The Best Bible Translation (2024)

Explore the fascinating world of Bible translations in this video! Find out why not all translations are the same and how to choose wisely for your personal study. Don't forget to subscribe for more insightful content on understanding God's @8Bn1rrH3F4/analytics/tab-overview/period-default@8Bn1rrH3F4/analytics/tab-overview/period-default
word!

[@LBNoah316]

English has changed but The Word of GOD. Will Never Change.....

[@nicoleMyYouTubeAccount]

Master deceivers DO change the word of God is why I say your OLD grandparent's KJV would be a best bet as even OLD KJV online is FALSIFIED to say for example "the Serpent was most crafty of the Lord God's creation" when it reads as the Serpent was "NOTHING liks ANYTHING the Lord God created", whom made man "from seed already in the earth" (as opposed to God whom makes seed from nothing) which even that was omitted.

[@coffinmyface4237]

Except for all the times that it has.

[@zekestewart17]

Amen

[@elijahhtoo9384]

​@@coffinmyface4237 I mean if you can give an example I'm hearing you out. Unless you're just regurgitating what someone else said.

[@coffinmyface4237]

@@elijahhtoo9384 there are 900 versions of the bible, every one of which have massively changed the original old testament theological beliefs to such an absurd degree that israel is named after the wrong god. For one example more recent, kjv adds multiple excuses for divorce not originally in the bible, as king james orderd that translation in order to justify the divorces he had already had.

[@Kevin-io4qm]

KJV is the word of God in English

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

I used to read the standard version of the bible, when I was born again, then the Spirit led me to the KJBIBLE, and it's been enough for me: besides, I'm led of the Spirit, not of the letter.. 2corinthians 3:6..

[@codycole3058]

It’s rare to see a person on these that’s awake.

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

@@codycole3058 awake where, in bed or in the flesh, or in the Spirit?

[@faithuncovered]

I am glad you are happy with the KJV.

[@pipeflush]

So if one uses a different translation are they not lead by the spirit ?

[@louisvega-oe2sc]

@@pipeflush there are many translations of the Bible, but not all are from God, I've read different ones, but the Spirit led me to the KJBIBLE.. I don't argue with the Spirit, just follow along!.. If one feels like reading any translation, and are not led of the Spirit then it doesn't matter what it says, if you're not born of the Spirit..

[@biblebeliever1611]

The KJV is the only choice in the English language

[@danmarley2886]

The Holy Ghost leads us into all truth. Otherwise you cannot understand the scriptures, regardless of the translation. I use the KJV, works for me. Beware of dynamic versions!

[@faithuncovered]

I agree it is important to understand what you are reading. Glad the KJV works for you.

[@au7-721]

The KJV is the inspired word of God.

[@haydenmontgomery6]

That’s wild

[@B-M-W1989]

No. But it is a faithful translation of the originals which were.

[@RumCaptain]

Lol!

[@polarfamily6222]

I'll stick to the KJV; better translation and easier to read. :)

[@faithuncovered]

I am glad it works for you.

[@ThePoliticrat]

KJV is still objectively the best from a purely literary perspective

[@faithuncovered]

It does sound beautiful.

[@davenaicker4115]

KJV is the best. Get your facts right. Its copied ftom the textus receptus. All other versions are deceitful and add or take out when translatining.

[@mooshei8165]

It’s not even the best. It’s just a copy of Williams Tynsdale.

[@brock2443]

@@mooshei8165 And the Geneva.

[@B-M-W1989]

What is the textus receptus? Do you mean the Byzantine texts? I don't understand why it matters where the texts come from when they largely agree...

[@tizzin8r]

@@B-M-W1989exactly. “I don’t understand” try the KJV and stick your it and you will begin to understand.

[@B-M-W1989]

@@tizzin8r So... the KJV endorses only exclusively using it as a translation? Your answer means nothing. I was KJVO and could argue all the same points that many KJVO people do but I can't do that anymore because I understand that there's a lot of weird traditionalism that ISN'T biblical in the least that fuels the cultish behavior.

[@MrKnowitall934]

NIV: Not Inspired Version

[@bsan7070]

What does that mean exactly

[@bsmith-kf8zd]

If youre English speaking, the KJV is Gods word in your language

[@EzraCansler]

Amen!

[@CaveManIC]

The KJV really isn't the only translation that should be used. The translators thought so as well.

[@jonkenyon4876]

NASB

[@wardrm5598]

Yes, simple as that.

[@faithuncovered]

We are blessed to live in a time where we far more options then that. Thanks for watching.

[@user-ql8ir1mb2b]

The King James version is the most relevant to the language of those times. It has the best poetic flow and it has languages that are more accurate and relevant to the times of it being written. So what if the English language changed? That doesn't mean it's changed for the better and the more times the Bible gets translated the worse it seems to become. All the people in my church agree with this.. that you should be very very weary of the newer and newer translations. Kjv is the best overall. But I will say this.. as long as you truly are a faithful Christian that's reading their Bible everyday pursuing God everyday fighting your sins every day trying to be better and more like Jesus every single day praying everyday going to church every Sunday going to Bible study every now and then and you're actually trying to dedicate your life to God and follow in the path he has laid out for you.. He is not going to let you become deceived. He will lead you for one to the right translation for you or if you're reading a translation and you do become deceived he will put somebody in your life to help set it straight. But again, I warn everybody to be very very weary of the newest translations. You can't go wrong with the King James version. There may be some mathematical disparities but in terms of the language and what Jesus taught and the translations in what he said and what the old prophet said in the Old testament, it's the best. And let me tell you another reason why it's better and how I know it's the best.. Because I reference it with a Strong's Concordance from the 70s. You all need to get yourself a strong concordance and you need to get a little bit of an older one if you can. Something that predates the 80s if possible. There are many of them out there you can even get ones from the twenties. I've seen one from 1918 I think it was that I'm looking on getting just because I want to have it. Get a Strong's concordance and stick to your King James version and not the new King James version the original King James Version

[@sanukrjha]

I use the NKJV translation. It doesn't omit any verse. But it has extra informations in every page and for every verse which are either removed or differently translated in other translations. I love it.

[@wardrm5598]

The KJV is the most accurate Bible translation that native English speakers have. My preference is a copy of the 1611 KJV which has an included apocrypha section between the OT & NT.

