My interview showcasing my upcoming 153 Reasons for the KJV (Free PDF).

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello everyone:

Blessings to you in Jesus' name.

If you are interested, I did an interview on Nick's Sayer's channel showcasing my upcoming 153 Reasons for the KJV.
It will be a free PDF on a website next week (Lord willing).

I hope you enjoy it.

May all good things shine upon you all.

With loving kindness in Christ,

Sincerely,

Bible Highlighter.

 

[MatthewG]

I like the KJV, personally. Though I don’t use it as much as I use to, it still conveys the message. Good to see you BH, it’s been a long time!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I like the KJV, personally. Though I don’t use it as much as I use to, it still conveys the message. Good to see you BH, it’s been a long time!

Thank you for your kind words.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[shepherdsword]

I primarily use the KJV. I use other translations for contrast. I also consult the Textus Receptus for insight into the Greek.

 

[Nancy]

Thank you for your kind words.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

Hi brother,
I've been waiting for your next video!
God be with you!
Nancy

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I primarily use the KJV. I use other translations for contrast. I also consult the Textus Receptus for insight into the Greek.

Yes, I do the same. I am Core-KJV and not KJV-only. Core-KJV is the belief that the KJV has all the correct words of God in English between two covers for us today; However, I am not against using dictionaries, history, and modern Bibles to help define the archaic (or uncommon) words in the KJV. In short, the KJV and its underlying printed original language editions are my core foundational texts (Ben Chayyim Masoretic (OT), and 99.98% of the Beza 1598 Greek (NT)). The KJV is my final word of authority and not the modern Bibles. KJV-only is the position where you warn others not to even read Modern bibles for one's own spiritual benefit because they can corrupt you in some way. I disagree with this position. Granted, on the other hand, I do also warn others about the dangers of Modern bibles. For Modern versions teach false doctrines in many places. Yet, I also realize at the same time, they can be helpful in understanding the KJV in many places, too.

Side Note:

Yes, I do believe modern Bibles can potentially lead believers to hold to false doctrines or abandon the faith. But I am not of the position that a person who believes the KJV is the very words of God for us today will be corrupted by reading a Modern translation if they view those words merely like a dictionary source.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi brother,
I've been waiting for your next video!
God be with you!
Nancy

Thank you, Nancy.
Yeah, I am looking to release a few of my own ministry videos, too.
There will be the change doctrines video I still need to do.
I also plan to do a video on my 153 Reasons for the KJV in one-shot.
Additionally, I have been working on a Passover video, as well (Note: I just need to finish up the slides).

 

[Rockerduck]

Hello Highlighter,
I still have pdF's from the last time you we active here. They are good resources, so I look forward to the 153 reasons you have. The King James research council has good apologetics videos on the KJV bible too. I too view it as a final authority and I've been in bible studies where someone quotes a passage, and I say; but the KJV says it like this. Like in your video, 2 Corinthians 5:17 in the KJV is direct and clear in meaning. I have a library of bibles and study bibles, I consult with, but you can be the preachers of old and use the KJV and a dictionary, and a typewriter for sermons.
Good to see you again.

 

[shepherdsword]

Yes, I do the same. I am Core-KJV and not KJV-only. Core-KJV is the belief that the KJV has all the correct words of God in English between two covers for us today; However, I am not against using dictionaries, history, and modern Bibles to help define the archaic (or uncommon) words in the KJV. In short, the KJV and its underlying printed original language editions are my core foundational texts (Ben Chayyim Masoretic (OT), and 99.98% of the Beza 1598 Greek (NT)). The KJV is my final word of authority and not the modern Bibles. KJV-only is the position where you warn others not to even read Modern bibles for one's own spiritual benefit because they can corrupt you in some way. I disagree with this position. Granted, on the other hand, I do also warn others about the dangers of Modern bibles. For Modern versions teach false doctrines in many places. Yet, I also realize at the same time, they can be helpful in understanding the KJV in many places, too.

Side Note:

Yes, I do believe modern Bibles can potentially lead believers to hold to false doctrines or abandon the faith. But I am not of the position that a person who believes the KJV is the very words of God for us today will be corrupted by reading a Modern translation if they view merely like a dictionary source.

Do you believe the KJV itself is inspired? I like and prefer the KJV but do not view it as a final authority. I also prefer the TR over Nestle or the Majority.

 

[Rockerduck]

you believe the KJV itself is inspired? I like and prefer the KJV but do not view it as a final authority. I also prefer the TR over Nestle or the Majority.

