There are so many different translations out in the world. Which one is the most accurate? It is OK to read several or should we be reading only one? 2014JUL13 - Q&A-72
You are truly one of the greatest Bible teachers on Earth today . I say that simply because you are a Christian and honest and extremely well studied. I have been studying the Bible 50 years . But I'm just a mechanic . Not a Carpenter or a fisherman. Us common folks seem to understand a whole lot more then many of these so-called experts. Thank you dr. Burnett for being a true and honest Christian man
Just read something, is good advice for getting started. Choosing to actually "do" the things they all say (so many translations; so few actual differences!) in common is the key thing. They all say to love one another, and they all make it really clear that loving your neighbor means giving him a sandwich; not just prayers and good thoughts. But, part of actually walking with Jesus will result in the Holy Spirit prompting study in this direction...eventually. It is bad to study Bible translation from the wrong perspectives, but that is true of everything else in the world. Don't look for a perfect translation if you are knowingly harboring sin in your heart. A perfect translation would do you no good. Don't shrink from the search for translational improvements because you are too lazy or stupid to engage in such a pursuit. God put many secrets in His world, and it is the glory of kings to search them out. And, He has made us all to be kings, and priests! I am a king, and I delight to search out this matter. Basically, Christian is in the middle between lazy and Pharisee.
@@yardmasterswealtheducation8424 The people asking about which translation to read aren't doing any studying. The people who know are studying, already know about translation differences. At least that has been my experience over the years.
@@PracticalBibleStudies Mine, too. I am looking back into this subject because, somehow, it seems that God has led me back into it, for some reason. I have need that no man teach me (translation is the work of man...) because the Holy Spirit teaches me all things. I just like making sure I am not being lazy and wanting God to take the steps that are mine in the dance He initiated with us! I was saved in a KJV only cult church. I have read from the Holman translation for maybe a decade. Now, I'm gravitating toward reading from a Geneva Bible. I just like doing my best to leave what are hopefully useful comments.
Yardmaster's Wealth Education Center I recommend a book called The King James Only Controversy by James White. It’s not against the KJV. It’s against KJV Onlyism. I do my studies using the ESV with the KJV and NRSV for depth.
The Holy Spirit will rightly lead you through the translation you are reading. Pray up before you read up. Ask the Lord for the best translation that you will be able to understand what He is teaching you. A revelation came to me that not all of the Lords sheep have the same comprehension level and certain translations may be how the Lord will teach you. When you are choosing a bible translation to read, pray for guidance. He may have you comparing other translations together to help you the best way. Never lean on your own understanding.
Randy...the NIV & some other modern translations leave out to many important versus & change the meanings of some versus so they cannot be looked on as reliable.
Gary Molaskey with a carnal mindset while reading the Bible, what you say is true. With the Holy Spirit guiding you supernaturally, you will never lack the knowledge the Lord has for you. There are people in the world who are limited to what translations they have available to them. NIV or some other modern translations maybe all they have in many cases. No matter where you live, being carnally minded while learning the Word of God, will always hinder your knowledge.
When I first came to the Lord, I had a TEV-NT that was given to me by the Men who led me to Christ, and I devoured it....but read the NASB in my church. Not before too long I had a NASB and a Scofield (Old version -KJV) for serious reading. Eventually my Pastor had Greek classes (12 people in attendance in a church of sixty (20%).....and I read Koine in the UBS and Nestle Aland Greek NT's. My standard Bibles now are KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV. I have others, but those four are my standbys. I also have spanish and german language bibles. What you say is true Randy...the Lord will lead you through different translations until you find one He and you can use together. And even if you cannot read Hebrew or Greek, there are the Strong's and Young's concordances to help you, along with Lexicons. A good Greek Interlinear is good to have, too.
Instead of going to men I prayed for God to show me which bible he wanted me to read. I knew NOTHING about the bible, just that it was the truth at that time. I was given 4 different versions and I discarded the first 3 after reading two paragraphs. Then I was given an old KJV and I KNEW it was perfect. That's the one God led me to and I have no reason to ever look elsewhere. God bless you all :)
As of Gods word could be limited to a single English translation. They are all the word of God, existing on a spectrum of accuracy. Some more accurate, thought for thought and others more poetic 🤷♂️
When I first got saved, many, many years ago, I started with the living bible (a paraphrase) which scholars would say is the worst version of the bible. But I got blessed and grew close to God while I read and read that bible. I believe how much bible you read is more important than which translation.
The most important thing that only matters. Is that you got saved. Once you are saved that is the most amazing and really truly the only thing that matters. Trusting in the Lord Jesus being baptized by the Holy Spirit. All the rest is simply trivial information. It's good till want to learn more about the Bible because it does teach a lot. But the main thing is is trusting in the Lord Jesus as your savior. Being saved is the most important of all. See you in Heaven.
There certainly is a place for paraphrase translation. Especially for people just getting into the Bible. I don't think it should ever be used for study though.
You had me until you mentioned the accuracy of the catholic church. I'm not at all intelligent but i see that the catholic church not only added "works" as you said, but elevated humans to a "holy" level. They pray to people such as Mary and have elevated disciples and other men and women to saints. While a saint is a Biblical term, they have redefined it to being a holy being. If someone more knowledgeable than me has anything to offer, i'd be eager to read it. However, as ignorant as i may be, i cannot see the catholic church as something other than a cult as it has taken the Word and reshaped it to suit an agenda.
I looked up where the word "saint" occurs and got "holy ones" or "holy". Saints might have something to do with the Latin, but "sancti" (as it appears in the LV) translates to "holy" as well.
@Carl. You are absolutely right. Praying to the dead is called necromancing in the Bible. Catholicism is a luciferian cult. They usurp the power and position of Jesus Christ. They place their infallible child molesters in the position of Christ. Top to bottom the Catholic church is a cult.
I am starting to think I need to read my Bible a lot more than and hour a day, need a solid week of studying. So glad I see this channel when I wake up, to start my day.
Thank you for this brief but enlightening discussion. I'm sure you could spend hours on it, but you helped me in my understanding. I knew one text was older, and many modern translations used it as a basis. I didn't know the older text was associated with more heresies. Also, thank you for revealing your rationale: that as a pastor, you want to hew as close to the original message as possible to feed your flock. Thank you.
Most bibles are copyright . They are owned by some entity. The KJV has the font copyrighted. Not the text. Freely receive ,freely give. Choice is yours
The speaker's comments about Western MSS are quite confused. The Western Text is distinct from the Byzantine Text. Also, the 25,000 MSS of the New Testament that we have are mostly medieval copies, not limited to Greek MSS. We have about 5,900 Greek manuscripts that are copies of NT books, whether in fragmentary or complete form. Of those 5,900 Greek MSS, most of them are far later than the 300s. The picture of the text's history that is presented by this lecturer should be adjusted accordingly.
Regarding Erasmus and the text of Revelation: Erasmus had a manuscript of Revelation; he only "filled in" the text at points where his Greek exemplar was illegible and at the end, where it was missing the last six verses. It's not as if Erasmus had nothing but the Vulgate to go on for the entire book.
He used the manuscripts to correct what he thought were errors or places where it wasn't clear what was being said in the Latin vulgate, but otherwise used the Latin vulgate.
What a gifted man of God! I've learned so much that our church never even take for consideration. It somehow feeds my hunger for information about the bible.
@@scout11238 Just a brief overview, I’m not ignorant on this subject and it’s a lot to cover. I’m not dogmatic about a certain position but I can to conclude this year after 4-5 years on this subject believing any Bible is the same, it is not and I’ve research many scholars as Bart Ehrman, Daniel Wallace, James white, Mike Licona, Bruce metzger, j.K Elliot & list goes on of textual critics that Gods word is preserved but not perfectly. This is what they believe, I believe in King James Bible is reliable and Gods preserved word in English and 2 videos on this extensive subject history would be “ A lamp in the dark “ and “ Tears among the wheats “ documentary. Covers Sooooo much and check out David w Daniels on Chick publications on this matter! I’ve never been so confident in Gods word as I am now !!!
@@JoshuaMSOG7 ohh, thanks for your effort. I will certainly go to their website and try to get some info additionally to what it presupposes regarding biblical inerrancy and infallibility. I thank you for your effort, I appreciate it.
@@scout11238 Please google some of these names before going into any of this (I hope you already have). Especially Ehrman, who’s a convert from Christian to atheist and has a podcast to expound his anti Jesus everything to the world. Please be careful when people ask you if you “want to know more” about something. That’s a sure sign of people fishing for someone gullible. Check out all those names and you’ll see. Those people love to infiltrate comments sections of people’s channels, like Dr. Barnett for instance. They’re just fishing and shopping for bright, eager new faces. God bless you, and take care ~~~~~
Yes, King James Version. Too many other translations but whatever works for you I guess is good. I like the ring of the King James Version, it is so musical. Of course we don't understand the culture since it is so long ago, but it hurts me when I see the postings using the other versions.....it just isn't the same...
I’ll take the critical text. Just like most all modern scholars. God preserved his word in such a way that if any line of manuscripts had additions or other errors, when the manuscripts from other areas were brought in to compare them those errors would be exposed. It is a beautiful and brilliant way of preservation that kept any ruler, government, or group from being able to change scripture without getting exposed..and God preserved for us a treasure trove of evidence. As long as it is actually used. When you have a verse that doesn’t appear in a Greek manuscript until the 14th century, and then is found in very few, and is only found in Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate..and you also have evidence that Erasmus didn’t want to add the verse to his Textus Receptus, didn’t add it to his first two editions of the TR, and only added it because he was given a manuscript that contained it after refusing to add it without one. (We know now that the manuscript he was given that contained the verse was made in the 1500’s. The same time he was writing the TR)..and we have no writing from anyone in the early church containing the verse, even though the verse would’ve been perfect for fighting the heresy they were fighting..Then that verse was ,beyond all reasonable doubt, not in the the original book that the Holy Spirit inspired . I want a Bible that is closest to the Autograph manuscripts (the originals). The critical text uses every bit of evidence God has preserved for us to get as close to the Autographs as possible. I will use a formal translation that’s based on the critical text.
The lecturer egregiously blurs the data in his claim about early pastors using the "Western" text, as if this means that they used a text very similar to the base-text of the NKJV New Testament. That is not what it really means. The Western Text and the Byzantine Text are two things.
@@noturningback2023 please go into detail. However with the last thing he says about the eastern and western texts I agree with you. That raises some red flags.
This is an odd question. I f someone would have the whole Bible in his/her hand. It would have couple things in it. Every translation has those. 1 " If you change anything from this book of prophecy you will have upon you every curse of this book ". Every translation has that in Revelations. 2 " You do not find what you are looking for in this book ". It is a book. God is alive and can write anything He wants in the bible. It even says that in the Bible. God does not live by the terms of translations. He is the translation. Get to know the book, fine. Get to know God, excellent. He can tell you what it is about.
there is one good translation KJV the rest are novels that is why they have to be 15% different between them in order to get the copyright all is business
The pure words of the LORD cannot be altered, nor changed, nor translated and still fulfil this precious promise: Psalm 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
It's faith in Christ that matters. All the MAJOR translations are fine and God has used them to bring salvation to millions by this point. KJV onlyism is a divisive sectarian distraction in the church.
It doesn't matter what bible you can understand we are supposed to give up these worldly things and focus on Christ . Do what he wants us to do and get how many unbelievers to believe. To love one another and have compassion to forgive,turn away from sin,pride,lust,greed,every thing that's of this world. Have faith in God and he will show you the way to ever lasting life.
Probably far more accurate to say we should understand that we are saved by Grace, in knowing this we know that Jesus and God love us- and in knowing this we can learn to love them. We don't have to "DO" anything. That comes later. Just learn to love God... and read his word and the rest will come.
