vulgateincluded extensive notes arguing the Catholic perspective in the face of the Protestant revolt. This became the official Catholic translation until the 20th century.

[@sepetisionelatu5539]

As someone that speak two languages and English is my second language l can easily say Mr Jack there is no such thing as "accurately translate". To translate from one language to another sometimes you have to go around the neighborhood and then get back so it can be understood in the language that is being translated to.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Can the Holy Spirit accurately translate from one language to another? Didn't he do this very thing in the New Testament?

[@JimDeferio]

@@AnHebrewChild Acts chapter 2

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@JimDeferio GREAT EXAMPLE. Something which should not go unnoticed by those who affirm the NT books are inspired. From Matt to Rev, the NT writers quote OT verses more than 300 times. That is, they use GREEK words to directly quote HEBREW words. Any Christian who believes that the NT is inspired, thereby affirms that God is able to inspire translation _and/or_ God is able to perfectly-preserve His Words through translation. E.G. In Mat12, the Apostle Matthew (by the Spirit) quotes Isaiah 42. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust. Those verses were originally in Hebrew. With Matthew's gospel, we now have the same verses translated into Greek by the Holy Spirit.

[@JimDeferio]

@@AnHebrewChild Very good comment!

[@AmericanShia786]

Excellent defense of the use of modern translations and why they are dependable by Dr. James White. I personally prefer to use the KJV bible because I grew up with it, but I also use the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and even have an NRSV with Apochrypha! I've been following Dr. James White's ministry for over 20 years and have learned a lot from him.

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV denies (or obscures) the Godhood of Jesus Christ EIGHT times but the NIV restores the truth. 1) John 1:18 The KJV has "the only begotten Son" The NIV has "God the One and Only" 2) John 14:14 The KJV has "If ye shall ask anything in my name" The NIV has "You may ask me for anything in my name" ("ME" - did you catch that? Jesus is declaring Himself to be God!) 3) John 17:11 The KJV has "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" The NIV has "Protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me" In the NIV Jesus is equating His name with the Father's. 4) Romans 9:5 The KJV has "concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever". So here Jesus is only being blessed by God - not being declared God. The NIV has "of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised". Notice how the NIV declares the Godhood of Jesus!!! 5) Titus 2:13 The KJV has "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" which changes the context into meaning two different persons. The NIV has "of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". Now "Godhood is being directly linked to Jesus. 6) 2 Peter 1:1 The KJV has "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" as if these are two different persons. The NIV has "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Notice that this is speaking of only ONE person, Jesus Christ. 7) Jude 4 The KJV has "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ". The KJV makes it sound like two different people. The NIV has "and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord". One and the SAME person - Jesus Christ! * Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 4 are examples where the KJV translators did not know koine Greek syntax and they erred (there are other examples too where they erred in syntax such as having Jesus killed first and THEN hung on the cross - Acts 5:30 & 10:39). The Greek rule that is applied in most modern translations is called the Granville Sharp Rule. 8) Revelation 1:8 The KJV has "saith the Lord" The NIV has "says the Lord God" The majority of Greek Byzantine manuscripts have "Lord God" here and not merely "Lord". This also proves that the NIV uses an eclectic Greek text and not just the Alexandrian line of manuscripts (not that there is anything wrong with that line of manuscripts). * GRANVILLE SHARP RULE "The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point."

[@ABiblicalView]

"The word would not be hidden in a dessert or in a Vatican to need to be found " 2 Kings 22 the priest found the book of the law while doing repairs, the word of God that the king of people had not known because when it was found and read the king torn his clothes. King James onlyists wouldn't have accepted the word of God that was found and only stuck with what they had and traditions that led to condemnation

[@trafficjon400]

Lets not find the truth. to many christians would probably commit suicide or go insane because a wired brain can't be disassembled.

[@f308gtb1977]

Very well said, I’d not thought of that point before, thank you!

[@yuriypislar8246]

They have been astray from God and his word. for how long at that point in history?

[@jasonlitherland4270]

What traditions have led them to condemnation pray tell

[@JimDeferio]

HUGE ERROR IN THE KJV Reflecting the Calvinism of most of the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV, Acts 2:47 reads: "such as SHOULD be saved". The Greek here is in the present participle passive and is accurately rendered like the NIV has it: "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved." The translators allowed their Calvinistic biases of predestination to influence their work. Also, "to the church" is not in the earliest manuscripts.

[@Weaton777]

Again I say WOWWW! looking forward to this dig i must do

[@vaekkriinhart4347]

I understand Dr. White's argument, and it's sound, but the only argument I hear from Jack is based on tradition. Dr. White points out several errors in the kjv, but Jack doesn't seem to care.

[@markalexander832]

Dr. White points out some errors in the KJV, so it is easier not to address them if you are a KJV Only advocate. Moorman would not offer a response for the audience, only refer back to some of his writings. That is not a debate or discussion at all, just deflection.

[@KIEFFNERCLAN]

The KJV defenders contradict themselves and prove themselves wrong. Irrational. It’s silly.

[@f308gtb1977]

Silly, exactly. Use it, but don’t slavishly cling to it alone and reject everything before and after it as if it is its own self-arresting standard.

[@runningfortheriver]

"When you have a standard, you know where you stand." 🙄 This representation of the KJV-only position is laughable at best. A sad example of foolishness that takes focus away from the Gospel.

[@nojustno1216]

That overused little catch phrase Jack used is the best example of circular reasoning known to man.

[@Bible_bits_7]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Compare between ESV and NIV, who killed Goliath?

[@JimDeferio]

@@Bible_bits_7 The KJV and NIV are both wrong and the ESV is correct even though it should have used 1 Chronicles 20:5 and the Dead Sea Scrolls to correct 2 Samuel 21:19. If they refuse to use the DSS then they should have corrected it by stating IN ITALICS "the brother of". The Hebrew of the Masoretic does NOT have "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19 but it does have it in Hebrew in 1 Chronicles 20:5. What this does reveal is that there are some errors in the Hebrew manuscripts that we currently have but the errors are correctable and the truth can be known. The Dead Sea Scrolls have the correct Hebrew reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 in Hebrew!!! However, KJV Onlyists deny the Dead Sea Scrolls and by doing so they are inadvertently denying the very ancient copies of the Hebrew Old Testament which can establish the prophecies concerning Jesus to have been indeed written BC!

[@nojustno1216]

OK Jack...you can stop saying... with a standard, you know where you stand... We get it already. Good grief...

