Why I Believe The King James Bible Version Is The Preserved Word Of God (Youtube Link)
Definitely worth the watch with an open mind. This is my second time ever sharing a youtube video that is not my own. So when I do, just know it is used with precision and intent for a purpose. I've done more research than this one youtube video and have cross referenced bibles myself to delve further into this matter. I am happy to have found out the truth. When I lack wisdom, the first and foremost authority to seek if the Heavenly Father Himself, so I ask Him for an answer to a question before declaring any other source as a credible reliable information to base my arguments on.
Thanks for viewing this in its entirety, I hope you enjoyed what you watched and could take something from it.
Next post coming tomorrow
Martin Luther removed whole books of the Bible because they didn't jive with his viewpoint.
He definitely wouldn't be the first to do so. Thanks for your comment
many have banned it :)
Interesting, I wonder why my king james version does not include the hebrew letters but spells them out in english when my friends KJV does show the hebrew letters in psalms 119. King James Version - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)
Thank you for your comment. Definitely, but as long as the Word is intact. The KJV is a word for word translation to the best of it's ability into the English language and not a thought for thought interpretation. That's the beauty of it. The KJV is based from the Hebrew and Greek Text
Have you seen this? It's claimed in the description she never debated again after this debate.. Sounds like there's quite a controversy around the issue. Interesting stuff whatever the "truth" may be.
I'll check it out, thanks for the heads up, did you get a chance to watch the full video of hers?
Yup. Np. I'm about 2 hours through, still another 40 mins or so left.
Nice, it's a great video for what it's worth and yeah that's okay if she never debated again. God says not to argue with a fool, lest we be made a fool ourselves. So the arguing back and forth to someone who doesn't want to have a respectful discussion, is pointless to both parties involved in that context. I'm sure not debating that topic saves her a lot of time and stress haha
Why would you call the guy a fool just cause he disagreed with her conclusions?
I think he made some great points.
Especially in regards to the hardcore belief that THAT ONE book is the word of god. Cause.. based on her own reasoning, any alteration of the word is like forbidden or whatever, yet.. KJV was not the first English bible, nor was it the first bible in any sense.. It is a modification of older texts and a translation. So.. Basically if you follow her belief, there's like no way to have the actual word of God cause if it ever existed it's been lost to history and all that's left are different translations and alterations of the original. I don't see how you can stop right at that version and claim that's the word of God.. I just don't get it, I don't see the evidence for that belief. But I'm open minded, can you prove to me that the KJV is the word of God? If so, what is your #1 strongest piece of evidence to suggest that it is?
By the way, I think the reason she never debated again, is because her beliefs don't hold up under scrutiny.. Though I do like what she was saying about the "new world" or "new age" bibles.. I personally have no doubt that people in power want to control people through religion, I think they've been doing it for thousands of years, and this is just the "new age" version of it.
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Mar 08. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $8.84 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 08 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Thank you for the update
You should be careful here. I have her book and she is less than honest. She has a bunch of tables where she lists how each version translates certain passages and she just plain makes stuff up. I have a whole shelf full of bible translations on my shelf from delving into this issue and it isn't as simple as Gail makes it sound.
Also, despite what she and others claim, the English language has changed so much that some passages in the KJV are just not understandable. You have to go to some other resource to check.
I agree there are real problems with the idea of removing verses based solely on the supposedly oldest Vatican owned manuscripts, but the more I dug into the translation issue the more I came to realize the KJV translators couldn't have done a better job than they did, but translators now can. This is because we now have access to way more ancient manuscripts of both the OT and the NT, and a bunch of other ancient Hebrew texts and ancient near east texts of related languages that allow modern translators to better understand words the KJV translators just didn't know what to do with.
I still read the KJV everyday. I just think it's irresponsible not to use the tools God has given us in this modern era to gain as much understanding as possible. Please keep researching this issue. Gail Riplinger isn't a trusted source and you really ought to investigate counter arguments by Ancient Greek and Hebrew scholars.
