Three Myths about King James Bible
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- What are the myths about the King James Bible? Was the KJV or Authorized Bible ever changed in history since 1611? This video looks at some of the popular misunderstandings about the King James Bible, without raising debate over the KJV-only faith. Instead, we want to help you understand the original KJV in Stuart England.
Support the channel on Patreon: patreon.com/user?u=23593673
My books (affiliate links):
"How We Got Our Bible" (Zondervan, 2018): amzn.to/2MtmSYY
"Story of Creeds and Confessions" (Baker Academic, 2019): amzn.to/3OVDyGQ
#kingjames #kingjamesversion
Oh hi everyone! I'm back.....check out my new book that came out last week! amzn.to/2MtmSYY
IT'S ABOUT TIME!
Ryan Reeves
You were gone? :-)
Steven Wiederholt Rude! :)
Ryan Reeves
Somebody has to be the skinny old wise guy. I do have decades of experience in this regard.
Ryan Reeves its a true pleasure and privilege to have you back and to be able to hear your new lectures
When my brother was a student-preacher in small church back in early 1960s he used the ASV. The elders made him go back to KJV, "just the way Paul wrote it".
yes, because paul spoke 17th century english xd
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I'm sure the 65,000 difference in the underlying text had nothing to do with it.
@@kenavery8144 Not quite sure what you are saying; but am reasonably sure the elder in question would not know there was an underlying text. Such is the life of a student pastor in a small town. David
@@davidllewis4075 This is an assumption on my part, that the Elder had knowledge of the superior biblical accuracy of the Syrian text over the Egyptian text.
I pray and meditate several times a day, filling my mind with the beauty of Gods wonderful words. I rehearse soul winning verses which I use when the opportunity presents itself to share the Gospel. I am so thankful to God for the comfort of his beautiful words. Praise His Holy Name.
Such a odd comment.
I am sorry you wasted your time, How many have you sucked in so far? I will help them escape.
Extinguished a Junk Professor Hello sir. What you suggest is impossible. When a person has become a true BORN AGAIN BELIEVER, a spiritual transaction occurs that can never be stopped. God indwells the person with his Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16). This last for all eternity.
@@Policesamuri77717 I know you believe this nonsense and you will use excruciating verbal gymnastics to explain the journey of those who escape the grip of superstition. You are fortunate to have the power of discernment to determine that the true believers who no longer believe, were not genuine believers in the first place. I also have the magic power to determine that those apologists who say they were atheists were not true atheists in the first place and are deceivers.
Extinguished a Junk Professor 😊
You definitely put a smile on my face. It is always nice to read a comment from someone interesting. It is late and I am up early for work tomorrow. I will pray that God gives me a proper response. 🙏🕵️👍
As I started studying the Bible in its original languages I truly believe they should have left some words in the original language. The English falls short on word definitions. Like the word obey being used for a woman and child. Children are to harken their parents. Women are to respect man as their head as to the orderly arrangement of God. So if the man as head doesn’t follow God a woman has no need to follow his leadership. The Authority is God. Man is head only by following God’s Word.
I love this channel. I hope you haven't stopped making videos. I just found you. Great stuff. Thanks
I know I mentioned this in your lecture on Anglicanism and King James, but it bears repeating, because there was a parallel that recently occurred to me. In 2007, I got my grandfather the King James version of the Bible for his last birthday, unaware that he had the same birthday as King James VI/I: June 19. Like it was meant to be. What's even weirder is that I recently found another striking parallel between the two, theologically speaking. My great-great-great grandfather, John Peacock Wood (1818-1899), immigrated from England and joined the Mormon Migration; he and his descendants were Mormon until my grandfather broke the tradition when he became Lutheran. King James's forbears were Catholic until he broke the tradition in being the first Anglican king of Scotland in 1567.
I'll look into that and let you know if I am. If I am, that will blow my mind even more.
Isn't there a Stuart somewhere who still claims to be the rightful King of England?
I don't know, but what I do know is that my grandfather never claimed to be him--his last name wasn't even Stuart, it was Wood.
Mormon or Moron?
It hardly bears repeating.
Dude! It's so good to have something new from you! I've literally watched all of your previous videos at least twice. Please keep them coming!
Mark K - what is the purpose of 'literally' in your sentence?
Was King James Black man?
Bible translations are important, but there is a greater factor: “As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day” (Ezekiel 34:12). Those given to the Son before the foundation of the world will come to Him and be preserved to the last day. It’s not so much what WE know, or are able to ascertain by labor or study (and I’m not impugning study), but it’s about WHO knows US. If we exhaust all the knowledge of all the great and godly men who ever lived, at the end of our lives the final plaintive wail of the good thief, “remember me!” and Christ’s glorious reply is all that matters. Godspeed!