[@JimDeferio]

As a former atheist, the Dead Sea Scrolls were instrumental in bringing me to faith in Jesus Christ because I realized that the Old Testament had a long reliable history and that the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were indeed prophecies (old manuscripts confirmed by radio carbon 14 and paleographic dating). There are manuscripts older than the DDS KJV Onlyism is indefensible and it is a cancer within Christianity. It began in the 7th Day Adventist cult and spread primarily to fundy Baptists

[@mikewalsh5872]

Jim Deferio I’m glad that you came around from atheism, brother. It’s good to have you on the side of the angels. God Bless You for publishing good stuff to feed the sheep, you’ve come a long way.....God speed

[@JoseGasset]

God bless you brother and thanks for preserving this video. Cheers from Venezuela!

[@aggieback-71]

It’s a testimony to hubris that this debate is centered on English translations. We don’t have this debate over whether or not to translate new bibles into other foreign languages. As languages adapt, new translations are required. No one speaks koine Greek today or ancient Hebrew for that matter.

[@StudioGalvan]

Well, the pridefulness is of the KJV onlyists. No other English translators feel theirs is the only one. (In spite of that accusation by Pastor Moormon)

[@JimDeferio]

Here is a great quote (author unknown) and the bottom line is that it is true: "Because it claims to be real history and not a myth, the Bible's spiritual credibility rests squarely on its historical authenticity." Here is the problem: KJV Onlyism undermines the historical reliability of the Bible, not just because the KJV is incomplete and has MANY errors and contradictions, but also because it destroys the historical textual evidence for the Bible. It's followers are unreasoning brutes.

[@Jeremy_White75]

Love that quote!!!

[@stephaniedoe2366]

I couldn’t agree more. KJV only it’s are often sadly very aggressive, prideful & and accompanying that I have found lately, they are often hyperdispensationalists. They don’t think the NT is written to all believers- Paul’s epistles are for the gentiles, the apostles are only to the Jews, and the church didn’t start after the death of Christ- they say different points in Acts, sometimes not until Acts 28. It leads to cults and sectarianism

[@Beefcake1982]

⁠@@stephaniedoe2366I have run into these hyperdispensationalist kjvo people. It’s ridiculous.

[@JimDeferio]

@@jayandrew87 Here's three but there are MANY! 1) Isaiah 45:7 - So, god creates evil? 2) 2 Samuel 15:7 - FORTY YEARS???? 3) 2 Samuel 21:8 - "Michal"

[@JimDeferio]

Joshua 11:13 - the KJV has "strength" when it should be "mound" or "hill" (archaeologists confirm this). I Chronicles 5:26 the KJV translators have "Pul" and "Tilgath-pilneser" as being two separate kings of Assyria. These were two names for the SAME man, as archaeological discoveries have proven. I Kings 10:28 "Kue" is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. "Kue" was a place in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses.

[@tintinismybelgian]

No language is static, except for dead ones. English changes. French changes. Chinese changes. Swahili changes. Thus, when a language has undergone so much change that certain texts are unreadable for contemporary audiences--as the KJV and Shakespeare's writings are on the cusp of becoming--it is imperative that translations be made that are readable.

[@vinchinzo594]

Absolutely. This comment is 5 years old but I have to wholeheartedly affirm it. What would a KJV onlyist say in regards to translations in other languages? Would they make so bold an assertion that if someone wants to make a Swahili Bible, they must translate from the King James rather than the MANUSCRIPTS? That's so ridiculous on its face that it's laughable and yet I can think of no other conclusion you could draw if you are truly a KJV onlyist.

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV has the Holy Spirit as as "it" in: John 1:32 Romans 8:16 Romans 8:26 1 Peter 1:11 In this regard the KJV reads like the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

[@JimDeferio]

HUGE KJV ERROR Hebrews 10:38 in the KJV has, "Now the just man shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." The words "any man" have been added to the text. The actual subject of the verb "draw back" is "the just man." The Calvinists do not believe that the "just man" can draw back after having drawn near, so the verse was changed to better reflect their doctrine. The correct reading of the verse is: "...but if he draw back," with the antecedent of "he" being "the just man" The 47 translators were all Anglicans and most held to Calvinism.

[@chasedart382]

lol, sooo all those bibles before the KJV, aren't God's word? what did Christians do for 1600 years?

[@crippledtalk]

Chase Dart we guessed

[@JimDeferio]

@@JohnnyBeeDawg English goes back in some form or other to the 1300's (Wycliffe). There are English Bibles which go back that far! This is from the article: English Bible History: 995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced. 1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books. 1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin. 1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament. 1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament. 1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language. 1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha). 1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books). 1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books). 1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books). 1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books). 1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books). 1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books. After 1611 there have been NUMEROUS English translations of the Bible as our language has changed and as better manuscripts have become available and more has been learned of Hebrew and Greek.

[@JimDeferio]

@@JohnnyBeeDawg Have you ever read the English Bibles that were before 1611? The KJV is full of errors from Genesis 1:1 to the last several verses of Revelation 22 where the Anglican translators of the KJV had to use a Latin manuscript and back translate into Greek and then into English! The English of the KJV is difficult for most people due to the plethora of extremely archaic words and the stilted sentence construction. The translators of the KJV (all 47 of them were Anglicans who believed in Mary as Mother of God, prayers for the dead and infant baptism) said in the original 1611 that their translation had warts, scars and freckles! Here, read it for yourself! archive.org/stream/holybiblefacsimi00polluoft#page/144/mode/2up

[@JimDeferio]

@@JohnnyBeeDawg From 1973 to 1991 I used to be a KJV onlyist (small "o"). Under this video I have listed MANY errors in the KJV . You are obviously uneducated and willing to believe superstitions about a corrupt Anglican translation. So, you only completed 6th grade? What a dumb argument. Read the original 1611 ! Oh, and you actually read Wycliffe's translation???? If we ever debate face to face in front of your cult you better believe that I'll ask you about Wycliffe! LOL STOP TROLLING.

[@nojustno1216]

I guess they're all in hell according to KJV-only psychopaths...

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV isn't a standard for anything. When the intellectually-challenged claim words or verses are "missing" from the newer translations they are basing their claim that COMPARED to the KJV these words and verses are "missing". The KJV is NOT the standard. What the scholarly evidence does show is that the KJV ADDED words and also a few verses and that the KJV mistranslates MANY words.

[@brianmidmore2221]

They prove that the KJV is the standard by presupposing it is the standard.

[@JimDeferio]

@@brianmidmore2221 Yep, that's what they do. We all begin knowledge by presupposing certain basic things, such as the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age, we can know and study our environment, or that universals and particulars were in original association through an God's wisdom in creation. However, the KJV is not in any way a basic presupposition. What would be a basic presupposition is that the facts of history can be understood and arranged into categories so that truth may be known. THAT, means we should examine the manuscript evidence for the Bible and use it intelligently to produce the most accurate translation of the Bible possible with today's knowledge.