@@Johnkoth But let's be real here. While some translations aren't great (I'm looking at you Message), not everybody is going to be a scholar in the word. There are a lot of smart people out there. But there a lot of people who just aren't very bright in the way of intellectual understanding. They're not going to know the difference between most versions. Do you think that those with lower intelligence are then going to be disadvantaged in their Christian walk because they read the bible wrong? I imagine, like everybody- even the super intelligent ones- 100% need to be in a community. The smart boys do the analyzing. The empathetic boys help apply to everybody. The big picture boys help everybody stay on course. I imagine that even those using the reasonably terrible translation of the message will still hear from God in a meaningful way.
Each new version gets worse and changes God's Word more. The issue is they distort God's Word. Geneva and KJV are not corrupted. The issue has to do with the Texts that almost all modern versions are based off of. The message which you don't like is based off of the same text family as the ESV,NIV,NLT,NASB,NKJV and on and on. The issue has to do with the New Testament texts. Almost every Modern version use text from the Vatican. (Catholic Church HQ) Vaticancus its called.
"Not one doctrine" is impacted by textual variants??? The claim is circulated widely. But if the Alexandrian Text were strictly followed, its reading in Matthew 27:49 would contradict the account in the Gospel of John, and thus the doctrine of inerrancy is impacted.
I did version comparison, and saw that every translation said near the same thing there in the first part. A few have the second part (about a soldier taking a spear and stabbing Jesus' side), but 3 out of 4 of those were in brackets, and the fourth essentially noted that this last sentence, is there in a few manuscripts, but not in others.
It’s funny how English speaking Christians believe the only valid translation is the KJV. If you guys are really so passionate about God’s inerrant word, then learn to read and write Greek and Hebrew. Then go to foreign countries who don’t know how, and teach them to do the same. Alternately, take your KJV to China and teach them by using a translation of a translation of the original. Before you say it, I have a deep respect for the KJV and its legacy. At the end of the day, however, it is simply a translation from a particular time in a particular language. KJV onlyism is one of the worst ethnocentric doctrines to ever find it’s way into the church. All scripture is inspired by God, but He inspired the original writers, not the translators of the 1611 edition. Again no disrespect, I easily have half a dozen of them.
I speak Arabic and English, so I could help arabic ladys and I speak English, so I read both But I really want to lurn Hebrew. English on the same page not sure how to go about it, but I still love my Bible I have.
In Australia, as in the British Commonwealth it's called the Authorised version. King James commissioned scholars to complete and publish the Bible, in 1611, but it was never labeled as The King James. It's annoying that in America this is never acknowledged.
Ah we agree again :) NKJV!! I spent many a years confirming that NKJV is as good, if not better, than the KJV. Research yourself people. Love and peace.
I was always concerned about Acts 8:37 being just gone and that is doctrine- it’s about baptism - one says nothing is stopping you - the other says u must believed and be saved and baptized in Jesus name - I mean !?!
They've just found that verse is most likely not in the original Greek. That's why it's not in the text of most modern bibles/new testaments. Now, if the translator rejects such findings and holds an old bible as the chosen translation, then it'll be there, hence why the October testament has it.
The NKJV does spread a different gospel. It teaches faith with out works is dead. Its teaches in Romans " certainly not" not God forbid. Its also calls Jesus a servant of God takes out son of God. It also teaches that faith is in us and not in Jesus and that we are to be saved not that we are just saved. Trust me I have been following John and John Macarthur for many years now and even have all of John MacArthur books and even study book. But as I study I learned something wasnt right and I opened my kjv book and the truth was there, and I got my answer. So the answer to this brothers and sisters is read your KJV bible, father will teach you. 🙏
Very well done! And I feel that what most people are most familiar with, growing up listening to, they will tend to remain faithful to that version. To them, God speaks to them through this medium. I believe most English versions of the bible are God send and a true BLESSING from above! But there are a few things (kinda big things) with the KJV that does bring confusion into the body of Christ. One, is the belief that man is a living soul, and the other is the name Jehovah. Man is a living soul, figuratively speaking, but man literally possesses a soul within his body, and this soul of man is what Jesus Christ gave his life for (to redeem) on the cross. Our soul is our unique self (and awareness of self) dwelling within our temporary bodies, and our soul will receive a new and eternal body to house our soul at the resurrection. And if people are comfortable addressing YHWH/YHVH as Jehovah, I have no issues with that, as long as the person realizes that Jehovah is a poor rendering of the Tetragrammaton. This is why I personally favor the use of LORD in all caps, cuz it doesn't limit the Tetragrammaton to a personal name. And we Christians know that Jesus Christ is the Only Name given to man in which any soul is saved.
Also, if you are speaking to a devout Jew about Jesus, saying YHWH out loud is a great offense- learned this the hard way from a personal friend who was Messianic...he was about to punch me for saying the TetraGrammaton....until I apologized. When he calmed down, he explained why-because it is God's holy name and no man is worthy to pronounce it!!
@@philiph6456 The thing is that saying God's name was never forbidden under the law, it was using his name in a worthless way that was condemned. It was the religious leaders that built a hedge around the law, went beyond what was written and made the law a burden for the people. Which Jesus condemned them for. They reasoned that if it's wrong to misuse his name then we will just never use it to be safe, that quickly became law and they still cling to it today as you described. It's a superstitious attitude towards the divine name and not at all what was outlined under the law. So there is nothing wrong with using God's personal name, it's in the scriptures around 7000 times for a reason, he wants us to know him and glorify his name, which is Jehovah. John 17:26 “I have made your name known to them and will continue to make it known.” Just passing on information, I know it's not your belief and I'm not out to deliberately offend people but I would not be willing to stop glorifying God's name to sidestep their superstition, as a Christian it's not an option.
Apart from highly skeptical "the true stance of Papacy during the division of Church" claim, it is also very interesting to hear KJV and ESV are from different textual basis. As far as I knew ( from a Catholic Institution ), that the comparably conservative and scholarly written ESV (Crossway) was of the famous Tyndale tradition, which makes the KJV its ancestral Bible... I am confused about the info he provides, actually. P.S. : "ESV Study Bible" was an easy choice for me, with its great footnotes/layout.. And just reading with a type font like "Lexicon" ( by B. de Does ) is worth it alone for me. Regards,
Your initial statement is correct, what version of the scripture you should read is as common as the only correct answer, the AKJV! What does it matter what unbelievers ask, or have to say about the word of God? Just as what does it matter what perverted translations deceived people read, if calling themselves believers they’ve been deceived and do not know truth from lies. In fact, they know nothing concerning the word of God worth discussing, and certainly they cannot defend what they do not know. All they can do is to pass on their spirit of error to others, and to be humiliated for doing so. Stick with the King James Version, and have the Comforter to teach you all things. Don't read just anything!
For regular reading, my favorite is the ESV. But when in doubt, I compare any questionable verse to Young's Literal translation. Biblegateway is a quick way to do this.
You ESV is a Vatican translation as well as all versions of the bible. I suggest you use the King James it's the only accurate translation and the only 1 that's blessed by God.
ESV stands for Extremely Stupid Version, or Extremely Satanic Version. None of the catholic versions will ever beat KJV. You can go to your Hades stubborn Jesus Christ haters.
Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and put it out there! Back in around 1987 I had the opportunity to order a NKJV, Nelson Publishers, wide margin, two column, with center-column reference bible, with full leather covers. At that time, it was a large expenditure for me. I had been using the KJV. I was using THE COMPANION BIBLE, which is incredibly dense in references. After all these years, that NKJV is filled with 30 years of edits, references, and my errors/refreshed! A few years ago I managed to find one just like it and the same age online. I snapped it up, placed it in a plastic bag, and stored in my desk drawer for safe-keeping. Cause mine is worn and the paper is getting thin. But, by this time, I also own about 12 other English versions as well. I use them all. But that old NKJV is my favorite. Its where my jewels are stored. Got me a 1560 Geneva Bible a few years ago. Like to read it as well.
I love your story. I have a NKJV that is filled with many years of notes and prayers and there are places (like the end of romans 8) that are stained with my tears from all the times I've poured over those pages in prayer encouraging my soul with the truths of the gospel in times of intense pain and hardship. When I go back and look at those worn pages and I remember all the times I have been encouraged and am reminded of the evidences of God's grace in my life I am so greatly encouraged. I have since grown to really love the ESV and use it for my daily devotions. But I have a NKJV wide margin cambridge in really nice goatskin that I payed 200$ for and I am slowly transferring all my notes from my old bible and my journals to that wide margin bible so that I can have all my precious notes in one place. The process of transferring them is a great way to meditate on scripture for me and I enjoy it so much. The NKJV will always have a special place in my heart. By the way I know the Nelson NKJV wide margin you are talking about that they don't make anymore (although they did very recentlycome out with a new wide margin that is formattedthe same way as tge old one) but I actually found one of those out of print bibles that was tucked away in my church library brand new! It must have just been sitting there for like 30 years! I asked if I could have it and they let me take it home to keep. It is brand new. That was a really cool find. I'm pretty sure it's the same one your talking about. I could never sell it because I got it for free but I like my Cambridge better because of all the note paper in the back. Not really sure what I'll do with it. Maybe save it for future use like you. Anyway just wanted to share that with you. Always enjoy meeting other wide margin fans. It's a wonderful treasure that not too many people know.
Re: heresies. All the great heresies started in the east, you say?? What about that arch-heretic Marcion?? Marcion of Pontus? And there were Gnostics in Rome in the second century, too.
Westerrn is the Latin Vulgate and not Byzantine. The Eastern is Byzantine and Greek. There are only less than 6000 Greek manuscripts and over 10000 Latin. The minority is assumed to be from Alexandria.
Question: If God knows the beginning...the middle....and the end ....why did he create Lucifer....the Cherubim Angel...knowing everything God would know that The Morning Star would challenge God and rebell plus take a 1/3 of the Angels
Dr. Barnett answers that question, taken from a child in one of the Q&As at their church. It’s on CZcams, but I can’t recall the session number. If I find it I’ll drop it here for you. I believe it’s in a few sermons and teachings as well.
Okay, there's one thing I'm confused about: First he says that there is only about a half a page of difference between the Western and Eastern manuscript editions, and that due to such differences being minor and petty, there is no doctrinal error or danger to core doctrine between the two, whatsoever. Then he says that he, along with most pastors of the early church, prefer the Western manuscript line, due to some of the most infamous heresies in church history originating from the eastern manuscript line. You can't have it both ways. Either: a) The differences between the manuscripts are so petty, as to be harmless to doctrine. or b) Something about the eastern manuscripts literally inspired one horrific heresy after another. So which is it?
I own in the and use more of the English Standard Version or the ESV, (it's more modern and easier to read)), as well I used to use the KJV- King James Version, & NKJV- New King James Version NKJV I use the ESV more often however it does read the same, as in able to follow along with someone else reading a western version. The Eastern version reads the same as their Western version. I'm not entirely sure why he said what he said. But I can assure you that the translations read the same. There's only minor differences with certain words. When I go to Meeting, or as other people call it Church. And when all the adults, including myself, get together and discuss scripture; as many of us use different translations of the Bible. I am able to follow along when someone reads of a different translation. Words are different, some words do cause a little tripping up. So when I study for to make a video or before going to church. I will read the ESV and then I will also read from the Bible app called "Strong's and Concordance" which is a direct translation from the original language into English. As well as it provides what a lot of the words may mean. Because in Hebrew some words meant other words as well. Like the word for wrists or hands also meant wrist, hands, forearm, and I can give you many more examples. Next to each word it'll have a number like H67, H899, etc. And it'll say, the Hebrew word in the original text (as in the squiggly lines of the Hebrew language), it'll have the English pronunciation of the Hebrew word, and the definition of that word and other possible meanings of that word as well as how many times it is used in the Bible. But I want to say again that the different words from the ESV to the NKJV are not huge differences. The versions May read differently using different words but ultimately they mean the same thing. I am able to follow along with the Eastern ESV if someone else at meeting is reading another Western version. Although as I said before some words do cause tripping up. I'll have to find an example. I know it has happened a few times to me but nothing as in heresy. So again I don't know why you said that. Although to be fair to him all he said was that the heresies started in the east. And not all were heresies. And I could have nothing to do with the Bible itself. It could just be the hearts of those who wanted to twists the words of the Bible. However Catholics, Western side, tend to twist the words of the Bible even more so. So I think it's just his personal preference.