@@wdcurry111 Indeed…. Those that are given to the Son before the foundation of the world isn’t a predestination of individuals. It’s a confirmation to those that are biblically reborn that they will be saved.
@@wdcurry111 The Bible teaches that the Church will go through tribulations….
@@wdcurry111 Just another false religion…
@@wdcurry111 Nope.. The word of God is the only authority..
Absolutely 💯
Welcome back professor - I quoted you twice in a new book right alongside "Roman lives" by Plutarch. Looking forward to more of your wonderful and insightful teaching
You are back finally! Really enjoy your lectures man, keep it up!
He hasn’t posted a new video in a long time. What do you think happened to him?
So glad that you are back! Thanks for your hard work -it's a blessing to all of us interested in church history
I was just looking at your channel yesterday to see if I missed anything. Glad to see you back. Also, congrats on the book! I'm going to buy my copy now ;)
I’m so happy you’re back
I’m an Angolan Christian and you have no idea how much your lecture impacted my life. I hope you get to see this comment massive thanks. Are your books available on Amazon ?
No Such Thing As Christines In The KJV They Killed My Lord Yahweh APTTMH
I also encourage you to give a fella named Finis Dake a listen. And if you for any one you would like me to hear, let me know.
so happy you are back, you really got me into church history.
Me too
josh w - otherwise known as Iron Age biblical myth.
Simple minds.
Glad to have you back. I stayed subscribed for the last year hoping that you would return with fresh historical content.
Glad to see you back Mr Reeves! Your videos have been an awesome education while i watch my newborn, she loves all of the paintings and i love the content, keep it up.
Glory To GOD!!
Thank you Ryan Reeves for all your hard work - your book which I look forward to reading and for sharing this with us!
There is a age old saying that loosely goes as such..... "History is written by the victor and history is filled with liars". Read your bibles and trust what your hear and mind tells you the best you can and let your conscience be your guide. May God bless us all and have mercy on our corrupted, sinful souls. For God is humanity's one and only hope for a truly pure and just existence,
James Thompson.
Thought you stopped making videos, good to see you making videos again. I'm just curious, which denomination are you?
First time I’ve viewed a new video! Happy to be part of the discussions and lessons.
I ordered your book Dr Reeves. It arrives tomorrow ! Looking forward to reading it!!!!!
Update. Your book is in my hand and I am about to start reading it.
THE REEVES HAS RETURNED
Absolute L e g e n d
Only the best sounding voice on the youtubes.
Thanks for all your videos. Great content, tone, and presentation. Downloaded the Kindle Version right after watching.
I NEVER CLICKED ON A VIDEO SO FAST ! Welcome back, hope to see more videos !
It’s almost like we could discuss these matters reasonably... oh wait! We can!
Discuss matters reasonably? What? No. That's so 20th century.
Your lectures have really opened my mind to history! For someone who isn't able to go to seminary or bible college--these videos are a blessing to the laity of the local church. God bless!
Have a look at elearning.online-bible-college (just add . com) they seem to be pretty solid, and it is free. Blessings.
RYAN!!!!! So glad you're back! Please do some more videos on church history (orthodox and Vatican I & II)
Welcome back, I'm just getting into your lectures and am thoroughly enthralled. Thank you for your work.
So, King James himself was against any “King James Version Only” movement? Wow!
ClockworkMultiverse KJV only will never find providence with the Lord
Not only was king James against the use of only one version of the Bible the king James translators themselves were against it and even acknowledged in the introduction to the king James version that it would need to be updated as more reliable manuscripts came available and the English language evolved.
@@dafflad1 It already has it.
Idk what make you come with that realization! His intention was to come with a more reliable bible than was available at that time.
The methods of King James translation where a proper method. The problem of today's new translations is that is not the proper way to translate a text.
They don't translate word for word as in KJV, they translate thought for thought, what make the translator decide what the text means instead of what the text really said!
King James Only is a product of this incompetence to translate a text properly that the NVs come at each publication of a new so called bible.
I have no problem with new translations as long they translate the words with the proper way to translate a text.
I bet John Wesley's translation was a proper way to translate a text for the common language at the time, not authering the proper doctrines. In accordance to KJV.
But in the case of this new corrupted translations you find so much errors and verses that is missing compared to KJV you can't consider you are holding a bible.
So, there is nothing wrong with KJV onlyism as long the basis for KJV onlyism is right!
That is defending the word of God as it says, not what I think God says.