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for sharing your preference. The KJV is indeed significant, but modern translations benefit from older and more reliable manuscripts, making them often more accurate. Language changes over time, so modern versions aim to be clearer for today's readers while maintaining the Bible's truths. The KJV is valuable, but exploring other translations can also enhance understanding.

[@motofast54]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[@faithuncovered]

I agree. It's important not to be beholden to any one English translation. They are not inspired by God; only the original text is.

[@Eryk178]

@@faithuncoveredcan you show me the 1st edition "originals"?

[@faithuncovered]

Great question! The original manuscripts, known as the autographs, no longer exist. What we have are copies and fragments from the earliest available texts. These have been meticulously compared and studied to create the translations we use today. How do you approach studying these translations to ensure you're rightly dividing the word of truth?

[@motofast54]

they show the work of the law written on their hearts; and their conscience also bears them witness, when their thoughts either rebuke or defend one another,..

[@ntkmw8058]

@@faithuncoverednope, there are lots of manuscripts that differ greatly from each other. In fact, the NIV was made from a manuscript found in the trash at an Egyptian monastery, ready to be thrown into the fire. Why would the manuscript be in the trash if it weren’t useless and heretical?

[@michaeljamesreed9054]

This video is a Jesuit lie. The KJV used the Antioch-originated textus receptus manuscripts for the most accurate and best possible English translation over all other versions, especially the Latin vulgate used by Romanism that came from Alexandria Egypt, and was riddled with errors, edits, and contradictions. The English language at the time of king James is the most specific (ie thee, thy, thou etc.) and the most beautiful, powerful, and understandable compared to any other time in historical English.

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I respect your passion for the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The KJV is indeed a significant translation that has profoundly impacted English-speaking Christianity. However, it's important to recognize a few points: Manuscript Sources: While the Textus Receptus is one of the sources for the KJV, it's essential to note that modern translations often use a broader range of manuscripts, including earlier and more diverse sources. This helps provide a more accurate representation of the original texts. Language Evolution: The English of the KJV, while beautiful and poetic, can be challenging for contemporary readers to understand fully. Modern translations aim to make the Bible accessible to today's audience without compromising the message. Translation Purpose: The goal of any Bible translation is to convey God's word accurately and understandably. Different translations can serve this purpose for different people, depending on their linguistic and cultural context. I appreciate your commitment to the KJV, and I hope we can both agree on the importance of studying and understanding the Bible deeply. Thank you for your engagement.

[@EzraCansler]

Amen! KJBO!

[@williamanon2050]

The KJV altered its translation due to the King’s agenda, and is not very accurate relative to other translations. Don’t let the fact that it has history cloud the fact that it does not do a good job of conveying the original intent of the authors of the Bible

[@michaeljamesreed9054]

@@williamanon2050 You need to be seen and not heard when the adults are speaking. Study manuscript history for ten years then you might be able to join this conversation. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

[@williamanon2050]

@@michaeljamesreed9054 Such haughtiness from a dogmatic buffoon. If you have truly studied manuscript history for ten years and have not yet realized the KJV is incredibly biased, dogmatic, and outdated given 400 years of scholarship since it's first release, then I weep for you.

[@TrevynPlays]

Don’t spread lies. The KJV is the only version that is true. The NIV & others take away & add to God’s word that is a sin.

[@faithuncovered]

What about the NKJV it has the same verses?

[@nickk964]

NASB is a direct translation from the oldest known manuscripts to modern english. I dont think that's an accurate statement.

[@faithuncovered]

@nickk964 I agree

[@TheSignofJonah777]

@@nickk964 Love that and ESV make sure it uses begotten son

[@baltichammer6162]

You are a prime example of violating God's commands against lying & deceit, while portraying to be a Bible believer. The KJV is favored because some people love how it tickles their ears which they mistake for godliness. It has so many problems its dumbfounding. Even deliberate mistranslation.

[@keeper_id]

My personal favorite that I've been reading is the Jerusalem Bible. Absolutely beautiful book through and through and very easy to pick up!

[@amalrajxavier]

❤ conscience is the real translation

[@lorenzoSr22]

Look at all the comments and the OPs replies. This person's emotions are compromised. This video didn't go as expected for them.

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching, this video did exactly what we wanted. Now we get to talk to people about this topic.

[@cdlahm7571]

If it don’t have “he that pisseth against the wall”, it ain’t inspired

[@faithuncovered]

not sure i know where that is, why is it so meaningful to you?

[@TheNationOfTexas]

@@faithuncovered I think he was just being humorous, but here’s the scriptures: 1 Samuel 25:22: “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.” 1 Kings 16:11: “And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.” 2 Kings 9:8: “For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.”

[@mooneymakes359]

Now thats what I am talking about a real scholar.

[@JoshuaSarles]

@@mooneymakes359and a gentleman

[@ArmorForToday]

I appreciate the humor in this because I had a pastor that said something similar but it was more like that one says “he that pisseth on the wall” and the other (NKJV) says “the men pee on the wall.” I do feel it is however a bit ignorant to say that if it isn’t written that way then it isn’t inspired. The Bible wasn’t written in KJV, it was written in Hebrew and Greek and using your logic then it can’t be inspired. As it was mentioned in the video, we don’t talk that way and the language has changed. For instance. Using a Bible Greek and Hebrew dictionary. Go look up the word terrible. In today’s English there is absolutely no way it would mean something that is held in awe or something that is revered, it would just simply mean something that was really horrible. Another example is fear as in fear the LORD. Should you fear the LORD? Absolutely. And should there be an aspect of fear as we see fear today? Absolutely. But not in the sense of being terrified or afraid of,which would be today’s definition of fear. And I see people a lot of times say something like “why should I fear the one I’m supposed to worship. Because it’s not fear in the be afraid sense, it’s fear in the reverence because He made me sense. The language has changed and because of that there are modern English translations, but that doesn’t mean they come from different manuscripts or contain any less inspired material.

[@OrthoJason]

Response to the comments and to this video: The KJV is not the inspired word of God, but it is not the worst translation either. It's a decent translation but slightly inaccurate. The NKJV is most likely the most accurate English Bible, due to its correction on old English and errors. Remember, the KJV is, NOT, what the Apostles and Prophets wrote. It is, NOT, the original Bible. It is simply a translation of the original Bible.