It is definitely a topic to still learn on indeed, I'll pray on it to the Most High, He is authority of knowledge above all things indeed and He'll reveal what I need to know when I need to know it, I still think Gail made a great presentation on the KJV, although God does says He does not suffer women to teach, there is so much I must keep in mind regarding the faith and the wisdom God wants us to have with understanding. When I get the chance, I'll check those counter arguments out, if you have any links for me, please share them, thanks in advance and for your detailed response.
Sure, I actually wrote an article here on Steemit a while back about this. https://steemit.com/bible/@garthfreeman/the-kjv-only-controversy-what-i-learned-in-the-rabbit-hole
Towards the bottom there is a link to a snippet from a podcast called Canary Cry Radio where they ask Dr. Mike Heiser about the issue and his response. I actually emailed Dr. Heiser and asked him about it, and he sent me a couple of articles by Daniel Wallace, which I would be happy to share.
I don't think I have permission to post them publicly, though because one is from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Contemporary-Research/dp/900425840X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489155386&sr=8-1&keywords=9789004258402
and the other from this journal: http://www.dts.edu/publications/bibliothecasacra/online/
But if you would like I'll email them to you. They mostly focus on the Majority Text but it's applicable to the KJV issue. You can email me at [email protected]
James White has a load of stuff on YouTube about the issue. I'm not really a fan of his style but some find it helpful.
Glad to hear you're still open to exploring both sides of the issue. Many people from either perspective are not, and often are flat out rude and dismissive toward each other. God bless, and happy reading.
Definitely open to exploring even if I have my own pre-dispositions, but I never know what I may uncover. God willing, I'm guided towards more wisdom and truth. Rudeness isn't acceptable but I can understand some people being dismissive, especially if they view it as them not personally wavering from what is based on their faith. God bless you too and appreciate your input again.
Interesting to note King James Bible Version removes/changes the word "God" over 5,000 times. Also there is no "word of god" as all these written words were written by humans...
Indeed. Jesus is the "Word of God," not a book.
There is no "Jesus", the letter "J" is barely like 500 years old. So such use needs to be better understood and defined. Also "Jesus" can not exactly be the word of God either as "Jesus" never actually said anything, it is all hearsay...
That's a silly position. Jesus is an English transliteration of His name, and I speak English. What biblical evidence is there that using Jesus is an heresy?
His name?, who? Jesus never actually said anything in the Bible...
I'm at a loss. Could you explain further please?
There was no "Jesus". There was a person named Yeshua. But many things mentioned around "Jesus" are in the heavens ... being the night sky. Then "Christ" is also much more than some simple being (person).
Anything that "Jesus" said was said by someone else and heard to have been said by Jesus. One has to study deeper than just the Bible itself. Sorry I don't have the time or energy to explain all of this.
Don't bother. Heard it, dismiss it as not true and not Verifiable.
The Bible is not so (easily) verifiable either...
I do bother. Because I care to (truly) understand.
Also religion is a silly position... shrugs
Whatever, man. Your just trolling. There isn't a more verifiable document in the planet than the bible.
I respect your opinion but I agree to disagree on your last sentence. To be more clear, God inspired men to write His words, and Jesus Christ is the Word in the flesh. God's Word has always been here even before us.
As for the first statement you made, this is an English translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts, so to God is an appropriate and precise word to address the Heavenly Father as such. He is the one and only true living God.
You know, the problem with calling the bible the Word of God is that the bible itself doesn't use the title for itself. It does say it contains the "words of God" but if you actually look at what it says IS the Word of God you will see it's Jesus. John 1:1, 1:14, Rev 19:13, Acts 11:1.
Look at the passage in Hebrews people often like to quote:
If you really look at the passage you will see that "the Word of God" is personified here. The Bible can cause a person to be a better discerner, but it can't itself discern anything. It's inanimate. Jesus can. People rarely quote the next verse when citing this passage in reference to biblical authority:
The "with Him we have to do" is Clearly Jesus, in context with the rest of the chapter.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but its important because often KJV only proponents like to state that God promised to preserve His Word, and He did, but that doesn't mean an English translation of the Bible: It means Jesus. And through Jesus, us, his church, in whom He dwells.