KJV = the right manuscripts + proper translation methods + comitment to the word of God
NV = the wrong manuscripts + the wrong translation methods + comitment to the ever changed language
@@kjvitor We came to this realization from reading the introduction to the KJV itself. In it the translators admit the KJV is not the end all be all translation and would bee revision if more reliable manuscripts are found and the english language changed.
According to the Bible itself, the translation method the KJV translators used is actually not the proper one. The only verse in the Bible that speaks to the issue of translation says the Bible should only be translated in a way that preserves the original meaning(AKA thought for thought). The problem with word for word translations is that is can be extremely difficult to translate without changing the original meaning. For example a common greeting in Chinese is the equaivent of "I'm glad your are here" in English but literally translates to "Have you eaten". In some areas the NIV is actually more accurate and literal then the KJV.
The verses you claim are missing from the NIV, are actually not missing at all, they are in the footnotes as they are not in the most reliable manuscripts which date to just 40 years after the book of Revolution was completed as opposed to the KJV manuscript basis which came 1000 years later.
The only real basis for KJV onlyism is the believe that the KJV is the correct one based on simple tradition of use, not reliability or readability.
The KJV isn't using the "right" manuscripts. It was using the best they had at the time, and they were no older then the 11th century. We now have 26,000 manuscripts, many of which date all the way to the second century for th new testament and the third century BC for the old testament. The NIV is using far more accurate and reliable manuscripts much closer to the originals, in a way that God himself says to Translate the Bible in the book of Nehemiah. The english language is also always changing. Is much so that it has changed more in just 40 years than Greek has in 2000. Many words in the KJV have changed meaning or have fallen out of use. If you try to force people to use a Bible they cannot understand, what makes you any better then the people who try to force the Bible away from people?
It was a cherry tree,I'm 67 and that's the way I read it.
Recently binged your content, nice to see a new vid up
Wow! I subscribed recently having no idea you would returned. This is exciting!
Proverbs 28:21 To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress.
Thanks Ryan! So glad to have a new video from you! You and Bruce Gore are the best when it comes to Church history!
Garbage
I always loved your classes at GCTS. Thanks for these videos, Ryan.
I was wondering when the next video will come. I'm so excited.
Wonderful presentation! I just heard someone try to disprove the validity of the Bible by saying it has a copyright. Now, I know why. Thank you!
I wonder if these King James only people stop to think about the fact that not everyone knows English. A person that speaks french only can't read a word of the king James Bible and understand it.
Great work as always, hope this is not your last video in 2018.
Good to see you back at it! I missed these lectures.
This video was very informative, and interesting. I have used the KJV most of my life and I really appreciate how well you explained it's origin.
Welcome back. I've viewed a few KJV video ramblings. This is a more concise distillation for those of us of the lay. Thanks!
Welcome back, I really missed your content!
I didn’t realize how much I missed hearing from you Ryan Reeves.
It's George Washington and the CHERRY tree, not the apple tree. LOL.
i saw that too
Mandela effect?
Ask Johnny Cherrytree
Not only that but also, according to Parson Weems' hagiography, the boy George Washington didn't actually CHOP down the said cherry tree: rather, he simply barked it.
@@codypendant1 Either him, or Johnny Grape-Pit. Both reliable sources.
so glade your back my friend
Please post more videos Dr. Reeves these are great.
When you say the "RV", is that the RSV (Revised Standard Version)? Or is there some English translation of which I'm not aware?
The RV (sometimes called the 1885 RV) is the only officially recognized revision of the KJV in Great Britain. It is not very popular in the US, but I think it sort of like the UK equivalent of the ASV. Wescott and Hort were on the translation committee.
Scotland was not "thoroughly reformed." Many parts of Scotland were untouched by the reformation and remained Catholic, and are still so today.
@Adam Bruce the moral of that story is DON'T be a catholic...
No, they were not ethnically cleansed. Catholicism survived in many parts and people worshipped in secret at Mass Stones in remote areas served by the heather priests who travelled the country saying Mass. The overwhelming majority of Catholics in the Highlands and islands are of Scots descent and in Edinburgh less than 10% are of Irish descent.
@@nasticanasta A commendable sentiment were it not for the fact that in the pre - and post Nicene sense, the Greek term "Katholicos" meant preaching the entire corpus of the apostolic teaching. It never meant "universal" in an organisational sense. If the Roman church believed that, it would have used the well known Latin term "Universalis" when Bowdlerising the Greek teaching of one holy catholic and apostolic church. In the teaching of the foundational Christian churches - now the various Orthodox churches, the church exists in autocephalous congregations - where two or three are gathered in Christ's name and therefore in the presence of Christ and both united under Christ as the only head of the Church ("one"), holy the holiness of Christ alone and in our existence "in Christ" ("holy"), catholic in the comprehensively teaching of the apostolic tradition as recorded in Scripture (" catholic and apostolic in the meaning of the text") and avoidance of any other tradition. This means that most churches are "catholic" in the proper meaning of the term, with the probable exception of the one sect which has sought to subject Scripture and the apostolic tradition as taught by Paul and the other apostles (except James, who got things wrong) to the inconsistent and incompatible tradition of Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy.