[@ethanfritz-ub5jn]

Amen 🙏

[@raychristenson6455]

Actually read king james version and his book Daemonology and it explains exactly what is happening today. Demons and evil spirits represent corporations and institutions, witchcraft represents the pharmaceutical industry, poison for profit. The legal realm of personhood represented by God's ape. Its exactly what you should read. The Catholic Apocrypha has some hidden knowledge as well when put in context. Plus Latin Roman characters for spell casting.

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching, we will probably just stick to the bible only, thanks anyway.

[@internetmarketingconsultant]

For Catholics, it's the ones prescribed by the Catholic Church ... NRSV-CE or CTS-NCB.

[@tizzin8r]

Anything other than KJV is a distraction led to deceive and hide from the true word of god. This can be proven in so many ways even mathematically if you research deeply and the KJV is beautifully written. Reading the KJV will broaden your vocabulary and takes true practice,determination and discipline to grasp.

[@38calibercoffee]

The KJV is not bound by copyright laws. You can copy/paste or print out the whole Bible without risking any type of judicial ramifications.

[@faithuncovered]

That is because it is part of public domain, otherwise it would be the same as anything else. Which also has nothing to do with anything.

[@B-M-W1989]

Except in Britain.

[@felipecordero1018]

Stay away from the NLT. They add repent of your sins to the Bible which “repent” and “repent of sins” are two different things. Repent means to change your mind from the Greek word metanoia. People are called to repent from certain sins throughout the Bible based on the context but repent of sins to be saved was added to the NLT version.

[@antoniocastillo8360]

What is your opinion on the NKJV “New King James Version” hope to get some feedback, God Bless🙏❤️

[@bonnieblue-blade7376]

KJV 🙏

[@faithuncovered]

Do you believe we can translate the Bible?

[@jonkenyon4876]

NASB

[@S3P7]

​@@faithuncoveredNo, because there hasn't been a Bible invented yet that has an exact translation. Besides, many other Bibles have taken out verses and words from their Bible version. The KJV is the least polluted English Bible. The style of writing can be understood by all English readers today.

[@RealAlexiosIKomnenos]

Don’t read the ESV don’t read the Nasb they are missing verses in the Bible. I have checked Matthew 17 21. Your best bet is the new King James version

[@KingofthaJews]

The King James Version is still the greatest English Bible. The English language has deteriorated greatly, do your brain and soul a favor, go kjv.

[@faithuncovered]

I appreciate your perspective on the KJV. It’s definitely a classic and has had a huge impact on many Christians. The Bible allows for translation, and it's important to have versions that people can understand and connect with in their current language. Do you think the KJV is inspired?

[@matthewgordon3281]

It's the least accurately translated. Of course, the whole thing is nonsense so I guess it doesn't matter.

[@deanpost152]

​@@faithuncoveredI prefer the KJV, but we shouldn't be arguing about which one is better...we should be spreading the Word of God

[@EzraCansler]

Amen!

[@jonkenyon4876]

NASB

[@timrose4310]

Except when the thought for thought version appears to contradict the word for word version

[@faithuncovered]

That is why it is important to understand the limitations of each, and why we recommend having several versions to read.

[@Shiranu17]

Another good practice is to find the Greek/Hebrew it's taken from and at least give it a basic translation and read, try to hear it in that voice - the tone, cadence between then and now has also changed and I find this helps me picture the writer's intention a bit better.

[@faithuncovered]

Very good, we are so blessed to have so many tools to help us understand God's word better and better.

[@bsan7070]

Great video on translations!

[@KatyaKirk]

I'm still a big fan of KJV. Such a beautiful language!

[@faithuncovered]

I agree, the language is beautiful! I started my walk with the KJV. It was good for its time and still can be good, but there are better translations today.

[@adammarcusxi]

A fair and helpful video for people with this common question. It’s too bad you guys are such purists about the KJV. The most important thing is for people to be able to absorb the Word. If they can’t stand reading the KJV, that’s ok. Don’t cause a brother or sister to stumble.

[@St.DemetriostheMyrrhGusher]

The DRA is the greatest translations.

[@ezequielbriones6943]

The words in the KJV you can look up And read the definition. Then you get a better understanding

[@faithuncovered]

The issue isn't just the words you don't know; it's the words you think you know. For example, "let" in the KJV means "hinder," and "conversation" means "conduct" or "behavior." These shifts in meaning can lead to misunderstandings. Why can't we use a modern translation and still look up the words for deeper understanding? Using contemporary language helps ensure clarity while still allowing for in-depth study.

[@eshoosca]

Or you can just read an up to date translation

[@faithuncovered]

@@eshoosca I agree!

[@jonkenyon4876]

King James was a womanizer. they need to name it something else. i read the NASB.

[@claytonsmith6148]

@@faithuncovered There are two issues here. First is that we have a degraded English, and a dumbed down society. There are fixes for this that I can help with. The other is textual base of modern bibles come from a questionable, corrupt, and fraudulent text base of 3-main manuscripts(Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). The text base for the KJB, Reformed era Bibles, and some more recent translations, are from the TR/Majority text/Byzantine type text 5000 plus copies 99.04%. This doesn't include ancient Bibles, other non-Greek text, or the early Church leaders quotes. I'll do more later.

[@tustinian6876]

I don’t recommend thought-for-thought translations because it is a human trying to interpret God’s meaning. What God says in word-for-word is there for a reason. Some ideas in thought-for-thought are completely false

[@faithuncovered]

While you should rely on a word for word translation. A thought for thought can help give you a better understanding of intent. But treat it only slightly better then a commentary

[@KFish-bw1om]

The ESV and NASB are my top 2. I also like the LSB, only because I kinda like the use of Yahweh, and the fact that they reversed the very unnecessary updates to the NASB. Most of the time I read the ESV though. I think it is actually the most readable, while still being extremely accurate. I don't care for the "though for thought" translations. They don't really seem "more readable" to me. It often actually feels like a lot if extra language was kinda shoved in where it doesn't belong. It's like taking a sentence that's perfectly clear and concise, and then rewording it just to say the same thing in a more convoluted way. Don't like that, and it's very weird and awkward to me when I read it. I actually started out with a CSB, which isn't bad, but I felt that awkward unnatural rephrasing of things when reading it, so I switched.

