History of the King James Bible: Interview with Timothy Berg

[@jsharp3165]

Timothy is always a great resource to listen to. Very humble, always fair, yet extremely knowledgeable and confident.

[@ATiredMom]

I've been listening to his interview and debate and I totally agree!

[@ISayToMyself]

I’m gonna enjoy this. I study from several translations but I always memorize in KJV.

[@MichaelSmith-yy8fw]

Where did he get his doctorate? He is very humble about his education. Wonderful scholar! MikeInMinnesota

[@tob357]

Excellent! So refreshing... humility of intellectual honesty usually yields a powerful testimony.

[@Mr.MacMan]

I’m KJV preferred. I think other versions are valid too of course and good to begin with, but there’s something about the KJV that draws me closer to God.

[@matthewweaver5610]

Amen, same here. I like NKJV too. The Psalms are beautiful and poetically in KJV/NKJV

[@edbeckerich3737]

Being easily influenced, I just bough a Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and it's on its way.. Thanks Timothy

[@ora_et_labora1095]

This was awesome. Timothy is such an OG. Wish he had a KZbin channel.

[@hefinjones9051]

Excellent work from the two of you. Great overview.

[@opa362]

awesome interview and history of the KJV Bible ... information presented far exceeded the average KJV-Only camp knows concerning. Thanks for that introduction and will review it again so that we may ... as Peter's admonition "be ready always to give an answer ..." (1 Peter 3:15)

[@michaeljoewilson]

Kjv is my 1st love, but recently I've been reading from Nasb/Lsb

[@Syriac_Christianity]

I am impressed by LSB so far.

[@ContraMundum33]

As a former “TR Only” person, I am very pleased with the LSB. They did such a good job on that bible.

[@michealferrell1677]

Now that is a great interview! Hope to Tim on your program again.

[@philr3381]

I'm far from KJV only, but fell in love with the KJV after systematic theology and hermeneutic courses I took in seminary. I use it in all my academic writings, as well as personal devotionals. But I regularly use the NIV, which is perfect for sharing with new believers, and NASB, which is perfect for expository preaching. But for me the KJV lives in my mind for memorization.

[@zgennaro]

I just memorized Colossians in the CSB. I do like that translation but I’m thinking about memorizing a book in the KJV. Have you attempted this?

[@philr3381]

@@zgennaro that is amazing that you can remember and entire book. I have definitely never tried, but would love to be able to memorize Ephesians or Galatians, those read beautifully in the KJV.

[@zgennaro]

@@philr3381 I assumed it would be very hard but it wasn’t. 1-3 verses a day max. Took about 6 months. I didn’t learn verse numbers either but I know roughly where within a chapter each verse is if I hear it.

[@philr3381]

@@zgennaro thank you for the pro tip! I am going to try and memorize some Psalms, which is where the beauty of KJV truly shines. God bless!

[@69telecasterplayer]

Very well done. Thanks to you both.

[@MichaelSmith-yy8fw]

This is outstanding! What an education. MikeInMinnesota

[@Normal1855]

I use the KJV predominantly. But if I'm not sure of what I'm reading, I use the NKJV. The NKJV is the Bible I got saved with.

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

God saved you 😉

[@michaelbritt6936]

Tim Berg -- excellent as always. Scholar, friend, Christian.

[@Fairford2001]

Very informative!!

[@AmericanShia786]

I learned some new things watching this video. The KJV is my favorite devotional bible. My favorite modern translation is the NKJV, followed by the NASB 77. Of course, I have used the ESV the last 20 years as well. Keep up the excellent videos!

[@nicorossiter]

Excellent video, very interesting. Blessings.

[@trlgwynn]

Is there a pic of that bill from Robert Barker?

[@roddumlauf9241]

As an Anglican, I love the Anglican KJV (1611 including the deutero-canonical books which should be read). However, although I love the King James (God bless his team), I use the RSV for New Testament and Septuagint for Old Testament. ESV for the official text of the ACNA.

[@douglaswebster1028]

To me, the modern common language Bibles lack the majesty and poetry of the KJB. I think God's Words to us should be of an elevating nature drawing us upward, helping us to contemplate and meditate more deeply and lift us up above the mundane. But that's just me!

[@TheJesusNerd40]

I'll be in Oklahoma in november, Tim. I will reach out so we can connect.

