There's no basis for King James Onlyism other than "I prefer it, therefore it must be the standard." No legs & nothing that can be argued legitimately.
Dr. James White is the man. He is one of the best modern day theologians and scholars. His church history knowledge is also impeccable. I would not want to debate Dr. White on any biblical subject.
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
@@brucedressel8873 God promised to preserve His Word. But He never said it will be preserved in a translation. We have thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts with which He has preserved His Word.
he is totally wrong on the nature of God, calvinism and salvation, even with all of the man's knowledge he accumulated. I would rather be the humble publican, than a know it all theologian.
Pretty sure White knew this was going to be a knockdown debate after Moorman's opening statement. It was full of begging the question and bold assertions that are demonstrably false.
As an English and Spanish translator, I can say there is an ignorance in understanding differences in language. Things like sentence structure, word meanings, projected ideas etc., all are important when trying to accurately say what someone said. It is why there exist the saying "lost in translation" I think people should learn another language to truly capture the difficulty and see for themselves that it is as much a science as an art. There is a difference in the way I would interpret for a native speaker and to one in a second language. I feel sorry for others when they are kjvonlyists. This does not help, either the body of Christ, nor apologists. Dr.James is solid in his defense.
Agree 100% with you on the issues you raise. My degree was in English and I am yet to find an English educator to come out in support of the KJV Onlyist position. If they did I'd like them to explain their understanding of how the KJV was translated and whole they use the same process and approach to other works from the same period? Or in modern times, if I were to give them a copy of the TR, would they translate it into late Modern English, or would they feel they would have to translate it into Early Modern English? From an English educator's viewpoint I would find this really interesting!
Huh.. What? Brother we are not attacking the KJV, just the kjvonlyist position... You fail to understand 1 Corinthians 2 is not mentioning the KJV.. (What about other languages?) Take it in context instead of modifying interpretation to try to back-up what you are saying. My mother is Spanish and uses the Reina-Valera 1960. She cannot understand the KJV (she really tried to teach my nephew from it) but she can use the other versions and she is a very godly person who is filled with God's Spirit ( as the FULL gospel in the new testament). God's message is not limited by man. It is best to speak five words with my understanding than a thousand without, be not children in understanding... (1Co 14:19-20) one shameful thing I see is that ppl think this English bible has the right to correct the Spanish bible or in any other language. They think that the KJV is the standard for all languages and that is terrible thinking. You sound like Steve Anderson there is a video of him titled "worst preacher ever" on CZcams. He is kjvonlyist gone from bad to worst.
That's like what they say about the Quran, that it is beyond human reason. Except the Bible does not challenge us to write a verse like the Bible, of course. But if this is the strength of the KJV Only argument? Then it is once again proof of the circular reasoning of KJV Onlyism!
Glockbite, thank you for your perspective. My brother gave me a 400th anniversary of the KJV first edition, and it definitely not the same one the KJVO people use. They often assume that the "1611" marked on the spine is the edition date, when it is actually the translation date. Standardized spelling was not used back then, so the same word might be spelled three different ways on the same page of this first edition; "sheepe" is one spelling that comes to mind. The letters "u" and "v" are used interchangeably. One would think that the KJVO proponents would use only the direct copies of the first edition. Languages change, and English is no exception; I have noted slight changes in standard grammar and standard pronunciation in my own lifetime. On occasion, these slight changes can alter the comprehension of the unwary. Due to these factors and the inevitable biases of translators, it would be best to have parallel translations as well as current translations in order to have a solid understanding of any ancient or important document.
For those who may not have heard, Doug went the be with The Lord yesterday after a battle with cancer . We thank God for Doug and please keep his family in your prayers at this time. Thank you.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. - Acts 3:19 :)
With reference to 1:21:09-1:21:20 in the video: yes people still read Shakespeare today. But even so, they likewise misunderstand and misinterpret it. One example among many is that famous line: "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?" Too many people read this as though Juliet is asking where Romeo is, and that's just not the case. She is not saying, "Where are you, Romeo?" but, "Why are you Romeo?" (as in, "Why do you have to be the son of my father's mortal enemy? Why can't you be someone else?"). Likewise, there is great potential for people reading even the simplest verse in the KJV to come to equivalent misunderstandings simply because the English language has changed substantially in the past 403 years.
I think that gentleman actually proved why the KJV can be detrimental to contemporary readers: the language has changed and I don't think he realizes how much. He quoted 2 Timothy 2.15 : "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" when talking about people finding the archaic language of the KJV difficult to understand and talks about learning and being taught by the spirit, demonstrating that he's referencing studying as in the academic pursuit of diligently working to acquire knowledge, but "study" in that verse means "endeavor to"; we've lost that meaning to the word "study" in contemporary English, but it was still in use when the KJV translators did their work. The KJV translation is correct for the English of the 1600s, but to deem it the best English translation for contemporary readers is questionable.
It seems that the debate comes down to this, did the backend texts of the KJV add to the Word of God or did the Texts which the modern versions take away from the Word of God. The proof I would look for is bible quotes from the earliest church leaders to see which one is closer. I'm really wanting to figure this out, It seems that Isaiah 14:12 follows closer to the newer translations according to the dead sea scrolls and Irenaeus' writings seems closer to the KJV, Against Heresies Book III Chapter XVI. (1 jn 4:3) & Against Heresies, Book V Chapter II (Col 1:14). Does anyone else have anything to add to this?
Facts are subject to interpretation too, and we'd be better off leaning unto His interpretation than our own. We can look at the evidence for evolution, a christians sees God in it all- the flood of Noah but the Eviloutionist looking at same things sees millions of years, even billions of years. I feel the evolutionist is wrong just as do those who uplift the wisdom of the scholars of Rome and their older and better texts.
The "facts" though are quite subjective/questionable start to finish, as have said before there is a great deal of intrigue surrounding these older and better texts, the Minority, Alexandrian texts.
No english translation has ever rendered any manuscript vividly enough to EQUAL the harmony and accuracy of coin - a GREEK. Dont stand there and say a translation is as good as the original language. Therefore, the quality of education is less when based on a translation. So I ask, what's to debate? This whole thing is a professional circle jerk . It's a greek book, for people who can read greek. So go learn how to read before you start debating something. Debating a greek book when you can't even read greek sounds pretty flaky to me.
@@dougacebedo824 no its not. The Kjv is best translation we have ftom the Byzantine texts. The Niv etc use a corrupted text from Alexandria. The debate isnt about translation its about the starting point for the translation. Textus vaticanus is corrupted
@@Tony41christ So you expect us to go to your site, listen to your KJVO argument that we have all herd before and are getting tired of the same thing time after time. If you want us to listen to you grow a set and debate James White yourself. P.S. All your kind are doing is pushing people away from a great bible, the KJV.
@@henrylaurel4476 I only use the KJV, but I made that choice after understanding its shortcomings. I find its text beautiful, and I like having the connection to my forefathers in the Faith who used the KJV. I find the irrationality of the KJVO crowd really disappointing. The KJV is a fine translation, and its inaccuracies don't alter the theology presented therein. By all means, use the KJV, but do so intelligently.
@Anthony Lambertini Classic KJVO move, Anthony. Ad hominem attacks of people that simply disagreed w/you. That ok, we’re used to it from the KJVO Cult. Unless your YT vid covers something NOBODY has puked up in a FB debate, you’re wasting our time. Like the others, I’m past tired of people acting like we’ve NEVER heard the same KJ only talking points that we’ve repeatedly refuted. If you and I went toe-to-toe just like Jack & James, just like Jack and all the KJ defenders in the YT videos listed below… …you’d lose. That said you stay in your KJVO echo chamber where you’re safe Here’s a few YT videos that make it irrefutably clear much, if not all, of what KJ only people claim are myths*, conspiracies*, and fairy tales* as they* don’t hold up to equal scrutiny of the modern translations. The link labeled “Gail Riplinger” is her one and only real-time debate. After that radio show, she refused to debate anyone. Further, she and Peter Ruckman gutlessly no-showed the John Ankerberg discussion show for the same reasons... Gail Riplinger, 1993 - her first AND LAST toe-to-toe w/anyone m.czcams.com/video/UenzoYbq49M/video.html John Ankerberg, 1995 (Sam Gipp, Tom Stouse, Joe Chambers) Ruckman and Riplinger, gut-less no-shows m.czcams.com/video/E1R-TCpXb68/video.html DA Waite - babbles a lot, repeats himself all the while saying almost nothing of substance to support his position. m.czcams.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/video.html Jack Moorman versus James White: Jack repeats himself a lot but says very little of substance to support his position. An important visual that begins @ 33:30 minutes providing context to an essential detail to JW’s position that finishes ~36 minutes m.czcams.com/video/hwe_nxeVwE0/video.html JW/Steven Anderson, arrogant, cultic pride at its KJ-Only best m.czcams.com/video/6YeKQZW1VO4/video.html Berg vs Sluder, 12/2019, surprisingly, as new as this debate is, Riplinger’s book “New Age Bible Versions” comes up. In spite of the fact it was debunked YEARS ago by her contemporaries, DA Waite and David Cloud just to name two. m.czcams.com/video/TfZknJ7JU3k/video.html In every case the person or people defending the the KJ, fails miserably. Meanwhile their modern translation opponents present the facts, the KJ defender or defenders look or sound like idiots.
Would you give an illiterate person a King James Bible? No! You would give them a bible they can understand! To judge someone's salvation based on the translation they use is wrong!
***** I currently USE an NIV 2011. It's not my favorite translation however, I don't think I'd recommend it. If I were to pick a translation to recommend to somebody as my favored version, it'd be either the HCSB or the ESV.
White gave evidence, facts, reasons, valid questions, etc ... The other guy gave "feelings", like "it feels like The Bible" it "reads like The Bible", and relied mainly on "wouldn't you think...." and "I would assume..." type of arguments...debate over
White though does not recognize Origen as a heretic who sought to change the text in his day, nor does he or at least have never seen him even allude to the dramatic differences in modern versions from the KJV, the differences are stark and obvious yet they never go there.
@@Obediah002 Except the fact that Dr. White wrote a book on the subject and why it is surprising that the world doesn't use Moorman's "STANDARD" way to translate other ancient writings that have an abundant amount of manuscripts like the Bible does. Origen was disputed and shown to be a heretic. The modern versions have nothing to do with Origen. Your 'dramatic differences' are a like a thread of silk in a haystack compared to how excellent the English translations have accurately translated from the languages into English for our spiritual growth in Christ in reading the Bible in English speaking countries. ...... In summary, everything you wrote is wrong.
Nope, and when you look at the versions today, after the KJB they all are lacking, all of them. I have looked, compared them with my own eyes, the KJV stands well ahead in every way.
@@abnersilva3645, Moorman was speaking of the KJV. Tell me what is the standard today with all these versions, literally in the many hundreds today, how does one know anything, certainly not by laying out your 10 favorite versions and comparing them or is that it, is that where the HS is leading us to know Him!/? Are we really embracing what could only be described as mass psychosis?
Obediah002 Standard compared to what? KJV was not the standard before it came out. How about the Bishop’s Bible? Or the Geneva Bible? And the Vulgate was the standard for much longer than KJV.
@@guidohlizzi06 , I never said compared to anything, just that the KJV is obviously the standard He used, can you deny this? The vulgate was not the standard either it could NOT have been as it was closely guarded by papacy and was not allowed to be in the language of the people, literally nobody could or was allowed to read it but the priests of the RCC. The people during this time were copying & passing around the true text throughout that period witnessed by the Majority of the extant texts today (which led too the KJV today), as well as the witness of the utter & complete missing texts during this period of what is called the Minority texts, all of which are Alexandrian including the Vulgate which had placed within it the Apocrypha. Do not understand why this is so hard to see, other than the spirit over rules to blind those who will not see.
Obediah002 The KJV is the standard He (God) used? I’m sorry, but God uses His word. It doesn’t have to be perfectly transmitted, and all the manuscripts we have today are proof to that. So... before the KJV the people had been using the Geneva Bible, that’s a fine translation, preferred by many of the puritans and even reformers. So, you mean God had not been using that translation to speak to His people before? And please, the Vulgate WAS the standard for a very long time. The fact that later it was shut up and for many years people had no access to the Bible is a different issue. Besides, a standard is the one thing you go back to when you have questions comparing other translations. How about the Reina Valera in Spanish, translated in 1539 if I’m not mistaken? It preceded the KJV and it’s not identical to it. It departs from KJV quite a few times. So during the same period of time, in Europe, you have two different standards? Or the German Bible translated by Luther, which also departs from KJV, what’s the standard then? The so called majority text became the majority during the VIII to XII century. Most quotes from the early fathers prior to that do not read like the majority text now, but read much closer to the Alexandrian text. So, is it not possible that before, the majority was a different type of text? So again, KJV is the standard... compared to what?
@@MariusVanWoerden I think there would be much less KJVO sentiment if the translators' prologue to the readers and their marginal notes had never been removed from KJV Bibles -- I wonder when that occurred, anyway?
@@MM-jf1me King James ordered it without marginal notes, because it had anti gay comments. Some called him Queen James. I also read the Dutch translation with the Marginal notes. They are extremely helpful to understand the meaning of some words.
@@MariusVanWoerden He ordered less opinionated marginal notes than the Geneva Bible as the Geneva Bible had notes which diminished the authority of monarchies; King James wanted an English translation which bolstered his authority as King and as Head of the Church. The original KJV translation had many marginal notes. As the translators themselves said in their note to the readers: "Diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded[...] They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."
I only use the KJV, but I'm not a King James Onlyist. It is part of growing in maturity in one's faith to learn about the method of transmission of the Bible, understanding something about textual criticism, and then using what you find to make an informed decision. One must look into whatever translation one might be inclined to use.
@PrenticeBoy1688 I'm in your corner. I read and contrast many versions, but prefer to use quotations from the KJV, due to the majestic, poetic, language of the KJV being so engraved in history and literature. However, I do read, and greatly appreciate the NIV, ESV, LXX, NRSV, MEV and KJ21. For KJV readers I highly recommend having the KJ21 and MEV on hand to make sure that the KJV reader is not led off path a bit by words that have subtly shifted meaning since 1611/1769.
I would say as long as you have the ability to refer back to the source material people can change it all they want but someone genuinely seeking out the answers will be able to find them.