[@GogglesOstrich]

The NIV and NLT and other translations of this type tend to have Phobe as a deacon. Which contradicts the "husband of one wife" used while describing a deacon (1 Timothy 3:12). I read the ESV because it's word for word and the NIV/NLT on other matters. So, I agree with this video. I'm just telling this so people know. 😄❤️✝️

[@faithuncovered]

We agree that is a bad translation choice for her role as a servant of God.

[@stevene-jiengoh9282]

Lies and fools who can’t read use other false books. KJB for life and to those who refuse are damning themselves

[@faithuncovered]

Does the bible say that? Or so that your personal opinion that your binding where God has not spoken?

[@stevene-jiengoh9282]

@@faithuncovered I apologize for not making it clear, your books and traditions of man has omitted The God of The Bible you clearly reject to be The Truth! You serve a different god I don’t know of or want any part of.

[@grantc9012]

@@stevene-jiengoh9282 That's unfortunate for the billions of non-English speakers around the world. Too bad they're all damned for not being able to read the KJV.

[@faithuncovered]

That is the part that is mind boggling. How could someone have such a narrow view of the world. Its like they never looked up to see that they are sharing this world with a couple billion other people.

[@brothermarion8224]

The best Bible is a.... READ Bible... ✝️🙏🇺🇲

[@BWBParmwrestling]

I'm shocked at the quantity of people in these comments who swear by only the KJV. I genuinely wonder why this particular version captivates people so. Perhaps the prose, which is impressive, but not essential to the information therein contained. Despite the most obvious critique from scholars and linguists alike, they will irrationally cling to their translation last edited the better part of 300 years ago which is based on 0.1% of the manuscripts we now have access to and containing some 20 words that do not exist anymore. To each their own, but... there is a better way. edit: if I were forced to pick ONLY ONE, I like the NET. If you like footnotes, you will too :)

[@confessor4943]

For real, I'm wondering if many of them are bots. The heavy handedness is very cult like to me. I saw one that basically said you were damned if you aren't kjv only. It's like a mind virus, or like I said, just bots pushing agendas.

[@klaycormac]

I like the Geneva Bible and King James personally

[@simpumoon]

I’m a big KJV guy, the language’s got a curve for modern English, but it was (and still is) for common folk. It’s beautiful, and great with being “word-for-word” without sounding google translated from Greek and Hebrew. I don’t like “thought-for-thought” translations since they sound more like commentaries than scriptures, so I highly recommend the KJV, and with the internet, look up commentaries on parts you go over. And meditate on the word, the Lord wants us to think about him, and be with him! So again, highly recommend KJV for everyone, it was written for that purpose, and it’s a great way to read scripture!

[@faithuncovered]

We definitely need to be careful with thought for thought. I think we should treat them as a commentary, and i usually read them one step before i go to a commentary. There are many word for translations today that are also very helpful. The learning curve for the kjv for those not raised in the church is very steep. IT can be done. but i have spent alot of extra time talking about archaic words instead of studying what God said with new converts. It is better for most of the modern english speakers to just find a more modern word for word so that we are not wrestling with the english no one sues today.

[@GangsterofloveSpacecowboy]

KVJ for me ❤

[@holyexperience1976]

5 or 6 years ago, where I used to live, was a congregation literally in the back yard. I went there briefly and for the first time, heard HCSB. I been using it shortly after I started going there. After that, I very briefly went with NLT, but went back to HCSB for the audio. My attention span sadly now allows me to do KJV. Plus, I do better with modern language, like 101 instead of one hundred and one, you instead of thou and thy.

[@faithuncovered]

I have been trying out the HCSB for the last year as my secondary bible for reading. I am very pleased with it.

[@kendenning6517]

Got a question. In your clip you said something about the KJV using faulty manuscripts. What manuscripts did it use?

[@friendlyolbum]

Wouldn't it be easier to name the manuscripts it did not use?

[@kendenning6517]

@friendlyolbum well that works. All I know is that King James had 48 scholars cover Europe in search of the oldest manuscripts. Came back and complied the KJV. Which is really really close to the Vulcate. I've got both and cross-referenced them. There's not much difference except separating the apocrypha. King James did publish the apocrypha separately. This means that Jerome did a good job with the Vulcate or King James's scholars copied the Vulcate. I'm thinking Jerome did good in 400 AD something and the KJV works proves it. Which means the Vulcate & the KJV is the closest we have to the original manuscripts. The Geneva Bible is basically a KJV with the apocrypha & Job Calvin & Job Knotts commentary, but it preceded it a few decades. I'd much rather use something as close to the original as possible. Wouldn't you? New translations like the NIV are OK, but I always cross-referenced it with the KJV to make sure it's correct.

[@friendlyolbum]

@kendenning6517 I'd much prefer something like the ESV over NIV but I believe that the more manuscripts we have under our belt to cross reference the better. So much has been discovered since the KJV was compiled. I've listened to the debates on KJV only ism and have to side with James White on the issue.

[@kendenning6517]

@friendlyolbum who is James White? Haven't heard of any new found manuscripts, have heard of manuscripts that weren't in the KJV because they didn't line up with multiple manuscripts available at the time. They are still in existence. Quite a few. There's a possibility that a manuscript could be found in an old Abby or Monastery somewhere, but I'd be skeptical until proven authentic. You have to remember that there was an explosion of writings that was circulated, starting in 200-300 AD. Gnostic biblical writings to name one. Which makes finding writings as close to the original gospels difficult, then and now. They are figments of the imagination attributed to the apostles but not associated with them. That was a criteria for the gospels, Hebrews almost didn't make it because it couldn't be definitely associated with any apostles. Its writing is so biblically sound that it was included... I'm not a KJV proponent, there are some good modern translations. I've got many different Bibles, some are down right heresy. Most try to modernize the English language but lose the full meaning of the text, and some add to it. That's why I use the KJV in cross referencing new material... The KJV was written because there were multiple different English Bibles. Most were incomplete or edited. The Geneva Bible was complete, but because of Calvin & Knotts one-sided commentary, it was rejected by King James. James wanted a complete, no edited, no commentary Bible as close to the original writings as possible. (It's sad that people will take a KJV and add their own two cents worth in a commentary and print it as a complete Bible.) The KJV was published in 1611 after many years of work. People today don't realize that the KJV was updated 3 times until the early 1800s because the English language was changing so fast. The last in the 1960s, the NKJV. I've got a copy of the original KJV version, which i can't fully read or understand... No where in my comment did I say I was a KJV only guy. I use it to compare new Bibles, being the oldest version I can read, except for the Vulcate. I'm not Catholic, so I use the KJV, but sometimes I'll break out my Vulcate to cross-referenced my KJV. That way, I know I'm reading as close to the original scriptures as possible.