[@eclipsesonic]

I love the KJV and I do believe God has used it greatly, but at the same time, I am not KJV-only like I used to be. Looking at the variations in different manuscripts, I understand why modern translations differ or put certain verses in the footnotes. I think James White did an excellent job exposing the inconsistencies and double standards in being KJV-only. If you've been brought up KJV-only, like I used to be, I really want you to consider the other side of the argument and heed what Proverbs 18:17 states: "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Speaking of more modern translations, I happen to love the RSV (Revised Standard Version) as it updates the archaic words from the KJV, but also retains some of the Elizabethan English, such as thou, thy and thine, but only in reference to God as a way to elevate Him, which I think is a nice touch. The NASB 1977 edition also does the same thing.

[@1989ElLoco]

I used the same verse in a conversation with my brother who's wife became a KJV-only.

[@JimDeferio]

Where is the fulfilled prophesy of Jesus Christ as "Servant" in the KJV? WHERE??? Here are seven prophecies from the Old Testament concerning Jesus Christ as SERVANT: Isaiah 42:1 Isaiah 49:5 Isaiah 49:6 Isaiah 49:7 Isaiah 52:13 Isaiah 53:11 Zechariah 3:8 The KJV mistranslates the Greek "paida" as "Son" in Acts 3:13 & 26 and as "child" in Acts 4:27 & 30. The NIV, the NASB, and the NewKJV rightly translates "paida" as "Servant" in all of these verses. The KJV is wrong again and destroys the unity of God's word.

[@kalobrogers235]

James white wins 90% of the debates that he is in. This debate is no exception. 15 mins into his opening statement alone and has already produced enough evidence that is indefensible by KJV onlyists. Is the KJV a great translation, yes! Is it flawless, no, just as no text is flawless since all have variants from one another due to hand copying. The KJV was a good start to get us to where we are today. However, just as white stated, the original 1611 that is practically worshipped by the KJV onlyists is NEVER used by them. They all use the 1786 revision which is different in many places than the 1611. Don't get me wrong I love the KJV and use it in my study. But i dont refuse to read any other version since you are forced to study deeper by using the KJV for such controversies as using the word hell for Sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartaroos. These are simply different places, yet the KJV waters it down and says hell for all 4. I rest my case.

[@redhawkmillenium]

Thank you for posting this. It's one of the few times a KJV-onlyist has been willing to actually debate the issue. Dr White clearly showed how Pastor Moorman's position is based on misinformation and inconsistent standards, and Moorman had no real response to Dr. White's points.

[@PrenticeBoy1688]

As with most things, what God has actually accomplished is so much richer, so much more amazing, more powerful than the mistaken supposition of men. With the profusion of very old manuscripts, we have sound evidence that we have an accurate rendering of what the Apostles originally wrote, and we have proof that no temporal power could gather up all the Gospels, destroy them and replace them with a corrupted text. That's better than this half-cocked notion of a late translation into a language that didn't even exist at the time of Jesus Christ's earthly ministry as the standard by which all other translations are to be judged. Something that the KJV translators themselves didn't believe.

[@emiljohann88]

James White always wins a debate against the KJV only believers.

[@michaelnewzealand1888]

It's not that hard to win against them because their arguments are so weak, but his credibility and knowledge means he doesn't just win but beats them to a pulp (figuratively speaking)

[@Astroqualia]

If only he could debate calvinism with such accuracy 🙃

[@kalobrogers235]

44:00 Jack Moorman realizing he should have stayed at home, lol

[@mikapachuau2139]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHukkmCKa9iDn7M

[@HerveyShmervy]

@@mikapachuau2139 ?

[@sotem3608]

lmao, I was reading the same expression in his face.

[@smoovemove3988]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@JimDeferio]

The Byzantine Greek manuscripts disagree with the so-called Textus Receptus (KJV) in many important places. *The majority of Greek mss do not have "through His blood" at Colossians 1:14. *The majority of Greek mss do not have Acts 8:37 *The majority of Greek mss have "Lord God" at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV omits the Godhood of Jesus Christ and just has "Lord". *NO Greek ms has "Book of Life" at Revelation 22:19. They have "Tree of Life". 

[@JimDeferio]

Greek New testament scholar Dan Wallace writes: "it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults." The Byzantine line is corrupt and contains hundreds of thousands of variants.

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV has 19,000 less words than the 1977 New American Standard Bible. Why did the KJV omit so many words, lol.

[@Romans8Shaman1]

Oof that's funny.

[@19nineteenthirteen19]

I've enjoyed Dr Whites debates for many years now and have pretty much moved on from this particular issue, My favorite translation being the NASB. Just recently my Dad sent me a video from a channel called Truth is Christ. It explains how the KJV is the only inspired version as is usual for KJV onlyists. However, this guy's content is new to me. He shows statistically impossible patterns in the word count and verse numbers. He thinks that even the added chapter and verse numbers are inspired. It reminds me of the codes Chuck Missler used to talk about that actually do exist in the Torah. There is a seven-letter equidistant code that spells out Torah in Genesis Exodus numbers and Deuteronomy and in Leviticus it spells out the tetragrammaton Anyway, I would love to get someone's thoughts on this guy's videos!

[@JimDeferio]

@@19nineteenthirteen19 As a famous "demigod" of the silver screen once said "All words are made up". That is, people make up words to identify and describe thoughts, concepts and things in their environment. The spelling of these words often change over time and some words become archaic and die out and new words are made up. With recent discoveries, the first alphabet is now believed to be the Hebrew alphabet and not the Phoenician. This allowed for the text to be smaller and allowed for a relatively small number of letters to be used in various combinations to make words. Can you imagine a hieroglyphic script or a Chinese character script and how cumbersome that would be? These superstitious people who look for "inspired occult messages" from the Bible are neglecting the very plain reading of the Bible and the messages already revealed (see Deuteronomy 29:29). They are also kicking aside what the KJV Translators said in their preface to the original KJV and they are also neglecting textual scholars who closely examine the ancient texts for age, errors and authenticity. In other words, these "word hunters" are involved in the occult (i.e. one who seeks hidden truth). One can and has used those techniques to come up with all sorts of "hidden messages" that are not in any way Christian and that is because with an alphabet all sorts of various letter combinations are used and one can find words within sets of words that are completely outside of what the author meant. One can do this with the works of Charles Dickens or some other author. This alphabet soup approach is occultic and irrational. Stay away from it and read what God has revealed to us. Btw, I have often found verse numbers and chapter delineations to be quite messed up. The same goes for some placement of periods and commas (a good example of misplaced comma is John 7:38 where the comma is erroneously placed between "Me" and "as" making it sound as if there is an OT verse about rivers of living water flowing out of one's heart.