Yes, it is inspired. The KJV has been the most miraculous bible of all time. Many, many stories of needing a Word of the Lord and opening the bible to that one verse. Some have dropped the bible, and it opened to a verse. The wind has blown, and the pages of the bible turned to one verse. Many stories of this. All the great preachers for 300 yrs have used only the KJV. In WW2, stories of soldier's bible stopping a bullet. Houses burn down and the bible is left untouched.
As far as the final authority, all translations are for profit. Yes, like books, they are written to make a profit. That means that the translation has to change a certain number of words to be termed "new". All translations use the KJV verse numbering system. John 3:16 is in all translations, because its that way in the KJV. Much more than this.

 

[shepherdsword]

Yes, it is inspired. The KJV has been the most miraculous bible of all time.

Which revision of the KJV do you view as inspired? The 1611? The 1629? The 1638? The 1772? The 1769? Should it contain the apocrypha? Why was the apocrypha removed?

Many, many stories of needing a Word of the Lord and opening the bible to that one verse. Some have dropped the bible, and it opened to a verse. The wind has blown, and the pages of the bible turned to one verse. Many stories of this.

That is nothing more than sheer "Bibliomancy" It is not the leading of the Spirit nor is it a reliable technique.

All the great preachers for 300 yrs have used only the KJV. In WW2, stories of soldier's bible stopping a bullet. Houses burn down and the bible is left untouched.

The KJV's popularity is not in question. Here's a picture of the miraculous survival of many different bible translations. Taken from: A devastating fire burned a church down. Not a single Bible was touched by the flames

 

[Rockerduck]

Which revision of the KJV do you view as inspired? The 1611? The 1629? The 1638? The 1772? The 1769? Should it contain the apocrypha? Why was the apocrypha removed?


That is nothing more than sheer "Bibliomancy" It is not the leading of the Spirit nor is it a reliable technique.


The KJV's popularity is not in question. Here's a picture of the miraculous survival of many different bible translations. Taken from: A devastating fire burned a church down. Not a single Bible was touched by the flames

View attachment 66333

It started with the 1611. The others were word changes. Everyone uses the 1769 or the Pure text of 1900, which are just word changes, not phrase changes. On the burned Church, That's the only church I've heard where that many bibles were there. Are they pew bibles? Anyway, I don't trust Cnn for any news period. If you don't like my comments just ignore me.

 

[shepherdsword]

It started with the 1611. The others were word changes. Everyone uses the 1769 or the Pure text of 1900, which are just word changes, not phrase changes.

If it is an inspired translation, why are there any changes at all? The 1769 Blayney edition is the version most widely printed and used today when people refer to the “King James Bible.” Is that the one that you view as inspired? Does that mean the 1611 is not?

On the burned Church, That's the only church I've heard where that many bibles were there. Are they pew bibles? Anyway, I don't trust Cnn for any news period.

I doubt if a leftist controlled media outlet has any vested interest in documenting miracles, so I am inclined to give the story some credibility. However, if you don't then you can read it from a Fox affiliate that gives the CNN story credibility: A devastating fire burned a church down. Not a single Bible was touched by the flame I doubt Fox would reprint it if it was a false report.

If you don't like my comments just ignore me.

??? Why this? I was just asking some questions. Why are you taking it so personal?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello Highlighter,
I still have pdF's from the last time you we active here. They are good resources, so I look forward to the 153 reasons you have. The King James research council has good apologetics videos on the KJV bible too. I too view it as a final authority and I've been in bible studies where someone quotes a passage, and I say; but the KJV says it like this. Like in your video, 2 Corinthians 5:17 in the KJV is direct and clear in meaning. I have a library of bibles and study bibles, I consult with, but you can be the preachers of old and use the KJV and a dictionary, and a typewriter for sermons.
Good to see you again.

Thank you. I am glad you liked my previous PDFs. This work is my 3 years life work for the LORD and the church. It is my free gift.

Also, I am so happy that you liked the reference I pointed out about 2 Corinthians 5:17. I looked at this change in the past and yet it did not stick out to me so powerfully until recently. I had to add this verse to my list of reasons for the KJV. I believe Christians who either value God's words, or desire to make "all things" new in Christ by His working and power are going to appreciate that point.

*Big fist bump to you in the Lord*

As for your library: That is so cool. I am so glad you are exhibiting the heart of 2 Timothy 2:15, which is changed in Modern bibles (as I am sure you know).

Blessings to you in the Lord today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you believe the KJV itself is inspired? I like and prefer the KJV but do not view it as a final authority. I also prefer the TR over Nestle or the Majority.