It is interesting that Mr Moorman mentions Martin Luther and his translation into German of Erasmus' Greek NT. Martin Luther's translation disagrees with the KJV in many places. Three examples: 1. Luther rejected the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), 2. he does not use "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 (he translate the Hebrew word heylel and the following 2 words as "schöner Morgenstern" = engl. beautiful *morning star*) and 3. Psalm 12:6-7 (v. 7-8 in the German Bible) reads different and does not suggest preservation of "God's pure words". So, does God speak only in one language? Has he revealed Himself perfectly only to the English-speaking world?
Frauke Schmidt The King James Bible is the culmination of Protestant efforts to restore the Words of God to the common language of the people. The work of Tyndale, Coverdale, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin etc. contributed to this finished product - the restored Traditional Text. You also seem offended at the notion that God might choose one language to use to preserve His Scriptures. Would you have also been offended in the first century that God chose Greek to preserve the NT?
Translations into other languages were done from very early on. From the very first preaching of the gospel (the day of Pentecost, Peter's sermon) God delighted in speaking to people in their own language, and in that particular case he did it supernaturally. :) And the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts have not been superseded. Btw, where's the term "preserve" found in connection with the Word of God? And no, don't quote Psalm 12:7 because that does not refer to the preceding verse, the grammar makes that quite clear.
Frauke Schmidt I am aware that translations into other languages was done from very early on. What's your point?If the Hebrew of the original Torah has not been superseded then why isn't there still a copy of the Torah available in the original paleo Hebrew? Masoretic Hebrew is very different to the Hebrew that the Torah would have been first written in. And why can't you see that the omnipotent God (Yehovah) can easily preserve His Words down through the ages in the form of translations?
How come the original manuscripts of the King James Version translation are lost? I guess you must be in the most radical division of the KJVO camp - those who believe that the KJV corrects (has corrected once and for all?) the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Why do you call God "Yehovah" when the KJV calls him "Jehovah"? Do you doubt the correctness of the KJV? Or maybe this was a genuine mistake, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. Lastly, the phrase "preserve His Words" is interpreted straight from Psalm 12:6-7. But that's not what that Psalm says. Though I do believe God has preserved His Word, including in the form of translations - just not in 1 translation. Because of grammatical differences translations have their limitations, some Hebrew or Greek meanings come out better in Spanish or German than in English. I can't speak for any other languages because I don't know any others. But ultimately the Word of God is not marred.
Frauke Schmidt You don't seem to want to answer my questions. You put your trust in the Hebrew Scriptures because, as you suggest, they're not translated. But I ask you again, where is the original paleo Hebrew Torah? The Masoretic IS a translation from an earlier form of Hebrew and, what's more is, the original paleo Hebrew is lost and no copy of it has existed for thousands of years. So again I ask you - why is a Masoretic translation reliable but not an English one? Furthermore, I would like to see just one example of an error in the KJB English translation from the Hebrew Masoretic text. According to you there are lots of them. And your derisive comments about me being in the most radical division of the KJVonly camp is childish and foolish. I didn't even say that I am KJVonly. Keep your ad hominem to yourself please and thank you. I haven't said that God only reveals Himself in English. God's Word is available in all languages.
He was a great personality and a very interesting person to know. As viewers on Revelation TV and as members and supporters of The Reachout Trust, we were very blessed to have Doug in our lives and his type are few and far between at times.
How come is it that so many KJV Onlyists go on and on about the King James Bible English and that our English is being dumbed down, and yet they insist on communicating and speaking in what some are already calling late modern English in both speech, spelling and grammar! Was Early Modern English some kind of divine language or something? Why aren't they not following in the footsteps of The KJV translators and write like they do for example? If KJV english is so easy to understand, why are no teachers who hold to the KJV Only position teaching the English of 1611 to children in schools so that they might hear the word of God and believe? Or are they teaching from the 1769 Blaney revision? And is that he word of God?
It's because that the English that was used in the KJV was more accurate and closer to the Greek. For example, Thee, Thou, and Ye are different forms of the word "you." Today we only have "You" and this a plural word and can easily make it very confusing and wrong on what they're translating because of how our language is today. This is only part of the equation as well. There is over 90% of texts that support the KJV and the way James White speaks is intentionally deceptive. When he states that we now have more manuscripts today than they did when they translated the 1611, that is true. What James White doesn't tell you is that those manuscripts support the KJV! It is very deliberate deceit. If you want more on the subject and you truly love God and want to know more read Floyd Nolen Jones book called "Ripped out of the Bible" and "Which Version is the Bible?" You can get both of these as a free pdf online, so there is no loss in searching truth, right? For clarification, I am not bashing anyone who reads the modern versions, I have much empathy for you guys because I believed the same lie. All I ask is that you humble yourself before God and pray about this and research it more. There is much deceit going on and I want to help you guys see the truth. The Bible itself says the word of God will be preserved and it is not just the Hebrew/Greek, because you cannot have preservation without inspiration and what most modern bible scholars tell you is that we no longer have the inspired word of God. This is not biblical and the Bible itself gives an account on what manuscripts to look for, and that manuscript is the one the KJV uses (It came from Antioch and Jerusalem). While the Bible condemns the manuscripts of the Alexandrian Texts (Egypt and Rome). It is all biblical and if you deny such things then I sincerely ask that you pray about it because that is deceit and not trusting in God. God bless.
It's just another way that Satan uses to divide people and look at these KJV only folks...there is not a bit of humbleness, or love for others, their only desire is to lay curse to anyone that dares disagree with them. They have taken the focus off of Christ and how desperately we need Him, and the great commission and their only focus is to divide, to lay claim to their biblical superiority and that they are right and everyone else is wrong...like they are the elect or something. It must grieve God to ask us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone, and then watch pompous so called Christians display such hate for anyone who reads any other translation. You all know what I say here is the truth, so don't try to dispute me cause I've been around on this earth for 54 years and this is all I've ever witnessed from the KJVonly hardheads.
“thee, ye” etc actually dumbs down the English. That one needs these to determine singular, plural etc is irrefutable evidence of the same. Me? I’ve never had a problem sorting through these “make-believe” problems the KJVOs assert
No translation is perfect because the meaning of some words can't always be translated clearly from one language to another or from one culture to another, not to mention errors made by scribes. Only the scriptures in the original language are perfect because they were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Having said that, the imperfections that you'll find in modern translations, including KJV, are only considered imperfect because of differences between the original language and the language it gets translated into. A good example is when Jesus said "It is finished". The Greek word He said was "tetelestai" and it meant more than just "It is finished." There was cultural meaning behind that word that just will not be picked up by the 21st century reader. But we get the idea clearly enough in English. It is not necessary to understand those nuances in order to be saved. You will find the same gospel in the KJV that you would find in the NIV, or any faithful translation. Every translation teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of your own works. There are "translations" that some groups use, like Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation, that clearly are not faithful translations but more like interpretations. I don't consider those to be accurate translations. If only one translation was the true word of God and all others weren't, then every Christian in the world would have to understand that one language in order to study the Bible. God is bigger than that. He is able to provide the truth to people in any language on the planet. That's why I said in my original comment that it is simply illogical to believe that the KJV is the only true word of God and all other translations are satanic.
Yes I was KJV only for many years. I got saved by hearing the gospel from the NIV. But someone I trusted showed me the "missing" verse in the NIV at John 5:4, and the huge difference between translations at 1st John 5:7, and some other things. I trusted this person and didn't go looking for the explanations for the differences. I just accepted it and it became my tradition. If someone likes to use the KJV I think that's fine and I wouldn't tell them not to. I would advise them to use multiple translations in order to really get to the bottom of what the original authors were communicating, but not everyone wants that level of depth unfortunately. It was years later that I was challenged by someone showing that the KJV is not perfect. I started investigating the issue and this debate was the final piece of evidence for me to admit to myself that I had been wrong.
What about Matthew 5:22, John 16:16-17, and 2 Samuel 21:19 where the verses are apparently omitted? What about Acts 8:37, and Matthew 17:21, even Matthew 5:44? The King James appears to have the whole of what was said in these passages, and the new versions cast doubt on them, not to mention Mark 16 from verse 10 on. How would you respond to these issues to a King James Onlyist? These things trouble me.
There is an answer for each one of those. But you shouldn't take this from a random stranger in a CZcams comment box. I have absolute confidence that if you are a Christian and you sincerely want a closer relationship with your Lord, and a desire for knowledge about Him and His word, and you diligently look, you will be rewarded. Read James White's book The King James Only Controversy. Read some KJV only books too. Watch the debates online and read the articles. See which side is being consistent and which one isn't. Then again, you don't have to do any of that. Reading the KJV is just fine. People have been reading that translation for hundreds of years. Just don't go around telling people it's the only valid Bible translation. And don't let anyone tell you which version you must read. That is the real issue here. God bless.
I primarily use the KJV, but not exclusively. Although other translations are based on supposed better manuscripts, when you look at the bible in the original Greek (Septuagint & NT) Nestle text, there truly is NOT much difference among the texts. If you study the bible, it's irrelevant what translation you choose.
the problem is that not everyone has learned Greek, mostly because Greek is the hardest language known, so they can't simply rely on the Greek texts and must rely on translation
***** Read the bile, Study the Bile, Memorized the Bible, Confess the Bible and teach the Bible. That is your call and you have the chance learn greek and hebrew. The greatest problem today in america and the world is that "we do not read the scriptures." God is most than ready to reveal the depths of his Word and himself when we dive in the reading of the word. KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. God is in it!
J.C. Vaca Diez I read it, but its too time consuming to memorize it, I find that learning theology supported by specific verses is much better than being able to recall each verse from memory
The time you are using to memorized the Bible is not a "waste" of time it is an investment. Ask Jesus when he was being tempted in the desrt by the very Devil. He knew the concepts and theology behind the Bible. But he used it to get an advanced position against the devil. So, what did he do when tempted: He quoted the BIBLE, His favorite book was Deuteronomy and he struck the devil 3 times from small quotes (bathe on theological accuracy) of the Biblical text. I encourage you, be theological accurate, but also memorize from that perspective and God will use you greatly.
J.C. Vaca Diez I do memorize parts of the Bible, but I feel like memorizing verses like Matthew 4:2 and being able to recall the verse chapter and book as well as what it says from memory isn't much use so I don't memorize verses, I simply remember what it says
Short answer: No Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"It's not written in contemporary language." Wrong. The KJV was translated into the contemporary language of 1611. There were people at the time who didn't like the KJV because it was easy for the common man to understand. The KJV-only people are on the same boat as those people nowadays. "It doesn't read like a newspaper." Why shouldn't a Bible read like a newspaper? Are people like Moorman afraid that the common man might actually understand God's Word if it was translated into a language that was readily understood by most of the English-speaking audience and get saved?
Is their any debates or interactions with Reformed men who believe in TR (for lack of a better word) superiority? There are many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and Reformed Baptists that believe in TR superiority, but I seem to only see White debating independent, Arminian Baptists fringe guys and no Reformed scholars. Many modern Reformed men and men of old held this view (modern men such as Dr. Michael Barett of Puritan Reformed Seminary or Dr. Joel Beeke) Please send me any interactions if there are some with Refomed scholars. It's easy to pick on Steve Anderson.
@@martinbaker7032 Martin has no content and nothing to show this one is a Christian. I have 1,000's of Christ lifting Bible studies. King James Bible exalts Jesus, modern versions exalt men.
@@martinbaker7032 per this one better to use vatican manuscripts from pedo priests which is where all modern bibles comes from. but they will lie and say king james was a sodomite when the King james says to put sodomites to death. that is why these hate the king james since it tells us what to do with them.
ALL modern bibles use Vatican manuscripts, the King James uses the Greek Majority text. the vatican is full of pedos. the manuscripts the Vatican uses is even called VaticANUS. Baker like the rest of his ilk lie and hope you church goers are too lazy to do your own research. hey the football game is one, move along nothing to see here.
One of the saddest things about The KJVO issue is that you ultimately have a group of people, some of whom, by their behaviour are clearly showing what is in the contents of their hearts is very evil, willing to turn an tell others" Because you do not read the KJV only, you are NOT a Christian!" Not all are like this, but there are some! And that is their only reasoned response to the factual evidence put forward. And yet they would still consider themselves to be Christian in doing so! :-(
Nobody who reads a kjv only is bothering you people. You all bother us with your nonsense. Because you lose sleep over what we read. It’s between the demons in you, and the not being able to read past a 4th grade level (which is all kjv is) that has you up, drinking Pepto-Bismol all night
If I would have had a chance a question I would have asked when you read the word you in the modern versions how do you know which is singular and which is plural? Like in the KJV thee, thy, thine, thou is old english for singular.
100 years ago, no such KJVO ideas was on anyone’s minds, much less their lips. Further the question or questions no one asks: what changed? The KJ translation did not change. No -man changed. Like the proliferation of denominations and cults, man came up w/these ideas that have gained traction by the likes of Riplinger, Gipp et al. Regardless I use the KJ but it’s not my goto translation nor will it ever be. Tyndale got it right: the boy behind the plough, or today the steering wheel* should not struggle to understand God’s word and it’s the job of the translator to publish it in the VERNACULAR of the same*. Not someone w/5-10 years of post HS education.
Dr White's book on this is calm, fair and logical. The King James is a Bible translation I love and read often but the whole King James only position is illogical. I use the NRSV too. Miles Smith in his Translators to the Reader (now sadly not included in many KJV Bibles) offers arguments that refute the KJV only position. We are lucky that we are fortunate enough to have this debate. Many Christians are still without scripture in their own language.
I agree! I was KJV-only for years, and then I actually studied the issue deeply, including reading Dr White’s book, it really opened my eyes and informed me of my ignorance.
Strange choice of names "Urea" used to lower intracranial or intraocular pressure, to induce abortion. U can tell a lot from a name. Pretty non-specific about that "ridiculous argument" statement aren't you junior?
An aeroplane has 3 engines but can fly on just one.... yeah sure. BUT what I want to be sure of is that those 2 extra engines were actually there in the first place!
no you compromised, for sure. I have compared multiple versions to the KJV and they are obviously flawed texts while the KJV shines in incredible ways.Your edu seduced you away from truth. I Timothy 6:20 speaks of what has happened to you too.