Your appreciation is correct. You can't say something contradictory and have it your way. I am a Spanish speaker so I use Reina-Valera (it's the same KJV) and NIV, and by a research I did both have the same doctrine, it teaches the same and the differences aren't something you should be worried about. In fact NIV translates Hebrew better (Hosea 11:12 is an example) If I want to understand something quickly I use NIV if something is not easy to understand I use Reina-Valera or I go to search what the hebrew or greek text meant really
John Colage Hell actually means grave. The modern word has a different meaning as humans like to twist scripture, history and the meaning of words. In the King James Bible, the Old Testament term Sheol is translated as "Hell" 31 times, and it is translated as "the grave" 31 times. Sheol is also translated as "the pit" three times. Modern Bible translations typically render Sheol as "the grave", "the pit", or "death".
Those are References to Hell. 43 times mentioned in the KJV. Jesus went to Abraham's bosom which is next to hell. He was there 3 days and defeated death and the grave and rose again. Thuse ending Abraham's bosom and all those people went to Heaven.
j k Abraham's bosom isn't literal, that story was a parable. You really believe every Old Testament person dead went to Abraham's bosom? How was there enough place for everyone lol.
Hello DTBM, I have never before heard the statement that Erasmus had to use the Latin Vulgate, translate it into Greek and then use that to complete the Textus Receptus manuscript, "especially of the Revelation". Are you sure that you are not getting mixed up with the Codex Vaticanus, which is missing the book of the Revelation? Do you have any evidence to back up your statement?
What About the, NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES? I Have found This easier to Follow and Meditate on as it Has Restored GODS Personal Name And Theres No Confusion When Lord is Mentioned in The HOLY Bible !
Problem with many translations is that people wants to put their own interpretation into it. Like some church groups claiming to be christian wrote their own bibles to suit their religion. The NIV and others do the same. I do read them for reverences, I have 16 translations, but stick to the King James for the truth.
Plenty of people put their own interpretation into the KJV. I’ve been slammed and told that I’m “going straight to hell!!!” repeatedly - for years, because I said I use my old KJV Scofield Reference Edition. I’m still using it. Oddly, plain KJV owners don’t have verses referenced in the center columns of their Bibles. Sending me “straight to hell!!!” But I’m keeping mine anyway. At least I can spell and string a sentence together.
This is extremely interesting to me. I know doctrine may not be changed as you mentioned. But, what about verses like Matt 17:19-21 which talks about prayer AND fasting? Whereas the NIV, NLT, etc removes this? I know some have quoted Mark but, then it still leaves out fasting. Just wondering about your perspective about these missing verses. Thank you for this video!
GabakUSA, I use the Biblehub website because it has many versions, viewing of multiple simultaneous versions, and an interlinear with each word hyperlinked to Strong’s Concordance and commentaries. And I have found that indispensable for understanding prophesies because translations bury details that can only be seen in the original Hebrew and Greek.
I only trust kjv and to a lesser degree nkjv. But, recently a friend gifted me john macarthurs nasb study bible and i have to say, its pretty easy to read, easier than the esv. It's now my go to bible, especially his notes. As for the niv, never.
Nathan Apostle John was the last Apostle and nobody after he was ever called by God to be a Apostle. 1 qualification of being a Apostle is that you have to have seen Jesus. Nobody alive has seen Jesus therefore there is no Apostles. Also the Apostles had sign gifts which also don't exist anymore. Sign gifts were for the Jews. Because they require a sign. Therefore God called apostles and gave them sign gifts to prove that they were messengers of God.
You left out the most neglected translation that I hold most highly literal and technically correct. And that is the 1901ASV by Nelson Publishers. It has the honor of being the very first Critical Text New Testament translated and referenced by pre-Scofield theologians which is very important in my view. Only the 1901ASV holds this distinction. I am very found of it.
It's not mentioned in English Christianity often, but the main Chinese translation is somewhat based on the 1885 ERV, and the ASV is an edition of the ERV.
That's a pretty good explanation of preferring the western text tradition. It's why I use those Bibles as my primary sources but also like the ESV, NASB, etc. Thanks for posting. Edit: it's still valid in 2019
In your Bible, please read about the changes that will take place on earth very soon. Psalms 37:9-11,29; Revelation 21:4,5; Daniel 2:44; John 5:28,29. We have prayed for these changes when we pray for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. These are the last day's of wickedness and soon God's Kingdom government will bring beautiful changes.
I have the NIV and the NKJV. The NIV in Matthew 4:4 says that man shall not live by bread alone... and left out but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Seems to me to be a pretty big omission.
@@lproof8472 I'm not sure if I understand the question, just illustrating a difference in texts. In a literal sense.. Just saying man does not live on bread alone, leaves out the most important part of the text don't ya think?
I can't believe what we have allowed these so called scholars to do. You go to church and on your row ten people have 10 different versions. We can't even read aloud together because it's nothing but confusion and you know who the author of confusion is. Can you imagine being in school in history class and everybody has a different textbook. We are asking the wrong question. Not which translation should we use but why are they forcing out the King James Bible?
the 1611 KJV Bible is the most read Bible!!!!!! The holy spirit will reveal the Truth!! Ask the Lord if it's the Bible he wants you to read!!!! I know it's true!!!
The Peshitta, i.e., the primary Syriac version, is not in the same class of witnesses as the local text of Egypt represented by the Alexandrian Text. The Peshitta tends to agree much more frequently with the Byzantine Text.
The King James has multiple mistranslations. Contrast the end of Hebrews 3 in the KJV with the ESV or NIV. There are TWO different Greek words used for "unbelief" and "disobedience," but the King James translators were experts in CLASSICAL GREEK, not the KOINE GREEK the NT was actually written. The ACCURATE translation of Hebrews 3:18 - 19 is "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were DISOBEDIENT? So we see that they were unable to enter because of their UNBELIEF." It's very significant that the Lord equates unbelief with disobedience, yet the KJV has MIStranslated it to say "And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that BELIEVED NOT? SO we see that they could not enter in because of UNBELIEF." BIG DIFFERENCE in that sentence there between the ACCURATE translation in the ESV. And the Byzantine manuscripts from which the KJV was translated were YOUNGER than the OLDER, more reliable ALEXANDRIAN manuscripts the ESV was translated from. And THAT is only ONE of MANY mistranslations in the KJV. I could write more, but don't have the time.
@@tomfoley1818 Please research it yourself; that's what I did, and the more I learned about King James and his "authorized" version of the Bible the more appalled I WAS! King James was a 33rd degree mason, yet people today have idolized him; additionally the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, and was revised in 1769, so people today are reading the REVISED edition, yet they think God directly inspired the KJV. Smh
The Deceiver has infiltrated this discussion. The best Bible? How sad that this educational video has turned into arguing and separation. Jesus would tear into your close-minded, human ways of thinking with frustration: "How long must I endure you (put up with you) (be with you) (deal with you)." "How much longer will you simple people continue being simple?" "Faith, Hope, Love, people." May the Most High rebuke you.....
Here's my list of Bible Translations that I use: 1. New King James Version 2. New International Version 1984 3. New American Standard Bible 1995 4. King James Version 5. English Standard Version 6. Holman Christian Standard Bible 7. Christian Standard Bible 8. New International Version
Ps 16 has 11 verses vs 1 the first word is PRESERVE verse 11 the last word is EVERMORE God is BIG ENOUGH STRONG ENOUGH and WISE ENOUGH to PRESERVE HIS WORD! Ps 12 vs 6&7
Hmm, I didn’t actually know that. So if I may clarify(I actually own several Bible versions in English) if what your saying is accurate then only 1/2 of one page is up for real for a better word debate? What about Bibles such as the Scriptures or the Aramaic, Syriac text, etc?
Do not just read any of it. The command from scriptures is this: Study to show thyself approved of God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth. 2 Timothy 2:15. " rightly dividing" here is the Greek word " Orthotoméo - meaning to disect correctly then to line oneself up perfectly in line with scripture truth. It is the picture of a military cadence squad in tune with the cadence caller so, that no distinguishable difference is three.
Being that this video is from some time ago, not sure if you are still reading the comments, but I really did enjoy your presentation explaining the differences. I do have a question, though. While you mention that there is only half a page difference between the translations and they are mostly an extra "s" or vowel or that sort of thing, could you explain the differences in John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 that others have brought up as significant. In John 3:16 it says, "his only begotten Son", but the NIV says "one and only Son", while some dismiss that as saying the same thing, others says there is a significant difference in the meaning. And in 1 Cor the KJV says, "which are saved" (one and done), and the NIV says "being saved" (a process). And I wouldn't say that Philippians 2:12 where it says "work out your salvation" means a process of salvation like the "being saved" suggests.
Curious, he could state that the Catholic Church was mysteriously on the correct side of nearly every doctrinal debate and seems to have preserved the bible over the years, yet still dismiss it as teaching "deadly" doctrines. Maybe the truth has never disappeared or needed restoration. Remember that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the church into all truth?
The only one that encourages you to be immortally strong, walking in power as Jesus walked through prayer and fasting. HINT: Proverbs 18:1. If your bible has perverted this from the secret weapon of God found in the original authorized 1611 King James Bible, bury it or burn it, but have no more to do with it. What was the first temptation of Christ? "What do you want, Lucifer" "I want you to eat, Jesus! you're too powerful for me! Here, turn these stones to bread, stop fasting!"
I think there's something amiss with your observation of history. But in any case, as a native Greek person who studies using the Greek text each time I teach or preach, I find that ALL versions have their strengths and weaknesses. However, the NIV in many instances best captures the difficult to translate nuances of the Greek. In many particular cases, the KJV is not even close. I would say, for casual reading choose what you like but for intricate study always refer to the Greek text.
Thank you, this has been weighing on me for a while. The only additional question I have is: has anyone run through and documented the exact differences within the half of page? Praise Yeshu’a
"has anyone run through and documented the exact differences within the half of page?" Not that I know of. The NT was originally in Aramaic, not Greek. For the NT, the KJV used Greek mss., and has translation errors present in basically all NTs translated from Greek. Accurate translations of the original Aramaic remove several mistranslations present in Greek mss. 1) Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations. Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy list 14, 14, 13 generations. In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations. Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph). 2) Do you think Jesus and his disciples visited the house of a leper? The Greek translation from Aramaic has leper at Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3, while the Aramaic allows for potter. Lepers were unclean and weren't allowed to have guests over. It's actually Simon the _potter_. 3) For Mt 7:6, it's actually 'hang earrings on dogs,' not 'give a holy thing to dogs.' 4) Greek mss. embarrassingly have Jesus liable to the fire of Gehenna. Compare Mt 5:22 and Mt 23:17.
The lecturer's claim at the beginning of the 10th minute -- to the effect that there's only a half-page of difference between the rival forms of the text of the New Testament -- is simple false. Take in hand the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, and look at the footnotes, and you will see the differences between it and the Nestle-Aland (primarily Alexandrian) compilation. Lots more than half a page there obviously. And that's not even counting readings adopted in other compilations.
