You read KJV that fine!

[Instant]

It's probably one of the worst translations. Loaded with additions and omissions. The NIV repaired many of the KJV blunders and is a superior translation compared to the KJV.

The NIV is perhaps the absolute worst translation on the market. Not only does it leave out part of the text, but they had an agenda to make it non-sexist and gender neutral, even changing the plain meaning to accomplish this. What I am saying is no secret. It was the NIV that caused me to become KJV only. I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV and NIV side by side and saw the differences and this made me investigate it. I don't think there is a translation worse than the NIV, and I am including the New World Translation when I say that. It is bad, but they are both awful. If someone must have a modern English translation, the New King James Version is the most accurate by far.

 

[Instant]

I didn't demonize it. I USE it! But if you want - I can make your dreams come true!

What dream might that be? It matters not to me what translation you use. I am sticking with the one that I trust which is the KJV Bible. I have no dream that one day everyone will be KJV only. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[amigo de christo]

I find that people with your view demonizes the KJV as you just did. The other translations are inferior to the KJV Bible, and I am firmly KJV only. That doesn't mean I am making anyone read the best and most accurate version because I do. You are free to read any translation that you want. For the record, my preferences are Authorized King James Bible, 1611 King James Bible, Geneva Bible and NKJV Bible for those that insist the old English is too hard. I only use the first 2, but the others are next in line.

There is a reason deep down why many folks have this hatred towards the KJV . And we both
know why it is . As for me , This lamb is a sticking to the KJV . i also read on the geneva too .
I notice them two older versions seem to not contradict each other one bit .
Yet i cannot say the same for some newer ones , if ya know what i mean .

 

[amigo de christo]

What dream might that be? It matters not to me what translation you use. I am sticking with the one that I trust which is the KJV Bible. I have no dream that one day everyone will be KJV only. What in the world are you talking about?

Many no likey the KJV . Then try and accuse us of saying or implying if one dont read the KJV they gonna burn in hell
or something .
Nope . never said that either . BUT i will say this . I would beg and plead for folks to LEARN that KJV .
i mean if folks want accuracy , ITS IN THAT VERSION . But i already know just cause folks might
read the NIV , which i cant stand that version , it dont mean they dont know GOD .
But again i would tell everyone , GET in the KJV bible . DO it . I would try and at least tell them
ITS the absolute best version in the english langauge .

 

[amigo de christo]

The NIV is perhaps the absolute worst translation on the market. Not only does it leave out part of the text, but they had an agenda to make it non-sexist and gender neutral, even changing the plain meaning to accomplish this. What I am saying is no secret. It was the NIV that caused me to become KJV only. I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV and NIV side by side and saw the differences and this made me investigate it. I don't think there is a translation worse than the NIV, and I am including the New World Translation when I say that. It is bad, but they are both awful. If someone must have a modern English translation, the New King James Version is the most accurate by far.

Man i just said the same thing . ISNT it funny that you see the NIV like that too .
ODD huh . THERE IS A REASON my friend . The NIV aint what folks think or make it out to be .
AND I HAVE read it . BIG difference .
I have read the NIV , and i am telling us , they made some serious changes in it . Not GOOD at all .

 

[Marvelloustime]

Many no likey the KJV . Then try and accuse us of saying or implying if one dont read the KJV they gonna burn in hell
or something .
Nope . never said that either . BUT i will say this . I would beg and plead for folks to LEARN that KJV .
i mean if folks want accuracy , ITS IN THAT VERSION . But i already know just cause folks might
read the NIV , which i cant stand that version , it dont mean they dont know GOD .
But again i would tell everyone , GET in the KJV bible . DO it . I would try and at least tell them
ITS the absolute best version in the english langauge .

I agree with brothers @amigo de christo and @Instant that the only version of the Bible that is the most accurate is the KJV. That’s the one that the lambs must stick to and stay diligent reading. Let the Lord be praised and thanked.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

We can clearly see how both of the Greek texts got the original Aramaic wrong

and exactly where did you get this "Aramaic" as being the "original" language of the New Testament?

It is very common knowledge to anyone who has studied the language of the NT, that the Books were Originally written in Koine Greek.

There are some who argue that some parts/Books of the NT were written in "Aramaic", but with not actual evidence, but conjecture.

The earliest manuscript of the NT, is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also know as The St John Fragment. which is written in Greek, and dated as early as around 100 AD.

There are Church Fathers who are of the Greek and Latin Church, who lived in the first and second centuries, who quote the NT in Greek.

The 1st century Church Father, Papias (60-135 AD), is reported to have said, that Matthew wrote down sayings of Jesus in Hebrew. Irenaeus understood this as a reference to Hebraisms in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas Origen took this to mean that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. So, here it is Origen who made this claim for Papias about the Gospel of Matthew. It is quite possible that some NT Books, or even the complete NT, was translated by some into Hebrew/Aramaic, but there is no manuscript evidence for this.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The NIV is perhaps the absolute worst translation on the market

a very general and inaccurate statement!

I am not a "NIV" person, but know that editions like the 1984, are very much close to the Original Hebrew and Greek. It follows a completely different textual basis than what the KJV does. And, like the KJV, does have errors.

The KJV for Genesis 1:1 is wrong. the Hebrew reads: "haš·šā·ma·yim wə·’êṯ hā·’ā·reṣ.", which is literally in English, "the heavens and the earth", from where we get the English term, "the Universe". The KJV uses the singular, "heaven", whereas the Hebrew is plural! The NIV uses the PLURAL, as does almost every other translation.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

and exactly where did you get this "Aramaic" as being the "original" language of the New Testament?