[@JimDeferio]

@@theanimationlads7598 I don't need to "google" it. Do you even have the foggiest idea as to what Hebrew manuscript they are using? Do you? You seem to want to believe in superstition as it relieves you of the hard work of actually studying and using discernment. The Old Testament of the KJV was translated from an EDITED Hebrew text. The 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used the 1524-25 edition of the Tanakh called the "Rabinnic Bible" (Mikraot Gedolot). This edited Tanakh was riddled with many errors. Now we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds that place the Old Testament manuscripts firmly BC and which PROVE that the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were written BEFORE His birth and not sometime afterwards to look like a prophecy. KJV Onlyists cannot prove that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were written before Jesus was born! You may love your dad but he is deceived and so are you.

[@Bible_bits_7]

Perhaps because it can't be said more concisely?

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV denies the Godhood of Jesus Christ but the NIV restores the truth. 1) John 1:18 The KJV has "the only begotten Son" The NIV has "God the One and Only" 2) John 14:14 The KJV has "If ye shall ask anything in my name" The NIV has "You may ask me for anything in my name" ("ME" - did you catch that? Jesus is declaring Himself to be God!) 3) John 17:11 The KJV has "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" The NIV has "Protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me" In the NIV Jesus is equating His name with the Father's. 4) Romans 9:5 The KJV has "concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever". So here Jesus is only being blessed by God - not being declared God. The NIV has "of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised". Notice how the NIV declares the Godhood of Jesus!!! 5) Titus 2:13 The KJV has "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" which changes the context into meaning two different persons. The NIV has "of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ". Now "Godhood is being directly linked to Jesus. 6) 2 Peter 1:1 The KJV has "of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ". Notice the addition of "our" as if these are two different persons. The NIV has "of our God and Savior Jesus Christ". Notice that this is speaking of only ONE person, Jesus Christ. 7) Jude 4 The KJV has "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ". The KJV makes it sound like two different people. The NIV has "and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord". One and the SAME person - Jesus Christ! *** Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 4 are examples where the KJV translators did not know koine Greek syntax and they erred (there are other examples too where they erred in syntax such as having Jesus killed first and THEN hung on the cross - Acts 5:30 & 10:39). The Greek rule that is applied in most modern translations is called the Granville Sharp Rule. 8) Revelation 1:8 The KJV has "saith the Lord" The NIV has "says the Lord God" The majority of Greek Byzantine manuscripts have "Lord God" here and not merely "Lord". This also proves that the NIV uses an eclectic Greek text and not just the Alexandrian line of manuscripts (not that there is anything wrong with that line of manuscripts). *** GRANVILLE SHARP RULE "The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point."

[@JimDeferio]

"Christ Jesus": KJV 58 times. NIV 86 times!!! "Christ Jesus our Lord": KJV 5 times. NIV 7 times!!! "Jesus our Lord": KJV 7 times. NIV 10 times!!!

[@PracticalBibleStudies]

KJV contains added content that scribes originally wrote in the margins and the next scribe took it as scripture. NIV, ESV, etc have put those "notes" back in to the margins where they belong. Favorite example is John 5:4.

[@JimDeferio]

The Old Testament of the KJV was translated from an EDITED Hebrew text. The 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used the 1524-25 edition of the Tanakh called the "Rabinnic Bible" (Mikraot Gedolot). This edited Tanakh was riddled with many errors. IS IT THE HUSBAND HATING THE WIFE OR GOD HATING DIVORCE? (Malachi 2:16) Here's what the scholars say: "The verb שָׂנֵא (sane’) appears to be a third person form, “he hates,” which makes little sense in the context, unless one emends the following word to a third person verb as well. Then one might translate, “he [who] hates [his wife] [and] divorces her…is guilty of violence.” A similar translation is advocated by M. A. Shields, “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2,10-16,” ZAW 111 (1999): 81-85. However, it is possible that the first person pronoun אָנֹכִי (’anokhi, “I”) has accidentally dropped from the text after כִּי (ki). If one restores the pronoun, the form שָׂנֵא can be taken as a participle and the text translated, “for I hate” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT)." Therefore, the 2011 NIV is as justified for their rendering as the other translations are. There are other very difficult Hebrew passages and for the KJV Onlyists to claim the KJV translators were "inspired" and "inerrant", contrary to what the KJV translators themselves said, you know that you are dealing with a cult who love a lie more than truth.

[@McDonnelMark]

One of Jack Moorman's arguments is that "truth spoke first" (18:00). One example of this that he gives is Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament and Martin Luther's translation from it (19:52). He is affirming that this text and translation are a part of the Mount Impassable that cannot be refuted. The thing is, Erasmus' first two editions (1516, 1519) and Luther's first two editions of his German New Testament (1522, 1530) did not contain the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8). So if truth spoke first then we should not add those verses but should take the verses like Erasmus and Luther originally had them.

[@mmttomb3]

Wow! This wasn't even close! After listening to Dr. White's apologia im surprised Moorman didn't throw his argument in the trash. Very well done

[@anthonykeve8894]

@mmttomb3 The typical KJVOs will NEVER “give up” anything. Jack’s claiming “…the coming one” instead of correct “…the Holy one*” for Rev 16:5 is a terrific example of his cultic pride getting in the way of seeing the truth. *EVERY** prior English translation reads just as James White argued. **all nine of them

[@JimDeferio]

It was NOT reason and logic that led people into the KJV Only cult, it was superstition, emotions, and sin. You can't reason someone out of a position that reason never put them into. To deny the obvious is to obviously be in denial of reality. KJV Onlyists, in their denial of reality have become liars and the Bible makes it clear who the father of lies is (John 8:44).

[@anthonykeve8894]

Jim Deferio A “comfort food” tradition led them to KJVO

[@Jeremy_White75]

At 1:14:10 Dr Moorman “it sounds like the Bible”. I bet that was nearly the same response to Wycliffe when the Roman Catholics at the time insisted the Latin Vulgate was the word of God and defended it vehemently… “Well, it sounds like the Bible”. Not a good defense.

[@JimDeferio]

I used to get into intense debates with KJV Onlyists all of the time and not a single one ever had a good defense for their cultic mindset. Some are now saying that the Earth does not spin on an axis, but is stationary because of certain wording in the KJV. They also claim, per Isiah 45:7, that God is the author of evil.

[@Jeremy_White75]

@@JimDeferio There are indeed some KJV onlyists that really sounds cultic! Then there are the ones that argue in circles. They use the KJV to prove the KJV. It’s so strange. Thankful most of the debates they are civil towards each other. 👍🏻

[@LuisArzat3]

Isn't more important to make understand what God has to convey rather than complicating God's word? Honestly one of the things that kept me away from the Bible was the fact that it was so difficult to read I'm sure I'm not alone on this issue. ESV and CSB have been amazing, now I can't put my Bible down and feed my spirit with God's word!