Touche' I agree. This makes sense. Thanks for the insight, but God still has given us the bible which contains the word of God, and I believe that to be the KJV. That's not to say other translations in other languages are not correct, but for the English speakers, and what I understand in my mother language of English, the King James Version rings true, but it doesn't mean the King James Bible is above God Himself, I don't know why people, not you, would say such things.
I'll look through the KJV and try and find more verses to biblically stand on firm ground with what you have presented and what I can also share.
One of the unforgivable sins is adding to, taking away from, or changing God's Word. So therefore there is a physical tangible bible to be taken into consideration. That for me is the KJV.
We cannot change, take away from, or add unto Jesus Christ in the flesh, yet indeed He is The Word perfect and preserved.
I agree one shouldn't add to or take away from God's word. That's why I take issue with KJV only'ism. The idea of a perfect translation isn't in the bible, and is itself an addition to the teachings of Jesus.
The Bible wasn't written in English. There was a time when people couldn't access the original languages but we can now.
I really don't have any issue with a person taking the position that the KJV is a perfect translation, unless one makes it a prerequisite to Christianity. I'm not saying you are... But, I do think it is a little dangerous to marry one's faith to something like a translation.
Really, I just don't think Gail is trustworthy. I don't want to assume anything about you, but if you haven't done so, I would encourage you to really dig into the counter arguments from actual Hebrew and Greek language scholars. I tried really hard, and couldn't find a single one that supports the KJV only view. That either means they are all wrong, or as Gail says working for Lucifer, or they all know something KJV only proponents aren't telling you. For me, it's a little hard to buy the idea that all those ancient language scholars and bible translators are a part of the NWO agenda. Maybe some of them, but all? They're really going to devote their entire lives to trying to read, understand, and translate the bible as unbelievers? Once again, maybe some, but all?
BTW, have you seen how much Gail charges for her books?
KJV is politically and religiously influenced which is a conflict of interest with truth. I agree with research and learning which I greatly encourage as well.
Sins?, there are no sins.
This statement may induce people's thought of sin as taught from another consequently and unfortunately.
If there are no sins for you then there are no sins as you see and believe, but there are for me and the truth will be revealed to all in due time.
The truth won't be revealed as it is hidden by the Bible and many other things. I can not explain myself when I am not understood. The word religion is also from the Latin word "relegare" meaning to retard or hold back. Why would you or anyone choose to see sins? Don't see a reason for this.
I'm just simply going to say Steem On and take care.
Okay... but any so called book read by man was created by man as a book called the Bible was not written by any so called "God" but a (group of) human(s). Man inspired man. I see no reason for man to discredit himself. All the words are of man and in the language of man. "Jesus Christ" is very misunderstood. God's Word has NOT always been here even before us as so called came many years after man came into being... Man was around before the idea of any "God".
It is an English translation, yes, but "God" is not a translation it is a replacement of any Hebrew word before which was omitted and not appropriate and far from precise. The only possible one and only would be the primal god which is unknowable and un-explainable. Also there are like 288 gods which is far from one. There is too much disagreement for anyone's so called "God" to be true as I find those who mention the term "God" never actually define the word "God" and think this is another problem that shows more misunderstanding. This is also true of a lacking of defining "Jesus / Christ"
I expect to be fully disagreed with as usual...
We can definitely agree to disagree and I respect your response and can see why you have beliefs I once had but no longer. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour and the world shall hate and persecute me for my faith and allegiance.
You save you not Jesus Christ. CHRIST is so much more than practically anyone seems to realize.
You are your lord and savior, not someone/anyone else...
We can agree to disagree, I do not see life through your world view. I appreciate your response but that simply is not truth in my life here in this existence, given and gifted to me by the Heavenly Father. I shall die and be resurrected with life everlasting, and you too also have that available to you if you're willing to accept the free gift when you choose to have a relationship with our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ. Nothing you say can change my mind about that. I have defeated real devils and demons of supernatural power who attacked me in the physical manifestation in the name of Jesus Christ. You have done nothing for me in such a way to change my stance other than tell me that I am my own God, the same words Lucifer the serpent told Eve which deceived both Eve & Adam out of the Garden of Life. I do not agree with your views. We can agree to disagree and keep living life. Thanks again