I don't expect KJV Onlyists to understand this dilemma since they seem to have cast logic and rational thought to the wind, but hopefully some of you can see the logic here. This is by JAMES MAY: "Preserved or Restored? In one of many inconsistencies, defenders of a perfect KJV almost uniformly argue for a doctrine of infallible preservation, while frequently presenting material in support of a doctrine of perfect restoration. They do not appear to perceive the inherent contradiction in these mutually exclusive concepts. If they argue for perfect preservation, they cannot account for the variants in the majority manuscripts and in the various editions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. If they argue for perfect restoration, they can no longer appeal to various Scripture passages that allegedly teach perfect preservation. The fallacy of the argument is easy to see. For God’s Word to be perfectly preserved, it must be preserved just as it was inspired, that is, in regard to every detail, (Matthew 5:18). For this argument to be valid, it must be thus preserved during its entire history, which precludes completely the idea of any restoration whatsoever. If God’s Word has to be restored in any sense for a perfect copy to exist, then by definition, it was not perfectly preserved." This is by Jim Deferio: "Onlyists will cite Psalm 12 as a basis that God preserves His word(s) and that the KJV is indeed that which is the preserved word of God. They also cite 1 Cor. 13:10 and Matthew 5:18 for their doctrine of God's preservation of His word and use these verses also to claim that the KJV is indeed THAT preserved word. Of course, it is at once easy to see that these verses are taken out of context and the criteria used to apply them to the KJV is non-existent (not arbitrary but simply that they have no rational grounds). But I won't get into that. The history of the KJV cannot be one of preservation because it is well known that the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used six EDITED Greek manuscripts for the New Testament and for the Old Testament relied on the Greek translation of the OT and also on the Latin Vulgate (Dr. Gregory Neal). The KJV translators edited together their translation - they did not have or find a PRESERVED OT and NT text from which they translated. Now if they had no preserved text then a case for a preserved word of God is vacuous. One may try to argue for a RESTORED text but then why the many changes over the decades in the KJV and why does the Majority Greek Text differ from the KJV in over 1,800 places in the NT? Why do the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the KJV in some very important places? Seems to be clear that not even a case for restoration can be made. The marginal notes in the original 1611 also speak against restoration and the preface of the 1611 entitled "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER clearly goes against preservation and restoration. To preserve something doesn't carry the notion of restoring something. The two issues are not the same. Clearly there was no preserved word (not in the way Onlyists claim) and clearly recovery and restoration efforts are still ongoing."
If I was an unbeliever, never having heard of a Bible, ignorant of what is "the inspired Word of God", and watched this debate; I would have to conclude that between these to men Dr. James White displayed more humility, knowledge, and a love for "the whole counsel of God"..
Dr. White crushes Jack Moorman. But both avoid the questions. Who decided which books should be in the Bible? How do you know we have the right books in the Bible? The Catholic Church decided at the councils of Rome 382 A.D., Hippo 393 A.D., and Carthage 397 & 419 A.D.. Which books should be in the Bible. Also Jesus gave the Authority to the church Matt 16; 17-19 to chose which books came from God. The Catholic Church is the only church that can trace her roots back to Jesus!
I can't stand people who shake their head while the other person is making their points. Moorman was doing that to White the whole time. He needs to grow up. You don't have to agree with him, but stop putting on a show about it. Wait your turn and respond to it.
Beecee Pedia I saw that too, my heart really hurts for those people who cannot let go of their idol KJV, if you want to read it then read it but don't tell someone else they are wrong cause they don't understand it. One thing that kills me is when poeple say "The Holy Spirit will give you the understanding of the KJV" people need to be careful not to make idols out of the KJV, especially kills me when preachers say need to get you a good ole KJV and get right..... Hate when they do that.
An aeroplane has 3 engines? Who said your plane has 3 engines? You want to know your plane does actually have those 3 engines in the first place? Did some one actually put on that 3rd engine?
I thought that was very telling as well. It would've reflected better on him had he said he hadn't focused his research in that direction and so he couldn't comment rather than the outright refusal he made. When you've found Hebrew manuscripts from before Jesus' birth that correlate more strongly with the Greek Septuagint than with the later Masoretic text then you know you're on shaky ground to claim there is no credibility to ancient manuscripts found in modern times.
Thanks, James! You're a great help to many Christians. Let's just hope that KJV-people will open their eyes and realize that the "modern" versions are not a threat to Christianity and the Bible, but that stubborn KJV-onlyism actually is just that (a threat to our faith and credibility)
No modern version has come from God's line of inspired manuscripts, Only the KJV has... I have researched this a lot and used to believe the lie James White told but I actually researched it myself and followed the Holy Spirit and man was I shocked. Your Bible alone tells you which manuscripts the Bible will come out of and which one is credible. If anyone is up for discussion, I will gladly discuss it with you. (No, I am not a KJVO that says you will go to Hell and all that nonsense)
@@murphyy277 the reason there are missing verses in the modern translations is because out of the thousands of manuscripts we have nowadays, those verses didn't appear until the 1400s. They were added in way later. They have no connection to the apostles. And they pervert the deity of Christ? I'm not sure what you're talking about. The ESV says the fullness of deity dwell in Christ. You are greatly misinformed.
"A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" The KJV translators in the preface to the AV1611 KJV called "The Translators to the Readers"
If I didnt know better (I do tho) I would say that God inspired those men to write that preface to refute KJV onlyism 1600 years later. Of course I don't believe in inspiration post the apostles.
KJV only are nuts these days, I hope they spent their time reading the Bible rather than wasting his/her time comparing versions from a version to the other. sorry for being this way, but it's ridiculous
The reason why we come to the conclusion of the KJV being God's word is because we study the word of God and actually have faith in his word. The amount of textual supporting for the KJV is over 90% and the way James White speaks is beyond deceptive and makes me wonder whether he is a devil. I do not support most of KJVO beliefs though because I agree they can be nuts and just as bad. Please for the love of God look into this subject, read books by Floyd Nolen Jones and Wilbur N. Pickering, those are two I have found to be incredible and very factual and covers this whole misinformation. I used to believe the same thing you guys believed and I was wrong but what took me so long was the fact that KJVO looked like extremists and in some cases they're, I now understand where they're coming from and that not every KJVO is evil. Whether you believe me or not, that is your choice and the day will come when all of the truth will come out, I just hope that those with eyes to see and ears to hear take this comment and that God will show them the truth. God bless.
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
When Jack said the hidden manuscripts, I was thinking that all along. The originals aren't lost or burned by Roman soldiers, they will never be destroyed, they are hidden and we will see them once again. This is a test by God to see who will come to Him for the truth. He is Truth and will guide us unto all truth, if we seek Him earnestly. Ask and it shall be given to you. Read any reliable Bible that you would like to but pray first that His Spirit be with you as you study His word.. I'm not a KJV onlyist but find the KJV speaks to my spirit more than the other translations. II only use other translations to clarify a verse that I find difficult to understand in the KJV. I like the way the KJV makes me think deeper on God's word and rely on the spirit's help. The Bible isn't only for biblical scholars or theologians but for everyone who has a love for truth. MATTHEW 7: 7-11 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I would like to know if Pastor Morman hold's to the position of some prominent KJV Only guys that Christians in other Countries must learn English if they want to access the full word of God? Obviously the Chinese and Russians and Germans and Zulus must be taught Early Modern English, not what we speak today! i would also like to know if it is the 1611 was perfect as it was or not when it was published? Because if so why would it need refining?
This man effectively destroys the gross error of KJV onlyism, but I'm sure that as with all who are stuck in their ways, some will still obstinately find a reason to hold on to a translation which may have served past generations well, but in modern times it simply cannot meet the longing of the human heart, nor can it meet the needs of the Church in our time.Thank you Doctor James White.
Moorman ever had a mount impossible except to try to defend a undefendable stance. The information was given to prove him wrong and he just kept curcling back and never made a case for his position.
The point I make is that the original Holy Spirit inspired writings are long gone. All we have got; and there are piles of manuscripts, seem to jive, mostly. That is the realm of scholars; which I am not. 1 Timothy 2:15--- " Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, ACCURAELY HANDLING THE WORD OF TRUTH..
@@howardmanley3388 2 Timothy, sorry.The word study, in the king James Translation means diligent in Greek, according to my study. Off point, but thanks.
My question is why did men feel the need to come up with new versions. these new versions have taken out scriptures have omitted the blood of Jesus Christ many many times where the KJV says Holy Spirit the new versions say spirit KJV says holy men or holy brethren or holy prophets or holy angels the new versions take out holy why would they do that.there are false spirits false prophets false brethren false angels and in the KJV where it says Jesus Christ they just put christ and there are false christ these new versions have left out God or of God in many many verses why is that. God said do not add or take from his word he will remove your name from the book of life God said he would preserve his word these men want you to believe that they want to make it easier to understand the KJV is on a 5th grade level the niv is on a 6th grade level while others on a 8th grade level wake up people God's word is under attack that is what satan said to eve hath God said there is absolutely no reason to come up with new versions that take out scriptures and ommit words to change the meaning of scripture the church is being infiltrated from within there are alot of wolves in sheep's clothing Jesus told us do not be deceived.
So true and it’s sad but Satan knows the HOLY SCRIPTURES more than any human being and that’s why he is doing everything in his power to corrupt YHWYs inspired word to change it, erase it, So men will begin to question our father in heavens AUTHORITY and purpose for our lives. Well it’s a good thing that there ls not much time left as his return is soon apon us. wake up to the signs all around brethren how do u expect to win people to Christ when supp Christians are arguing / nit picking YHWYs word and creating so much division amoungst ya selves. No wonder the world is headed in the other direction is Satan winning??????????? I believing YHWY has already won just as he tells us. Guess what in heaven there won’t be any more debate.
How was the Latin Vulgate “locked away from God’s people”? Jerome said “who does not know scripture does not know Christ”. The Douay Bible was the English translation of the Vulgate and was published two years before the King James Bible. It was published to be read by English speakers and not “locked away” at all. I’m surprised that Dr. White didn’t point that out.
They act as if there were bible book stores in Egypt at that time ROFL....bad bibles coming out of Egypt LOL Zero common sense and he can't even pronounce things correctly. His voice is all he has, just say "this text" & "Mt. Impossible" with a sly documentary voice "I have them in my hands I will mold them like puddy bawahaha"
They act as if there were bible book stores in Egypt at that time ROFL....bad bibles coming out of Egypt LOL Zero common sense and he can't even pronounce things correctly. His voice is all he has, just say "this text" & "Mt. Impossible" with a sly documentary voice "I have them in my hands I will mold them like puddy bawahaha"
What I can't understand is many of the people commenting on this that would consider themselves KJV only people were did they received their PhD's in Biblical Translation. I for one would look to the Biblical Translation Scholars, like Dr. White. As a Seminary student I would not consider myself a Biblical Translator but I have studied the process, I can assure you it takes a person that has spent many many years of training, study in Biblical languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Syntax, among many other scholarly work.
Of the KJV translators, Moorman says "Unlike Biblical scholars of today, these scholars were not tainted by rationalism, unbelief, or uncertainty..."; what, were these men INFALLIBLE? Even the KJV Bible teaches us that only the Apostles were supernaturally kept from error. Dr. White definitely outclasses Pstr. Moorman in both scholarship and presentation.
How is it possible that Jack Moorman talked so much but said absolutely nothing of substance? I can't believe his defense of the KJV itself being THE standard included such a ridiculous statement like "It sounds like the Bible"...that statement alone summed up the KJV only cult mentality. Oh, and the whole Mt. Impassible and "...with a standard, you know where you stand" phrases that sounded like a broken record~too much. This was clearly a demonstration of one man dealing with facts and the other on emotion. I was actually embarrassed for Pastor Moorman...
Justa Guy because JKV olnyist make the KJV the standard to which all have to be judged, they don't have to judge the KJV against anything.... Cause it's their standard.....
I don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Greek, and I'm sure there are many who didn't prior to computer technology. Many people didn't have a way to check God's word in the original manuscripts. They had to trust in the translations they had during their time. My question to these scholars is how were people saved then (post Jesus and apostles time) if the translations are corrupt? The God I worship is much bigger than that, and he has preserved his word in the King James version. 1 Corinthians 14:27 says "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." That one that interpreted the unknown tongues... is the KJV.
Really...in one single version that was translated by human scribes. A belief needs proof. Also, you're taking 1 Corinthians 14 completely out of context.
Michael kezelevich I would also add that if the language of the KJV touches you more than newer versions, more power to you. Read it, grow from it and enjoy. No one prefering the KJV has to denounce newer versions just to enjoy it more fully.
You are pathetically uneducated. If you like your KJV, fine, wonderful, it's a great 17th century English translation done by Anglicans, but don't lie about other translations! By far the your KJV is the most catholic among ANY of the modern translation, which just demonstrates your ignorance once again!
Greg Settle "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness." 2 Tim 2:24-25 False information has tricked us all at one point or other. For the most part, a person who believes the KJV is the only Bible is still a brother or sister in Christ. Treating / speaking to a brother or sister poorly is serious.
Anyway you slice it, it's not easy for someone to be told they are uneducated about something, particularly when they have been bloviating about things they OBVIOUSLY know very little to nothing about!
The KJV indeed has more problems than it's worth. Its archaic word usage means you'll be spending almost as much time trying to figure out what an old English word means as you will exegeting the Word. On top of that, it erroneously translates certain words, like replacing the word slave (Koine Greek word "doulos") with "servant" or "bondservant." It has its worth and value, but it's absurd to call it the be-all-end-all of all translations.
I keep waiting for the argument for the KJV side in the first 20 min. to say something about the Masoretic and Septuagint and how that plays into his arguments.
Anyone notice Jack READ* his opening statement. James did his off the cuff at, to me, a normal pace. * very slowly to fill the 20 minutes* ** he went 10 seconds over (lol) Who do ya think knew his subject matter?
at 58:00 the question of the confusion in modern texts, underlies my belief that the KJV is the preferred standard for 400 years, and for 400 years to come. Not that I am against modernization, but with each modernization we risk losing the meaning. Thanks for the debate. I still hold to my KJV and find it more and more rare on the shelves, but still there. Peace and Love, put the KJV in my hands as you lower me into the grave. I have lived with it, I will die with it!
if you have read Dr. White's book on the King James *ONLY* Controversy, you will see that he grew up with the King James Version and still likes it. however, the KJV has become dated and because the translators knew Latin better than Greek when it came to grammar and probably in general as well - their notes were taken in Latin after all - they didn't translate several important passages in Holy Scripture as well as they could have and really shouldn't have gone off of Beza's conjectural emendation. I say as long as you are reading and appreciating the Bible, good for you! God bless you!