It is very common knowledge to anyone who has studied the language of the NT, that the Books were Originally written in Koine Greek.

There are some who argue that some parts/Books of the NT were written in "Aramaic", but with not actual evidence, but conjecture.

The earliest manuscript of the NT, is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also know as The St John Fragment. which is written in Greek, and dated as early as around 100 AD.

There are Church Fathers who are of the Greek and Latin Church, who lived in the first and second centuries, who quote the NT in Greek.

The 1st century Church Father, Papias (60-135 AD), is reported to have said, that Matthew wrote down sayings of Jesus in Hebrew. Irenaeus understood this as a reference to Hebraisms in Matthew’s Gospel, whereas Origen took this to mean that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. So, here it is Origen who made this claim for Papias about the Gospel of Matthew. It is quite possible that some NT Books, or even the complete NT, was translated by some into Hebrew/Aramaic, but there is no manuscript evidence for this.

There are quite a few scholars - experts in languages and manuscripts - who have come to the conclusion that Aramaic was the original language. There is historical evidence for this. There is manuscript evidence for this. There is linguistic evidence for this. There is Scriptural evidence for this. As with everything that is true, if you don't have an open mind, it's pointless to provide evidence as it will only be dismissed.

There is published evidence for an Aramaic codex of the 4 Gospels written in 78 AD.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

There are quite a few scholars - experts in languages and manuscripts - who have come to the conclusion that Aramaic was the original language. There is historical evidence for this. There is manuscript evidence for this. There is linguistic evidence for this. There is Scriptural evidence for this. As with everything that is true, if you don't have an open mind, it's pointless to provide evidence as it will only be dismissed.

There is published evidence for an Aramaic codex of the 4 Gospels written in 78 AD.

This is not "evidence" in any way, but someone making a comment that this manuscript was written at this time. It is no more than conjecture!

the Peshitta was translated from the Greek, as was the Old and Vulgate Latin Versions, as were many others.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

This is not "evidence" in any way, but someone making a comment that this manuscript was written at this time. It is no more than conjecture!

the Peshitta was translated from the Greek, as was the Old and Vulgate Latin Versions, as were many others.

There is NO evidence the Peshitta was translated from the Greek. None. There is plenty of evidence that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic and that the Peshitta is that source. The pervasive assumption of Greek primacy is church tradition - nothing more.
You say "someone making a comment". This someone was the head librarian of the Vatican Library. It was an OFFICIAL publication of the Roman Catholic Church - with the full force of the Pope. Now, I really couldn't care less about the Pope and the Roman Church. But the fact remains, the full authority of the Roman Church was behind this "inconvenient fact" there there exists a codex of Gospels written in Aramaic dated to 78 AD. That's just the facts.

I'd love for it to be proven true or false. That's the entire point of the video. It's in the Vatican Library. Let's find it and examine it.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

There is plenty of evidence that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic and that the Peshitta is that source

post that evidence here. I have been studying the text of the NT for almost 40 years, and can tell you 100% that this is WRONG!

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

There is NO evidence the Peshitta was translated from the Greek. None. There is plenty of evidence that the Greek was translated from the Aramaic and that the Peshitta is that source. The pervasive assumption of Greek primacy is church tradition - nothing more.

post that evidence here. I have been studying the text of the NT for almost 40 years, and can tell you 100% that this is WRONG!

I've been studying for 45 years and can tell you that it is 100% correct. I'm not obligated to do anything just because you demand it. How about you post your evidence that the New Testament text was originally written in Greek. I've searched. All I come up with is tenured Biblical scholars who say "of course it was".

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I've been studying for 45 years and can tell you that it is 100% correct. I'm not obligated to do anything just because you demand it. How about you post your evidence that the New Testament text was originally written in Greek. I've searched. All I come up with is tenured Biblical scholars who say "of course it was".

try Google there is PLENTY of evidence for what I have said!

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

try Google there is PLENTY of evidence for what I have said!

Then post some. I don't use that search engine.

 

[Matthias]

“… the KJV translators were not KJV-Only.”

Let the KJV Preface Teach You to Trust Modern Bibles

The KJV translators were not KJV-only.

baptistbulletin.org

 

[Patrick1966]

This lamb is a sticking to the KJV

One King James verse says that Jesus is the savior of ALL men. Another King James verse says that some go to "everlasting punishment". Which verse is correct?

1 Timothy 4:10 King James Version
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Matthew 25:46 King James Version
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[Christian morocco]

I am an Arab speaker and i like read KJV, i hope this is not a problem.

 

[Behold]

One King James verse says that Jesus is the savior of ALL men.

Yes, that is true.

If you read

2 Corinthians 5:19

John 3:17


But that does not mean without exception.......it means, there is only ONE Savior of all men., but the "exception" is... you have to BELIEVE in Jesus by faith, so that He becomes your personal Savior.

= John 14:6

This does not mean that all men will be saved......but when anyone wants to go to heaven, then they have ONE OPTION.

He is the savior of ALL men., as there is no other way to be saved, but by JESUS.

 

[amigo de christo]

Yes, that is true.

If you read

2 Corinthians 5:19

John 3:17


But that does not mean without exception.......it means, there is only ONE Savior of all men., but the "exception" is... you have to BELIEVE in Jesus by faith, so that He becomes your personal Savior.

= John 14:6

This does not mean that all men will be saved......but when anyone wants to go to heaven, then they have ONE OPTION.

He is the savior of ALL men., as there is no other way to be saved, but by JESUS.

Point to CHRIST JESUS to the last breath .