I personally prefer the NIV but I simply can't stand the newest 2011 rendition. I now know how my Grandfather must have felt about me reading anything other than the KJV when I see someone using the newer NIV, NLT or something along those lines... but I digress. I however also like to reference the ESV, KJV and NASB. It is worth mentioning and has always fascinated me that even the Watchtower Societies, Jehovah's witnesses, cultist version of the scriptures, mis-translated version "New World Translation" of the Bible can prove the diety of Christ. Now to be clear ... I would absolutely recommend NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc ... but I would never recommend the Satanic New World Translation.
Before William Tyndall was martyred...He cried out with his last breath "God Open the Eyes of the King" And so the King James Bible came to be. And it is the BEST BIBLE because it is from the inspiration of GOD. I have read other bibles and the more men of wisdom try to make it better....the farther and further men lose God. The old King Version is still the best bible. It is not perfect and every imperfection that is in it ....GOD allowed for a reason. They force men to go to him for further explanations. Dan Bertrand.
Kjvo videos gave that lie to you. For you see, there's a Problem with repeating what you just said : when Tyndale prayed that prayer, King James wasn't even born yet.
I appreciate your good words on Catholicism, but I just don't understand your comment about how we added "the deadliness of works religion". Is it possible you don't understand Catholicism? (Or for that matter, do any Catholics even understand it? -- maybe that's the real problem). What's you opinion on the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification signed by the RCC and the Lutherans? As a Catholic I have always been taught that I am saved through faith by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and not through any merit of my own. Any good works I perform are merely the fruit of my faith-based relationship with God and demonstrate my faith.
I am wary of labels. Still, I came from a Baptist tradition and was blessed to attend a Jesuit high school. I stopped attending Mass when given the option and I regret it now because I missed getting a deeper sense of the Catholic spiritual experience. However, I attended mandatory religion classes for 4 years and I feel I got a grounding in Catholic doctrine. You know the doctrine of Purgatory and the veneration of saints are points of contention. Going back to Luther's time, the granting of indulgences is a sore point. The tradition of confession also is an issue, although we are encouraged to confess our faults to one another. Being assigned so many "Our Fathers," "Hail Mary's," and the counting of the Rosary also are issues. I am not familiar with the accord reached by Catholics and Lutherans. I completed Lutheran catechism, and the accord wasn't mentioned (40 years ago). I see I have some homework to do. Almost in protest, I explored the Lutheran faith and accepted that persuasion as a junior in high school. Then, I saw a sharp distinction between what I saw as the Catholic emphasis on rituals and works as opposed to the Lutheran emphasis on grace. That was 40 years ago. Even then, I had the sense that Catholicism was progressive. I got instruction in philosophy that I bet rivals what's taught in universities today. So I can well believe that there's been re-assessment and refocusing on doctrine in the Catholic faith. Forgive me for resorting to labels anyway: they are convenient. But we're supposed to be "Christians" - disciples of Jesus Christ. Denominations just attest to our humanity and divisive spiritual influences. Thank you for sharing your view, and keep following Christ as best you can - as we all must.
"the deadliness of works" referred to was added by the vatican to the catholic doctrine. In effect (Although we are saved by Jesus' dying for us on the cross) our good or bad works on earth determine our fate. So, in a sense, good works are essential to get to heaven, but not alone. Nor is faith alone sufficient, although faith is also necessary. James 2:26 tells us that faith without works is dead. In Romans 3:22 we see that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Catholic theology supports these teachings of the Bible and holds them in balance.
I agree with what you wrote here, Kelsey, even though I'm not R. Catholic. The church of Rome does not hold or teach precisely what you just wrote here, however.
2 SAM 5.21 (KJV) And there they left their images, and David and his men burned them. According to all other versions David ( a man after God's own heart) was an idol worshiper...? (MKJV) And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away. (ASV) And they left their images there; and David and his men took them away. (GNB) When the Philistines fled, they left their idols behind, and David and his men carried them away. (RV) And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away. the word Hell, is found 31 times in the OT of the KJV, but not once in the ASV, or GNB. So its not true that there are no serious doctrinal differences between the KJV and the new age versions. The doctrines that are attacked are: the virgin birth of Christ the divinity of Christ salvation by faith alone trinity believers baptism OT prophecies quoted in the NT
The rendition in 2 Samuel 5:21 as it is in new bibles today was also in the old bibles before Geneva (Ones like the Matthew bible). "And there they left their images, and David and his men took them up". As for trinity, if you're referring to 1 john 5 : 7, that verse was doubted back in that day (namely by Erasmus), so then tyndale through taverner's have the verse in parenthesis.
Eloise Denys Just because modern bible versions render the phrase 'took them away' does not mean that David was an idol worshipper. Even the KJV uses the phrase 'taken away' or 'took away' ~ "And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the LORD to anger, Josiah took away…" (2 Kings 23:19, KJV) ~should we then say that Josiah was an idol worshipper because he just 'took away' the houses of the high places instead of burning them?
I can read the Bible in the original Greek and Hebreq and I love the Nasv and the Holman Christian study Bible. The message Bible in urban vernacular has its place.
THE POSTS ON THIS TOPIC ARE INDICATIVE OF WHAT SATAN HAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF GOD'S WORD. GOD STATES IN HIS WORD THAT HE VALUES HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME. IT CERTAINLY IS REFLECTED IN THESE POSTS HOW PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED WHEN IT COMES TO WHICH VERSION IS BEST, MORE ACCURATE, ETC. WOW.
What about the part that was mis translated like God divided the tribes according to the number of the Sons of God.? Some say Israel instead of Sons of God. Pretty big difference. If I'm wrong please let me know. Thank you and God bless you
Google that. It’s not anything that has to do with the true Gospel nor is anything altered from one version to the next. For someone new to their faith, none of that matters. God’s Word is intact from one to the next. It matters that people are saved and they’re reading their Bibles.
TRANSLATION ERRORS IN MODERN BIBLES Gospel - correctly translated as "good news". Apostle - correctly translated as “sent one”, such as Paul and Peter the “sent ones”. Deacon - correctly translated as "servant". Bishop - correctly translated as "overseer” or “elder". Pastor - correctly translated as "shepherd". Word (in John 1:1) - correctly translated as “logos”. Logos means ultimate truth and wisdom; universal and beyond view or God's view, as opposed to human understanding. Logos did not mean “word” to the Greeks, as modern bibles mistranslate the entire idea and meaning. Epistle - correctly translated as "letter". Doctrine - correctly translated as "teaching". Homosexual - correctly translated as “homosexual sex”, referring to the act, not the person. God is not against people. Rather, God is against what people often do, including fornication, adultery and homosexual sex; all three listed together in I Corinthians 6:9. “For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him might be saved.” Disciple - correctly translated as "follower" or "student". Preach - correctly translated as "proclaim" - anyone can proclaim the good news of Jesus; no religious cemetery degree either needed, required or desired. However, one should be very careful regarding anything in the Bible, that they understand and teach others correctly. Church - correctly translated as the “assembly”; the people who believe in Jesus and have his spirit within them. An assembly of believers is not a building or a religious or other organization--it refers to the actual people who believe in Jesus. “Upon this rock I will build my assembly. . .” Saint - a saint is someone who has been made holy by being washed by the blood of Jesus. No pope or other human being can make anyone a saint. Only Jesus can make someone a saint. And we cannot make ourselves a saint by doing good works or refraining from certain things. Only through forgiveness from Jesus can someone become a saint. God's name is YHWH, not Jehovah. YHWH means "I AM, I SHALL BE to infinity". God did not tell Moses to tell the people Yahweh sent you or Jehovah sent you. God told Moses to tell the Hebrews that "I AM" sent you. This is according to my understanding. These mistranslations are used to turn Jesus into a religion, which is not the intention of the New Testament; Jesus is deliberately secular, eating, drinking and associating with sinners and the common people, while railing against the religionists of his time. The New Testament is written in secular Koine Greek, the language of the common people. True religion is defined in James I:27. Be not deceived, Jesus did not come to earth to establish a religion called Christianity. He came to earth to save us sinners, to set us free, to give us life abundantly and to establish his assembly, which consists of his people. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him who he sent.” The goal of God's free salvation, is that we will “have love, one for another” and that whatever we want people to do to us, we will likewise do unto them: “For this is the law and the prophets.” Without love, whatever we do is in vain.
You are truly one of the greatest Bible teachers on Earth today . I say that simply because you are a Christian and honest and extremely well studied. I have been studying the Bible 50 years . But I'm just a mechanic . Not a Carpenter or a fisherman. Us common folks seem to understand a whole lot more then many of these so-called experts. Thank you dr. Burnett for being a true and honest Christian man
He has an unusually large amount of facts wrong though. Disturbingly so!
This is one of the BEST explanations I’ve seen. Thank you
Just read a bible. KJV, NKJV, MEV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT. Just read SOMETHING!
Just read something, is good advice for getting started. Choosing to actually "do" the things they all say (so many translations; so few actual differences!) in common is the key thing. They all say to love one another, and they all make it really clear that loving your neighbor means giving him a sandwich; not just prayers and good thoughts.
But, part of actually walking with Jesus will result in the Holy Spirit prompting study in this direction...eventually. It is bad to study Bible translation from the wrong perspectives, but that is true of everything else in the world.
Don't look for a perfect translation if you are knowingly harboring sin in your heart. A perfect translation would do you no good.
Don't shrink from the search for translational improvements because you are too lazy or stupid to engage in such a pursuit. God put many secrets in His world, and it is the glory of kings to search them out. And, He has made us all to be kings, and priests! I am a king, and I delight to search out this matter.
Basically, Christian is in the middle between lazy and Pharisee.
@@yardmasterswealtheducation8424 The people asking about which translation to read aren't doing any studying. The people who know are studying, already know about translation differences. At least that has been my experience over the years.
@@PracticalBibleStudies Mine, too. I am looking back into this subject because, somehow, it seems that God has led me back into it, for some reason. I have need that no man teach me (translation is the work of man...) because the Holy Spirit teaches me all things. I just like making sure I am not being lazy and wanting God to take the steps that are mine in the dance He initiated with us!
I was saved in a KJV only cult church. I have read from the Holman translation for maybe a decade. Now, I'm gravitating toward reading from a Geneva Bible.
I just like doing my best to leave what are hopefully useful comments.
Yardmaster's Wealth Education Center I recommend a book called The King James Only Controversy by James White. It’s not against the KJV. It’s against KJV Onlyism. I do my studies using the ESV with the KJV and NRSV for depth.
@@PracticalBibleStudies Cool. Thanks!
The Holy Spirit will rightly lead you through the translation you are reading. Pray up before you read up. Ask the Lord for the best translation that you will be able to understand what He is teaching you.
A revelation came to me that not all of the Lords sheep have the same comprehension level and certain translations may be how the Lord will teach you. When you are choosing a bible translation to read, pray for guidance.
He may have you comparing other translations together to help you the best way. Never lean on your own understanding.
Randy...the NIV & some other modern translations leave out to many important versus & change the meanings of some versus so they cannot be looked on as reliable.
Gary Molaskey with a carnal mindset while reading the Bible, what you say is true. With the Holy Spirit guiding you supernaturally, you will never lack the knowledge the Lord has for you.
There are people in the world who are limited to what translations they have available to them. NIV or some other modern translations maybe all they have in many cases. No matter where you live, being carnally minded while learning the Word of God, will always hinder your knowledge.
When I first came to the Lord, I had a TEV-NT that was given to me by the Men who led me to Christ, and I devoured it....but read the NASB in my church. Not before too long I had a NASB and a Scofield (Old version -KJV) for serious reading. Eventually my Pastor had Greek classes (12 people in attendance in a church of sixty (20%).....and I read Koine in the UBS and Nestle Aland Greek NT's. My standard Bibles now are KJV, NKJV, NASB and NIV. I have others, but those four are my standbys. I also have spanish and german language bibles. What you say is true Randy...the Lord will lead you through different translations until you find one He and you can use together. And even if you cannot read Hebrew or Greek, there are the Strong's and Young's concordances to help you, along with Lexicons. A good Greek Interlinear is good to have, too.