I have a problem with the presentation of plenary verbal inspiration of the autographs. I am not a learned man, but I can say with confidence that the Bible I read contains the inspired words of God. It sounds like Moorman doesn't believe what he is saying if only the "originally inspired" autographs are God's words. One doesn't have to depend on what scholars deem to be inspired Scripture. They can read God's inspired words themselves in the AV. When Paul witnessed to the eunuch, they read what Paul called "Scripture". Paul also said to Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired of God."
Mount Impassible... 😂 I've traversed that mountain, set up permanent residence by building a house on the other side and started a family. 😂 That's what I would have said...
@@Tony41christ Since I posted the original comment, I've come to find that I really can't take J. White seriously any more. However, I still think Jack Moorman had a horrible presentation.
Why is that when you mention the blatant use of circular reasoning to a KJV Only advocate, it seems that what they hear is, "I wanna be an airborne ranger..." ???
I remember watching this debate several years ago. The only thing I remember taking away from Mr. Moorman's arguments was the use of buzzwords and phrases like "Mount Impassable" as though they were trump cards in themselves.
I'm Anglican (American by citizenship). I find it ironically funny to see two Baptists (who sometimes think we're in error theologically) debating a Bible version that was created by Anglicans.
@@denise1656 What do you mean by “purists”? Archbishop Lancelot Andrews of the CofE was the Director of the Authorized version and to this day his influence on Anglicanism is still studied in seminary. Is he a “purist”?
@@denise1656 Those Puritans were all Anglican churchmen and clergy. Anglicans like me claim them and still learn from the scholars of that era. Have you heard of John Stott, JI Packer or even from over a hundred years ago, JC Ryle?
@@Psalm144.1 reread my msg. I never claimed they were not. I just said they were Puritans. Can you learn to let something go? Or has that ship set sail years ago. I am a Critical Textual Analyst and am WELL learned in Church History, so much so I have spent over 8 years indwelt in such. Please learn to let it go, thank you and G-D bless you
@Man made His Word is out there? The truth is in the Biblical Hebrew Bible bc everything else is mistranslations. n the process of translating the entire Bible into Portuguese then enrolled in Biblical Hebrew to be accurate and in the process of learning to my horror and dismay I found that the jesus I’ve preached is no where in the Old Testament nor reference to him then I further found out the letter “J” was invented in the year 1500 and implemented after the year 1611 so that name did not even existed. I strongly suggest that you learn Biblical Hebrew with still free on youtube. I am an EX Christian Evangelist! Escape.
I've watched this video several times, and I'm always amazed at how easily James White destroyed Jack Moorman's arguments. There's simply no contest. White for the win.
@@Tony41christ @Anthony Lambertini yes I have watched your videos where you apply standards of argumentation which you will not apply to The King James Bible and you spend most of your video making personal insults against James White.
well in the garden.. the serpent.. easily convinced Eve it was ok.. to sin against God... by just saying the words "hath God not said?"... the serpent did not tell Eve he was going to lead her to sin against God..he just did it.... later Eve recalled she was beguiled...(tricked) by the serpent.... that is what the devil is doing here.. thru men and women like James White.... it would be nice.. to see the world.. Not be deceived this time around....
If you're against God's true word that is able to save your soul, then yes it would ruin everything for you. Please study this further and pray about it. Read Floyd Nole Jones book called "Ripped out of the Bible." There's a free pdf online as well. God bless.
@@IWasGivenRest Wow, did you really say that, "against God's true Word"? All bibles are a translation and the KJB was translated basically from 7 manuscripts and was not the fist bible translated to English. We had others already in their place for a much longer time. Today we have what ? 15,000 plus manuscripts and archaeological discoveries that are evidence of God preserving his word and you are implying that all other translations are not God's word. These newer translations have been poured over by scholars with a better understanding of the language and the advantage of examining multiple manuscripts to assure accuracy. Don't you want to know what was really said? Don't you want to know what the witnesses and the early church believed? That is the closest we have to what the apostles said and taught, their example and their beliefs are the most true. Today we have been watered down by leaders with a motive, governments that were trying to create a uniform theology, even the councils that met for the purpose of harmony could not agree on the details and they were the church fathers. Here is an example, Explain the word Hell being used for Hades, Sheol, Tartarus and Gehenna. So when we translate the Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts today into another language is that new translation any less or more valuable than the KJB? Is it no longer the Word of God? Because that is what KJVO folks believe, they are so afraid of change that they fear that the Word will no longer be the Word of God. Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, he came in the flesh, he taught us that God loves us where we are, he suffered and died for the remission of sins, God raised him up and he is now seated at the right side of God our Father. You can change the words around any way you want but as long as it does not changes change the meaning it is of God. These are my words and they are different from 1 John 4:2-3 English Standard Version (ESV) 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. I am sure it breaks God's heart that Christians spend so much time correcting each other, arguing over details and bringing division and shameful attention on ourselves and our faith vs. sharing the Gospel we profess to believe in. We spend so much time debating and arguing while people are dying not knowing the love of God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ.
Although I find these debates interesting I also find it a little disturbing. I was brought up on KJV my whole life up until the age of about 28 personally I wasn’t aware that different translations were out there. When someone mentioned a version I thought KJV was the only one out there for me reading the KJV was not an issue of difficulty. Forward to today I read different versions mostly the ESV, NSAB and just recently the CSB. Am I going out sining do I believe that I am saved by my works do I downplay the trinity or the deity of Christ no. I don’t understand this argument fully simply because the KJV is a translation from the original language into English I shudder when in comments and discussions when people say it’s the inspired translation. Why because we have the original manuscripts that were inspired to men by the Holy Spirit and again we are saying that God inspired someone again to translate it into English. This again throws up issues when you translate into another language do we translate from inspired translation or do we translate from the original manuscripts. I believe this argument will just go round and round so before I approach the bible I pray I don’t have a broad understanding of translation subject but I believe the Holy Spirit is a teacher and guide. And if I am in error because I am born again and have the Holy Spirit living within me who will direct me in truth I constantly pray Psalm 139: 23-24 we spend so much time arguing/debate but are we living the word are we obeying it
@Claudia Bailey there are hundreds of translations out there and all are translations of translations and ALL purposely mistranslated. The Biblical Hebrew Bible has the truth that we are not taught in churches for various reasons. I am an ex Christian evangelist who after been in a project to translate the Bible into portugues then enrolled in Biblical Hebrew classes to find out with horror that all the scriptures I’ve preached was corrupted ie. Verbs tenses changed in order to agree with a new testament narrative. The title “lord” and “God” are used so we wouldn’t find out the Name of The Creator and discover that salvation comes after a person repents from their sins and return to HIS Ten Commandments and practice charity and goodness to less fortunate that’s all ...no blood, no cross Learn Biblical Hebrew while still available for free on CZcams and escape the brain wash we endured. Escape! I am an ex Christian evangelist.
Textus Receptus, Syrian, (Old Syriac) 150AD, Old Latin (Itala) 157AD, Vaudois, Albegenses, Waldenses, Wycliff (1380), Matthews, Great Bible, Stephanus (1550), Geneva (1560), Bishop's and on and on.
@Michael George You missed the point of the “standard before 1611” question. Conceptually we’ve had God’s Word for over 1600 years. The KJVO position infers “not before 1611.” The modern translations improve upon the same on all fronts.
1 Samuel 15:23a "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and STUBBORNNESS is as iniquity and idolatry." Minute 56 onwards on this vid reminded me of that verse. Revelation 16:5 - another verse where Luther disagrees with the KJV, because he followed actual manuscripts rather than conjecture (Beza).
What's more likely - that God inspired a perfectly inerrant Bible that instantly fell into confusion and chaos with unclear translations and discrepant versions, not to mention the disappearance of all original texts, or that Man created a series of conflicting texts that never have been and never will be agreed upon?
Agree with that in sense that other versions should be examined; nobody who claims to be christian should be ignorant of them or their histories, especially their source texts.
Why is it not right? If you understood the source texts of ALL the modern versions since the KJV you would realize just how flawed they are, look it up and be shocked for sure. Do a serious Bible study where everyone brings and uses their favorite version you will quickly realize all that is discovered is confusion!
Obediah002 my preference is the bibles from the 1530s such as tyndale new testament (and what he wrote of the old), coverdale, great bible, and the Matthew bible. But I am still at least curious to see what other bibles before the kjv said.
I'm a majority / TR man. Tyndall too the nkjv are awesome. Im not a fan of the Alexandrian text only people but I don't believe let's say esv is evil in of itself but I believe its weak in places where the majority text is not. Let's face it, there's bad bibles, weak bibles and awesome bibles.
This is the legacy of RC scholasticism. Instead of living our faith, instead of engaging in a life of prayer, we argue all day about the proper translation of a Greek word, because that is precisely what Christ said will insure our salvation -- getting "metanoia" traslated properly. The word without the spirit is not worth the paper it's written on. Instead of having Christ, you are talking about Him. And that is in no small measure because of a complete lack of sacramental life in your "churches". So you have basically two options: either convert to some kind of Eastern religion that gives you a sense of communing with God, or become a scholastic engaged in debating others.
Last night I found it an exhausting read! And so far the rumours are true. Will my highlighter pens hold out I wonder? And KJVOnlyists call this scholarly work?
I believe that it is somewhat natural for God's Word to be Ancient ,and yet accurate in point. And Yes I believe that One of these Bibles is the Standard vs the others. And Finally I understand that any Bible is understandable if You READ IT, a vast majority don't really read and study the Bible, and this is why they don't understand nor see the controversies. I know that the NKJV is One of the best if not THE best translation because I've done my Homework, also Likewise knowing the NIV lacks inspiration, because I read and Study. There has to be a reason why the texts are different than each other even if slightly, and therefore some are right and some are wrong
There's no basis for King James Onlyism other than "I prefer it, therefore it must be the standard."
No legs & nothing that can be argued legitimately.
Dr. James White is the man. He is one of the best modern day theologians and scholars. His church history knowledge is also impeccable. I would not want to debate Dr. White on any biblical subject.
Michael John Williamson picking Dr White’s* mind is on my bucket list.
* and his colleague’s - see John Ankerberg
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
@@brucedressel8873 God promised to preserve His Word. But He never said it will be preserved in a translation. We have thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts with which He has preserved His Word.
I would love it pick his brain to it would be fruitful
he is totally wrong on the nature of God, calvinism and salvation, even with all of the man's knowledge he accumulated.
I would rather be the humble publican, than a know it all theologian.
Pretty sure White knew this was going to be a knockdown debate after Moorman's opening statement. It was full of begging the question and bold assertions that are demonstrably false.
Moorman makes absurd connections because he is reasoning emotionally due to his hasty assumption that only KJV is the Word of God
As an English and Spanish translator, I can say there is an ignorance in understanding differences in language. Things like sentence structure, word meanings, projected ideas etc., all are important when trying to accurately say what someone said. It is why there exist the saying "lost in translation" I think people should learn another language to truly capture the difficulty and see for themselves that it is as much a science as an art. There is a difference in the way I would interpret for a native speaker and to one in a second language. I feel sorry for others when they are kjvonlyists. This does not help, either the body of Christ, nor apologists. Dr.James is solid in his defense.
Agree 100% with you on the issues you raise. My degree was in English and I am yet to find an English educator to come out in support of the KJV Onlyist position. If they did I'd like them to explain their understanding of how the KJV was translated and whole they use the same process and approach to other works from the same period? Or in modern times, if I were to give them a copy of the TR, would they translate it into late Modern English, or would they feel they would have to translate it into Early Modern English? From an English educator's viewpoint I would find this really interesting!
Huh.. What? Brother we are not attacking the KJV, just the kjvonlyist position... You fail to understand 1 Corinthians 2 is not mentioning the KJV.. (What about other languages?) Take it in context instead of modifying interpretation to try to back-up what you are saying. My mother is Spanish and uses the Reina-Valera 1960. She cannot understand the KJV (she really tried to teach my nephew from it) but she can use the other versions and she is a very godly person who is filled with God's Spirit ( as the FULL gospel in the new testament). God's message is not limited by man. It is best to speak five words with my understanding than a thousand without, be not children in understanding... (1Co 14:19-20) one shameful thing I see is that ppl think this English bible has the right to correct the Spanish bible or in any other language. They think that the KJV is the standard for all languages and that is terrible thinking. You sound like Steve Anderson there is a video of him titled "worst preacher ever" on CZcams. He is kjvonlyist gone from bad to worst.
That's like what they say about the Quran, that it is beyond human reason. Except the Bible does not challenge us to write a verse like the Bible, of course. But if this is the strength of the KJV Only argument? Then it is once again proof of the circular reasoning of KJV Onlyism!
Glockbite, thank you for your perspective. My brother gave me a 400th anniversary of the KJV first edition, and it definitely not the same one the KJVO people use. They often assume that the "1611" marked on the spine is the edition date, when it is actually the translation date. Standardized spelling was not used back then, so the same word might be spelled three different ways on the same page of this first edition; "sheepe" is one spelling that comes to mind. The letters "u" and "v" are used interchangeably. One would think that the KJVO proponents would use only the direct copies of the first edition.
Languages change, and English is no exception; I have noted slight changes in standard grammar and standard pronunciation in my own lifetime. On occasion, these slight changes can alter the comprehension of the unwary. Due to these factors and the inevitable biases of translators, it would be best to have parallel translations as well as current translations in order to have a solid understanding of any ancient or important document.
Amen, brother!
For those who may not have heard, Doug went the be with The Lord yesterday after a battle with cancer . We thank God for Doug and please keep his family in your prayers at this time. Thank you.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. - Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
:)
With reference to 1:21:09-1:21:20 in the video: yes people still read Shakespeare today. But even so, they likewise misunderstand and misinterpret it. One example among many is that famous line: "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?" Too many people read this as though Juliet is asking where Romeo is, and that's just not the case. She is not saying, "Where are you, Romeo?" but, "Why are you Romeo?" (as in, "Why do you have to be the son of my father's mortal enemy? Why can't you be someone else?"). Likewise, there is great potential for people reading even the simplest verse in the KJV to come to equivalent misunderstandings simply because the English language has changed substantially in the past 403 years.