[@friendlyolbum]

@kendenning6517 well to name one example, the dead sea scrolls were found post KJV. Thanks for the info, I'll have to look into some of this. To answer your question, James White is a Christian author, debater, and PHD focused on church history and textual criticism. He has a lot of speeches and debates that center around the transmission of the text of scripture. He has debates on yt with KJV only its and wrote a book called the kjv only controversy. He would be a resource to challenge your current knowledge! Certainly better than I am

[@MalcolmCollins-os7qz]

Dont NIV omit verses.

[@faithuncovered]

Yes, the NIV omits some verses, but so do other translations like the KJV and NLT. These differences happen because translators use various ancient manuscripts. No translation is perfect or directly inspired by God. Have you compared different translations yourself?

[@allangoldstraw6179]

The older versions of the KJV are more accurate than this video would have you think, it is the more modern translations of the scriptures including the new KJV that are adding to or taking away words thereby altering the meaning that was given, this is not to be done according to Revelation 22.19 upon pain of having your name removed from the book of life ! Naturally there is an argument from many that a translation cannot be complete as many words from other languages do not literally translate but that is a cure no one really has an illness for, Jesus said this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the world and then the end will come.

[@faithuncovered]

So if the KJV is the only acceptable English translation. What about the thousands of languages the bible has been translated into? Do they only have version that is correct? In fact why wouldn't rev 22 apply to the Greek that the bible was written in not the English that it was changed into 1500 years after the bible was completed?

[@allangoldstraw6179]

@@faithuncovered This is just splitting hairs & the KJV is a good translation but I did not say it is the only good translation, note that scholars have tried to disprove the validity / accuracy of the KJV by comparing it with the dead sea scrolls and were unable to do so or discredit the KJV as being an inaccurate translation as the translators had the Textus Receptus which matches the scrolls. As for other translations around the world faithful biblical translators have always rendered as accurate works as they could due to their knowledge and understanding of the scriptures resulting in the good news of the kingdom to come being preached throughout the world as Jesus said it would be.

[@faithuncovered]

No one is saying the kjv is a bad translation for what it is. Its just old with out dated English. The fact that the KJV was so similar to the dead sea scrolls is not only an argument for the kjv reliability, but all English translation reliability. In the end the differences are minute and make no difference on doctrine. Or at leas should not. All of the word for word modern translations are very similar to the kjv.

[@allangoldstraw6179]

@@faithuncovered I disagree that it is just a case of modern vs old English, if that was the only problem then there would be no apparent differences to raise concern. Naturally I make no criticism of anyone reading any version as they are obviously seeking out truth. Some modern bibles have been altered more for purposes of poetic licence than unsure provenance. Both word for word, thought for thought and paraphrased. A 1611 KJV is considered a most complete work for what might be called purists, it appears in the pursuit of less is more less has achieved nothing more than less.

[@AmAxel35]

Excellently stated. I have a NKJV myself for readability but I have the ESV on my phone for cross referencing. Imo there will never be a perfect localization of the Bible to English, possibly any language so it's great to also have something word for word that may read like crap, but you can be confident in getting context for your preferred translation. For instance the "problem" of Ahaziah's age (42 or 22?) is easily solved through using both in tandem.

[@LoganYunn]

Yet another guy who doesn’t believe God preserved His word for us in English…

[@Billy-Brown]

Satan getting his hook right in there

[@faithuncovered]

By confusing people with the archaic language of the kjv? I agree, i know of several false doctrines that are finally dying because people are willing to look at other translations.

[@lorenzoSr22]

Archaic language of the KJV, wow lol, you should not be preaching. There is no love in your replies, but pure ego and pride. The devil is a liar.

[@caven930]

Wow. The NIV is the least accurate. It was written to be compelling, so to sound more like a story. Some text were removed to make it so. While I support reading the ESV, some text are missing from it as well. I would recommend reading the ESV for better comprehension with comparison to the KJV.

[@faithuncovered]

We recommend reading multiple translations with the idea that we understand what it is strengths and weakness are so that we can gain the best understanding of Gods word.

[@bernardyancy8552]

Why do so many Bibles other than the KJV leave out not only pertinent words like the blood of Christ lessoning the true meaning or completely leaving whole verses out This is Satan at his best trying to deceive people who know not Christ or the Bible.

[@faithuncovered]

Certain translations make certain choices in translations that the KJV didnt make. But others keep the same verses. The great thing is one way or the other nothing is lost that cannot be found somewhere else in the bible. The translation variants make no difference to doctrine.

[@grantc9012]

The ESV is my personal favorite for general use. It's highly accurate with excellent scholarship, and they made vocabulary and grammar updates in all the right areas while still preserving the elegance of the old KJV renderings. A+

[@darryldanzinger9996]

Show me Acts 8:47 in ESV. OH thats right, its not there. Wheres the accuracy?

[@grantc9012]

@@darryldanzinger9996 How do you know those omitted NT verses are supposed to be there and weren't added later? Some verses are omitted based on the consensus of bible scholars who conclude that they were likely not present in the earliest manuscripts.

[@faithuncovered]

ESV is definitely in my rotation.

[@claytonsmith6148]

@@grantc9012 False! The ESV and others are based on Alexandrian type text(Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus 3-copies .06% of manuscripts). These 3 are highly problematic, as being corrupt, and fraudulent. The modern Church has been deceived, and lied to. I can show you how, and why? There are plenty of ancient text that support the TR/Majority text/Byzantine type text with 5000 plus copies 99.04%! With no missing verses, words, phrases, passages, brackets, or notes! These notes are disingenuous, because they fail to mention the ancient non-Greek text, ancient Bibles, and early Church leaders quotes. So if you are a Berean, and wish to learn? I look forward to hearing from you!

[@ThePsyko420]

Why would an omniscient being that wants to be understood write something that requires such an excessive amount of work to understand? Why wouldn't it just write a work that would be understood by all regardless of the readers' language?