I agree!
Instead of going to men I prayed for God to show me which bible he wanted me to read. I knew NOTHING about the bible, just that it was the truth at that time. I was given 4 different versions and I discarded the first 3 after reading two paragraphs. Then I was given an old KJV and I KNEW it was perfect. That's the one God led me to and I have no reason to ever look elsewhere. God bless you all :)
God uses men to teach us. He used men to write the Bible. The nasb and the esv are more accurate translations than the kjv.
As of Gods word could be limited to a single English translation. They are all the word of God, existing on a spectrum of accuracy. Some more accurate, thought for thought and others more poetic 🤷♂️
@@TheJpep2424No they aren't. They are satanic counterfeits that turn the truth of God into a lie.
When I first got saved, many, many years ago, I started with the living bible (a paraphrase) which scholars would say is the worst version of the bible. But I got blessed and grew close to God while I read and read that bible. I believe how much bible you read is more important than which translation.
It's important to know church history alongside Scripture.
Same here. I read the NLT and love it and get close to God through it. All this arguing over version is a distraction from the enemy.
The most important thing that only matters. Is that you got saved. Once you are saved that is the most amazing and really truly the only thing that matters. Trusting in the Lord Jesus being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
All the rest is simply trivial information.
It's good till want to learn more about the Bible because it does teach a lot. But the main thing is is trusting in the Lord Jesus as your savior. Being saved is the most important of all.
See you in Heaven.
And when I got saved back in the early 90's I was reading 1984 NIV
There certainly is a place for paraphrase translation. Especially for people just getting into the Bible. I don't think it should ever be used for study though.
You had me until you mentioned the accuracy of the catholic church. I'm not at all intelligent but i see that the catholic church not only added "works" as you said, but elevated humans to a "holy" level. They pray to people such as Mary and have elevated disciples and other men and women to saints. While a saint is a Biblical term, they have redefined it to being a holy being. If someone more knowledgeable than me has anything to offer, i'd be eager to read it. However, as ignorant as i may be, i cannot see the catholic church as something other than a cult as it has taken the Word and reshaped it to suit an agenda.
I looked up where the word "saint" occurs and got "holy ones" or "holy". Saints might have something to do with the Latin, but "sancti" (as it appears in the LV) translates to "holy" as well.
I agree with what you said ."you are not intelligent".
@@thebiblestudyhelper9389 ok cult member.
@Carl. You are absolutely right. Praying to the dead is called necromancing in the Bible. Catholicism is a luciferian cult. They usurp the power and position of Jesus Christ. They place their infallible child molesters in the position of Christ. Top to bottom the Catholic church is a cult.
@@MuleShark it is RED LIGHT of deception when Christians put down other Christians.
I am starting to think I need to read my Bible a lot more than and hour a day, need a solid week of studying.
So glad I see this channel when I wake up, to start my day.
I just started but I jump around & write things down when trying to understand its scripture but I need to read it all.
Thank you for this brief but enlightening discussion. I'm sure you could spend hours on it, but you helped me in my understanding. I knew one text was older, and many modern translations used it as a basis. I didn't know the older text was associated with more heresies.
Also, thank you for revealing your rationale: that as a pastor, you want to hew as close to the original message as possible to feed your flock. Thank you.
The NKJV has been a blessing for me and I appreciate the hard work translators go through to bring us God's word .
Go back to the old King James Bible.
@@KenyonBowersno
@@robertbrangan9617 why not?
@@KenyonBowers because there's nothing wrong with the NKJV.
@@robertbrangan9617 not even that it says to reject Jesus? Go look at Titus 3:10 and Luke 12:51 in the NKJV and then tell me it's fine.
Most bibles are copyright . They are owned by some entity. The KJV has the font copyrighted. Not the text. Freely receive ,freely give. Choice is yours
The speaker's comments about Western MSS are quite confused. The Western Text is distinct from the Byzantine Text. Also, the 25,000 MSS of the New Testament that we have are mostly medieval copies, not limited to Greek MSS. We have about 5,900 Greek manuscripts that are copies of NT books, whether in fragmentary or complete form. Of those 5,900 Greek MSS, most of them are far later than the 300s. The picture of the text's history that is presented by this lecturer should be adjusted accordingly.
Regarding Erasmus and the text of Revelation: Erasmus had a manuscript of Revelation; he only "filled in" the text at points where his Greek exemplar was illegible and at the end, where it was missing the last six verses. It's not as if Erasmus had nothing but the Vulgate to go on for the entire book.
He used the manuscripts to correct what he thought were errors or places where it wasn't clear what was being said in the Latin vulgate, but otherwise used the Latin vulgate.
What a gifted man of God!
I've learned so much that our church never even take for consideration. It somehow feeds my hunger for information about the bible.
Do you want to know more about this specific topic?
@@JoshuaMSOG7 of course why not?
@@scout11238 Just a brief overview, I’m not ignorant on this subject and it’s a lot to cover. I’m not dogmatic about a certain position but I can to conclude this year after 4-5 years on this subject believing any Bible is the same, it is not and I’ve research many scholars as Bart Ehrman, Daniel Wallace, James white, Mike Licona, Bruce metzger, j.K Elliot & list goes on of textual critics that Gods word is preserved but not perfectly. This is what they believe, I believe in King James Bible is reliable and Gods preserved word in English and 2 videos on this extensive subject history would be “ A lamp in the dark “ and “ Tears among the wheats “ documentary.
Covers Sooooo much and check out David w Daniels on Chick publications on this matter! I’ve never been so confident in Gods word as I am now !!!
@@JoshuaMSOG7 ohh, thanks for your effort. I will certainly go to their website and try to get some info additionally to what it presupposes regarding biblical inerrancy and infallibility. I thank you for your effort, I appreciate it.
@@scout11238
Please google some of these names before going into any of this (I hope you already have). Especially Ehrman, who’s a convert from Christian to atheist and has a podcast to expound his anti Jesus everything to the world. Please be careful when people ask you if you “want to know more” about something. That’s a sure sign of people fishing for someone gullible. Check out all those names and you’ll see. Those people love to infiltrate comments sections of people’s channels, like Dr. Barnett for instance. They’re just fishing and shopping for bright, eager new faces. God bless you, and take care ~~~~~
King James Version.
Amen!
agreed ChristIsKing
I simply downloaded an App for Bible w/ 5 diff versions. It is easy to use, it gives translations at the speed of the internet.
Go ahead!
Yes, King James Version. Too many other translations but whatever works for you I guess is good. I like the ring of the King James Version, it is so musical. Of course we don't understand the culture since it is so long ago, but it hurts me when I see the postings using the other versions.....it just isn't the same...
I’ll take the critical text. Just like most all modern scholars. God preserved his word in such a way that if any line of manuscripts had additions or other errors, when the manuscripts from other areas were brought in to compare them those errors would be exposed. It is a beautiful and brilliant way of preservation that kept any ruler, government, or group from being able to change scripture without getting exposed..and God preserved for us a treasure trove of evidence. As long as it is actually used. When you have a verse that doesn’t appear in a Greek manuscript until the 14th century, and then is found in very few, and is only found in Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate..and you also have evidence that Erasmus didn’t want to add the verse to his Textus Receptus, didn’t add it to his first two editions of the TR, and only added it because he was given a manuscript that contained it after refusing to add it without one. (We know now that the manuscript he was given that contained the verse was made in the 1500’s. The same time he was writing the TR)..and we have no writing from anyone in the early church containing the verse, even though the verse would’ve been perfect for fighting the heresy they were fighting..Then that verse was ,beyond all reasonable doubt, not in the the original book that the Holy Spirit inspired . I want a Bible that is closest to the Autograph manuscripts (the originals). The critical text uses every bit of evidence God has preserved for us to get as close to the Autographs as possible. I will use a formal translation that’s based on the critical text.
Hi man I got something to show you, you there?
The lecturer egregiously blurs the data in his claim about early pastors using the "Western" text, as if this means that they used a text very similar to the base-text of the NKJV New Testament. That is not what it really means. The Western Text and the Byzantine Text are two things.
I so agree
I just love the way he teaches.amazing info.i wish i could have the complete video of it.
I have far too many red flags with some of the things he says.
@@noturningback2023 please go into detail. However with the last thing he says about the eastern and western texts I agree with you. That raises some red flags.
Can anyone state the red flag? Just curious
@@shebelieves9650
I sincerely doubt it. Even Paul said there was heretical writing’s that had begun in his time!
This is an odd question. I f someone would have the whole Bible in his/her hand. It would have couple things in it. Every translation has those. 1 " If you change anything from this book of prophecy you will have upon you every curse of this book ". Every translation has that in Revelations. 2 " You do not find what you are looking for in this book ". It is a book. God is alive and can write anything He wants in the bible. It even says that in the Bible. God does not live by the terms of translations. He is the translation. Get to know the book, fine. Get to know God, excellent. He can tell you what it is about.
The oddest thing about this question is it reads like a statement.
there is one good translation KJV
the rest are novels that is why they have to be 15% different between them
in order to get the copyright
all is business
Kjv was copyrighted once and still is in the UK.
A good translation into an outdated language of a corrupt greek text...
tejloro so no kjv for you? which do you read?
Such foolishness.
What about the NIV removing “Our” and “Who art in Heaven” from the Lord’s Prayer in Luke
The pure words of the LORD cannot be altered, nor changed, nor translated and still fulfil this precious promise:
Psalm 89:34
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
So do all believers need to learn Hebrew, Greek and araimic?
It's faith in Christ that matters. All the MAJOR translations are fine and God has used them to bring salvation to millions by this point. KJV onlyism is a divisive sectarian distraction in the church.
It doesn't matter what bible you can understand we are supposed to give up these worldly things and focus on Christ . Do what he wants us to do and get how many unbelievers to believe.
To love one another and have compassion to forgive,turn away from sin,pride,lust,greed,every thing that's of this world.
Have faith in God and he will show you the way to ever lasting life.
we must remember this! thank you for posting. 2Cor.13.14
Probably far more accurate to say we should understand that we are saved by Grace, in knowing this we know that Jesus and God love us- and in knowing this we can learn to love them.
We don't have to "DO" anything. That comes later. Just learn to love God... and read his word and the rest will come.
Thats a ignorant comment.
Not every Bible version has the same meanings.
Modern Bibles also omitt Bible Verses.
@@Johnkoth But let's be real here. While some translations aren't great (I'm looking at you Message), not everybody is going to be a scholar in the word.
There are a lot of smart people out there. But there a lot of people who just aren't very bright in the way of intellectual understanding. They're not going to know the difference between most versions.
Do you think that those with lower intelligence are then going to be disadvantaged in their Christian walk because they read the bible wrong?
I imagine, like everybody- even the super intelligent ones- 100% need to be in a community. The smart boys do the analyzing. The empathetic boys help apply to everybody. The big picture boys help everybody stay on course.
I imagine that even those using the reasonably terrible translation of the message will still hear from God in a meaningful way.
Each new version gets worse and changes God's Word more.
The issue is they distort God's Word.
Geneva and KJV are not corrupted.
The issue has to do with the Texts that almost all modern versions are based off of.
The message which you don't like is based off of the same text family as the ESV,NIV,NLT,NASB,NKJV and on and on.
The issue has to do with the New Testament texts.
Almost every Modern version use text from the Vatican. (Catholic Church HQ)
Vaticancus its called.
"Not one doctrine" is impacted by textual variants??? The claim is circulated widely. But if the Alexandrian Text were strictly followed, its reading in Matthew 27:49 would contradict the account in the Gospel of John, and thus the doctrine of inerrancy is impacted.
I did version comparison, and saw that every translation said near the same thing there in the first part. A few have the second part (about a soldier taking a spear and stabbing Jesus' side), but 3 out of 4 of those were in brackets, and the fourth essentially noted that this last sentence, is there in a few manuscripts, but not in others.