I think that gentleman actually proved why the KJV can be detrimental to contemporary readers: the language has changed and I don't think he realizes how much. He quoted 2 Timothy 2.15 : "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" when talking about people finding the archaic language of the KJV difficult to understand and talks about learning and being taught by the spirit, demonstrating that he's referencing studying as in the academic pursuit of diligently working to acquire knowledge, but "study" in that verse means "endeavor to"; we've lost that meaning to the word "study" in contemporary English, but it was still in use when the KJV translators did their work. The KJV translation is correct for the English of the 1600s, but to deem it the best English translation for contemporary readers is questionable.
It seems that the debate comes down to this, did the backend texts of the KJV add to the Word of God or did the Texts which the modern versions take away from the Word of God. The proof I would look for is bible quotes from the earliest church leaders to see which one is closer. I'm really wanting to figure this out, It seems that
Isaiah 14:12 follows closer to the newer translations according to the dead sea scrolls and Irenaeus' writings seems closer to the KJV, Against Heresies Book III Chapter XVI. (1 jn 4:3) & Against Heresies, Book V Chapter II (Col 1:14). Does anyone else have anything to add to this?
This, folks, is basically Facts VS Feelings! :-)
Facts are subject to interpretation too, and we'd be better off leaning unto His interpretation than our own. We can look at the evidence for evolution, a christians sees God in it all- the flood of Noah but the Eviloutionist looking at same things sees millions of years, even billions of years. I feel the evolutionist is wrong just as do those who uplift the wisdom of the scholars of Rome and their older and better texts.
The "facts" though are quite subjective/questionable start to finish, as have said before there is a great deal of intrigue surrounding these older and better texts, the Minority, Alexandrian texts.
Facts are Kjv is better than NIV.
That's fact
No english translation has ever rendered any manuscript vividly enough to EQUAL the harmony and accuracy of
coin - a GREEK. Dont stand there and say a translation is as good as the original language. Therefore, the quality of education is less when based on a translation. So I ask, what's to debate? This whole thing is a professional circle jerk . It's a greek book, for people who can read greek. So go learn how to read before you start debating something. Debating a greek book when you can't even read greek sounds pretty flaky to me.
@@dougacebedo824 no its not.
The Kjv is best translation we have ftom the Byzantine texts.
The Niv etc use a corrupted text from Alexandria.
The debate isnt about translation its about the starting point for the translation.
Textus vaticanus is corrupted
Jack looks like John MacArthur's twin brother if he had one.
This is true
Lol not a twin in theology
@@Tony41christ So you expect us to go to your site, listen to your KJVO argument that we have all herd before and are getting tired of the same thing time after time. If you want us to listen to you grow a set and debate James White yourself. P.S. All your kind are doing is pushing people away from a great bible, the KJV.
@@henrylaurel4476 I only use the KJV, but I made that choice after understanding its shortcomings. I find its text beautiful, and I like having the connection to my forefathers in the Faith who used the KJV. I find the irrationality of the KJVO crowd really disappointing. The KJV is a fine translation, and its inaccuracies don't alter the theology presented therein. By all means, use the KJV, but do so intelligently.
@Anthony Lambertini
Classic KJVO move, Anthony. Ad hominem attacks of people that simply disagreed w/you. That ok, we’re used to it from the KJVO Cult.
Unless your YT vid covers something NOBODY has puked up in a FB debate, you’re wasting our time. Like the others, I’m past tired of people acting like we’ve NEVER heard the same KJ only talking points that we’ve repeatedly refuted.
If you and I went toe-to-toe just like Jack & James, just like Jack and all the KJ defenders in the YT videos listed below…
…you’d lose. That said you stay in your KJVO echo chamber where you’re safe
Here’s a few YT videos that make it irrefutably clear much, if not all, of what KJ only people claim are myths*, conspiracies*, and fairy tales* as they* don’t hold up to equal scrutiny of the modern translations.
The link labeled “Gail Riplinger” is her one and only real-time debate. After that radio show, she refused to debate anyone. Further, she and Peter Ruckman gutlessly no-showed the John Ankerberg discussion show for the same reasons...
Gail Riplinger, 1993 - her first AND LAST toe-to-toe w/anyone
m.czcams.com/video/UenzoYbq49M/video.html
John Ankerberg, 1995 (Sam Gipp, Tom Stouse, Joe Chambers) Ruckman and Riplinger, gut-less no-shows
m.czcams.com/video/E1R-TCpXb68/video.html
DA Waite - babbles a lot, repeats himself all the while saying almost nothing of substance to support his position.
m.czcams.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/video.html
Jack Moorman versus James White:
Jack repeats himself a lot but says very little of substance to support his position. An important visual that begins @ 33:30 minutes providing context to an essential detail to JW’s position that finishes ~36 minutes
m.czcams.com/video/hwe_nxeVwE0/video.html
JW/Steven Anderson, arrogant, cultic pride at its KJ-Only best
m.czcams.com/video/6YeKQZW1VO4/video.html
Berg vs Sluder, 12/2019, surprisingly, as new as this debate is, Riplinger’s book “New Age Bible Versions” comes up. In spite of the fact it was debunked YEARS ago by her contemporaries, DA Waite and David Cloud just to name two.
m.czcams.com/video/TfZknJ7JU3k/video.html
In every case the person or people defending the the KJ, fails miserably. Meanwhile their modern translation opponents present the facts, the KJ defender or defenders look or sound like idiots.
Would you give an illiterate person a King James Bible? No! You would give them a bible they can understand!
To judge someone's salvation based on the translation they use is wrong!
Just because a bible is easy to understand doesn't mean it's correct
+Darren Connelly That's true. Just like the fact a bible might be old doesn't mean it's correct either.
+Connor Ham that's true. Which version if any do you use?
***** I currently USE an NIV 2011. It's not my favorite translation however, I don't think I'd recommend it. If I were to pick a translation to recommend to somebody as my favored version, it'd be either the HCSB or the ESV.
+Connor Ham nice. What translations what you not recommend ?
Can someone kindly tell me the date of this debate, please? Thank you.
2012
Without having to watch the whole debate, can someone please tell me which translation of the Bible that James White recommends?
NASB, that's the one he works with. But other than that, he doesn't suggest that any particular Bible version should be the ONLY translation.
White gave evidence, facts, reasons, valid questions, etc ... The other guy gave "feelings", like "it feels like The Bible" it "reads like The Bible", and relied mainly on "wouldn't you think...." and "I would assume..." type of arguments...debate over
But doesn't the idea of the eclectic text trouble you or even the idea that man can improve on His text?
Sin city did you even watch the debate?
White though does not recognize Origen as a heretic who sought to change the text in his day, nor does he or at least have never seen him even allude to the dramatic differences in modern versions from the KJV, the differences are stark and obvious yet they never go there.
@@Obediah002 Except the fact that Dr. White wrote a book on the subject and why it is surprising that the world doesn't use Moorman's "STANDARD" way to translate other ancient writings that have an abundant amount of manuscripts like the Bible does. Origen was disputed and shown to be a heretic. The modern versions have nothing to do with Origen. Your 'dramatic differences' are a like a thread of silk in a haystack compared to how excellent the English translations have accurately translated from the languages into English for our spiritual growth in Christ in reading the Bible in English speaking countries. ...... In summary, everything you wrote is wrong.
Nope, and when you look at the versions today, after the KJB they all are lacking, all of them. I have looked, compared them with my own eyes, the KJV stands well ahead in every way.
1:07:57 "With a standard you have a standard" ~ Jack Moorman
Hard to argue with that logic...
LOL! Speaking of feelings...
@@abnersilva3645, Moorman was speaking of the KJV. Tell me what is the standard today with all these versions, literally in the many hundreds today, how does one know anything, certainly not by laying out your 10 favorite versions and comparing them or is that it, is that where the HS is leading us to know Him!/? Are we really embracing what could only be described as mass psychosis?
Obediah002 Standard compared to what? KJV was not the standard before it came out. How about the Bishop’s Bible? Or the Geneva Bible? And the Vulgate was the standard for much longer than KJV.
@@guidohlizzi06 , I never said compared to anything, just that the KJV is obviously the standard He used, can you deny this? The vulgate was not the standard either it could NOT have been as it was closely guarded by papacy and was not allowed to be in the language of the people, literally nobody could or was allowed to read it but the priests of the RCC. The people during this time were copying & passing around the true text throughout that period witnessed by the Majority of the extant texts today (which led too the KJV today), as well as the witness of the utter & complete missing texts during this period of what is called the Minority texts, all of which are Alexandrian including the Vulgate which had placed within it the Apocrypha. Do not understand why this is so hard to see, other than the spirit over rules to blind those who will not see.
Obediah002 The KJV is the standard He (God) used? I’m sorry, but God uses His word. It doesn’t have to be perfectly transmitted, and all the manuscripts we have today are proof to that. So... before the KJV the people had been using the Geneva Bible, that’s a fine translation, preferred by many of the puritans and even reformers. So, you mean God had not been using that translation to speak to His people before? And please, the Vulgate WAS the standard for a very long time. The fact that later it was shut up and for many years people had no access to the Bible is a different issue. Besides, a standard is the one thing you go back to when you have questions comparing other translations. How about the Reina Valera in Spanish, translated in 1539 if I’m not mistaken? It preceded the KJV and it’s not identical to it. It departs from KJV quite a few times. So during the same period of time, in Europe, you have two different standards? Or the German Bible translated by Luther, which also departs from KJV, what’s the standard then?
The so called majority text became the majority during the VIII to XII century. Most quotes from the early fathers prior to that do not read like the majority text now, but read much closer to the Alexandrian text. So, is it not possible that before, the majority was a different type of text?
So again, KJV is the standard... compared to what?
So did a part 2 ever happen?
Which versions are fine?
That's the problem Ron! Languages CAN'T be translated word for word!
Every translation is in some ways a dynamic equivalence.
That is why the Geneva version has marginal notes. The KJV is very close to it 95% but does not have the Notes of the translators.
@@MariusVanWoerden I think there would be much less KJVO sentiment if the translators' prologue to the readers and their marginal notes had never been removed from KJV Bibles -- I wonder when that occurred, anyway?
@@MM-jf1me King James ordered it without marginal notes, because it had anti gay comments. Some called him Queen James. I also read the Dutch translation with the Marginal notes. They are extremely helpful to understand the meaning of some words.
@@MariusVanWoerden He ordered less opinionated marginal notes than the Geneva Bible as the Geneva Bible had notes which diminished the authority of monarchies; King James wanted an English translation which bolstered his authority as King and as Head of the Church. The original KJV translation had many marginal notes. As the translators themselves said in their note to the readers: "Diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded[...] They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."
I only use the KJV, but I'm not a King James Onlyist. It is part of growing in maturity in one's faith to learn about the method of transmission of the Bible, understanding something about textual criticism, and then using what you find to make an informed decision. One must look into whatever translation one might be inclined to use.
@PrenticeBoy1688 I'm in your corner. I read and contrast many versions, but prefer to use quotations from the KJV, due to the majestic, poetic, language of the KJV being so engraved in history and literature. However, I do read, and greatly appreciate the NIV, ESV, LXX, NRSV, MEV and KJ21. For KJV readers I highly recommend having the KJ21 and MEV on hand to make sure that the KJV reader is not led off path a bit by words that have subtly shifted meaning since 1611/1769.
@@63DW89A 'Majestic'. A very good description.
Only thing I would have to ask is how many times do you change something before it's not what it was anymore?
There’s a great answer for that in the KJV Preface under the section, “The Best Things Have Been Calumniated.”
I would say as long as you have the ability to refer back to the source material people can change it all they want but someone genuinely seeking out the answers will be able to find them.
It is interesting that Mr Moorman mentions Martin Luther and his translation into German of Erasmus' Greek NT. Martin Luther's translation disagrees with the KJV in many places. Three examples: 1. Luther rejected the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), 2. he does not use "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 (he translate the Hebrew word heylel and the following 2 words as "schöner Morgenstern" = engl. beautiful *morning star*) and 3. Psalm 12:6-7 (v. 7-8 in the German Bible) reads different and does not suggest preservation of "God's pure words".
So, does God speak only in one language? Has he revealed Himself perfectly only to the English-speaking world?
Frauke Schmidt The King James Bible is the culmination of Protestant efforts to restore the Words of God to the common language of the people. The work of Tyndale, Coverdale, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin etc. contributed to this finished product - the restored Traditional Text.
You also seem offended at the notion that God might choose one language to use to preserve His Scriptures. Would you have also been offended in the first century that God chose Greek to preserve the NT?
Translations into other languages were done from very early on. From the very first preaching of the gospel (the day of Pentecost, Peter's sermon) God delighted in speaking to people in their own language, and in that particular case he did it supernaturally. :)
And the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts have not been superseded. Btw, where's the term "preserve" found in connection with the Word of God? And no, don't quote Psalm 12:7 because that does not refer to the preceding verse, the grammar makes that quite clear.
Frauke Schmidt I am aware that translations into other languages was done from very early on. What's your point?If the Hebrew of the original Torah has not been superseded then why isn't there still a copy of the Torah available in the original paleo Hebrew? Masoretic Hebrew is very different to the Hebrew that the Torah would have been first written in. And why can't you see that the omnipotent God (Yehovah) can easily preserve His Words down through the ages in the form of translations?
How come the original manuscripts of the King James Version translation are lost?
I guess you must be in the most radical division of the KJVO camp - those who believe that the KJV corrects (has corrected once and for all?) the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
Why do you call God "Yehovah" when the KJV calls him "Jehovah"? Do you doubt the correctness of the KJV? Or maybe this was a genuine mistake, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly, the phrase "preserve His Words" is interpreted straight from Psalm 12:6-7. But that's not what that Psalm says. Though I do believe God has preserved His Word, including in the form of translations - just not in 1 translation. Because of grammatical differences translations have their limitations, some Hebrew or Greek meanings come out better in Spanish or German than in English. I can't speak for any other languages because I don't know any others. But ultimately the Word of God is not marred.
Frauke Schmidt You don't seem to want to answer my questions. You put your trust in the Hebrew Scriptures because, as you suggest, they're not translated. But I ask you again, where is the original paleo Hebrew Torah? The Masoretic IS a translation from an earlier form of Hebrew and, what's more is, the original paleo Hebrew is lost and no copy of it has existed for thousands of years. So again I ask you - why is a Masoretic translation reliable but not an English one?
Furthermore, I would like to see just one example of an error in the KJB English translation from the Hebrew Masoretic text. According to you there are lots of them.
And your derisive comments about me being in the most radical division of the KJVonly camp is childish and foolish. I didn't even say that I am KJVonly. Keep your ad hominem to yourself please and thank you.