Ic
@Adam Bruce true!
@Adam Bruce Rubbish!
As a non-religious person deeply interested in this from a strictly historical point of view, the rivalries and battles between denominations and even person to person always struck me as really odd. I understand that when you have an order to enforce so as not to have a million different violently opinionated heretics running around causing trouble, it's important to make sure everyone's on the same page. This is why I think the whole idea of the ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church is kind of a scarecrow; the alternative is quite probably widespread tribal sectarian war led by a bunch of backwoods preachers who all think they've got it figured out. However when it carries on to the modern day, all that stuff feels like it should be in the past. Like if an American still hated the British for the way they treated us as colonies, it's just a bizarre hill to pick a fight on.
I certainly don't mean to sound condescending but it just seems like the sort of thing that should have been left behind by the march of history, and the fact that so many people still take it so personally always seemed kind of petty to me. Maybe it's just because my mom's family was Catholic and my dad's is Lutheran. Is this sort of conflict an over exaggerated hysteria in the modern day? I don't mean to get political but a lot of the time this sort of thing gets played up and blown out of proportion in society, for instance if you put too much stock in the narrative about race in America you'd think that white people and black people were brawling in the streets every time they saw each other. I truly don't mean to belittle race struggles at all, but I think you know what I mean, nobody ever wrote the headline "White person and Black person have normal interaction or "Protestant and Catholic become friends and hang out sometimes". As I haven't gone to church since I was a tiny child and have never really worn any team colors so to speak, I have no reference on how much modern sectarian conflict is a real thing and how much of it is outrage culture hyperbole.
The most ruthlessly totalitarian medieval church was in Geneva under John Calvin. The Vatican wasn't far behind but in many ways not even close to Calvin for ruthlessness.
? Now we see your Bias. Citation? Proof? 1 > the medieval period was over. It was the period of the Renaissance.
Monty Python and Black Adder are not reliable sources of historical information.
+Skylitze
Religion was culture in those days it was also the Law of the land. Not Just in Catholic Europe either. You can find it in any Religion the same issue. Even Buddhism and Hinduism their various sects Use to fight all the time. Yes Even the philosophy of the Chinese were divided at times. .
Protestant nonsense propaganda and outright lies aren't historical fact.
So glad you came back! I love your channel.
Finally, Ryan! So good to have to back. Congrats on the published book!
William Tyndale deserves a lot of credit for the foundation of the Authorized Version 1611 and Geneva Bible was the most popular bible in the colonies. The KJV translators gave a great deal of credit to King James in the front matter.
Tynedale copied his new testement part from erasmus Greek New testement, its nearly same just English. Erasmus used Greek manuscripts he had acquired and the Vulgate, he knew there was parts added to the Vulgate and he knew his Greek manuscripts had many mistakes. He wrote about these facts. Also he admitted his version he wrote had many mistakes. Tynedale used original Hebrew for old testement part but erasmus Greek for the new testement part. King James (original) is almost same as tynedale
William Tyndale was my 15th great-uncle. I am also related to King James. The King James version of the Bible we have today is the Oxford edition published in 1769 to standardize the spelling and the punctuation.
Wow, someone has been doing their genealogy! I don't even know my paternal grandparent's siblings or what happened to my maternal grandfather, much less knowing my great-grandparents! It's weird to think how unattached I am to family history.
Woah
The Cambridge is different than the Oxford edition.
@@flintymcduff5417 I know
@@flintymcduff5417 "The Cambridge is different than the Oxford edition."
At which point it becomes "straining at a gnat" Mt 23:24
I appreciate your approach to scholarship on this topic, though I would imagine any change to a revealed word of god, however miniscule, could give rise to multiple interpretations and readings, which result in sectarianism and further division. As carefully as the scriptures have been read and scrutinized, these minor changes have the potential for major deviations in interpretation. Again, not really a criticism, rather a personal opinion on the matter.
I would like to see your take on the influence of Daemonologie, and what impact, if any, it had on Biblical scholarship in the English speaking world going forward.
Cheers
I do hope you do the same type of analysis on some of major competitor modern versions of modern scholars. Looking forward to it.
He only did this analysis because there is a small and very vocal group in the rural parts of the USA screaming about "KIng James only!".The funny thing is that they are fundamentalists and not a part of the King James's church of England that the 1611 KJV Bible was created for.