[@MrPatdeeee]

(Sorry, kind Sirs, for the VERY long "comment". But I believe it NEEDS to be espoused) After 16 yrs of studying, searching, researching and reading my bible; I believe now... 1. There are 3 "versions" of the KJV (King James Version) bibles: A. The "Original" published in 1611 AD and it has 80 books...39 OT, 14 Apocrypha and 27 NT. B. The "Authorized" KJV published in 1885 AD. It had only 66 Books. And some corrects. of errors of the Original KJV. C. The "New King James Version" NKJV; that has 66 books too. But, many more corrections, from the other 2 versions. And changes over a million words, below... 2. King James was determined to be an "egoistic god"; and he hated the "RCC" (Roman Catholic Cult; as I call it). Further, He wanted his translators; to use the "Elizabethen" words. They are words like this: "Ye" vs You, "Thine" vs Yours, "Believeth" vs Believe, "Amongst" vs Among, and many more, Etc. These words were "coined" in the 16th century, by "Queen Elizabeth the First" (King James took over when she died). And she demanded; that 'her' English words; must be "poetic and romantic". And THAT, I believe; is why most people love the Original and the Authorized KJV's bibles. Oh indeed. But most "Bible Scholars"; and many Translators; did NOT want those words, for it was wrong! And NO other bible has them. Praise Jesus...Thus finally, the NKJV's kicked them out in 1972 AD, in it's first publishing. But, it has never been popular, in the Christian World. And sadly again, i believe they LOVE poetic and romanticist words in their bibles. But,, the NKJV bible, also corrected even more errors from the other two; that the bible scholars and their translators did. And the reason for this is to: have an English bible; they MUST start with the "Hebrew" language, to "Latin", to "Greek", to "Manuscripts" to get our imperfect "English" language. Sad, but oh so true. And I believe; the reason that the "Web" says; there are "45,000" denominations all over the world. For, most of them say this, "We are Right and the others are Wrong! And WE get ours from the bible"! End of story, and may Jesus have mercy over them! And I rest me case... ...in any case kind Sirs and Brethren, Please Pray OFTEN and Praise Jesus OFTEN; for He is the ONLY true "God Almighty"; there will ever have been. And may Jesus bless you and yours always. AMEN!

[@MrPatdeeee]

Because I'm not a pastor, etc; but I 'm an instructor; to those who wish to learn! And I never debate or argue! Thus, I won't reply, from your reply Brethren. Because, it would start a "debate"; back and forth and back and forth, etc! And eventually; it would turn into an argue. Then it would start a nasty "name calling names", Etc, etc and ETC! So I said what I believe; as you did; thus I will walk away as a Christian should. Because Jesus wants us to. And let HIM debate with all. Because He has all the answers. And NO one else has that! Praise His Holy Name. So... May Jesus bless you and your always, Christian brother. P.S. IF you want to really learn the truth, using KJV bible, or the NIV or NASB bibles; I CAN prove that the bible says; Jesus WAS, IS and ALWAYS; is the only true God there will ever be. And finally: we ALL will stand, before Jesus (on "Judgment Day"); on the "Great White Throne"; and Jesus will be proving; that HE is the only true God Almighty. Believe it or not. AMEN! And Praise Jesus' Holy Name.

[@countryboyred]

@@jettisonn-dx4etthe only liar here is you because you have a terrible exegesis of scripture that none of the early (or even modern) church agrees with

[@signandvball]

@@JettedGod-wardI don’t understand your question regarding John 17:8 and Heb 1:8?

[@bruceanable7739]

I read from the KJV,but I’m not a KJV only.I got saved from reading the Good News bible. I like the KJV because of William Shakespeare language.

[@TradWolverine]

Missed opportunity to ask, was Shakespeare involved?

[@wessbess]

This was excellent thank you. Pastor Matt did you see the debate between James White and Peter Van Kleet.? I’m watching it on high speed. I will say Dr. White definitely won I think the TR only view is indefensible. Van Kleet came across as angry and defensive and childish 😢 TR only ism is a form of king James only-ism And it does not hold up to the standards of truth

[@makarov138]

This is a great interview. Just for a note; my 1599 GENEVA Bible is my go-to bible. I actually prefer it over the KJV. But that's just me. I've come to prefer the Old and Middle English bibles due to their pronoun number and usage. Here's an interesting fact; in the Geneva and KJV bibles, the word "you" is without exception always plural. You might want to check that out and confirm it for yourself. But its true. This however does not apply to the NKJV. We use "you" both ways in our modern English.

[@davewhitehead135]

How Did You Become A Christian?

[@terencealbertmcbain8041]

I am not KJVO, I am a KJV Bible believer, I also have the NASB MacArthur Study Bible and still not sure which to use any help would be appreciated thank you.

[@ericfranklin4092]

What is the" Source Text " for the NASB by MacArthur??