I haven't said that God only reveals Himself in English. God's Word is available in all languages.
He was a great personality and a very interesting person to know. As viewers on Revelation TV and as members and supporters of The Reachout Trust, we were very blessed to have Doug in our lives and his type are few and far between at times.
How come is it that so many KJV Onlyists go on and on about the King James Bible English and that our English is being dumbed down, and yet they insist on communicating and speaking in what some are already calling late modern English in both speech, spelling and grammar! Was Early Modern English some kind of divine language or something? Why aren't they not following in the footsteps of The KJV translators and write like they do for example? If KJV english is so easy to understand, why are no teachers who hold to the KJV Only position teaching the English of 1611 to children in schools so that they might hear the word of God and believe? Or are they teaching from the 1769 Blaney revision? And is that he word of God?
It's because that the English that was used in the KJV was more accurate and closer to the Greek. For example, Thee, Thou, and Ye are different forms of the word "you." Today we only have "You" and this a plural word and can easily make it very confusing and wrong on what they're translating because of how our language is today.
This is only part of the equation as well. There is over 90% of texts that support the KJV and the way James White speaks is intentionally deceptive. When he states that we now have more manuscripts today than they did when they translated the 1611, that is true. What James White doesn't tell you is that those manuscripts support the KJV! It is very deliberate deceit. If you want more on the subject and you truly love God and want to know more read Floyd Nolen Jones book called "Ripped out of the Bible" and "Which Version is the Bible?" You can get both of these as a free pdf online, so there is no loss in searching truth, right?
For clarification, I am not bashing anyone who reads the modern versions, I have much empathy for you guys because I believed the same lie. All I ask is that you humble yourself before God and pray about this and research it more. There is much deceit going on and I want to help you guys see the truth. The Bible itself says the word of God will be preserved and it is not just the Hebrew/Greek, because you cannot have preservation without inspiration and what most modern bible scholars tell you is that we no longer have the inspired word of God. This is not biblical and the Bible itself gives an account on what manuscripts to look for, and that manuscript is the one the KJV uses (It came from Antioch and Jerusalem). While the Bible condemns the manuscripts of the Alexandrian Texts (Egypt and Rome). It is all biblical and if you deny such things then I sincerely ask that you pray about it because that is deceit and not trusting in God. God bless.
It's just another way that Satan uses to divide people and look at these KJV only folks...there is not a bit of humbleness, or love for others, their only desire is to lay curse to anyone that dares disagree with them. They have taken the focus off of Christ and how desperately we need Him, and the great commission and their only focus is to divide, to lay claim to their biblical superiority and that they are right and everyone else is wrong...like they are the elect or something. It must grieve God to ask us to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone, and then watch pompous so called Christians display such hate for anyone who reads any other translation. You all know what I say here is the truth, so don't try to dispute me cause I've been around on this earth for 54 years and this is all I've ever witnessed from the KJVonly hardheads.
“thee, ye” etc actually dumbs down the English. That one needs these to determine singular, plural etc is irrefutable evidence of the same.
Me? I’ve never had a problem sorting through these “make-believe” problems the KJVOs assert
This debate is what finally convinced me that KJV onlyism is illogical.
No translation is perfect because the meaning of some words can't always be translated clearly from one language to another or from one culture to another, not to mention errors made by scribes. Only the scriptures in the original language are perfect because they were written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Having said that, the imperfections that you'll find in modern translations, including KJV, are only considered imperfect because of differences between the original language and the language it gets translated into. A good example is when Jesus said "It is finished". The Greek word He said was "tetelestai" and it meant more than just "It is finished." There was cultural meaning behind that word that just will not be picked up by the 21st century reader. But we get the idea clearly enough in English. It is not necessary to understand those nuances in order to be saved. You will find the same gospel in the KJV that you would find in the NIV, or any faithful translation. Every translation teaches that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and not of your own works. There are "translations" that some groups use, like Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation, that clearly are not faithful translations but more like interpretations. I don't consider those to be accurate translations. If only one translation was the true word of God and all others weren't, then every Christian in the world would have to understand that one language in order to study the Bible. God is bigger than that. He is able to provide the truth to people in any language on the planet. That's why I said in my original comment that it is simply illogical to believe that the KJV is the only true word of God and all other translations are satanic.
+Firstname LastName Were you a KJV Onlyist? I am kind of re-investigating it. I kind of am.
Yes I was KJV only for many years. I got saved by hearing the gospel from the NIV. But someone I trusted showed me the "missing" verse in the NIV at John 5:4, and the huge difference between translations at 1st John 5:7, and some other things. I trusted this person and didn't go looking for the explanations for the differences. I just accepted it and it became my tradition. If someone likes to use the KJV I think that's fine and I wouldn't tell them not to. I would advise them to use multiple translations in order to really get to the bottom of what the original authors were communicating, but not everyone wants that level of depth unfortunately. It was years later that I was challenged by someone showing that the KJV is not perfect. I started investigating the issue and this debate was the final piece of evidence for me to admit to myself that I had been wrong.
What about Matthew 5:22, John 16:16-17, and 2 Samuel 21:19 where the verses are apparently omitted? What about Acts 8:37, and Matthew 17:21, even Matthew 5:44? The King James appears to have the whole of what was said in these passages, and the new versions cast doubt on them, not to mention Mark 16 from verse 10 on. How would you respond to these issues to a King James Onlyist? These things trouble me.
There is an answer for each one of those. But you shouldn't take this from a random stranger in a CZcams comment box. I have absolute confidence that if you are a Christian and you sincerely want a closer relationship with your Lord, and a desire for knowledge about Him and His word, and you diligently look, you will be rewarded. Read James White's book The King James Only Controversy. Read some KJV only books too. Watch the debates online and read the articles. See which side is being consistent and which one isn't. Then again, you don't have to do any of that. Reading the KJV is just fine. People have been reading that translation for hundreds of years. Just don't go around telling people it's the only valid Bible translation. And don't let anyone tell you which version you must read. That is the real issue here. God bless.
I primarily use the KJV, but not exclusively. Although other translations are based on supposed better manuscripts, when you look at the bible in the original Greek (Septuagint & NT) Nestle text, there truly is NOT much difference among the texts. If you study the bible, it's irrelevant what translation you choose.
the problem is that not everyone has learned Greek, mostly because Greek is the hardest language known, so they can't simply rely on the Greek texts and must rely on translation
***** Read the bile, Study the Bile, Memorized the Bible, Confess the Bible and teach the Bible. That is your call and you have the chance learn greek and hebrew.
The greatest problem today in america and the world is that "we do not read the scriptures." God is most than ready to reveal the depths of his Word and himself when we dive in the reading of the word. KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, etc. God is in it!
J.C. Vaca Diez I read it, but its too time consuming to memorize it, I find that learning theology supported by specific verses is much better than being able to recall each verse from memory
The time you are using to memorized the Bible is not a "waste" of time it is an investment. Ask Jesus when he was being tempted in the desrt by the very Devil. He knew the concepts and theology behind the Bible. But he used it to get an advanced position against the devil. So, what did he do when tempted: He quoted the BIBLE, His favorite book was Deuteronomy and he struck the devil 3 times from small quotes (bathe on theological accuracy) of the Biblical text.
I encourage you, be theological accurate, but also memorize from that perspective and God will use you greatly.
J.C. Vaca Diez I do memorize parts of the Bible, but I feel like memorizing verses like Matthew 4:2 and being able to recall the verse chapter and book as well as what it says from memory isn't much use
so I don't memorize verses, I simply remember what it says
I have just one question for those who read the KJV:
_Understandest thou what thou readest?_
He he I see what you did there! nicely put ;)
yes
Yes, do you? apparently not.
Yes Ofcoouuurse
Yes do understand it and like it too as know its translators were thee most faithful to the original text.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"It's not written in contemporary language." Wrong. The KJV was translated into the contemporary language of 1611. There were people at the time who didn't like the KJV because it was easy for the common man to understand. The KJV-only people are on the same boat as those people nowadays.
"It doesn't read like a newspaper." Why shouldn't a Bible read like a newspaper? Are people like Moorman afraid that the common man might actually understand God's Word if it was translated into a language that was readily understood by most of the English-speaking audience and get saved?
Is their any debates or interactions with Reformed men who believe in TR (for lack of a better word) superiority? There are many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and Reformed Baptists that believe in TR superiority, but I seem to only see White debating independent, Arminian Baptists fringe guys and no Reformed scholars. Many modern Reformed men and men of old held this view (modern men such as Dr. Michael Barett of Puritan Reformed Seminary or Dr. Joel Beeke) Please send me any interactions if there are some with Refomed scholars. It's easy to pick on Steve Anderson.
Why refute arguments when you can just accuse your opponents of being satanists
truth hurts when one works for the enemy, like white who agrees with Muslims the Bible is mistranslated and is wrong.
Rev. 22:18 & 19
Messing with God's Holy Scriptures in His Bilble will get you this spoken by the Lord Jesus to all.💝🌮🥐🦃🦁🏜🏝🍉🍍
@@martinbaker7032 Martin has no content and nothing to show this one is a Christian. I have 1,000's of Christ lifting Bible studies. King James Bible exalts Jesus, modern versions exalt men.
@@martinbaker7032 per this one better to use vatican manuscripts from pedo priests which is where all modern bibles comes from. but they will lie and say king james was a sodomite when the King james says to put sodomites to death. that is why these hate the king james since it tells us what to do with them.
ALL modern bibles use Vatican manuscripts, the King James uses the Greek Majority text. the vatican is full of pedos. the manuscripts the Vatican uses is even called VaticANUS. Baker like the rest of his ilk lie and hope you church goers are too lazy to do your own research. hey the football game is one, move along nothing to see here.
One of the saddest things about The KJVO issue is that you ultimately have a group of people, some of whom, by their behaviour are clearly showing what is in the contents of their hearts is very evil, willing to turn an tell others" Because you do not read the KJV only, you are NOT a Christian!" Not all are like this, but there are some! And that is their only reasoned response to the factual evidence put forward. And yet they would still consider themselves to be Christian in doing so! :-(
Nobody who reads a kjv only is bothering you people. You all bother us with your nonsense. Because you lose sleep over what we read. It’s between the demons in you, and the not being able to read past a 4th grade level (which is all kjv is) that has you up, drinking Pepto-Bismol all night
Steve Anderson is one of those hateful evil KJV ONLYIST. I met a young lady who sucks up his filth. Pray for her!
If I would have had a chance a question I would have asked when you read the word you in the modern versions how do you know which is singular and which is plural? Like in the KJV thee, thy, thine, thou is old english for singular.
@@Tony41christ I already knew he was a false teacher the minute he opened his mouth.
100 years ago, no such KJVO ideas was on anyone’s minds, much less their lips. Further the question or questions no one asks: what changed? The KJ translation did not change. No -man changed. Like the proliferation of denominations and cults, man came up w/these ideas that have gained traction by the likes of Riplinger, Gipp et al.
Regardless I use the KJ but it’s not my goto translation nor will it ever be. Tyndale got it right: the boy behind the plough, or today the steering wheel* should not struggle to understand God’s word and it’s the job of the translator to publish it in the VERNACULAR of the same*. Not someone w/5-10 years of post HS education.
What was the date of the Show/Debate?
1997
Dr White's book on this is calm, fair and logical. The King James is a Bible translation I love and read often but the whole King James only position is illogical. I use the NRSV too. Miles Smith in his Translators to the Reader (now sadly not included in many KJV Bibles) offers arguments that refute the KJV only position. We are lucky that we are fortunate enough to have this debate. Many Christians are still without scripture in their own language.
I agree! I was KJV-only for years, and then I actually studied the issue deeply, including reading Dr White’s book, it really opened my eyes and informed me of my ignorance.
This Moorman guy has a great voice. Sounds like a good ringside announcer. He has a ridiculous argument though.
Moorman?
Yes, that's the name of the older gentleman defending King James Onlyism.
UreaSmith That's funny. I thought you were spelling Mormon wrong.
Forget the arguments, his pronunciation is off. Listen to how he says "Sinai" and "Byzantine", lol.
Strange choice of names "Urea" used to lower intracranial or intraocular pressure, to induce abortion. U can tell a lot from a name. Pretty non-specific about that "ridiculous argument" statement aren't you junior?
Could you provide some reference to back that accusation? Also, what is a New Ager?
From what denomination was Desiderus Erasmus?
kenomy66 Erasmus was a devout Roman Catholic
An aeroplane has 3 engines but can fly on just one.... yeah sure. BUT what I want to be sure of is that those 2 extra engines were actually there in the first place!
I used to be KJV only then I got educated.
no you compromised, for sure. I have compared multiple versions to the KJV and they are obviously flawed texts while the KJV shines in incredible ways.Your edu seduced you away from truth. I Timothy 6:20 speaks of what has happened to you too.
your mislead I pray God opens you eyes Amen Merry Christmas.
Same
Obediah002 Why are you comparing other translations to the King James and not the original scriptures?
that was very arrogant and assumes christians who read the kjv are not educated, you should apologize and repent to your christian brothers.
Great debate, lot of info received. Thank you.
I don't expect KJV Onlyists to understand this dilemma since they seem to have cast logic and rational thought to the wind, but hopefully some of you can see the logic here.
This is by JAMES MAY:
"Preserved or Restored?
In one of many inconsistencies, defenders of a perfect KJV almost uniformly argue for a doctrine of infallible preservation, while frequently presenting material in support of a doctrine of perfect restoration. They do not appear to perceive the inherent contradiction in these mutually exclusive concepts. If they argue for perfect preservation, they cannot account for the variants in the majority manuscripts and in the various editions of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. If they argue for perfect restoration, they can no longer appeal to various Scripture passages that allegedly teach perfect preservation. The fallacy of the argument is easy to see. For God’s Word to be perfectly preserved, it must be preserved just as it was inspired, that is, in regard to every detail, (Matthew 5:18). For this argument to be valid, it must be thus preserved during its entire history, which precludes completely the idea of any restoration whatsoever. If God’s Word has to be restored in any sense for a perfect copy to exist, then by definition, it was not perfectly preserved."
This is by Jim Deferio:
"Onlyists will cite Psalm 12 as a basis that God preserves His word(s) and that the KJV is indeed that which is the preserved word of God. They also cite 1 Cor. 13:10 and Matthew 5:18 for their doctrine of God's preservation of His word and use these verses also to claim that the KJV is indeed THAT preserved word.