My ninja, happy to see you back on da mic..
Acts 10:34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Thank Goodness you’ve returned! You have been a true blessing. God Bless!
Wow. Thank you. There's so many people that try to disprove every form of KJV advocacy. I really appreciate your moderate stick-to-the-facts approach. It actually allows for some of us, who love and keep the KJV as faithful translations, to be welcomed in the family of sober thinking Christianity.
KJV Bible isn't a faithful translation. If you really want to study the Bible, lift your arse and go to learn the language of the prototypes.
@@user-po6hn9id1t Brother, I love you, and bless you in the name of the Lord. I am sorry if what I said offended you.
@@user-po6hn9id1t actually the King James Version is a faithful translation, and they were using the best manuscripts they had at the time. However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation
The King James bible was more sacred propaganda than it was a "translation". It could not be a translation. It was a translation of a translation of a translation. No one spoke Greek and certainly NO ONE spoke Hebrew. No Jewish scholars were consulted becasue the Jews were exiled from England in the 1300s and only returned in late 1600s LONG AFTER the KJV was created. And it shows. There are SERIOUS errors between the KJV and the Hebrew scriptures. But it's not just indicative of the KJV.. it's inidicative of Church texts. The KJV just kept the POLEMIC renderings the Church Texts (and subsequent bibles) intact in its own "translation". All it did was to sort of Textually unite Protestant Post-Elizabethan England by gettng them to use a standard bible. But this elevation to "inerrant" and "infallible" status is laughable if it weren't so tragic.
@@warrenrhinerson6373 It's a translation of a translation of a translation. All they did was merge the two bibles currently in use into ONE "Text only" unit. Which is now the fourth generation translation. And then the KJV changed three more times since then. Rabbi Tovia Singer did a whole lecture on the book of Daniel -- and how the KJV rendered it and found during his research that in the mid 1800s there was a serious change to one of the chapters when comparisons were made between the orignal 1611 copy of the KJV and sometime in the late late 1700s/early 1800s when they reissued the KJV. Then in 1911 or sometime around there, they brought out the orignal plates of the KJV and reprinted the original version. Of course, neither comports to the original Hebrew/Aramaic Text, but then there's that.
So glad to see you back!
Kathleen Phillips I
You lost me at George Washington’s “apple tree” instead of a cherry tree.
Mark Chapman - I agree, understanding that there is a difference between an apple tree and a cherry tree is very taxing on the brain, especially for a person gullible enough to believe Iron Age biblical myths.
@Dawn Yearby It's a"fib" to show how HONEST he was. (But he really wasn't).
@@richardwebb2348 He has a right to believe the Bible without being mocked for it! Everybody needs something to believe in!
I don't think it really matters what kind of tree it was?
Are you so weak that you through out the entire teaching for 1 thing you disagree with? Not that I see that it makes any difference but CHerry Tress were not brought to the U.S. until 1906. They are native to Japan, the Japanese embassy told the U.S, they were going to plant 2,000 trees, in Washington..
Yes! You're back! Watched all your vids, I'm hooked! Praise be to God for you my friend!
Nice presentation.....thank you....will be checking out your books....keep up the good work.
FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE.....
NO PROOF IS NECESSARY.....
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE...
NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE......!!!!
Michel Duncan no, Christianity has been discussed and debated amongst Christians themselves for hundreds of years.
Refusing a educated discussion or conversation is the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. You look silly.
@@colemarie9262 what??? Are you even real??? Don't you see a lot of preachers who had discussion in the university and other public platforms ???
Eliyahu I honestly don't even understand your reply. Are you saying you never see preachers debating the gospel?
Well yeah, a person preaching it already has their views relatively set.....though depending on the type of Christianity they may have four to thirteen YEARS of schooling relating to theology and ministry to even be ordained in the first place (the exception being Baptists, where a "preacher" can have anywhere from a masters to zero formal education-the individual church decides).
Seems like ample time to me for discussion.
And this is a video BY a christian talking about christian history- not one attacking the Bible. The poster I replied to didn't seem to watch the video at all and instead had a knee jerk reaction to the title. And yes, I still think that makes them look silly.
@@goodnight8169 I think you need to study your Bible more closely ma'am ! Read 2 Timothy 4:2 'Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine'. Bible believers, amongst themselves, are *_obliged_* to study doctrine, and reprove, even rebuke, those with wrong doctrine. That is how a saved Christian grows in his/her faith.
We call those people fools
Myths occur when men fail to keep an honest record of events.