[@BloodBoughtMinistries]

Facts vs feelings

[@Brenda-qo4ko]

It floors me that the KJV onlyist's position is basically "We like the KJV because we're used to it so who cares if we know about earlier manuscripts then those who translated it had that may be able to give us an even BETTER idea of what was in the original manuscripts."I agree with Dr. White.What I want to know is as close as possible what the original, inspired texts said because those were what truly were the word of God.

[@JimDeferio]

Read James White's book, "THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY: CAN YOU TRUST MODERN TRANSLATIONS?" (Revised 2009) White details how and why one can trust most modern translations and why the KJV is corrupt in places.

[@JimDeferio]

If the KJV is the standard, then this "standard" is contradictory and corrupt! COMPARE: 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1 1 Kings 5:16 with 2 Chronicles 2:2 1 Kings 9:28 with 2 Chronicles 8:18 1 Kings 7:15 with 2 Chronicles 3:15 1 Kings 7:26 with 2 Chronicles 4:5 Stop trusting in man! The KJV Translators were Anglicans who believed in transubstantiation and that Mary was "the mother of God". Most were also Calvinists (see Article 17 of the 39 Articles of Anglicanism of 1604).

[@JimDeferio]

Beware of Charl Greyvensteyn. He is a troll and a twister of Scripture and he also twists the comments of people to try to mean what they don't mean. Yes, he's a KJV Onlyist, what do you expect from a cultist?

[@dbart4711]

+Jim Deferio Yeah, I already had the pleasure of destroying his statements on another channel.

[@monicabrown5580]

Then only read the a.v.1611...the king James used today is also modern....I guess according to these king James only people all saved before the king James weren't saved? They don't even understand psalm 12 at all!!! It's not saying king James is the perfect word of God..NO ! It's referring to the words of wicked people vs the Lord's pure words that will keep or preserve the poor and needy...

[@JimDeferio]

Exactly. Good comment! I used to preach with numerous KJV Onlyists and they are now claiming that you can commit adultery and fornication etc. and in no way endanger your salvation. I was shocked to personally hear this from them when I preached with some of them at the Kentucky Derby in May. So, the KJV apparently also preserves your supposed salvation even though you sin like the Devil.

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV takes away the deity of Jesus Christ in: John 14:14 Romans 9:5 Titus 2:13 2 Peter 1:1 Revelation 1:8 The modern Bibles which are based on superior and older manuscripts declare Jesus Christ to be God in these passages. Also, the Greek "Byzantine"manuscripts, which are the Majority Texts, differ with the "Textus Receptus" is almost 2,000 places. The Textus Receptus is corrupt and everyone except cultists know it.

[@JimDeferio]

The Gideons have switched and they have been distributing the much more accurate and coherent NewKJV Bible. Many are seeing the light and are moving toward perfection in Christ. We don't need a "Bible" that is recommended by adulterers and which has started at least TEN cults (i.e. the KJV).

[@JimDeferio]

There you have it from the KJV translators themselves: The KJV is full of "warts", "freakles", and "skarres". The KJV translators said it themselves! LOL

[@nojustno1216]

Come on Jim....according to Sam Gipp, the translators didn't know they were inspired in their translation. After all, you don't dare take the words of the very men who penned the translation over modern legalist engaged in judgmental exclusiviism. 🙄😂

[@YFun-ux5rs]

The bit at 1:14:10 or so sums it up. The KJV sounds like what the onlyist want the Bible to sound (i.e. archaic and somehow "majestic" as the onlyist likes to say) and therefore lets argue back why this is the only possible, divinely inspired Scriptrue. Whereas the school of thought represented by James White is grounded on the right presupposition that the original text of Hebrew and Greek is the starting point and through text criticism, we are able to reconstruct to extreme accuracy what was the original text and than translate into modern English from there. KJV onlyism borders on idolatry because they hold that either there are two inspired texts (the original and KJV) or that KJV is the only one, which is absurd.

[@JimDeferio]

KJV Onlyism is idolatry and some Onlyists even argue that the KJV CORRECTS the original. I have family members and friends who are KJV Onlyists and some of the doctrines they hold are just plain lunatic (such as you can live in fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc. and still be saved). They need deliverance from all these doctrines of demons.

[@YFun-ux5rs]

@@JimDeferio I haven’t personally encountered KJV onlyists with that view but it’s still a very dangerous belief especially from an apologetics point of view.

[@AIHTube1]

You can definitely tell the KJV only is lacking an argument. Looks like KJV only has become Idolatry

[@JimDeferio]

@BenardoP Define "original".

[@JamesJones-qi1pc]

This was a great debate. I enjoyed it. Both men were professional and it was classy.

[@dhathaway5866]

I don’t know why nobody calls KJVO out for what it is. Idolatry, people are worshipping a physical book. I would say the most faithful Christians in the world probably don’t even have the privilege of owning a copy of Gods word. The last thing we as Christians should be concerned with is erroneously slandering various editions of it.

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV sure appears to be a Roman Catholic Bible. It has all of the ecclesiastical language of a Roman Catholic Bible, it uses words like "rule", and "rule over" for church leaders, it takes away the Godhood of Jesus Christ at Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter 1:1 exactly like the Roman Catholic American Bible does. Also, it was translated by 47 Anglicans who were basically Roman catholic in doctrine believing in prayers for the dead, Augustinian election, and Mary as Mother of God.

[@anthonykeve8894]

@ Jim deferio that link appears to be broken. It takes you to then leave you at site’s “front door.” You left to fend or find what you came for. Thanks for all the great debate points Tony

[@JimDeferio]

@@anthonykeve8894 Yep, you're right. I guess they forgot to renew the domain name. I'll remove the link. Thanks.

[@JimDeferio]

Many people already know that the KJV is basically a Roman Catholic translation. However, most do not know the occultic roots of the KJV. King James considered witchcraft to be "theology"!!! This is a link to my Fb wherein i expose some of the occultic drawings used in the 1611 KJV and some early editions of the KJV. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=804836592874271&set=a.100639053294032.1321.100000438132660&type=3&pnref=story

[@davidpallmann8046]

Wow, I don't even like James White. But, he squashed this old badger with the greatest of ease.

[@ea-tr1jh]

I know right, same

[@Faith-Ministries]

How do you NOT like Dr White???? The guy has given his LIFE to the Lord and the Bible, He's the "ONLY" man who has Debated (Actual, moderated Debates) more people than anyone I've seen.

[@s_hrndz0119]

@@Faith-Ministries LoL nice one

[@JulianArmy1]

Why dont you like james white?