[@brock2443]

One should never use the Not Inspired Version (NIV), or any version that omits 1 John 5:7, or gender neutral versions.

[@martinp.249]

Its true that not everyone is comfortable reading KJV especially if English is not their first language. For those people I would recommend NKJV. KJV however is a mathematical miracle. Some of the paterns lined up with the addition of verse numbers and others with the evolution of the english language up until then. Most of them cannot be found without a modern computer and a Biblical search engine. A lot of those paterns disappear in later versions. I can't judge people's heart and certainly not their relationship with Christ but I think whatever Bible is chosen for reading one should at least look into, study and be aware of God's mathematical autograph on the King James version.

[@faithuncovered]

Yes i am very concerned about putting up unnecessary obstacles for new converts. The patterns you mention are intriguing, but it's important to remember that the original manuscripts of the Bible did not include verse numbers or chapters. These were added later to help with navigation. The focus should be on the accuracy and faithfulness of the translation to the original texts.

[@martinp.249]

@@faithuncovered I agree with you. Here's an example of what I meant when I said some paterns formed with the addition of verses; When Jesus performed the 153 fishes miracle, the names of the people on that boat appear in 153 verses. That's one example. When Jesus says to forgive 7x70 times ( equals 490). The name Jesus ( excluding anti-mentions so not counting the people named Jesus that aren't the Messiah) appears 490 times in even books of the new Testament and 490 times in odd books. Even though odd books have roughly 50000 words more then even books. The 490th mention of Jesus comes right after he says he is one with the Father. Now with just these examples one could easily say it's a coincidence but there are thousands. If you count Holy Bible on the cover and each number in the book as one word, KJV has a total of 823543 words. That's 7⁷ ( 7x7x7x7x7x7x7) I suggest you look up the works of Brandon Peterson. His compilation book is thicker then my Bible and more have been discovered since he released it. The book is called Sealed By The King. It's available free digital or you can get a physical copy for a few bucks. He also has a KZbin channel called Truth is Christ. ( I have no affiliation with him and gain nothing from this). He's just years ahead of me in this matter One of my favorite paterns is the 1611 one. 🙏❤

[@faithuncovered]

Very interesting thank you for sharing.

[@martinp.249]

@@faithuncovered 🙏 ❤

[@christiansoldier77]

KJV is always the best

[@danddhampstudio]

I use KJV, and ESV

[@darryldanzinger9996]

So KJV was good enough for over 400 years, but now its not?

[@faithuncovered]

Exactly, it actually has not been good enough for probably 50 years. It can only be adapted so far. The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, first published in 1611, has undergone several updates and revisions. Here are the major updates: 1629 and 1638: Minor revisions to correct printing errors and to update the text to more closely follow the original manuscripts. 1762 (Cambridge) and 1769 (Oxford): Significant revisions overseen by Dr. F.S. Paris in Cambridge (1762) and Dr. Benjamin Blayney in Oxford (1769). These revisions standardized spelling and punctuation, and made thousands of minor changes to the text. These are the major official revisions. There have also been numerous editions and printings where minor typographical errors were corrected. However, the 1769 Blayney edition is the version that is commonly in use today and is often referred to when people mention the KJV. So, the KJV has had two major updates since its original 1611 publication, in 1629 and 1769.

[@user-sh7wz9nh8v]

1611AKJV ONLY ANY BIBLE OTHER. THE AUTHORIZED 1611 KING JAMES VERSION I'LL PRAY FOR ALL TO ABBA ASK IN YESHUA'S NAME AND ALLOW THE HOLY SPIRIT TO GUIDE ME AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT 1611AKJV IS THE WORD AMEN

[@brothermarion8224]

If your KJV Bible doesn't have the apocrypha it ISN'T a 1611. It's a 1769 KJV Bible.

[@user-ye9hl9uk3o]

Im just glad im Catholic.... Becuase they can say in truth what we are able to read. (Christ gave them the authority) Vulgate all the way tho 🤩

[@faithuncovered]

Who gave them the authority for that? The bible was completely written by 100AD and the catholic church didn't show up for a couple hundred years later.

[@nubSawace]

Keep a KJV in the house, then use bible hub for study.

[@TheLordismyshepard414]

Best option is to learn hebrew.

[@dumbboi4783]

Protestants 😂 they are so silly lol

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching.

[@orandegellogaming4793]

I think we call all agree the Hawaiian Pidgin Bible is truly the best

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

I use the Christian Standard Bible and the new American Standard Bible both 95 and the 2020. I will also use the Holman Christian Standard Bible from time to time

[@faithuncovered]

Very good translations, we use these all the time.

[@user-co5gg7ru9w]

Nkv takes away words .... Do your research

[@faithuncovered]

It doesn't matter how many words one English translation has compared to another. It matters how they compare to the Greek or Hebrew they are translated from. How accurate are they in translating the words and intent of the original author.

[@Ghost-we7yo]

Sounds like heresy to me

[@faithuncovered]

Which part, do you have a bible verse?

[@timmorales1569]

The nib is just someone else’s thoughts on what the Bible means. If you want to chose a Bible it should be the KJV. The english language might be different today but that’s what it translates to. If a Bible is someone else’s thoughts. You should stay away from it bc some of these are even changed and the Bible tells us clearly that’s wrong.

[@speedoggy]

Galatians) 6:10 TS2009‬ So then, as we have occasion, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the HOUSEHOLD of the BELIEF/FAITH. (The Renewed OR New Covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34 This HOUSEHOLD ❤ ISRAEL & JUDAH are we Grafted Into that faith/belief?) Exodus 12:49 is Romans 11:23-25 ☝We got to get this right. Which GOOD NEWS do we follow? ‭(Galatians 1:8-9 KJV‬) [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching.

[@speedoggy]

@@faithuncovered It doesn't matter which bible we use all need correction from strongs to ancient hebrew lexicons that's how we study our bible not by just reading a translation. You didn't like verses I shared above & comment? What Good News do you follow not the one I mention above?

[@faithuncovered]

WE also recommend having lexicons as resources.

[@speedoggy]

@@faithuncovered example Hebrew#4899 Mashiach Translation to Greek#3323 Messias translation to English is Messiah question is who replaced it with christos? Rome

[@KylewithanL]

KJV

[@brothergerasimos-bd3pq]

One thing you should add is that the KJV was originally meant for Anglicans.