Fortunately therefore everything regarding the KJV had been honestly kept all the way since 1611.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 Unfortunately for you you seem to have forgotten the MANY re writes ! Plus you seem to forget that 1611 ia a bloody long way away from year 0
Myths are deliberate and created by mankind
@@gowdsake7103 There weren't 'many rewrites', only minor ones related to obsolete English words and grammar, not related to translation, and records of these were certainly kept, in detail. You seem unaware that the scholars of that time not only had a superior knowledge of the base languages, many even spoke it, in contrast to today's scholars, who have little more than a basic (indoctrinated) knowledge of it. In addition, many material, dating back a long time, were available to those scholars to study, which are no longer available today. The King James Bible is the most thorough and most correct English version of the Bible, which is certainly no myth. If you disagree, I sincerely hope you read whatever Bible version you use, with a very critical eye, especially if it's based on the Textus Vaticanus.
@@maaifoediedelarey4335 from wiki -"The title of the first edition of the translation, in Early Modern English, was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Comandement". The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches",[11] and F. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised by order in council" *but no record of the authorization survives "because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19"* .[12]
Welcome back! Please bless the Church with more content!
I haven't see you for a while. Good to see new stuff.
School’s back in session, yes.
Very informative. This is the kind of video that we need more of on CZcams that really educates.
Btw since the Cherry Tree is probably not a fact, it doesn’t matter what tree is mentioned. That story was created to get people to tell the truth more than likely. Course it didn’t help but it was worth a try!
As an Anglican, I.found this to be very informative. I had never heard these things before.
Providing more detail to historical events does not mean they were myths.
igregmart - it is all myth based on a the misogyny, racism, and homophobia in the Iron Age biblical text, and a genocidal god who advocated the rape of women and children. You must be so proud. Praise be.
Richard Webb you sound like you have all the answers. You aren't even a quarter as smart as you fancy yourself to be.
Lmfao! That's a good one!
Sam Bacon he's not worth my energy and neither are you. Why do you care, you got no skin in this game. Intrusive troll.
I also want to point out that the Puritans and Separatists were NOT the same group. The Separatists wanted to simply form their own little theocratic enclave and be more or less left alone by Great Britain. The Puritans were revolutionaries who wanted to change Britain and purify it. This is born out by Cromwell. Eventually the Separatists of Plymouth Colony were swallowed up by the bigger more powerful Massachusetts Bay Colony who were Puritans. Also Britain sent a lot of non Separatists to Plymouth and within 30 years the Separatists were in the minority despite the fact that the colonial leaders imposed strict religious policies such as mandatory church attendance and participation. Perhaps the most famous "Pilgrim" was John Alden and he wasn't even a Separatist at all but merely a young barrel maker employed by the captain as mandated by law but because he became friendly with Bradford he was permitted to remain in Plymouth. I would also like to point out that throughout New England there were numerous fishing villages and trading posts, particularly out on Cape Cod, the islands and up in Maine where religion was not always a significant part of life and in fact out in Provincetown on the Cape, there has always been a tradition of being socially rebellious. Fishermen, artists, poets and today the LGBTQ community have taken refuge there but that was the case in the 1630s when a few families fled Plymouth to live a far more liberal lifestyle. Technically all of the cape was part of Plymouth Colony until it was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony but in practice, due to it's remoteness it was mostly left alone to it's own devices. The various islands and Maine were likewise mostly left alone. If you wanted real religious freedom you moved to a more remote area away from the Puritanical theocratic dogma. Just like back in England, if you lived in a more remote and rural part of the country you could live a more liberal lifestyle. If you preferred city life and wanted religious freedom you moved to Holland, perhaps Amsterdam. Jamestown in Virginia was made up of 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. sons of well to do families and their servants. Religion played a lesser role in their lives. They were more pragmatic though not suitable as colonists as most had never done any work in their lives and when the problems started in that colony most of the servants they brought with them rebelled leaving the poor spoiled brat sons of wealthy and noble families to learn some harsh lessons about survival. Many did not learn those lessons. So Virginia was ostensibly members of the Church of England though in practice they were most likely agnostic. Connecticut was founded by Puritans from the Boston area. New Hampshire, while technically ruled by the Puritans for much of it's early history was a de facto independent territory. Religiously it was very diverse with rural families ranging from Roman Catholic in the northern part of the province to Puritan in the Southern most reaches though no part of the province was completely devoted to any one denomination and in between were, at least at the beginning, populated by non Christian Indians. Religion in colonial America is a very complex topic which should exclude generalizations like referring to the "Pilgrims" as puritans.
Cool vid, glad to have you back. Quick question, you state that in the UK it is called the "authorised bible" but I'm English and I've only ever heard it called the King James. Is this an historical name perhaps?