[@ernestojlassus1354]

What's wrong with James White? I believe he is one of the best if not the best in this subject and many other theological subjects.

[@JimDeferio]

I posted this before but I want to emphasize that anyone can check this out for themselves: In 2 Kings 23:29 the KJV reads, "In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria." This is not true. Pharaoh Nechoh went to the aid of the Assyrian king; they were allies, not enemies, as ancient records from that time have now clearly proven. The KJV translators did not have that information available to them, and thus they assumed their meeting to have been one of enmity. This was an historically false assumption; a poor commentary by the KJV translators. heritageofevidence.org/pages/artefact.html?&art=babChron_605

[@JimDeferio]

Why does the KJV say "kill" in Exodus 20:13 when the Hebrew word clearly means MURDER? Same with Romans 13. Many have used this huge error in the KJV to legislate against capital punishment for the guilty. The KJV is corrupt.

[@JimDeferio]

It is not surprising that adulterers Jack Hyles, Gail Riplinger, and Peter Ruckman are three of the main proponents of the corrupt KJV. The language of the KJV is ambiguous enough to partially cover their filthy sins. REPENT!

[@lamarmercedes6153]

The old English language is not being used now. If people do not understand it, do not feel comfortable to read it, what good does it do to read the King James Version.

[@anthonybarber3872]

Exactly!

[@boedye]

There was no debate... this was a beat down and James White did it admirably and with grace.

[@JimDeferio]

It is very strange indeed that many KJV Onlyists HATE Roman Catholicism but they adhere to a translation that is very much Roman Catholic. Can anyone say "cognitive dissonance"?

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

I'm not sure how you conclude that the translation is Roman Catholic.

[@JimDeferio]

@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I had a few comments under this video that addressed that and also links (unfortunately the sites for the links are discontinued). Here is one: www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-catholicism-contributed-to-the-king-james-bible

[@justme6665]

@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIC3fn6Ym9B8mM0

[@JimDeferio]

I challenge all KJV Onlyists to provide the textual support for "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5 in the KJV. Where is it? Lost it? YOU lost "God's word"???

[@markalexander832]

The King James Version is a beautiful repository of English language and literature. Its cadence often makes it easier to memorize than modern translations. The real problem is when someone makes an idol of it.

[@JimDeferio]

The NewKJV is easy to memorize and as an open air preacher I have had to memorize huge volumes of Scripture.

[@danielwarton5343]

My pastor reads from the authorised version and I follow in my NKJV. He explains the difficult words from the old English and they’re the exact words used in the NKJV. He won’t switch versions due to minor differences in words like thee and thou. Yet when we outreach we’re share KJV gospel tracts that people can’t really understand. I fail to see why we shouldn’t use the NKJV and stop being like the Catholic Church was in withholding the word of God from people in their native tongue.

[@JimDeferio]

Although this verse is specifically referencing speaking in tongues, the principle remains the same: "So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. " (1 Corinthians 14:9). Never over estimate the level of education of the general public. While preaching I have had people come up to me and sincerely ask what certain words mean, like "repentance". It's always an effort to keep things simple yet 100% accurate.

[@Tungchano]

It's debates like these that help Christians distinguish fallacy in the text. So rather than use just one text, why not use more for an even deeper understanding of God's Word. I think that we should be more discerning, more intentional in gaining a relationship with God. We're following the word in so many ways, let's follow God in understanding His Word, ask the author Himself to reveal His Word to us.

[@Barefootseal_66]

King James onlyism is an Idol that needs to be put to bed once and for all. What a phenomenal distraction from the actual point of the gospel. We are to be disciple the nations not bicker with brothers over pet traditions. Considering the evidence presented for how strong and accurate both the King James and certain conservative modern translations are, anyone who listens toDr. White’s arguments and maintains a King James supremacist position wants to claim an authority for themselves that actually only belongs to our Holy Savior.

[@powhitehorn]

I'm shocked that the KJV Only position is so weak. I presumed it was an airtight case. James White did a fantastic job helping me understand this complex issue better during this debate. Moorman proved that his scholarship is lacking, and his statement, "It sounds like the Bible," is laughable only because of its absurdity. KJV Onlyism has proved to be idolatry of one version, created by men, instead of defending God's Holy Word as it was originally written.

[@williamstdog9]

Moorman was impolite, ZERO sense of humour, didn’t even smile once, was UN-CHARITABLE to Dr. White, tried to waste time by dragging his answers, was too PROUD to properly address his opponent as DR. (Cause he’s so pathetically INSECURE) and was a stuffy old man making sloppy errors all over the place yet TOO PROUD to LEARN SOMETHING from his more learned opponent!! 👎

[@austincrockett]

Regardless of where you stand on this topic, we can all unanimously agree that.......the first audience question is an all time bad question.

[@endoftheagereality]

James White. Enjoyed your ministry when you appeared on the John Ankerburg show.

[@carloswater7]

Jack Moorman used his feelings and conspiracy theories to defend the King James. James White used historical facts and logic to disprove the doctrine of the King James onliest. James won this debate

[@JimDeferio]

The Old Testament in the KJV cannot be trusted either. The Old Testament of the KJV was translated from an EDITED Hebrew text. The 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used the 1524-25 edition of the Tanakh called the "Rabinnic Bible" (Mikraot Gedolot). This edited Tanakh was riddled with many errors. Now we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds that place the Old Testament manuscripts firmly BC and which PROVE that the prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were written BEFORE His birth and not sometime afterwards to look like a prophecy. KJV Onlyists cannot prove that the Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus Christ were written before Jesus was born!

[@Weaton777]

I'm here to find a better most treatable Bible. Which do you recommend?

[@JimDeferio]

@@Weaton777 What are you using now? I use mainly the NewKJV but I also make use of the NIV, KJV, NASB, and direct translations. Actually, the KJV translators had recommended in their 1611 preface that readers make use of several translations. English is a HUGE language and many English words have at least three synonyms and some of these synonyms may better express the meaning of a passage. However, even the KJV with its sometimes awkward sentences delivers easily understandable text in most cases. I like the NewKJV because it has margin notes which show where the Nestle-Aland and the Majority texts disagree in the New Testament and where the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls and others disagree in the Old Testament. Almost none of these affect basic doctrine but as a student of the Bible I want as much info as possible. You have to remember that Christians and the Christian Scriptures have been the most persecuted of all religions and texts. Under Emperor Diocletian (244 - 311 AD), not only were Christians severely persecuted but Scripture was rounded up and destroyed. So, is it any wonder that scholars have had some trouble with certain verses as extremely old Bible manuscripts and fragments have been discovered? No. We should expect this. I was talking with someone the other day who seemed to be greatly offended that there are tares and hypocrites in many churches. WHAT? WHY? Why should that make anyone stumble in their walk with Christ? After all, the New Testament from Jesus to all of the disciples warned us repeatedly that this would happen so why should anyone be surprised (unless they too don't read the Bible) that there is hypocrisy and downright apostasy? Same thing with Bible translations. Knowing the history of Christian persecution it is understandable that there are competing Bible translations stemming from various old texts. Understanding how enormous the English language is should make it clear why we need different English translations. The Oxford Dictionary people logged their one-millionth word back in 2007!!!