Of course, it is at once easy to see that these verses are taken out of context and the criteria used to apply them to the KJV is non-existent (not arbitrary but simply that they have no rational grounds). But I won't get into that.
The history of the KJV cannot be one of preservation because it is well known that the 47 Anglican translators of the KJV used six EDITED Greek manuscripts for the New Testament and for the Old Testament relied on the Greek translation of the OT and also on the Latin Vulgate (Dr. Gregory Neal).
The KJV translators edited together their translation - they did not have or find a PRESERVED OT and NT text from which they translated. Now if they had no preserved text then a case for a preserved word of God is vacuous. One may try to argue for a RESTORED text but then why the many changes over the decades in the KJV and why does the Majority Greek Text differ from the KJV in over 1,800 places in the NT? Why do the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls differ from the KJV in some very important places?
Seems to be clear that not even a case for restoration can be made. The marginal notes in the original 1611 also speak against restoration and the preface of the 1611 entitled "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER clearly goes against preservation and restoration.
To preserve something doesn't carry the notion of restoring something. The two issues are not the same. Clearly there was no preserved word (not in the way Onlyists claim) and clearly recovery and restoration efforts are still ongoing."
If I was an unbeliever, never having heard of a Bible, ignorant of what is "the inspired Word of God", and watched this debate; I would have to conclude that between these to men Dr. James White displayed more humility, knowledge, and a love for "the whole counsel of God"..
Dr. James White totally owned this debate. WOW!
No he didn’t. Gods the final authority. Not white - white opinion doesn’t count. He’s going back to the dirt.
Dr. White crushes Jack Moorman. But both avoid the questions. Who decided which books should be in the Bible? How do you know we have the right books in the Bible? The Catholic Church decided at the councils of Rome 382 A.D., Hippo 393 A.D., and Carthage 397 & 419 A.D.. Which books should be in the Bible. Also Jesus gave the Authority to the church Matt 16; 17-19 to chose which books came from God. The Catholic Church is the only church that can trace her roots back to Jesus!
Do we have freedom in USA read other Bible versions??
I can't stand people who shake their head while the other person is making their points. Moorman was doing that to White the whole time. He needs to grow up. You don't have to agree with him, but stop putting on a show about it. Wait your turn and respond to it.
Beecee Pedia I saw that too, my heart really hurts for those people who cannot let go of their idol KJV, if you want to read it then read it but don't tell someone else they are wrong cause they don't understand it. One thing that kills me is when poeple say "The Holy Spirit will give you the understanding of the KJV" people need to be careful not to make idols out of the KJV, especially kills me when preachers say need to get you a good ole KJV and get right..... Hate when they do that.
Jack was losing... You’re right disrespectful. But did you expect something dif from a KJVO?
Moorman: In other words, if it isn't part of the Textus Receptus, I absolutely refuse to accept it, and no amount of proof will sway me...
@@Tony41christ sounds like kjv only presupposition guiding your conclusion
@@Tony41christ the subject of KJV being the only translation for our time or James White being a cad, lol?
@@Tony41christ i appreciate the offer. unfortunately my speech impediment absolutely floors me. perhaps i will watch the vid you referred to.
Is it just me or was the audience a little "off" with those questions?
An aeroplane has 3 engines? Who said your plane has 3 engines? You want to know your plane does actually have those 3 engines in the first place? Did some one actually put on that 3rd engine?
My jaw literally dropped when he refused to talk about the dead sea scrolls
I thought that was very telling as well. It would've reflected better on him had he said he hadn't focused his research in that direction and so he couldn't comment rather than the outright refusal he made. When you've found Hebrew manuscripts from before Jesus' birth that correlate more strongly with the Greek Septuagint than with the later Masoretic text then you know you're on shaky ground to claim there is no credibility to ancient manuscripts found in modern times.
DSS changed the manuscript landscape.
Thanks, James! You're a great help to many Christians. Let's just hope that KJV-people will open their eyes and realize that the "modern" versions are not a threat to Christianity and the Bible, but that stubborn KJV-onlyism actually is just that (a threat to our faith and credibility)
But they omit versus and pervert the deity of Christ Do some research James White is a heretic. I
The Niv had two sodomites on its translation committee, what d you reason about this? www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_sodomite_on_committee.htm
Obediah002 the sodomite story is true only if you prefer lies that support your unrelenting close minded KJVO narrative.
No modern version has come from God's line of inspired manuscripts, Only the KJV has... I have researched this a lot and used to believe the lie James White told but I actually researched it myself and followed the Holy Spirit and man was I shocked. Your Bible alone tells you which manuscripts the Bible will come out of and which one is credible. If anyone is up for discussion, I will gladly discuss it with you. (No, I am not a KJVO that says you will go to Hell and all that nonsense)
@@murphyy277 the reason there are missing verses in the modern translations is because out of the thousands of manuscripts we have nowadays, those verses didn't appear until the 1400s. They were added in way later. They have no connection to the apostles. And they pervert the deity of Christ? I'm not sure what you're talking about. The ESV says the fullness of deity dwell in Christ. You are greatly misinformed.
Great learning on the subject
I heard a preacher say
" if old English was good enough for Jesus and the prophets then it's good enough for me"
I so hope that's a true story!!! Hahahaha amazing
Ya, except Jesus didn't speak in old English!
"A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures"
The KJV translators in the preface to the AV1611 KJV called "The Translators to the Readers"
If I didnt know better (I do tho) I would say that God inspired those men to write that preface to refute KJV onlyism 1600 years later. Of course I don't believe in inspiration post the apostles.
KJV only are nuts these days, I hope they spent their time reading the Bible rather than wasting his/her time comparing versions from a version to the other. sorry for being this way, but it's ridiculous
Sadly, the ones I experience in my life tend to place more importance on this topic than the actual Gospel.
The reason why we come to the conclusion of the KJV being God's word is because we study the word of God and actually have faith in his word. The amount of textual supporting for the KJV is over 90% and the way James White speaks is beyond deceptive and makes me wonder whether he is a devil. I do not support most of KJVO beliefs though because I agree they can be nuts and just as bad. Please for the love of God look into this subject, read books by Floyd Nolen Jones and Wilbur N. Pickering, those are two I have found to be incredible and very factual and covers this whole misinformation. I used to believe the same thing you guys believed and I was wrong but what took me so long was the fact that KJVO looked like extremists and in some cases they're, I now understand where they're coming from and that not every KJVO is evil. Whether you believe me or not, that is your choice and the day will come when all of the truth will come out, I just hope that those with eyes to see and ears to hear take this comment and that God will show them the truth. God bless.
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
Ye shall know them by their fruits .. James White is plainly and simply a Bible doubter, he doubts that God kept his promise to preserve his words which he most definitely did for us it's the Holy Bible the Majority text King James Bible you know the only Bible all the critics and doubters hate so much ... if they weren't such doubters and critics they would be out of a job ...
Joshua you are my homie. You deserve respect.
When Jack said the hidden manuscripts, I was thinking that all along. The originals aren't lost or burned by Roman soldiers, they will never be destroyed, they are hidden and we will see them once again. This is a test by God to see who will come to Him for the truth. He is Truth and will guide us unto all truth, if we seek Him earnestly. Ask and it shall be given to you. Read any reliable Bible that you would like to but pray first that His Spirit be with you as you study His word..
I'm not a KJV onlyist but find the KJV speaks to my spirit more than the other translations. II only use other translations to clarify a verse that I find difficult to understand in the KJV. I like the way the KJV makes me think deeper on God's word and rely on the spirit's help. The Bible isn't only for biblical scholars or theologians but for everyone who has a love for truth.
MATTHEW 7: 7-11
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I would like to know if Pastor Morman hold's to the position of some prominent KJV Only guys that Christians in other Countries must learn English if they want to access the full word of God? Obviously the Chinese and Russians and Germans and Zulus must be taught Early Modern English, not what we speak today! i would also like to know if it is the 1611 was perfect as it was or not when it was published? Because if so why would it need refining?
This man effectively destroys the gross error of KJV onlyism, but I'm sure that as with all who are stuck in their ways, some will still obstinately find a reason to hold on to a translation which may have served past generations well, but in modern times it simply cannot meet the longing of the human heart, nor can it meet the needs of the Church in our time.Thank you Doctor James White.
Er no he doesn’t
@@kM-ij2ly Yes he does
You sound foolish. Gods word doesn’t change. You think you’re God? You were not. Who are you to tell someone what to read? You devil
The KJV is still serving many churches quite well. You have no idea what you are talking about. Typical of those who love to attack the KJV.
@@samlawrence2695 no he doesn't
Do you have evidence or just a "Liar, Liar" argument? I have yet to hear one KJO person argue reasonably with facts. It is always Ad Hominems
How about white telling us he worked as a paid consultant for the masonic Lockman foundation that holds the copyright for the Vatican approved NASB.
@@ChaplainBobWalkerBTh funny I see you here!
Moorman ever had a mount impossible except to try to defend a undefendable stance. The information was given to prove him wrong and he just kept curcling back and never made a case for his position.
can someone recommend a version to me?
ESV is great.
@@hello855 ESV = Extra Satanic Version
@craigime
Any of these will lead you to Christ:
NASB* NIV* BSB* ESV* CSB* NLT* NET* NKJ* MEV* & WEB*.
@@anonymousduck8456 More delusions and blasphemy, from a KJV idolater
Jesus Christ, in Luke 4:17-19, was reading an un- authorized translation.
1fanger he was reading the correct words. It was most certainly the one without error.
The point I make is that the original Holy Spirit inspired writings are long gone. All we have got; and there are piles of manuscripts, seem to jive, mostly. That is the realm of scholars; which I am not. 1 Timothy 2:15--- " Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, ACCURAELY HANDLING THE WORD OF TRUTH..
1fanger kjv says Study
@@howardmanley3388 2 Timothy, sorry.The word study, in the king James Translation means diligent in Greek, according to my study. Off point, but thanks.
P.S. Nice to see a KJV onlyist with a bit of courtesy and manners though. I actually warmed to Pastor Jack despite not agreeing with him.
My question is why did men feel the need to come up with new versions. these new versions have taken out scriptures have omitted the blood of Jesus Christ many many times where the KJV says Holy Spirit the new versions say spirit KJV says holy men or holy brethren or holy prophets or holy angels the new versions take out holy why would they do that.there are false spirits false prophets false brethren false angels and in the KJV where it says Jesus Christ they just put christ and there are false christ these new versions have left out God or of God in many many verses why is that. God said do not add or take from his word he will remove your name from the book of life God said he would preserve his word these men want you to believe that they want to make it easier to understand the KJV is on a 5th grade level the niv is on a 6th grade level while others on a 8th grade level wake up people God's word is under attack that is what satan said to eve hath God said there is absolutely no reason to come up with new versions that take out scriptures and ommit words to change the meaning of scripture the church is being infiltrated from within there are alot of wolves in sheep's clothing Jesus told us do not be deceived.
So true and it’s sad but Satan knows the HOLY SCRIPTURES more than any human being and that’s why he is doing everything in his power to corrupt YHWYs inspired word to change it, erase it, So men will begin to question our father in heavens AUTHORITY and purpose for our lives. Well it’s a good thing that there ls not much time left as his return is soon apon us. wake up to the signs all around brethren how do u expect to win people to Christ when supp Christians are arguing / nit picking YHWYs word and creating so much division amoungst ya selves. No wonder the world is headed in the other direction is Satan winning??????????? I believing YHWY has already won just as he tells us. Guess what in heaven there won’t be any more debate.
How was the Latin Vulgate “locked away from God’s people”? Jerome said “who does not know scripture does not know Christ”. The Douay Bible was the English translation of the Vulgate and was published two years before the King James Bible. It was published to be read by English speakers and not “locked away” at all. I’m surprised that Dr. White didn’t point that out.
The KJV onlyist always sounds like they worship it as God.
same with calvinists who worship the tulip and a man like a God, or esv only people.
Jesus came out of Egypt as a child. I guess KJVOs think He should be rejected because of that then?
Absurdity.
They act as if there were bible book stores in Egypt at that time ROFL....bad bibles coming out of Egypt LOL Zero common sense and he can't even pronounce things correctly. His voice is all he has, just say "this text" & "Mt. Impossible" with a sly documentary voice
"I have them in my hands I will mold them like puddy bawahaha"
They act as if there were bible book stores in Egypt at that time ROFL....bad bibles coming out of Egypt LOL Zero common sense and he can't even pronounce things correctly. His voice is all he has, just say "this text" & "Mt. Impossible" with a sly documentary voice
"I have them in my hands I will mold them like puddy bawahaha"
What I can't understand is many of the people commenting on this that would consider themselves KJV only people were did they received their PhD's in Biblical Translation. I for one would look to the Biblical Translation Scholars, like Dr. White. As a Seminary student I would not consider myself a Biblical Translator but I have studied the process, I can assure you it takes a person that has spent many many years of training, study in Biblical languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Syntax, among many other scholarly work.
seems to me it's like trimming a little silver off a silver dollar the first few times it's no big deal but later it maybe a serious problem.
Of the KJV translators, Moorman says "Unlike Biblical scholars of today, these scholars were not tainted by rationalism, unbelief, or uncertainty..."; what, were these men INFALLIBLE? Even the KJV Bible teaches us that only the Apostles were supernaturally kept from error.
Dr. White definitely outclasses Pstr. Moorman in both scholarship and presentation.
How is it possible that Jack Moorman talked so much but said absolutely nothing of substance? I can't believe his defense of the KJV itself being THE standard included such a ridiculous statement like "It sounds like the Bible"...that statement alone summed up the KJV only cult mentality. Oh, and the whole Mt. Impassible and "...with a standard, you know where you stand" phrases that sounded like a broken record~too much. This was clearly a demonstration of one man dealing with facts and the other on emotion. I was actually embarrassed for Pastor Moorman...
Justa Guy because JKV olnyist make the KJV the standard to which all have to be judged, they don't have to judge the KJV against anything.... Cause it's their standard.....
Justa Guy they BELIEVE in their hearts you’re to trust them & they own NO ONE an explanation.
I don't speak Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Greek, and I'm sure there are many who didn't prior to computer technology. Many people didn't have a way to check God's word in the original manuscripts. They had to trust in the translations they had during their time. My question to these scholars is how were people saved then (post Jesus and apostles time) if the translations are corrupt? The God I worship is much bigger than that, and he has preserved his word in the King James version. 1 Corinthians 14:27 says "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." That one that interpreted the unknown tongues... is the KJV.