Truth is I don't know why, but my guess is the popularity of the name KJV (and the fact that modern publishers call it that ) has shifted the way people speak in the UK.
It was "Authorized" for use in the Church of England. As opposed to others like the Geneva. It replaced the Bishop's Bible. I know many people read into that like a seal of approval but that's all its about.
Yes! You're back! Please please please make more videos!
I always heard King James had it printed so the average person could have and hold their own bible . It angered him that only the priest and bishops could read it ! It was an insult to the king's intelligents .
I think this is a bias review based on his own understanding. Not once did he mention the "Septuagint"!
I have a 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Puritan Pilgrims had when they arrived. Many verses read exactly like the KJV while others are very similar. This is because King James used some of the same translators. The Geneva is great because of the study notes, though I do prefer the KJV Study Bible.
Lastly, the 1611 had the same number of books as the Catholic Bible. It was in the mid 1800s when those books where removed.
Geneva is Calvinist
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon
POINT?
@@paulrobinson9318 itll point ya toward heresy.
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon Based on exactly WHAT?
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon So the Geneva Bible will point you towards Roman Catholicism or some other heresy ?
I just came across your channel. Do you have any talks on baptism and salvation? I looked through your videos, and may have missed one or two. I would like to hear what you have to say. Thanks
Ryan Reeves:: what made you decide to do these Bible History videos?
I've always been a fan of separation of C&S, so even if it were unofficially " authorized", I'd be good with that, too.. you are correct about revisions of KJV, hence certain evangelicals that now believe in a 7 Year Tribune.. The Left Behind series... Peace! c):~)
Great Video. I sure enjoyed your Church History series. I have watched that several times.
Been waiting for this!
About the only things missing here are an introduction beginning, "Once upon a time" and an ending reading, "and they all lived happily after".
Yes, it is all such a scam, isn't it? Buy-bull(shit), a more accurate name. A cobbled together collection of antique Jewish fairy tales, mostly plagiarized from previous civilizations. (Remember, these people didn't even know where the sun went at night.)
The two worst curses ever visited upon Mankind: war and religion.
Yay! My brain is very excited about this :)
As a scholar, what bible version(s) do you believe to be most accurate?
None is most accurate. I've found issues with all I've looked at. Best tool is at BibleGateway.com, the parallel feature with show up 5 translations at a time. A lot of passages are pretty similar/same and some verses can vary drastically between versions, which tells you there's disagreement about interpretation among scholars. I learned to never never ever stake your beliefs based on one English translation.
The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear NT is handy for basic Greek - English translation. I've noticed the NIV is often closest to the Mounce Greek-English. Any more I only use the KJV to see what degree it warps the message by inaccurate translation and archaic prose. Some Bible scholars like Dr Michael Heiser use the ESV but not exclusively since he reads Hebrew and Greek like most of us read English.
I like the NET Bible. 62,000 translator's notes explaining WHY they chose a word or phrase lets you understand that there is NO such thing as an accurate word for word translation - the BEST translation is created by attempting to translate thought by thought, and after that is accompluisged - to check the accuracy and import of the individual words.
I not a scholar . Im just a peasant. To me its always a word for word translation. Base on the oldest a and verified text, parchments scrolls, Codex we do have. Since there is no Original to say that was is more accurate ? well? You would need a bases of comparison. A word for word translation is at least a "guide post" to stay more target of the intent of scripture. A thought for thought means my glasses have to stay on all the time so any theological bias that I may will show through.
Robert Parker Yeah i'd agree
It's impossible to do a word for word translation from Hebrew, and probably Greek, to English. And idioms make NO sense in a word for word translation. Young's Literal is close to a word for word translation - but take any online interlinear and you will soon see the impossibility of doing so.
Hence the BEST approach is to use a thought by thought translation - as it is the THOUGHT, not the actual words that are being expressed.
Try translating "spick and span" into any other language - it cannot be done. Just as there is NO equivalency for some words in English for some Greek and Hebrew words. And Vice Versa. TRY translating the nuances of Greek expressions of affection - what is translated into English as "love" - from their dozen or so distinctions . . .
qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-da4345eba80d95b59a855491f74bdc8c-c
Here's an example from Jeff Benner as the best I could find attempting a word for word translation (in the time I had)
"Here is Exodus 20:2 from my translation:
MT: I (אָנֹכִי a'no'khi) YHWH (יְהוָה YHWH) Elohiym~you(ms) (אֱלֹהֶיךָ e'lo'hey'kha) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר a'sher) I~did~make~GO.OUT(Verb)~you(ms) (הוֹצֵאתִיךָ ho'tsey'ti'kha) from~LAND (מֵאֶרֶץ mey'e'rets) Mits'rayim (מִצְרַיִם mits'ra'yim) from~HOUSE (מִבֵּית mi'beyt) SERVANT~s (עֲבָדִים a'va'dim)
RMT: I am YHWH your Elohiym, who made you go out from the land of Mits'rayim, from the house of servants."