I hold to two different possibilities on what inspiration means in the Scriptures.

Possibility #1. - Only the originals were inspired and that inspiration is carried through preservation (Note: This is the standard KJV-only belief and it is also held by some TR-only believers). So under this view, the KJV is not a re-inspiration (i.e., it is not a double inspiration), but the KJV is merely evidence of the preservation of God's words from the inspired originals.

Possibility #2. - The word "inspiration" simply means "illumination," that is, God giving a person understanding. Job 32:8 says, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." This suggests that inspiration can involve God enlightening the mind. In that sense, when 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," it could mean that God illuminated the minds of the writers, enabling them to understand and faithfully record the truths He wanted revealed. If that is the case, I see the KJV translators and the later KJV edition scholars as being illuminated, or inspired at select points in time, to understand what God really was saying to convey the meaning of the text, which I believe is settled with the Pure Cambridge KJV edition (circa 1900).

Side Note:

I am glad you are at least TR. That is a way better position than both the Majority Text and Critical Text positions where they constantly are updating the text. The Beza 1598 Greek (available to read free at Archive.org) is 99.98% the Greek that underlies the KJV. There are only about 20 or so translatable differences between the KJV and Beza's 1598 Greek. Nick Sayer's, who interviewed me is more for the TR and he is not against doing updates for the KJV (Even though I disagree with that position). Nick came out with his own New Testament KJV update. I agree with some of his changes but not others in his KJV editions.

Anyways, today, people can use ChatGPT to help explain the Greek in the Beza 1598. But the problem is that it may sometimes favor the Critical text definitions that are found in Modern bibles that runs contrary to the KJV reading. Granted, it is better to learn Greek for oneself, but we do all have lives and or other callings from the LORD, too.

In any event, I hope you get a chance to check out my PDF when it is finished next week (Lord willing).

 

[Rockerduck]

Thank you. I am glad you liked my previous PDFs. This work is my 3 years life work for the LORD and the church. It is my free gift.

Also, I am so happy that you liked the reference I pointed out about 2 Corinthians 5:17. I looked at this change in the past and yet it did not stick out to me so powerfully until recently. I had to add this verse to my list of reasons for the KJV. I believe Christians who either value God's words, or desire to make "all things" new in Christ by His working and power are going to appreciate that point.

*Big fist bump to you in the Lord*

As for your library: That is so cool. I am so glad you are exhibiting the heart of 2 Timothy 2:15, which is changed in Modern bibles (as I am sure you know).

Blessings to you in the Lord today.

Hello Highlighter
thank you. 1 Samuel 6:19 I hope is on your list too. The KJV says 50,070 died. The other translations say 70. I learned this in Sundy School this morning when the teacher said 70 died and I said, "don't you mean 5070"? he said that's what it says in his bible. He used the ESV.
I'm looking forward to the 153 reasons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello Highlighter
thank you. 1 Samuel 6:19 I hope is on your list too. The KJV says 5070 died. The other translations say 70. I learned this in Sundy School this morning when the teacher said 70 died and I said, "don't you mean 5070"? he said that's what it says in his bible. He used the ESV.
I'm looking forward to the 153 reasons.

Well, I have a reason that refers to: "Changed Truths in the Bible". I provide a few examples in the reason or point, and then offer a "see here" option to learn more to check out more of them in a sub-article in the PDF. I do not believe I have that on my list. It is not exhaustive by any means. I will add it though if it is not there. Thank you. But this would be a sub-point to the larger point or reason that Modern Bibles change certain truths in the Bible (i.e., the KJV, and the Received Text).

 

[Rockerduck]

Well, I have a reason that refers to: "Changed Truths in the Bible". I provide a few examples in the reason or point, and then offer a "see here" option to learn more to check out more of them in a sub-article in the PDF. I do not believe I have that on my list. It is not exhaustive by any means. I will add it though if it is not there. Thank you. But this would be a sub-point to the larger point or reason that Modern Bibles change certain truths in the Bible (i.e., the KJV, and the Received Text).

I edited my post. In 1 Samuel 6:19, 50,070 died. The NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, TLV, and the NRSV say 50 died.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I edited my post. In 1 Samuel 6:19, 50,070 died. The NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, TLV, and the NRSV say 50 died.

I do try to always verify Modern Bibles changes at Biblehub.com. But yes. Thank you, my brother.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hi brother,
I've been waiting for your next video!
God be with you!
Nancy

Tried to reply to your YouTube comment on the video on Nick's channel, but it appears like it got shadow banned or something. Very strange. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you so much for the comment. May God bless you.