[@JimDeferio]

The KJV mistranslates words. Example: the KJV translates the Greek "elpidos' as "faith" in Hebrews 10:23 when it is clearly HOPE. By doing this the corrupt KJV ruins a common theme throughout the New testament of "faith, hope, love". Instead the KJV has "faith, faith, love" for verses 22-24. The Greek "pisteos" is faith, NOT "elpidos". Epic fail!!!! Kinney is a cultist and a deceiver.

[@phrannymoo]

1:14:10 "It sounds like the bible"...LOL!

[@nojustno1216]

Poor guy...as soon as he said that, I bet he wished that he never went there. 😂

[@JimDeferio]

In Acts 2:47 the KJV reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as SHOULD be saved." The actual Greek verb form here is: "the ones who are being saved." The rewording of the KJV (from "are" to "should be") reflects the doctrines of election and predetermination of Calvinism.

[@Weaton777]

Wow. I'm at a point in my life where I'm questioning EVERYTHING. Spent 26 yrs in a Calvinist, Baptist Brider, KJV only church. Double heresy cult! It's been over a yr that the Lord showed my husband and I the sick errors. Now I'm questioning the kjv only-ism. Just starting my dig. I put off watching this video because of White being a Calvinist but now I'll watch later today. I appreciate your comments on this video and may ask you a few things. Hope you don't mind.

[@jackgtx440]

@@Weaton777 you just called half of Christ’s Church heretics. Including, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Martin Lloyd-Jones, RC Sproul, and all the Puritans, to name a few.

[@JimDeferio]

@@Weaton777 Calvinists are wrong about MANY things (e.g. TULIP is pure heresy) but they tend to be excellent on The One and The Many, the tri-une nature of God, logic, and on Bible manuscript evidence.

[@JimDeferio]

There are MANY KJV Onlyists who comment under this video but can in no way present a rational argument as to why they believe that the KJV is 1) plenary 2) inerrant 3) the inspired word of God 4) the preserved word of God. 5) the "final authority" 6) the pure word of God in English for the world All they can do is call me names. You Onlyists have feelings but I have FACTS! Below in the comments I shared many errors in the KJV. The KJV is one of the most error-laden translations in use today. Only the Jehovah Witness New World Translation is more corrupt. You cultists keep calling me names and then express surprise why I don't approve your comments. Dumb!

[@messianicapologetics2099]

I am a lay debater and speaker with a passion for apologetics. Just had a debate with the Muslim community here in Reading PA, which is on my website. So I really enjoy a great debater when I see one. James White did a excellent A+ job refuting Pastor Moorman (is he a cultist as the title here suggests?). Mr. Moorman did a good job with an impossible proposition and he came across as a class, Christian act, so he deserves credit for that. Some of these KJV only people are far out, obnoxious, prideful fanatics in my opinion. What I would like to see an intelligent discussion on is: Which set of underlying manuscripts are the most reliable, most likely to be closer to the original. I never had the time to get to the bottom of that, because it is not the squeakiest wheel of doctrinal issues in my life. Any youtube videos that would address this conflict? Todd Messianicapologetics.com

[@JonathanToole]

His very first point is totally ridiculous. It was in fact as readable as the morning paper.

[@artemthetrain14]

With a standard you have a standard

[@TTaylor]

It’s really too bad they weren’t allowed to debate. When it got interesting, the moderator quickly stopped it to allow more questions.

[@JimDeferio]

Moorman was ill equipped for an informal debate. James White is a scholar and an expert debater and in an informal debate he would have made Moorman look even dumber than he did in this formal debate. You should hear some of White's debates against the Roman Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses and against William Lane Craig and others. I don't like White's Calvinism but I have to admit that the guy is extremely knowledgeable and a fierce and clever debater.

[@JackGunner69]

Good debate. I think Dr. White prenented a much better case than Moorman.

[@deadeyeridge]

That first question was actually very imposing for a KJVO, likely showing a corruption, changing Jacob to James, which isn't Greek. The problem was, Moorland was very slow to understand, pontificated about his unsubstantied view of the authorship of James, and White didn't retort.

[@bw2442]

The standard is the Holy Spirit and a relationship with him. Jesus told a bunch of Pharisees who were arguing over the scriptures: you search the scriptures for in them you look for salvation but they point to me but you would not come to me

[@JimDeferio]

The word and the Spirit should be in agreement, though, and the KJV has MANY words that are just plain WRONG no matter what mental and spiritual gymnastics one goes through.

[@JimDeferio]

Dallas Powers, I simply don't approve most of them. Because of what has gone on with others who posted this video I don't want a free for all. There are some who are going by multiple YT names and they spam a thread. If you do a search of YT you will find that the KJV Only crazies have spread their lies far and wide. They are NOT going to comment under this thread, especially when they call me names and live hypocritical lives (I personally know some of these KJV Only crazies).

[@JimDeferio]

More errors in the KJV : Joshua 11:13 - the KJV has "strength" when it should be "mound" or "hill" (archaeologists confirm this). I Chronicles 5:26 the KJV translators have "Pul" and "Tilgath-pilneser" as being two separate kings of Assyria. These were two names for the SAME man, as archaeological discoveries have proven. I Kings 10:28 "Kue" is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. "Kue" was a place in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses.

[@marionwayne1438]

So you now consider archaeology to be above the bible? And The Holy Spirit?

[@JimDeferio]

@@marionwayne1438 And WHAT did the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV rely on? They relied on six EDITED versions of the New Testament and they relied on an EDITED Hebrew text. The 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used the 1524-25 edition of the Tanakh called the "Rabinnic Bible" (Mikraot Gedolot). This edited Tanakh was riddled with many errors. Btw, I have the original 1611 in facsimile. If you're too cheap to purchase a copy for yourself here is one online that you can read. Especially read the preface THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER for in it they cite Roman Catholics, they make it clear that their translation has warts, scars and freckles and they totally debunk your cult mentality that the KJV is the inspired, pure, preserved, plenary, and final word of God. Also, please take note of all of the occultic drawings and symbols. archive.org/stream/holybiblefacsimi00polluoft#page/144/mode/2up

[@Joelthinker]

Jeez it's like a Pharisee against an apostle.