Convenmtional:
(KJV) 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
(NIV) 2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Be grateful that so many godly scholars have taken their lives to make our modern translations as accurate, readable and well-sourced as possible - and they have such an incredible array of very ancient examples to work from.
NONE of this was available 400 years ago.
Could you do a video about church persecution. Recently saw a book on Amazon trying to discredit persecution, claiming that Christians had invented the “myth of persecution”. Would appreciate the content. Thanks.
Great to see new content! Welcome back big guy
Those are not myths. Legends, maybe, but not myths.
John Carboni
That’s not right.
gillecroisd 92
I know what myths and legends are, that was why I posted my comment.
The video title is Three myths....
I have never heard of the KJV being used to silence puritism.
I've always taken it as a given - King James bore no contradiction - and must have been ticked that his corrupted catholic Bible didn't disperse the Geneva for 50 years.
@@paulrobinson9318 - James VI and I was baptised Roman Catholic, but brought up Presbyterian and leaned Anglican during his rule.
+@@richardwebb2348 NOT sure what your point is - for the Anglican church of Henry VIII was Roman Catholic in all but name - what doctrines did they change other then the infallibility of the Romish Pope?
SO if he was Anglican he was English Catholic - Defender to the faith - the English Catholic faith - of which a huge number wanted to rejoin Rome - including many of those of the KJ editing committee.
Funny how people take it in stride when maybe half the KJ editing committee wanted to return to Rome - yet Hort - who also wanted to return to Rome is attacked for so doing.
AHHHH - the vagaries of English Bibles . . .
He’s back! You should do some videos about Christians in the enlightenment/persecuted in the French Revolution. Also one on John Locke and religious toleration. Would love to hear you cover those.
Have you checked out the church history playlists on his page? Might be something there for you already.
I was under the impression that the original 1611 KJV included marginal notes and a letter from the translators to the reader that was later removed for a reason I don't know. You mentioned that James pushed for printing without notes. What's the story there?
The printed notes found in the 1537 Matthew Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible took shots at the Catholic church and against the Monarchy itself. These men were under fierce persecution and were fighting back through the media of the printing press. These notes disqualified both Bibles from official use of the Church of England and spurred the ones that followed:
1537 Matthews - 1539 Great Bible and
1560 Geneva- 1568 Bishops Bible
I clicked with some trepidation. I was glad that you did a fair video
When people said Columbus discovered America, they meant the American continent, not the USA.
But he didn't even do that, did he? He discovered the Caribean Islands off of the coast of the Americas.
@@mlwsf The Caribbean Islands are part of the American Continent. America is all the land, mainland and islands, in the western hemisphere. So, yes, Columbus made it to the American continent in 1492. He was not the first one... but that is another story.
@@carlosbardales4179 and then they got their name from a bloody Italian. My point was that we may consider those islands part of the Americas now but they certainly weren't at the time.
Lets not confuse the name of America, named after Amerigo Vespuci, and Columbus whose real name was Cristophoro Colombo. In any event, the main point here is to undestand that when the discovery of America is given to Columbus, it is related to his voyage of 1492 and subsequent ones where he landed in other islands, parts of Central America and northern South America.
@@carlosbardales4179 you're preaching to the choir buddy I was just trying to lighten it up.
Well, the early kjvs did have notes, but it was more for reference, clarity, or for details on how a verse should read, or if it has support (Luke 17 : 36). The difference would be that some earlier bibles had notes which presented their doctrine.
So glad you have a new video. Great work as usual
Finally! After all these years!
Sage Seraph 315 Only one! But I was writing two books and tired...:)
Ryan Reeves Haha. Good for you dude. Awesome content as always.
Finally a new video from Ryan.
Another new myth.
Mr. Reeves, the content of your video testifies to a considerable level of scholarship and you seem to value accuracy when it comes to language and the written word. Given these facts, I thought you might want to correct what I believe is an error in the text of your voice over in the the opening seconds of this clip. The myth created and first published by Mason Locke Weems about about George Washington and his hatchet, involved his father's "cherry tree" and not as you have said, an "apple tree". I believe you simply misspoke in this case. I myself find that my lips betray what I am intending to say on almost a daily basis. It's comforting to know that I am not the only one whose mouth and brain aren't always perfectly synchronized.
Back !!! Can you also do general history videos ?
Yeah those are coming, too.
Ryan Reeves WHAAAAAAA THANKS !!!!!!