You missed the 1560 GENEVA bible, my favorite! The Pilgrims and the Puritans had that bible. I do too!
It’s funny how English speaking Christians believe the only valid translation is the KJV. If you guys are really so passionate about God’s inerrant word, then learn to read and write Greek and Hebrew. Then go to foreign countries who don’t know how, and teach them to do the same. Alternately, take your KJV to China and teach them by using a translation of a translation of the original. Before you say it, I have a deep respect for the KJV and its legacy. At the end of the day, however, it is simply a translation from a particular time in a particular language. KJV onlyism is one of the worst ethnocentric doctrines to ever find it’s way into the church. All scripture is inspired by God, but He inspired the original writers, not the translators of the 1611 edition. Again no disrespect, I easily have half a dozen of them.
I speak Arabic and English, so I could help arabic ladys and I speak English, so I read both
But I really want to lurn Hebrew.
English on the same page not sure how to go about it, but I still love my Bible I have.
Yeah like everyone is able to do all that 🙄
I really like my David Jeremiah study bible NKJV but I also have a KJV and Strong's concordance.
In Australia, as in the British Commonwealth it's called the Authorised version. King James commissioned scholars to complete and publish the Bible, in 1611, but it was never labeled as The King James.
It's annoying that in America this is never acknowledged.
A Big Thank You! This is a great clarifying explanation.
Ah we agree again :) NKJV!!
I spent many a years confirming that NKJV is as good, if not better, than the KJV. Research yourself people.
Love and peace.
I was always concerned about Acts 8:37 being just gone and that is doctrine- it’s about baptism - one says nothing is stopping you - the other says u must believed and be saved and baptized in Jesus name - I mean !?!
They've just found that verse is most likely not in the original Greek. That's why it's not in the text of most modern bibles/new testaments. Now, if the translator rejects such findings and holds an old bible as the chosen translation, then it'll be there, hence why the October testament has it.
Another thing we must consider is that the original 1611 KJV has the Apocryphal books and the Ethiopian Bible has 80-92 books in it.
The NKJV does spread a different gospel. It teaches faith with out works is dead. Its teaches in Romans " certainly not" not God forbid. Its also calls Jesus a servant of God takes out son of God. It also teaches that faith is in us and not in Jesus and that we are to be saved not that we are just saved. Trust me I have been following John and John Macarthur for many years now and even have all of John MacArthur books and even study book. But as I study I learned something wasnt right and I opened my kjv book and the truth was there, and I got my answer. So the answer to this brothers and sisters is read your KJV bible, father will teach you. 🙏
Very well done! And I feel that what most people are most familiar with, growing up listening to, they will tend to remain faithful to that version. To them, God speaks to them through this medium.
I believe most English versions of the bible are God send and a true BLESSING from above! But there are a few things (kinda big things) with the KJV that does bring confusion into the body of Christ. One, is the belief that man is a living soul, and the other is the name Jehovah.
Man is a living soul, figuratively speaking, but man literally possesses a soul within his body, and this soul of man is what Jesus Christ gave his life for (to redeem) on the cross. Our soul is our unique self (and awareness of self) dwelling within our temporary bodies, and our soul will receive a new and eternal body to house our soul at the resurrection.
And if people are comfortable addressing YHWH/YHVH as Jehovah, I have no issues with that, as long as the person realizes that Jehovah is a poor rendering of the Tetragrammaton. This is why I personally favor the use of LORD in all caps, cuz it doesn't limit the Tetragrammaton to a personal name. And we Christians know that Jesus Christ is the Only Name given to man in which any soul is saved.
Also, if you are speaking to a devout Jew about Jesus, saying YHWH out loud is a great offense- learned this the hard way from a personal friend who was Messianic...he was about to punch me for saying the TetraGrammaton....until I apologized. When he calmed down, he explained why-because it is God's holy name and no man is worthy to pronounce it!!
@@philiph6456
The thing is that saying God's name was never forbidden under the law, it was using his name in a worthless way that was condemned. It was the religious leaders that built a hedge around the law, went beyond what was written and made the law a burden for the people. Which Jesus condemned them for. They reasoned that if it's wrong to misuse his name then we will just never use it to be safe, that quickly became law and they still cling to it today as you described.
It's a superstitious attitude towards the divine name and not at all what was outlined under the law.
So there is nothing wrong with using God's personal name, it's in the scriptures around 7000 times for a reason, he wants us to know him and glorify his name, which is Jehovah.
John 17:26
“I have made your name known to them and will continue to make it known.”
Just passing on information, I know it's not your belief and I'm not out to deliberately offend people but I would not be willing to stop glorifying God's name to sidestep their superstition, as a Christian it's not an option.
Apart from highly skeptical "the true stance of Papacy during the division of Church" claim, it is also very interesting to hear KJV and ESV are from different textual basis. As far as I knew ( from a Catholic Institution ), that the comparably conservative and scholarly written ESV (Crossway) was of the famous Tyndale tradition, which makes the KJV its ancestral Bible... I am confused about the info he provides, actually.
P.S. : "ESV Study Bible" was an easy choice for me, with its great footnotes/layout.. And just reading with a type font like "Lexicon" ( by B. de Does ) is worth it alone for me.
Regards,
Your initial statement is correct, what version of the scripture you should read is as common as the only correct answer, the AKJV! What does it matter what unbelievers ask, or have to say about the word of God? Just as what does it matter what perverted translations deceived people read, if calling themselves believers they’ve been deceived and do not know truth from lies. In fact, they know nothing concerning the word of God worth discussing, and certainly they cannot defend what they do not know. All they can do is to pass on their spirit of error to others, and to be humiliated for doing so. Stick with the King James Version, and have the Comforter to teach you all things.
Don't read just anything!
For regular reading, my favorite is the ESV.
But when in doubt, I compare any questionable verse to Young's Literal translation.
Biblegateway is a quick way to do this.
Your esv is not God breathed
You ESV is a Vatican translation as well as all versions of the bible. I suggest you use the King James it's the only accurate translation and the only 1 that's blessed by God.
ESV stands for Extremely Stupid Version, or Extremely Satanic Version. None of the catholic versions will ever beat KJV. You can go to your Hades stubborn Jesus Christ haters.
Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and put it out there! Back in around 1987 I had the opportunity to order a NKJV, Nelson Publishers, wide margin, two column, with center-column reference bible, with full leather covers. At that time, it was a large expenditure for me. I had been using the KJV. I was using THE COMPANION BIBLE, which is incredibly dense in references. After all these years, that NKJV is filled with 30 years of edits, references, and my errors/refreshed! A few years ago I managed to find one just like it and the same age online. I snapped it up, placed it in a plastic bag, and stored in my desk drawer for safe-keeping. Cause mine is worn and the paper is getting thin. But, by this time, I also own about 12 other English versions as well. I use them all. But that old NKJV is my favorite. Its where my jewels are stored. Got me a 1560 Geneva Bible a few years ago. Like to read it as well.
I love your story. I have a NKJV that is filled with many years of notes and prayers and there are places (like the end of romans 8) that are stained with my tears from all the times I've poured over those pages in prayer encouraging my soul with the truths of the gospel in times of intense pain and hardship. When I go back and look at those worn pages and I remember all the times I have been encouraged and am reminded of the evidences of God's grace in my life I am so greatly encouraged. I have since grown to really love the ESV and use it for my daily devotions. But I have a NKJV wide margin cambridge in really nice goatskin that I payed 200$ for and I am slowly transferring all my notes from my old bible and my journals to that wide margin bible so that I can have all my precious notes in one place. The process of transferring them is a great way to meditate on scripture for me and I enjoy it so much. The NKJV will always have a special place in my heart. By the way I know the Nelson NKJV wide margin you are talking about that they don't make anymore (although they did very recentlycome out with a new wide margin that is formattedthe same way as tge old one) but I actually found one of those out of print bibles that was tucked away in my church library brand new! It must have just been sitting there for like 30 years! I asked if I could have it and they let me take it home to keep. It is brand new. That was a really cool find. I'm pretty sure it's the same one your talking about. I could never sell it because I got it for free but I like my Cambridge better because of all the note paper in the back. Not really sure what I'll do with it. Maybe save it for future use like you. Anyway just wanted to share that with you. Always enjoy meeting other wide margin fans. It's a wonderful treasure that not too many people know.
Re: heresies. All the great heresies started in the east, you say?? What about that arch-heretic Marcion?? Marcion of Pontus? And there were Gnostics in Rome in the second century, too.
The danger of oversimplification
Athanasius was in Alexander and he combatted the heretics...there is even a creed named after him.
Westerrn is the Latin Vulgate and not Byzantine.
The Eastern is Byzantine and Greek.
There are only less than 6000 Greek manuscripts and over 10000 Latin.
The minority is assumed to be from Alexandria.
Question:
If God knows the beginning...the middle....and the end ....why did he create Lucifer....the Cherubim Angel...knowing everything God would know that The Morning Star would challenge God and rebell plus take a 1/3 of the Angels
Dr. Barnett answers that question, taken from a child in one of the Q&As at their church. It’s on CZcams, but I can’t recall the session number. If I find it I’ll drop it here for you. I believe it’s in a few sermons and teachings as well.
Okay, there's one thing I'm confused about:
First he says that there is only about a half a page of difference between the Western and Eastern manuscript editions, and that due to such differences being minor and petty, there is no doctrinal error or danger to core doctrine between the two, whatsoever.
Then he says that he, along with most pastors of the early church, prefer the Western manuscript line, due to some of the most infamous heresies in church history originating from the eastern manuscript line.
You can't have it both ways. Either:
a) The differences between the manuscripts are so petty, as to be harmless to doctrine.
or
b) Something about the eastern manuscripts literally inspired one horrific heresy after another.
So which is it?
I own in the and use more of the English Standard Version or the ESV, (it's more modern and easier to read)), as well I used to use the KJV- King James Version, & NKJV- New King James Version NKJV
I use the ESV more often however it does read the same, as in able to follow along with someone else reading a western version. The Eastern version reads the same as their Western version.
I'm not entirely sure why he said what he said. But I can assure you that the translations read the same. There's only minor differences with certain words. When I go to Meeting, or as other people call it Church. And when all the adults, including myself, get together and discuss scripture; as many of us use different translations of the Bible. I am able to follow along when someone reads of a different translation. Words are different, some words do cause a little tripping up.
So when I study for to make a video or before going to church. I will read the ESV and then I will also read from the Bible app called "Strong's and Concordance" which is a direct translation from the original language into English. As well as it provides what a lot of the words may mean. Because in Hebrew some words meant other words as well. Like the word for wrists or hands also meant wrist, hands, forearm, and I can give you many more examples. Next to each word it'll have a number like H67, H899, etc. And it'll say, the Hebrew word in the original text (as in the squiggly lines of the Hebrew language), it'll have the English pronunciation of the Hebrew word, and the definition of that word and other possible meanings of that word as well as how many times it is used in the Bible.
But I want to say again that the different words from the ESV to the NKJV are not huge differences.
The versions May read differently using different words but ultimately they mean the same thing. I am able to follow along with the Eastern ESV if someone else at meeting is reading another Western version.
Although as I said before some words do cause tripping up. I'll have to find an example. I know it has happened a few times to me but nothing as in heresy.
So again I don't know why you said that.
Although to be fair to him all he said was that the heresies started in the east. And not all were heresies. And I could have nothing to do with the Bible itself. It could just be the hearts of those who wanted to twists the words of the Bible. However Catholics, Western side, tend to twist the words of the Bible even more so. So I think it's just his personal preference.
Your appreciation is correct. You can't say something contradictory and have it your way.