[@gtgodbear6320]

KJV is the only inspired word of the Lord. The new versions are missing thousands of words and completely change the context of the scriptures. Don't fall for this crap.

[@faithuncovered]

Wasn't it the Greek text that was inspired. Everything else is a translation. You can say you think they did a better job. But it is a translation just like everything else.

[@TheNationOfTexas]

I love the KJV for its poetic syntax. That being said, I use NKJV, ESV and now NASB for my personal study. However I ALWAYS go back to the Greek or Hebrew. If we’re going to study God’s word, shouldn’t we be as diligent as possible? I think it’s very dangerous to park on one translation, and shut out everything else. When you look at the original languages and compare them with modern translations, you start seeing the pros and cons in each one. God bless and happy studying!

[@faithuncovered]

Amen, this is the answer right here, use multiple tools will make us better students. Thanks for watching.

[@claytonsmith6148]

I used the NIV(78&840, and the NASB(77&95) for more than 30 yrs, along with the KJB. The missing verses, words, phrases, passages, brackets, and notes never set well with me in my spirit. So the Berean in me kicked in, and began to search out the matter. The underlying text of most modern bibles come from 3-main text Alexandrian type(Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus). These are all problematic at their core, I can show you how they are corrupt, fraudulent text. The KJB, the Reformed era Bibles, and some newer ones: NKJV, MEV, MLV, WEB, along with KJV variants: KJV2000, KJV21, KJVER, and Simplified KJV. These all come from the TR/Majority text/Byzantine type text 5000 plus copies 99.04% of manuscripts. This does not include ancient non-Greek text, ancient Bibles, and early Church leaders quotes. I can show how these are the only true Biblical manuscripts, and that the KJB is the perfect, pure, inspired Word of God!

[@chrispinelli]

Wow, such horrible information. English hasn't changed much in 400 years. There are maybe 50 words that need to be defined in order to understand it. The KJV is translated from the majority text, so it's based on a collection of over 5,000 texts. Modern translations are based on the minority text such as Sinaiticus.

[@faithuncovered]

The English language has changed significantly in 400 years, making the KJV challenging for modern readers without additional study. In fact it had o be updated in 1629 with some fixes, and then in 1769 it had a major update for the express purpose of readability. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which is based on fewer than a dozen late Byzantine manuscripts, not from "over 5,000 texts." Modern translations use a critical text, incorporating thousands of manuscripts from various traditions, including older and more reliable Alexandrian manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus. Thus, modern translations are based on a broader and more comprehensive manuscript evidence than the KJV.

[@user-zc9ei2bm2k]

Peace be with the Lord,amen.

[@taylorclark1082]

The KJV is way more accurate, look at the nev, when Jacob has a dream about heavens fate, in the NEV he says it's Awesome in the KJV he says it's dreadfull! Big difference

[@bigcoop70]

Ya but in KJB there are 7x7x7x7x7x7x7 823,543 words+verses+Chapters And Jesus*+Christ*=777+777 in KJV And Jesus*=980x -3 antimentions which is 70x7+70x7 And Father+Son=70x7 490x -antimentions

[@faithuncovered]

And in what world does that convince anyone of anything? The chapters and verses are not biblical they were added later be man, GOd had nothing to do with them in any way what soever. And there examples where they didnt even do that good of a job. All these numbers are meaningless. We are to teach Jesus and him Crucified. WE are to preach the good news of the resurrection. That is what convinces people to give them selves to God. Not how many 7s you can find.

[@bigcoop70]

@@faithuncovered good luck to you Not only are there 7^7 words in KJB divide it into OT+NT OT=634,555. 634=Moses in the Law and 555=Christ NT=188,983. 188=Book and 983=Jesus 634,555+188,983=823,538+Holy Bible King James Version gives you 823,543 HUMBLE YOURESELF

[@bigcoop70]

@@faithuncovered Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them Revelation 5:1And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. I’m sure you do know about all the thousands and hundreds of errors in NEW perversions though I’m not sure if you have studied or not but maybe you should look into it

[@faithuncovered]

I am aware of the difference between translations. Are you suggesting that the book in Rev 5:1 is specifically the English language kjv bible? There are problems and weaknesses with all translations that is why having more than one is so important.

[@williamanon2050]

The translations you recommended are biased, a good unbiased translation that tries to capture the original meaning of the text as much as possible would be the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for your recommendation we will take a look. I know the ones we recommended are pretty popular. Every translation will have some bias to it.

[@chooloopatoast8983]

Any thoughts on the Dake NKJV?

[@faithuncovered]

Generally we avoid anything that could be considered adding commentary to the bible. We are fine with commentaries or guides. But they should not be in the same book as your bible there is a bad habit we have seen that people treat it like it is the word of God.

[@chooloopatoast8983]

@@faithuncovered Thank you for the feed back. I was given a Dake from my grandma a few years ago and haven't really questioned it until recently. Heard good and bad things about it, just not sure which other versions to look into that are solid and word for word in its translations

[@miriamalsaidi5715]

Stop lying with that niv fake bible and read the king James version

[@faithuncovered]

If you dont like the NIV that is fine there are plenty of other literal translations that still use more modern language.

[@briant1976]

KJV ONLY

[@DK-nq9wv]

This is false information, that KJV is based on fewer and less accurate manuscripts.

[@Doc7-mf2fe]

Man their is so many people in comment section obsessed with kjv

[@TheOldMenGC]

Thats because they want to preach there favorite fabricated verses.

[@faithuncovered]

We knew that this was a belief out there but you are right the response is interesting. It is sad that we are stuck on something like this.

[@faithuncovered]

Yeah, the KJV has a lot of passionate supporters! It's a respected translation with a long history, but it's always good to compare it with other translations to get a well-rounded understanding of the Bible. What translations do you prefer to read?

[@TheOldMenGC]

@@faithuncovered I like to read the NIV, because its based on much older manuscripts then the KJV and shows you where the KJV fabricated verses like for example 1 John 5:7. The Trinity verse. They also removed the word begotton from John 3:16. Also not found in the older manuscripts and many many more. However i do like the language of the KJV.

[@faithuncovered]

I do like the language of the old KJV. However, it's important to be mindful of all translations.