Really...in one single version that was translated by human scribes. A belief needs proof. Also, you're taking 1 Corinthians 14 completely out of context.
In the battle between bow tie and regular tie, bow tie wins.
Michael kezelevich I would also add that if the language of the KJV touches you more than newer versions, more power to you. Read it, grow from it and enjoy. No one prefering the KJV has to denounce newer versions just to enjoy it more fully.
You are pathetically uneducated. If you like your KJV, fine, wonderful, it's a great 17th century English translation done by Anglicans, but don't lie about other translations! By far the your KJV is the most catholic among ANY of the modern translation, which just demonstrates your ignorance once again!
Greg Settle "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness." 2 Tim 2:24-25
False information has tricked us all at one point or other. For the most part, a person who believes the KJV is the only Bible is still a brother or sister in Christ. Treating / speaking to a brother or sister poorly is serious.
I have gone overboard at times, but reread this comment. And I am fine with it. It is the truth, without being overly sarcastic!
I was referring specifically to the "You are pathetically uneducated." comment, but perhaps I read it with a tone you didn't intend.
Anyway you slice it, it's not easy for someone to be told they are uneducated about something, particularly when they have been bloviating about things they OBVIOUSLY know very little to nothing about!
The KJV indeed has more problems than it's worth. Its archaic word usage means you'll be spending almost as much time trying to figure out what an old English word means as you will exegeting the Word. On top of that, it erroneously translates certain words, like replacing the word slave (Koine Greek word "doulos") with "servant" or "bondservant."
It has its worth and value, but it's absurd to call it the be-all-end-all of all translations.
I personally prefer the King James, nonetheless, you are right.
I do use programs to see the original language for clarification however.
I keep waiting for the argument for the KJV side in the first 20 min. to say something about the Masoretic and Septuagint and how that plays into his arguments.
Anyone notice Jack READ* his opening statement. James did his off the cuff at, to me, a normal pace.
* very slowly to fill the 20 minutes*
** he went 10 seconds over (lol)
Who do ya think knew his subject matter?
Ok, I am 100% on James' side in this debate, but that was a pretty cheap shot. Not everyone is a gifted extemporaneous speaker or debater.
Peter Ruckman.... The father of many Pharisee's.!
lol
True. All of his followers are a bunch of damnable heretics
at 58:00 the question of the confusion in modern texts, underlies my belief that the KJV is the preferred standard for 400 years, and for 400 years to come. Not that I am against modernization, but with each modernization we risk losing the meaning. Thanks for the debate. I still hold to my KJV and find it more and more rare on the shelves, but still there. Peace and Love, put the KJV in my hands as you lower me into the grave. I have lived with it, I will die with it!
if you have read Dr. White's book on the King James *ONLY* Controversy, you will see that he grew up with the King James Version and still likes it. however, the KJV has become dated and because the translators knew Latin better than Greek when it came to grammar and probably in general as well - their notes were taken in Latin after all - they didn't translate several important passages in Holy Scripture as well as they could have and really shouldn't have gone off of Beza's conjectural emendation. I say as long as you are reading and appreciating the Bible, good for you! God bless you!
I have a problem with the presentation of plenary verbal inspiration of the autographs. I am not a learned man, but I can say with confidence that the Bible I read contains the inspired words of God. It sounds like Moorman doesn't believe what he is saying if only the "originally inspired" autographs are God's words. One doesn't have to depend on what scholars deem to be inspired Scripture. They can read God's inspired words themselves in the AV. When Paul witnessed to the eunuch, they read what Paul called "Scripture". Paul also said to Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired of God."
Much of the rest of what Moorman says I agree with.
Let's hear it...
Mount Impassible... 😂 I've traversed that mountain, set up permanent residence by building a house on the other side and started a family. 😂 That's what I would have said...
@@Tony41christ
Since I posted the original comment, I've come to find that I really can't take J. White seriously any more. However, I still think Jack Moorman had a horrible presentation.
Love the KJV!
+Dan K Love the N.I.V. Like the K.J. It reminds me of old, old old, people with diapers & no teeth.
+benny luken troll...move on
@@flamingooneleg77 NIV = Non-Inspired Version
@@martinbaker7032 i love how the niv has whole passages of scripture missing
Don't force people read KJV only!!
Why is that when you mention the blatant use of circular reasoning to a KJV Only advocate, it seems that what they hear is, "I wanna be an airborne ranger..." ???
If we should exclusively use a bible shouldn't it be in the manuscript's original language?
I remember watching this debate several years ago. The only thing I remember taking away from Mr. Moorman's arguments was the use of buzzwords and phrases like "Mount Impassable" as though they were trump cards in themselves.
I'm Anglican (American by citizenship). I find it ironically funny to see two Baptists (who sometimes think we're in error theologically) debating a Bible version that was created by Anglicans.
Yes, but purists and others were all involved as well. I'm not exactly sure if I see your point?
@@denise1656 What do you mean by “purists”? Archbishop Lancelot Andrews of the CofE was the Director of the Authorized version and to this day his influence on Anglicanism is still studied in seminary. Is he a “purist”?
@@Psalm144.1 sorry, I meant Puritans
@@denise1656 Those Puritans were all Anglican churchmen and clergy. Anglicans like me claim them and still learn from the scholars of that era. Have you heard of John Stott, JI Packer or even from over a hundred years ago, JC Ryle?
@@Psalm144.1 reread my msg. I never claimed they were not. I just said they were Puritans. Can you learn to let something go? Or has that ship set sail years ago. I am a Critical Textual Analyst and am WELL learned in Church History, so much so I have spent over 8 years indwelt in such. Please learn to let it go, thank you and G-D bless you
Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away! His perfect word is out there.
@Man made His Word is out there? The truth is in the Biblical Hebrew Bible bc everything else is mistranslations. n the process of translating the entire Bible into Portuguese then enrolled in Biblical Hebrew to be accurate and in the process of learning to my horror and dismay I found that the jesus I’ve preached is no where in the Old Testament nor reference to him then I further found out the letter “J” was invented in the year 1500 and implemented after the year 1611 so that name did not even existed. I strongly suggest that you learn Biblical Hebrew with still free on youtube. I am an EX Christian Evangelist! Escape.
And it’s the one we’ve been using for over 400 years
Did anyone ever hear which modern version dr. White uses?
Dr. James White uses the NASB.
I've watched this video several times, and I'm always amazed at how easily James White destroyed Jack Moorman's arguments. There's simply no contest. White for the win.
@@Tony41christ @Anthony Lambertini yes I have watched your videos where you apply standards of argumentation which you will not apply to The King James Bible and you spend most of your video making personal insults against James White.
well in the garden.. the serpent.. easily convinced Eve it was ok.. to sin against God... by just saying the words "hath God not said?"... the serpent did not tell Eve he was going to lead her to sin against God..he just did it.... later Eve recalled she was beguiled...(tricked) by the serpent.... that is what the devil is doing here.. thru men and women like James White.... it would be nice.. to see the world.. Not be deceived this time around....
KJV only is cultic! KJV is a great version, but the KJV only camp just ruin things don't they?
If you're against God's true word that is able to save your soul, then yes it would ruin everything for you. Please study this further and pray about it. Read Floyd Nole Jones book called "Ripped out of the Bible." There's a free pdf online as well. God bless.
@@IWasGivenRest Wow, did you really say that, "against God's true Word"? All bibles are a translation and the KJB was translated basically from 7 manuscripts and was not the fist bible translated to English. We had others already in their place for a much longer time. Today we have what ? 15,000 plus manuscripts and archaeological discoveries that are evidence of God preserving his word and you are implying that all other translations are not God's word. These newer translations have been poured over by scholars with a better understanding of the language and the advantage of examining multiple manuscripts to assure accuracy. Don't you want to know what was really said? Don't you want to know what the witnesses and the early church believed? That is the closest we have to what the apostles said and taught, their example and their beliefs are the most true. Today we have been watered down by leaders with a motive, governments that were trying to create a uniform theology, even the councils that met for the purpose of harmony could not agree on the details and they were the church fathers. Here is an example, Explain the word Hell being used for Hades, Sheol, Tartarus and Gehenna.
So when we translate the Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts today into another language is that new translation any less or more valuable than the KJB? Is it no longer the Word of God? Because that is what KJVO folks believe, they are so afraid of change that they fear that the Word will no longer be the Word of God. Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, he came in the flesh, he taught us that God loves us where we are, he suffered and died for the remission of sins, God raised him up and he is now seated at the right side of God our Father. You can change the words around any way you want but as long as it does not changes change the meaning it is of God. These are my words and they are different from 1 John 4:2-3 English Standard Version (ESV)
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
I am sure it breaks God's heart that Christians spend so much time correcting each other, arguing over details and bringing division and shameful attention on ourselves and our faith vs. sharing the Gospel we profess to believe in. We spend so much time debating and arguing while people are dying not knowing the love of God the Father or his Son Jesus Christ.
Wow! I could surely tell who that moderator was for! Great debate...
53:09 is when I salute the moderator 😊
Although I find these debates interesting I also find it a little disturbing. I was brought up on KJV my whole life up until the age of about 28 personally I wasn’t aware that different translations were out there. When someone mentioned a version I thought KJV was the only one out there for me reading the KJV was not an issue of difficulty. Forward to today I read different versions mostly the ESV, NSAB and just recently the CSB. Am I going out sining do I believe that I am saved by my works do I downplay the trinity or the deity of Christ no. I don’t understand this argument fully simply because the KJV is a translation from the original language into English I shudder when in comments and discussions when people say it’s the inspired translation. Why because we have the original manuscripts that were inspired to men by the Holy Spirit and again we are saying that God inspired someone again to translate it into English. This again throws up issues when you translate into another language do we translate from inspired translation or do we translate from the original manuscripts. I believe this argument will just go round and round so before I approach the bible I pray I don’t have a broad understanding of translation subject but I believe the Holy Spirit is a teacher and guide. And if I am in error because I am born again and have the Holy Spirit living within me who will direct me in truth I constantly pray Psalm 139: 23-24 we spend so much time arguing/debate but are we living the word are we obeying it
@Claudia Bailey there are hundreds of translations out there and all are translations of translations and ALL purposely mistranslated. The Biblical Hebrew Bible has the truth that we are not taught in churches for various reasons. I am an ex Christian evangelist who after been in a project to translate the Bible into portugues then enrolled in Biblical Hebrew classes to find out with horror that all the scriptures I’ve preached was corrupted ie. Verbs tenses changed in order to agree with a new testament narrative. The title “lord” and “God” are used so we wouldn’t find out the Name of The Creator and discover that salvation comes after a person repents from their sins and return to HIS Ten Commandments and practice charity and goodness to less fortunate that’s all ...no blood, no cross Learn Biblical Hebrew while still available for free on CZcams and escape the brain wash we endured. Escape! I am an ex Christian evangelist.
@Claudia Bailey
Translations are NOT inspired.
ONLY the Autographs are inspired!
Where was the "standard" before 1611?
Textus Receptus, Syrian, (Old Syriac) 150AD, Old Latin (Itala) 157AD, Vaudois, Albegenses, Waldenses, Wycliff (1380), Matthews, Great Bible, Stephanus (1550), Geneva (1560), Bishop's and on and on.
who cares?
@Daniel Urry not my standard. I am open minded to received the most accurate word.
@Michael George
You missed the point of the “standard before 1611” question.
Conceptually we’ve had God’s Word for over 1600 years. The KJVO position infers “not before 1611.”
The modern translations improve upon the same on all fronts.
1 Samuel 15:23a "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and STUBBORNNESS is as iniquity and idolatry." Minute 56 onwards on this vid reminded me of that verse. Revelation 16:5 - another verse where Luther disagrees with the KJV, because he followed actual manuscripts rather than conjecture (Beza).
What's more likely - that God inspired a perfectly inerrant Bible that instantly fell into confusion and chaos with unclear translations and discrepant versions, not to mention the disappearance of all original texts, or that Man created a series of conflicting texts that never have been and never will be agreed upon?
NO, NO, NO!!! The KJV is a Fine Bible, but to say KJV Only is not right!!!
Agree with that in sense that other versions should be examined; nobody who claims to be christian should be ignorant of them or their histories, especially their source texts.
Exactly right the KJV is beautiful and should be treasured but the KJV only position is irrational.
Why is it not right? If you understood the source texts of ALL the modern versions since the KJV you would realize just how flawed they are, look it up and be shocked for sure. Do a serious Bible study where everyone brings and uses their favorite version you will quickly realize all that is discovered is confusion!
Obediah002 my preference is the bibles from the 1530s such as tyndale new testament (and what he wrote of the old), coverdale, great bible, and the Matthew bible. But I am still at least curious to see what other bibles before the kjv said.
I'm a majority / TR man. Tyndall too the nkjv are awesome. Im not a fan of the Alexandrian text only people but I don't believe let's say esv is evil in of itself but I believe its weak in places where the majority text is not. Let's face it, there's bad bibles, weak bibles and awesome bibles.
This is the legacy of RC scholasticism. Instead of living our faith, instead of engaging in a life of prayer, we argue all day about the proper translation of a Greek word, because that is precisely what Christ said will insure our salvation -- getting "metanoia" traslated properly. The word without the spirit is not worth the paper it's written on. Instead of having Christ, you are talking about Him. And that is in no small measure because of a complete lack of sacramental life in your "churches". So you have basically two options: either convert to some kind of Eastern religion that gives you a sense of communing with God, or become a scholastic engaged in debating others.
Nonsense
I'll do neither! They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with Wings as Eagles.....Isaiah 40 : 31
At last it has come, New Age Bible Versions by GA Riplinger. I was told there were more misquotes per page than the JW's Trinity booklet
Last night I found it an exhausting read! And so far the rumours are true. Will my highlighter pens hold out I wonder? And KJVOnlyists call this scholarly work?
I believe that it is somewhat natural for God's Word to be Ancient ,and yet accurate in point. And Yes I believe that One of these Bibles is the Standard vs the others.
And Finally I understand that any Bible is understandable if You READ IT, a vast majority don't really read and study the Bible, and this is why they don't understand nor see the controversies. I know that the NKJV is One of the best if not THE best translation because I've done my Homework, also Likewise knowing the NIV lacks inspiration, because I read and Study.
There has to be a reason why the texts are different than each other even if slightly, and therefore some are right and some are wrong