I am a Spanish speaker so I use Reina-Valera (it's the same KJV) and NIV, and by a research I did both have the same doctrine, it teaches the same and the differences aren't something you should be worried about. In fact NIV translates Hebrew better (Hosea 11:12 is an example)
If I want to understand something quickly I use NIV if something is not easy to understand I use Reina-Valera or I go to search what the hebrew or greek text meant really
@@LightningSnakevery helpful comment. Thank you!
@@Carpaintry_of_Godvery helpful comment. Thank you!
You can use many of the translations, I believe the King James Bible
It has so many errors
Please explain: Why does your KJB have Jesus in "HELL"?---Acts 2:31,
John Colage Hell actually means grave. The modern word has a different meaning as humans like to twist scripture, history and the meaning of words.
In the King James Bible, the Old Testament term Sheol is translated as "Hell" 31 times, and it is translated as "the grave" 31 times. Sheol is also translated as "the pit" three times. Modern Bible translations typically render Sheol as "the grave", "the pit", or "death".
Those are References to Hell.
43 times mentioned in the KJV.
Jesus went to Abraham's bosom which is next to hell. He was there 3 days and defeated death and the grave and rose again.
Thuse ending Abraham's bosom and all those people went to Heaven.
j k Abraham's bosom isn't literal, that story was a parable. You really believe every Old Testament person dead went to Abraham's bosom? How was there enough place for everyone lol.
Hello DTBM, I have never before heard the statement that Erasmus had to use the Latin Vulgate, translate it into Greek and then use that to complete the Textus Receptus manuscript, "especially of the Revelation". Are you sure that you are not getting mixed up with the Codex Vaticanus, which is missing the book of the Revelation? Do you have any evidence to back up your statement?
What About the, NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES? I Have found This easier to Follow and Meditate on as it Has Restored GODS Personal Name And Theres No Confusion When Lord is Mentioned in The HOLY Bible !
Problem with many translations is that people wants to put their own interpretation into it. Like some church groups claiming to be christian wrote their own bibles to suit their religion. The NIV and others do the same. I do read them for reverences, I have 16 translations, but stick to the King James for the truth.
Plenty of people put their own interpretation into the KJV. I’ve been slammed and told that I’m “going straight to hell!!!” repeatedly - for years, because I said I use my old KJV Scofield Reference Edition.
I’m still using it. Oddly, plain KJV owners don’t have verses referenced in the center columns of their Bibles. Sending me “straight to hell!!!” But I’m keeping mine anyway. At least I can spell and string a sentence together.
This is extremely interesting to me. I know doctrine may not be changed as you mentioned. But, what about verses like Matt 17:19-21 which talks about prayer AND fasting? Whereas the NIV, NLT, etc removes this? I know some have quoted Mark but, then it still leaves out fasting. Just wondering about your perspective about these missing verses. Thank you for this video!
will it be better to study Hebrew in order to avoid miss interpretations?
Hebrew is only old testement .you must learn greece for new testememt and also some books like daniel and ezekiel wrote in aramaic
@@behradataei6479 job and enoch
@@behradataei6479 and other Apocrypha
Yeah if you have the time mind and diligence to follow through
GabakUSA, I use the Biblehub website because it has many versions, viewing of multiple simultaneous versions, and an interlinear with each word hyperlinked to Strong’s Concordance and commentaries. And I have found that indispensable for understanding prophesies because translations bury details that can only be seen in the original Hebrew and Greek.
I only trust kjv and to a lesser degree nkjv. But, recently a friend gifted me john macarthurs nasb study bible and i have to say, its pretty easy to read, easier than the esv. It's now my go to bible, especially his notes. As for the niv, never.
His history is almost correct but his conclusion is wrong. Watch Kent Hovin version on this topic
Watch James White's response to Kent Hovind's video.
IF EVERYONE WOULD 'RIGHTLY DIVIDE' GOD'S WORD BY DISPENSATIONS WE MIGHT ALL GET ON THE SAME SHEET OF MUSIC, BUT EVEN THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL.
No thanks as that sometimes results in Christians being told they don't have the authority today that the apostles, Moses, or Elijah (etc.) Had.
Nathan
Apostle John was the last Apostle and nobody after he was ever called by God to be a Apostle.
1 qualification of being a Apostle is that you have to have seen Jesus.
Nobody alive has seen Jesus therefore there is no Apostles.
Also the Apostles had sign gifts which also don't exist anymore.
Sign gifts were for the Jews. Because they require a sign. Therefore God called apostles and gave them sign gifts to prove that they were messengers of God.
You left out the most neglected translation that I hold most highly literal and technically correct. And that is the 1901ASV by Nelson Publishers. It has the honor of being the very first Critical Text New Testament translated and referenced by pre-Scofield theologians which is very important in my view. Only the 1901ASV holds this distinction. I am very found of it.
It's not mentioned in English Christianity often, but the main Chinese translation is somewhat based on the 1885 ERV, and the ASV is an edition of the ERV.
@@maxxiong By golly you are correct Sir!
i WAS EXPOUNDING ON THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE AND THE REASONS FOR REWRITING THE NEW TESTAMENT WHEN EVERYTHING I HAD TYPED JUST DISAPPEARED.
That's a pretty good explanation of preferring the western text tradition. It's why I use those Bibles as my primary sources but also like the ESV, NASB, etc. Thanks for posting. Edit: it's still valid in 2019
In your Bible, please read about the changes that will take place on earth very soon. Psalms 37:9-11,29; Revelation 21:4,5; Daniel 2:44; John 5:28,29. We have prayed for these changes when we pray for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. These are the last day's of wickedness and soon God's Kingdom government will bring beautiful changes.
God is in control of the Bible, He only preserved it in one bible. The Copy’s of the the majority text. KJV
KJV has the most mistakes and miss translations even though the KJV only cultists refuse to acknowledge them.
Non Christians, such as Roman Catholics, are scared of the KJV.
I have the NIV and the NKJV. The NIV in Matthew 4:4 says that man shall not live by bread alone... and left out but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Seems to me to be a pretty big omission.
What doctrine is affected by the difference?
@@lproof8472 I'm not sure if I understand the question, just illustrating a difference in texts. In a literal sense.. Just saying man does not live on bread alone, leaves out the most important part of the text don't ya think?
@@lproof8472
🙂 smh
I can't believe what we have allowed these so called scholars to do. You go to church and on your row ten people have 10 different versions. We can't even read aloud together because it's nothing but confusion and you know who the author of confusion is. Can you imagine being in school in history class and everybody has a different textbook. We are asking the wrong question. Not which translation should we use but why are they forcing out the King James Bible?
Because it's not our language. Same reason the first century Jews used the septuagint
Good grief man grow up
Moses Malone: YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. Stick with the KJV and use Strong's Concordance if needed on occasion.
the 1611 KJV Bible is the most read Bible!!!!!! The holy spirit will reveal the
Truth!! Ask the Lord if it's the Bible he wants you to read!!!! I know it's true!!!
I just bought a Complete Jewish Study Bible. I love it. What is your opinion compared to NKJV?
You have experienced the true gospel until you have read it in the original Klingon.
A little humor to lighten things up a bit.
'I believe in the Spiritual gifts. Mine is flippancy.' Chuck Missler
The Peshitta, i.e., the primary Syriac version, is not in the same class of witnesses as the local text of Egypt represented by the Alexandrian Text. The Peshitta tends to agree much more frequently with the Byzantine Text.
thanks for noting this
The King James has multiple mistranslations. Contrast the end of Hebrews 3 in the KJV with the ESV or NIV. There are TWO different Greek words used for "unbelief" and "disobedience," but the King James translators were experts in CLASSICAL GREEK, not the KOINE GREEK the NT was actually written. The ACCURATE translation of Hebrews 3:18 - 19 is "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were DISOBEDIENT? So we see that they were unable to enter because of their UNBELIEF."
It's very significant that the Lord equates unbelief with disobedience, yet the KJV has MIStranslated it to say "And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that BELIEVED NOT? SO we see that they could not enter in because of UNBELIEF." BIG DIFFERENCE in that sentence there between the ACCURATE translation in the ESV. And the Byzantine manuscripts from which the KJV was translated were YOUNGER than the OLDER, more reliable ALEXANDRIAN manuscripts the ESV was translated from. And THAT is only ONE of MANY mistranslations in the KJV. I could write more, but don't have the time.
make time, some of us need to know.
@@tomfoley1818 Please research it yourself; that's what I did, and the more I learned about King James and his "authorized" version of the Bible the more appalled I WAS! King James was a 33rd degree mason, yet people today have idolized him; additionally the ORIGINAL 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, and was revised in 1769, so people today are reading the REVISED edition, yet they think God directly inspired the KJV. Smh
@@recoveringbaptist2023 King James didn't write the Bible, fool. He appointed the best Biblical scholars of his time.
Thank God for you pastor John
The Deceiver has infiltrated this discussion. The best Bible? How sad that this educational video has turned into arguing and separation. Jesus would tear into your close-minded, human ways of thinking with frustration: "How long must I endure you (put up with you) (be with you) (deal with you)." "How much longer will you simple people continue being simple?" "Faith, Hope, Love, people."
May the Most High rebuke you.....
Here's my list of Bible Translations that I use:
1. New King James Version
2. New International Version 1984
3. New American Standard Bible 1995
4. King James Version
5. English Standard Version
6. Holman Christian Standard Bible
7. Christian Standard Bible
8. New International Version
I also prefer the 84 niv over the new. My favorite is NKJV
Ps 16 has 11 verses vs 1 the first word is PRESERVE verse 11 the last word is EVERMORE God is BIG ENOUGH STRONG ENOUGH and WISE ENOUGH to PRESERVE HIS WORD! Ps 12 vs 6&7
Is there a more full break down of this video at all? Thanks
79% of the scholars press h from Western text because the more current versions were not available yet.
Hmm, I didn’t actually know that. So if I may clarify(I actually own several Bible versions in English) if what your saying is accurate then only 1/2 of one page is up for real for a better word debate? What about Bibles such as the Scriptures or the Aramaic, Syriac text, etc?
Do not just read any of it. The command from scriptures is this: Study to show thyself approved of God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth. 2 Timothy 2:15. " rightly dividing" here is the Greek word " Orthotoméo - meaning to disect correctly then to line oneself up perfectly in line with scripture truth. It is the picture of a military cadence squad in tune with the cadence caller so, that no distinguishable difference is three.
Being that this video is from some time ago, not sure if you are still reading the comments, but I really did enjoy your presentation explaining the differences. I do have a question, though. While you mention that there is only half a page difference between the translations and they are mostly an extra "s" or vowel or that sort of thing, could you explain the differences in John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 1:18 that others have brought up as significant. In John 3:16 it says, "his only begotten Son", but the NIV says "one and only Son", while some dismiss that as saying the same thing, others says there is a significant difference in the meaning. And in 1 Cor the KJV says, "which are saved" (one and done), and the NIV says "being saved" (a process). And I wouldn't say that Philippians 2:12 where it says "work out your salvation" means a process of salvation like the "being saved" suggests.
Curious, he could state that the Catholic Church was mysteriously on the correct side of nearly every doctrinal debate and seems to have preserved the bible over the years, yet still dismiss it as teaching "deadly" doctrines. Maybe the truth has never disappeared or needed restoration. Remember that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the church into all truth?
The only one that encourages you to be immortally strong, walking in power as Jesus walked through prayer and fasting. HINT: Proverbs 18:1. If your bible has perverted this from the secret weapon of God found in the original authorized 1611 King James Bible, bury it or burn it, but have no more to do with it. What was the first temptation of Christ? "What do you want, Lucifer" "I want you to eat, Jesus! you're too powerful for me! Here, turn these stones to bread, stop fasting!"