[@corwynprice1065]

What bothers me about this is the fact that it’s harder for Catholics to choose a Bible translation like that, do you know how many Catholic Bible translations there are? Not a lot, what’s even more irritating is that the Catholic Bible was the original Bible, but then some dude named Martin Luther comes in and cuts out some books and everyone calls that the Bible, it’s just so irritating

[@faithuncovered]

You should just read another word for word along with the catholic bible. We have the same books in the primary cannon, just not the Deuterocanon, as i understand.

[@corwynprice1065]

@@faithuncovered we do, the only books that the Catholics have that Protestants don’t is Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 maccabees, sirach, Tobit aka Tobias, Wisdom, and additions to Esther. It I’ve always felt that since the Catholic Bible is older than the Martin Luther bible, the Bible that Protestants use should be called the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible should just be called the Bible, mostly because the Protestant Bible was made to protest against the Catholic Church

[@SethBennion]

If you translate the Bible to "make a translation that gets across the actual meaning," then you'll have competing churches saying "our Bible is the true Bible." Thus, we shouldn't widely use Bible versions that try to tell you what the writers of the original text truly meant. It is better to have several interpretations of the same text than to have several different texts, because the integrity of Christianity as a whole collapses when that happens. It might as well be several thousand different religions if every church has a different Bible.

[@Fil_the_spil]

They all say the same thing, just in different ways. "He that waketh" "The man who walks" Same thing, just different ways to translate. KJV is one of the best we have. If you want to understand it best, learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for your comment. It's important to clarify a few points: Translation Philosophy: Most modern translations strive for accuracy and clarity based on the original manuscripts, not just interpretation. They aim to convey the original meaning as faithfully as possible without altering the core message. Textual Integrity: Modern translations do not create different texts; they offer various ways to understand the same original texts. Having multiple translations can enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Bible's richness. Unity in Diversity: Different translations can coexist within Christianity, providing a fuller picture of the biblical message. The core doctrines remain consistent across reputable translations, preserving the integrity of the faith.

[@Kate-bf9xt]

Read the translation that you feel compelled to read. The KJV will not do a single soul any good if they do not understand or rather misunderstand what it is that they are reading. I personally read the NASB and use The Message translation to clarify when needed. What matters is that you are reading it and developing a relationship with God.

[@drketoslenderman]

I think people spread lies about the KJV being unreadable.

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for watching. the NASB is a great translation. And understanding what you are reading is so very important.

[@faithuncovered]

It is not that hard if you were raised going to church and hearing it read, if you have been taught the original meanings to all the words but for a new christian it is a battle that they do not need to struggle with.

[@drketoslenderman]

The KJV is between 7th and 8th grade level

[@Kate-bf9xt]

@@drketoslenderman I respectfully disagree. Here’s what we should do with our difference in opinions, you read and follow the KJV, I will read and follow the NASB and I bet we get to the same finish line.

[@kristianrodriguez4676]

I’ll stick with my RSV Catholic Edition.

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching

[@kristianrodriguez4676]

@@faithuncovered Of course. As long as someone’s reading their Bible I suppose I can’t complain too much.

[@faithuncovered]

That is our humble plea, we want people to have the best chance of understanding what they are reading. God's word is what feeds us.

[@JosephAquino1430]

I read the KJV. I support my studies of the KJV with the ESV and NIV. I also love the NASB but I’ve recently put it down in favor of the ESV. When it comes down to it though, I read the KJV and if I could only have one… Matthew 25:13 Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

[@faithuncovered]

Absolutely, i still use my nkjv as my standard for preaching and most of my reading, but it has been so helpful to supplement it with other translation, i have been using the CSB for the last year also and really enjoy it so far.

[@jonkenyon4876]

i read the NASB 2020 Edition & the NLT.

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for sharing! I normally use the NASB 1995 edition personally.

[@FuzzyKermit]

@@faithuncovered The 1995 is *chef's kiss* excellent. It was refreshing, as someone that's critical of the Comma Johanneum.

[@mogrowneyiv7306]

@@faithuncovered LOL NASB doesn’t even say firmament.

[@faithuncovered]

Which is a good thing too, since no one today uses that word. And a new convert or someone interested in Christianity would e stumped right the beginning. That makes no sense if your goal is to understand the bible have new converts.

[@mogrowneyiv7306]

@@faithuncovered It’s a good idea to remove ‘firmament’ if you want people to believe in an impending alien invasion from space and cause them to abandon faith in God in favor of a nonsensical spinning ball cosmology. Firmament meant dome, means dome and will always mean dome. Flat earth is 100% biblical and Nasa means ‘to deceive’ in Hebrew. It’s part of the incoming great deception.

[@ntkmw8058]

‼️‼️The True Gospel‼️‼️ The gospel, the good news is salvation from hell. And here’s how to get it, the Bible makes it as clear as can be. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”, acts 16:31. Words from your mouth don’t even need to be accompanied, just “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” from hell, it’s this easy!!

[@faithuncovered]

What does Mark 16:16 mean?

[@MeMe-qc6ow]

Lies, lies, lies

[@faithuncovered]

Thanks for watching the video.

[@johnboehmer6683]

Why wouldn't he mention The New King James?

[@faithuncovered]

That’s a great point! We’re currently working on an extended version of this video where we’ll discuss why the KJV might not be the best choice and what alternatives you should consider. We’ll be recommending the NKJV and explaining why it's a better option. Stay tuned!

[@Tesseract1887]

Septuagint is a good version, Orthodox study Bible is good it is based on the Septuigint, ancient faith is good as well

[@faithuncovered]

There are alot of great options. Thanks for watching.

[@j1mbobtech]

It is "The Manuscript" that the accuracy comes from...

[@faithuncovered]

Thank you for your comment. The accuracy of any Bible translation indeed comes from the quality and reliability of the manuscripts used. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus, which was based on a limited number of manuscripts available at the time. Modern translations benefit from a broader range of manuscripts, including older ones. These sources help provide a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the original texts.

[@j1mbobtech]

Actually "They" are making an Average of "ALL" texts found... That in it's self proves it make ALL a watered down version... Of whatever WAS "The Original" TEXT...

[@faithuncovered]

The problem with that is that the text of modern translations are of older manuscripts then used for the KJV. So that would not be water down but rather an attestation of how prolific the older documents were copied. And the later date of the KJV makes them a weakness.