[@countryboyred]

@@jettisonn-dx4etthe fact that you are desperately posting all over this page means you know you aren’t sure of your position. Numerous passages in the New Testament affirm Jesus’ divinity.

[@christopheryetzer]

While the KJV translators didn't have all the "evidence" they basically knew of every reading whether it was through the Vulgate or other languages. Their approach to textual criticism was very different than todays approach. They were quite opposite from "the harder reading and the shorter reading is to be preferred." They also used texts which God in his Providence had preserved throughout the ages in the hands of his people rather than texts lost to history.

[@duncescotus2342]

Yeah, you can't fault them for diligence. Those doctors were highly qualified. Even though King James only nut jobs exist, they don't detract from this high point in English letters and it's worthiness as a Bible.

[@corinnebrosseau6896]

So correct. Everyone I know that had their theology screwed up, were reading the Nearly Inspired Version NiV. So sad. Satan wants to be LIKE God. Ditch them. God is able to preserve His Word.

[@ericfranklin4092]

​@@jettisonn-dx4ethave you not read John 1:1.??.. The Word was GOD

[@ericfranklin4092]

@@jettisonn-dx4et The WORD in John 1:1 was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD... the WORD is not the written word right there... it's The Lord Jesus Christ...compare that w/ 1 JOHN 5:7...1 John 5:7 (KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one......IN the HOLY BIBLE a capital "WORD" is always a reference to Jesus Christ and you will find it that way a total of 7 times in The BIBLE 🤔

[@ericfranklin4092]

@@jettisonn-dx4et 1 GOD Manifested in 3 Persons -Father,SON, HOLY Ghost... Jesus Christ is The Great I AM... you sound like a JW

[@ericfranklin4092]

@@jettisonn-dx4et And Yes it does matter according to the BIBLE whether word is Capitalized or not... but maybe not to you

[@ericfranklin4092]

@@jettisonn-dx4et Manifest=Made known/ show/ to display

[@Tony41christ]

No actually you are referring to changing the word of God. You can't sugarcoat it or cover it up to cover your tracks. Even though you may be sincere in your efforts, you are still sincerely wrong because you are changing God's word. Resulting it will change the words and it will change meaning and the teaching and the doctrine of scripture. So I'm going to have to make a video of response to these three points in this entire video that you were incorrect in. It's really sad that we are endorsing modern versions and don't mind changing God's words when he warned six times in scripture not to do so.

[@countryboyred]

@jettisonn-dx4etJesus is God. Put down the watchtower Bible and go read an actual translation.

[@BrentRiggsPoland]

Brother Timothy, when did using only the KJV become theologically unhealthy? In George Whitefield's & John Wesley's day? Dwight Moody and Charles Spurgeon's Day or Billy Sunday and Bob Jones Sr's day? The English speaking Church of God had the KJV as her only common English Bible for over 360+ years, when was the English speaking Church of God "theologically unhealthy" during that time?

[@anthonykeve8894]

Before the 300 year mark the KJ TRANSLATION’s ship had sailed. Your “gotcha” questions are annoying & irrelevant

[@peterlowe6064]

May I Suggest Timothy reads Brandon Peterson’s book.Sealed by the King. His book shows how Mathematics prove that the K J B is divinely inspired. How God hints throughout the bible via the number Seven that this is HIS book for mankind forever. The number 1611 also shows up to prove Gods authority over the KJB.

[@lanbaode]

Because my KJV Bible tells me so! When you read the KJV only you get to believe that "unicorns" exist as they are mentioned (that is, erroneously translated) in the KJV Bible! Read: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-12; Psalms 22:21; and Isaiah 34:7.

[@duncescotus2342]

The "necessity for a new translation" was really James' (I of England, VI of Scotland) desire to create conformity and unity within the Anglican Church. Having been raised by Scots Presbyterians, he was actually quite taken with Elizabeth's "middle way" and disliked Puritans in general. The rise of Puritanism among Cambridge dons in the mid 1500's meant that he had to deal with them whether he liked them or not. The King James Bible was thus a committee effort, roughly balanced between High Church conformists and Non-conformists as far as translation duties, which were split up, one person taking some chapters of this book and another that. It's amazing that it worked out as well as it did. They weren't ashamed of lifting phrasing straight from previous versions, and James wanted something recognizable, not radically different. For more on the this amazing story, see: "God's Secretaries" by Adam Nicholson

[@DanielKrennonline]

There are places that the newer translations needlessly take out phrases and many of them are doctrinally important. Also there are places newer translations contradict themselves and have not made attempts to correct them. I do sometimes refer to some of them but when there is a clear contradiction, i will always side with the KJB..