[@JimDeferio]

The Pharisee being Jack Moorman and the apostle being James White.

[@-Pierre]

Note James White just made an interesting presentation and especially useful to better understand verses like *1 Timothy 3:16* *1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)* 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: *God* was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. *1 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)* 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: *He* was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. "In the earliest manuscripts what is called the unsealed texts, the majuscules, the original texts of the New Testament were all written in capital letters, no punctuation, no space between the words (lots of fun to read), now in those capital letters forms, the early Christians developed something called "Nomina Sacra"; the Sacred Names, they would actually use abbreviations to try to get more into a page, most of the early Christians were poor people and in fact the church is under persecution for the first 300 years of it's existence, you couldn't go to the rich people who had nice manuscripts copies made in that particular point and time and so they would use abbreviations for like 'God', 'Jesus', 'Spirit', common words they would abbreviate them with one or two letters and put a line over top of them. God was one of the words they did this with, now when we hear the difference between "God" and "He/Who" that sounds like a big difference, but i like to show you what the difference is between these two words is, if that is possible, we are able to see that in the original language the term "God" is 2 letters and the word "He/Who" is 2 letters, the only difference between these two words are two little lines and they are originally writings that are on papyrus, which is made up of leaves that are pressed together crosses like this or later manuscripts volumes who all of them had lines in them and you are reading someone else handwriting, so it's very easy to understand, no reason for conspiracy here, it's easy to understand why someone would misunderstand or misreads someone else handwriting and the bottom of that screen was a shot from the codex sinaiticus and you can see it's original writing was "OC" and about 700 years later someone had written 'Theos’ so every time we have a difference in the earliest manuscripts about the deity of Christ translated He/Who instead of God we are dealing with a situation like this." → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

[@JimDeferio]

Hebrews 10:38 KJV has, "Now the just man shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." The words "any man" have been added to the text. The actual subject of the verb "draw back" is "the just man." The Calvinists do not believe that the "just man" can draw back after having drawn near, so the verse was changed to better reflect their doctrine. The correct reading of the verse is: "...but if he draw back," with the antecedent of "he" being "the just man"

[@Weaton777]

Wowwwww

[@ABiblicalView]

"Truth speaks first" yet holds to a far later English translation, not the first, second, third or even fourth English translation and yet says truth speaks first.

[@a.d.marshall2748]

Don't let Satan, the one who changes and questions God's word, steal your faith. James loves tattoos and booze, not God's word. He should call his ministry, "Yea, hath God said?"

[@JimDeferio]

Aaron, you have not added one iota of information to this topic, not one. All you have done is accuse like Satan does. You have also made an "ad hominem" fallacy and a "genetic fallacy" and have outed yourself as someone who is ignorant of the facts and as someone who lacks true Biblical faith (which is based on EVIDENCE and not imagination). See Acts 1:1-3 and 1 John 1:1-3 and John 10:25-26 and verses 32 & 37-38. The early disciples had EVIDENCE. The debate between scholar James White and KJV Onlyist Jack Moorman is about EVIDENCE and Moorman had NONE, just trite aphorisms that sidestep the issue. You can read the KJV if you want (what version & edition do you prefer) but stop the Satanic attacks on Christians and on God's word.

[@HoldFastApolpgetics]

Listening for the first time, Mr Moorman is putting a great deal of hope in the translators. I’m thankful for the KJV and at the same time don’t diminish other versions which accurately divide God’s Word (not the Passion Translation nor the New World Translation)…namely nasb, ESV, net, and the nlt being possibly the better translations per biblical translation experts. God is sovereign and will helps us to know His Word

[@gigahorse1475]

I’m 100% with you on this. The KJV is a beautiful translation, and I grew up using it (now using NKJV). However, it pains me to hear sincere Christians blaspheming the word of God simply because of a few minor changes. And yes, the Passion “translation” is trash.

[@jesusisking9035]

None of you kjv haters address the issue in that the new versions use a completely different text

[@JimDeferio]

"completely different"? PROVE IT! "completely"?

[@JimDeferio]

In 2 Kings 23:29 the KJV reads, "In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria." This is not true. Pharaoh Nechoh went to the aid of the Assyrian king; they were allies, not enemies, as ancient records from that time have now clearly proven. The KJV translators did not have that information available to them, and thus they assumed their meeting to have been one of enmity. This was an historically false assumption; a poor commentary by the KJV translators.

[@JimDeferio]

For those who are given to various myths and superstitions, here are some FACTS to correct your errors: 1)The Great Bible of 1539 was the very first "authorized Bible" and it was authorized by King Henry the 8th 2) The Bishops Bible of 1568 & 1572 was the second "authorized Bible" 3) The KJV of 1611 was the third "authorized Bible" and homosexual King James gave guidelines for its translation even though he had no expertise in Hebrew or Greek. Thanks to him the KJV retained the ecclesiastical language of the Bishop's Bible from which unBiblical church structure and abuse continues to this day in many denominations and even in independent churches. All of these "authorized Bibles" were for the illegitimate Church of England that was birthed because a King (Henry the 8th) wanted his marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic Church. All of the translators of these "authorized Bibles" still held to Roman Catholic doctrines but were not Roman Catholic in jurisdiction. They had a man over them just like the Roman Catholics do but their king was NOT the Pope and it was NOT Jesus, it was the King of England. Many who today claim the KJV is the perfect inspired word of God would not have even regarded these translators as being Christian. The KJV Translators all belonged to the Church of England and held to the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism which included prayers for the dead, infant baptism, and Mary as mother of God. Sects within Anglicanism disputed some of these Articles.

[@phirah79]

I feel bad saying this but I struggle to even understand what Jack Moorman is saying most of the time. I'm really trying to but failing. I often have no idea what point he's trying to make and feel more confused when he's done talking than I was when he started. He kind of winds around verbally using a lot of large words and filler phrases that don't come together for me into any clear meaning. And this issue seems worse in contrast to how clear and well spoken James White is.

[@JimDeferio]

+phirah79 I have debated numerous KJV Onlyists and none of them make sense. They are driven by FEELINGS rather than logic and rational thought. It is truly sad how the Onlyists choose lies over truth. They are like Mormons, Muslims and homosexualists. I'm an open air evangelist. Every open air evangelist I have known who uses crass or even obscene language and who delights in insulting people rather than preaching the Gospel, have been KJV Onlyists. They are cultic and wicked.

[@phirah79]

+Jim Deferio I really know what you mean after watching James White's talk with Steven Anderson, and some of Mr Anderson's other videos. He is even more extreme in his beliefs and the way he behaves. And one of his only arguments for being KJV only was also like Moorman's, that it *felt* more like God's word to him when he was a teenager.

[@Truth537]

White killed him :)