I think there's something amiss with your observation of history. But in any case, as a native Greek person who studies using the Greek text each time I teach or preach, I find that ALL versions have their strengths and weaknesses. However, the NIV in many instances best captures the difficult to translate nuances of the Greek. In many particular cases, the KJV is not even close.
I would say, for casual reading choose what you like but for intricate study always refer to the Greek text.
Anyone reading the NIV isn't reading the Bible... or any of the "modern" translations.
geshnizusa what bibles do you use or read
Textus Receptus Only!
Yes ...the only truly faulty text is texts receptus
Thank you, this has been weighing on me for a while. The only additional question I have is: has anyone run through and documented the exact differences within the half of page?
Praise Yeshu’a
"has anyone run through and documented the exact differences within the half of page?" Not that I know of. The NT was originally in Aramaic, not Greek. For the NT, the KJV used Greek mss., and has translation errors present in basically all NTs translated from Greek. Accurate translations of the original Aramaic remove several mistranslations present in Greek mss.
1) Matthew 1:17 says there are 14, 14, 14 generations.
Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s genealogy list 14, 14, 13 generations.
In Aramaic mss. of Matthew’s genealogy, with Mt 1:16’s “gbra” translated as father/guardian, Matthew’s genealogy lists 14, 14, 14 generations.
Mary had a father/guardian named Joseph (plus a husband also called Joseph).
2) Do you think Jesus and his disciples visited the house of a leper? The Greek translation from Aramaic has leper at Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3, while the Aramaic allows for potter. Lepers were unclean and weren't allowed to have guests over. It's actually Simon the _potter_.
3) For Mt 7:6, it's actually 'hang earrings on dogs,' not 'give a holy thing to dogs.'
4) Greek mss. embarrassingly have Jesus liable to the fire of Gehenna. Compare Mt 5:22 and Mt 23:17.
He doesn't even teach from Christ's words. He's a hypocrite false teacher... and the world loves him. Woe unto him.
I like the NKJV best. Like the KJV but easier to read for me. 😀
So you like the NKJV because it suits your flesh?
Could you do this same presentation but include “translations” like the message Bible…which I think would include change of doctrine
The lecturer's claim at the beginning of the 10th minute -- to the effect that there's only a half-page of difference between the rival forms of the text of the New Testament -- is simple false. Take in hand the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, and look at the footnotes, and you will see the differences between it and the Nestle-Aland (primarily Alexandrian) compilation. Lots more than half a page there obviously. And that's not even counting readings adopted in other compilations.
What is his name.. I would love to hear more from him. Very good teacher
John Barnett❤
Very helpful... as always.
The eastern manuscripts omitted 1John5:7, which is quite important, as it is the only scripture that states the trinity clearly.
The ESV & NASB have 1John 5:7; it is not left out.
I personally prefer the NIV but I simply can't stand the newest 2011 rendition.
I now know how my Grandfather must have felt about me reading anything other than the KJV when I see someone using the newer NIV, NLT or something along those lines... but I digress.
I however also like to reference the ESV, KJV and NASB.
It is worth mentioning and has always fascinated me that even the Watchtower Societies, Jehovah's witnesses, cultist version of the scriptures, mis-translated version "New World Translation" of the Bible can prove the diety of Christ.
Now to be clear ... I would absolutely recommend NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc ... but I would never recommend the Satanic New World Translation.
I felt the same way and like the 84 niv
Before William Tyndall was martyred...He cried out with his last breath "God Open the Eyes of the King" And so the King James Bible came to be. And it is the BEST BIBLE because it is from the inspiration of GOD. I have read other bibles and the more men of wisdom try to make it better....the farther and further men lose God. The old King Version is still the best bible. It is not perfect and every imperfection that is in it ....GOD allowed for a reason. They force men to go to him for further explanations. Dan Bertrand.
Kjvo videos gave that lie to you. For you see, there's a Problem with repeating what you just said : when Tyndale prayed that prayer, King James wasn't even born yet.
I appreciate your good words on Catholicism, but I just don't understand your comment about how we added "the deadliness of works religion". Is it possible you don't understand Catholicism? (Or for that matter, do any Catholics even understand it? -- maybe that's the real problem). What's you opinion on the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification signed by the RCC and the Lutherans? As a Catholic I have always been taught that I am saved through faith by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and not through any merit of my own. Any good works I perform are merely the fruit of my faith-based relationship with God and demonstrate my faith.
I am wary of labels. Still, I came from a Baptist tradition and was blessed to attend a Jesuit high school. I stopped attending Mass when given the option and I regret it now because I missed getting a deeper sense of the Catholic spiritual experience.
However, I attended mandatory religion classes for 4 years and I feel I got a grounding in Catholic doctrine. You know the doctrine of Purgatory and the veneration of saints are points of contention.
Going back to Luther's time, the granting of indulgences is a sore point. The tradition of confession also is an issue, although we are encouraged to confess our faults to one another. Being assigned so many "Our Fathers," "Hail Mary's," and the counting of the Rosary also are issues.
I am not familiar with the accord reached by Catholics and Lutherans. I completed Lutheran catechism, and the accord wasn't mentioned (40 years ago). I see I have some homework to do.
Almost in protest, I explored the Lutheran faith and accepted that persuasion as a junior in high school. Then, I saw a sharp distinction between what I saw as the Catholic emphasis on rituals and works as opposed to the Lutheran emphasis on grace. That was 40 years ago.
Even then, I had the sense that Catholicism was progressive. I got instruction in philosophy that I bet rivals what's taught in universities today. So I can well believe that there's been re-assessment and refocusing on doctrine in the Catholic faith.
Forgive me for resorting to labels anyway: they are convenient. But we're supposed to be "Christians" - disciples of Jesus Christ. Denominations just attest to our humanity and divisive spiritual influences.
Thank you for sharing your view, and keep following Christ as best you can - as we all must.
"the deadliness of works" referred to was added by the vatican to the catholic doctrine. In effect (Although we are saved by Jesus' dying for us on the cross) our good or bad works on earth determine our fate. So, in a sense, good works are essential to get to heaven, but not alone. Nor is faith alone sufficient, although faith is also necessary. James 2:26 tells us that faith without works is dead. In Romans 3:22 we see that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Catholic theology supports these teachings of the Bible and holds them in balance.
I agree with what you wrote here, Kelsey, even though I'm not R. Catholic. The church of Rome does not hold or teach precisely what you just wrote here, however.
2 SAM 5.21
(KJV) And there they left their images, and David and his men burned them.
According to all other versions David ( a man after God's own heart) was an idol worshiper...?
(MKJV) And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away.
(ASV) And they left their images there; and David and his men took them away.
(GNB) When the Philistines fled, they left their idols behind, and David and his men carried them away.
(RV) And they left their images there, and David and his men took them away.
the word Hell, is found 31 times in the OT of the KJV, but not once in the ASV, or GNB.
So its not true that there are no serious doctrinal differences between the KJV and the new age versions.
The doctrines that are attacked are:
the virgin birth of Christ
the divinity of Christ
salvation by faith alone
trinity
believers baptism
OT prophecies quoted in the NT
The rendition in 2 Samuel 5:21 as it is in new bibles today was also in the old bibles before Geneva (Ones like the Matthew bible).
"And there they left their images, and David and his men took them up".
As for trinity, if you're referring to 1 john 5 : 7, that verse was doubted back in that day (namely by Erasmus), so then tyndale through taverner's have the verse in parenthesis.
2 samuel 5 : 21 Geneva
"And there they left their images, and David and his men burnt them".
Eloise Denys I don't understand why KJV only people call other versions new age versions when new age people don't read the bible
Eloise Denys Just because modern bible versions render the phrase 'took them away' does not mean that David was an idol worshipper. Even the KJV uses the phrase 'taken away' or 'took away' ~ "And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the LORD to anger, Josiah took away…" (2 Kings 23:19, KJV) ~should we then say that Josiah was an idol worshipper because he just 'took away' the houses of the high places instead of burning them?
@@allensagalla6340
I think they refer to christians who are influenced by new age whether they know it or not
A true engagement to enlightenment!
NRSV is the most accurate because it goes to the original language first and translates from there.
.... maybe.... but I like the NASB.
So does the NASB, so does the ESV, so does the NIV... sigh...
The Eonian Life bible is the best in my opinion
I can read the Bible in the original Greek and Hebreq and I love the Nasv and the Holman Christian study Bible. The message Bible in urban vernacular has its place.
That's easy: it's the NASB.
Yes! Agree. I love reading my NASB!
THE POSTS ON THIS TOPIC ARE INDICATIVE OF WHAT SATAN HAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH SO MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF GOD'S WORD. GOD STATES IN HIS WORD THAT HE VALUES HIS WORD ABOVE HIS NAME. IT CERTAINLY IS REFLECTED IN THESE POSTS HOW PEOPLE ARE DIVIDED WHEN IT COMES TO WHICH VERSION IS BEST, MORE ACCURATE, ETC. WOW.
What about the part that was mis translated like God divided the tribes according to the number of the Sons of God.? Some say Israel instead of Sons of God. Pretty big difference.
If I'm wrong please let me know.
Thank you and God bless you
It's spelled "uncials" and "minuscules," professor.
Why are verses “missing” in dieerent books?
Google that. It’s not anything that has to do with the true Gospel nor is anything altered from one version to the next. For someone new to their faith, none of that matters. God’s Word is intact from one to the next. It matters that people are saved and they’re reading their Bibles.
TRANSLATION ERRORS IN MODERN BIBLES
Gospel - correctly translated as "good news".
Apostle - correctly translated as “sent one”, such as Paul and Peter the “sent ones”.
Deacon - correctly translated as "servant".
Bishop - correctly translated as "overseer” or “elder".
Pastor - correctly translated as "shepherd".
Word (in John 1:1) - correctly translated as “logos”. Logos means ultimate truth and wisdom; universal and beyond view or God's view, as opposed to human understanding. Logos did not mean “word” to the Greeks, as modern bibles mistranslate the entire idea and meaning.
Epistle - correctly translated as "letter".
Doctrine - correctly translated as "teaching".
Homosexual - correctly translated as “homosexual sex”, referring to the act, not the person. God is not against people. Rather, God is against what people often do, including fornication, adultery and homosexual sex; all three listed together in I Corinthians 6:9. “For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him might be saved.”
Disciple - correctly translated as "follower" or "student".
Preach - correctly translated as "proclaim" - anyone can proclaim the good news of Jesus; no religious cemetery degree either needed, required or desired. However, one should be very careful regarding anything in the Bible, that they understand and teach others correctly.
Church - correctly translated as the “assembly”; the people who believe in Jesus and have his spirit within them. An assembly of believers is not a building or a religious or other organization--it refers to the actual people who believe in Jesus. “Upon this rock I will build my assembly. . .”
Saint - a saint is someone who has been made holy by being washed by the blood of Jesus. No pope or other human being can make anyone a saint. Only Jesus can make someone a saint. And we cannot make ourselves a saint by doing good works or refraining from certain things. Only through forgiveness from Jesus can someone become a saint.
God's name is YHWH, not Jehovah. YHWH means "I AM, I SHALL BE to infinity". God did not tell Moses to tell the people Yahweh sent you or Jehovah sent you. God told Moses to tell the Hebrews that "I AM" sent you. This is according to my understanding.
These mistranslations are used to turn Jesus into a religion, which is not the intention of the New Testament; Jesus is deliberately secular, eating, drinking and associating with sinners and the common people, while railing against the religionists of his time. The New Testament is written in secular Koine Greek, the language of the common people. True religion is defined in James I:27.
Be not deceived, Jesus did not come to earth to establish a religion called Christianity. He came to earth to save us sinners, to set us free, to give us life abundantly and to establish his assembly, which consists of his people. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him who he sent.”
The goal of God's free salvation, is that we will “have love, one for another” and that whatever we want people to do to us, we will likewise do unto them: “For this is the law and the prophets.” Without love, whatever we do is in vain.