[@SM-wi1ed]

Geneva. So different.

[@jimamber3405]

The beautiful KJV represents the pinnacle of the English language as spoken n written in the early 17th century . the 56 language/biblical scholars who worked on the translation were the most qualified group ever assembled !

[@MarkDouglass-dt9ky]

"I used to be King James Only, but ..." (But now I'm a NIV bozo)

[@DanielKrennonline]

He had me until he said that using the King James only is theologically unhealthy. I'd like to see his reasoning for making that statement..

[@Nick2035-zr9ck]

I think he is saying that claiming that we should only read the King James Bible is theologically unhealthy 55:27

[@Countercommie]

I am not a KJVO man, but I am a strong proponent of the KJV. It offers a lot of benefits that the newer translations don't. 1.) The second person plural pronouns are very helpful. You and ye are always plural; thee and thou are always singular. With that in mind, read Luke 22:31-34 for an example of how misleading it can be to have the modern 'you' in every second person case. 2.) The meter (the beat) of the text is excellent for memorizarion because the text is very easily set to a melody. Look up 'scripture songs' on KZbin for examples of this. 3.) Jewish/Greek idioms are mostly left in place in the KJV for the reader to digest. i.e.."they were cut to the heart and gnashed at him with their teeth". (Acts 7:54) New versions tend to interpret these phrases for us and they sometimes overly restrict their meanings. Today, we might use a phrase like "he was broken hearted". To paraphrase this as "he was very dissappinted" is somehow lacking. 4.) The KJV informs the reader of words added for the sake of clarity. These are the italicized words in the KJV. In many cases, this can have an effect on meaning. Most modern readers are aware of only one instance of Jesus saying "I Am" This is John 8:58 in which Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am." In John 18:6 and several other places, Jesus uses the exact same phrase, but modern readers don't know it because "he" has been added after the "I am" and their Bibles don't indicate the addition. Anyway... there are a lot of good reasons to stick with the KJV and get accustomed to its language and peculiarities.

[@flyingVenomusRabbit]

I used to be big into the kjv . Not all that much now. I'm not sure that I have a favorite translation. It's just that between language barriers from old Hebrew and Greek and old English and type of stuff that the typical a U.S. Christian says about God and the bible . I just find myself struggling to makes sense of it all. Of course I have alot of the same views they do but alot of them it's kjv or nothing. We are from different Era where questioning the bible to them is like rejecting God cause that's their goto source

[@gsgidney]

No, you lost me when you basically said to "update the KJV to modern language"

[@RichardDonithan]

Lol cain had his cause when he slew able lol. He was not good however. cain was unadvisedly. I feel a difference in translation here.❤

[@dwashington1333]

the best Sovereign Grace Bible is the Old King James Bible.

[@MichaelSmith-yy8fw]

?? I'm not sure what you are saying. Sovereign Grace ..... Old King James Bible. Older than what? Blessings 🙏. Mike

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

can try defined king james and or TBS westminster. There are also plenty of free kjv commentaries on the internet.

[@dwashington1333]

@@MichaelSmith-yy8fw old King James not to the so called new King James. Sovereign Grace means God chose us for salvation we didn't choose God first.

[@RyanSmith-zk4ve]

That sounds arbitrary. How did you come to that conclusion? How are modern translations of today less "sovereign grace" than the modern translations of yesteryear?

[@dwashington1333]

@@RyanSmith-zk4ve In Matthew 7 modern translations say "difficult is the way to life and few find it" Old King James "narrow is the road few find it" It's not difficult that would be a works based salvation. Narrow is only that road leading to Jesus Christ the only way to salvation and its not difficult it's only by God's grace.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

Tim's position maybe can be called textual evolution.

[@corinnebrosseau6896]

Older doesnt mean correct.

[@troyellis4242]

We have an entire collection of writings by early church fathers that are only found in the manuscripts that the KJV Translators used. So the "Oldest and best manuscript" arguments hold no water at all once you introduce them to verses these modern bibles omit saying we added them in but in 100AD Disciples of Peter and John were using the same verses writting them the same way.

[@peterlowe6064]

Timothy should

[@ian3828]

any version is straight from Satan God's word is God's word Satan's counterfeit version's give us disputes and hercies and confusion and false doctrines

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@jettisonn-dx4eta broken clock is right twice a day

[@countryboyred]

@@jettisonn-dx4etbecause those Christian’s are correct and your tiny little 1 percent cult that denies the divinity of Christ is incorrect and heretical. Ever thought of that one? If you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you aren’t a Christian. Simple as that.