Vision for the Project
The basic concept of this endeavor was placed on the hearts of Sam Gipp and Jonathan Marshall during the King James Bible 400th Anniversary Conference at Hope Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio in April 2011. Their mutual desire was to present the Bible version issue in a unique way using cinematography.
Who is Sam Gipp?
Dr. Sam Gipp is a former pastor, an evangelist, teacher, author and Bible conference speaker. He has the unique ability to digest large amounts of information and then present it in an analytical, understandable, format. His humorous, informative and forceful preaching style make him popular with all ages and keeps him in demand as a Revivalist and Bible conference speaker. He has authored numerous books on the subject of the King James Bible and other versions. His materials are available through Daystar Publishing.
Who is Justin Doty?
Justin was raised in a good Christian home with his parents working for over 20 years as the youth leaders at his home church, Treasure Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, ID. He received Christ as his Saviour November 7, 1990, felt the call to preach in high school, and graduated with a bachelor of divinity degree from his church's Bible Institute in 2010. God gave him a wonderful wife, Amber, who grew up in the church as well, and a beautiful little girl named Abigail. He went to Christian schools from elementary through graduation where he was the only one in the school using a King James Bible other than those who attended from his church. On many occasions he had to defend his stance on the King James issue to students and teachers. He believes it would have been extremely beneficial to have had something like this project available to him.
About the Filmmaker
Andrew Garcia is a full time video editor, cinematographer and motion graphics designer. He and his wife Kayla recently produced the feature-length missions documentary Two Hats. Andrew’s talents keep him busy around the country, yet he and his wife remain active church members and dedicated Christians.
About the Director
Jonathan Marshall was introduced to video production at an early age, watching his father, John Marshall, produce videos as a part of his evangelism ministry. At the age of 9, he acted in the full-length movie Pray for Daddy. The desire to use video for the glory of Jesus Christ has remained with him throughout his life. He is currently an assistant pastor at the Hope Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio under Pastor Rick Sowell.
First let me say that I like the KJV. Older English doesn’t bother me (And it sounds really cool to read out loud with an English accent). I also do NOT like the NIV because it’s translators/editors/whatever decided that some scripture was best relegated to the footnotes and not left in the body of the text. (Acts 8:37 for instance…) As for the myriad other English versions of the Bible, I really have no idea. I haven’t read all of them.
However, I do know that all this infighting is a ridiculously poor testimony to new and non-believers and could possibly drive some people away from Christ. The Bible does not speak kindly of those who lead others astray.
God commands us to preach the Gospel to the world. That message is found in all translations discussed here so far (I think. If not, that’s pretty good evidence to not use that particular version…) He does NOT command us to debate which English version should replace the original languages.
If I can use an NIV to lead someone to Christ then praise God. As for spiritual growth that comes after:
James 1:5 – If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (KJV)
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (NKJV)
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. (NIV)
If you genuinely have a problem with one or more versions/translations/flavors of the English Bible, then go to God in prayer and ask Him which one you should read. He says in His word He will answer you.
Otherwise, get off of this discussion board and obey the command Christ gave you: Preach the Gospel. We are supposed to be salt and light and the world is only getting darker…
Much love in Christ,
John
PS: I didn’t intend to come across as mean spirited or for one camp or the other. I merely want to remind everyone of the focus of our shared faith and where we should look for all answers to everything… ever: Jesus Christ the Son of God. Love y’all!
Hey John, I appreciate your spirit, but you see no one is running around calling the KJV the devil’s bible, no one is calling the KJV a wicked perversion, no one is printing stupid books like Bullgipp’s “Answer Book” which answers nothing, except tells everyone what an idiot its author is, or puts out stupid, pitiful KJVonly propagands videos. You see we have a small vestige of folks like Bullgipp here and his daddy Peter “Piper” Ruckman who run around stirring up simple christian folks with this KJVonly moronic bullgipp, and many, myself inclined feel compelled to point out these charlatans when we see them. Paul confronted Peter to his face, I would looooove to confront this sower of discord among the brethern. Do you realize that Bullgipp and his daddy Ruckman believe that the English of the KJV can correct the Greek and Hebrew? It’s true, that’s the kind of lunacy these men spread. Btw the KJV is a wonderful translation and I can defend her much better than Bullgipp.
John…I couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately, all this infighting started with posting this video, which continued with ‘KJV only’ Christians calling other translations ‘perversions of God’s Word,’ ‘changing of God’s Word,’ & ‘hatred of God’s Word.’ Most of the name-calling & hatred has come from ‘KJV only’ Christians, rather than acknowledge that all the KJV is a translation of God’s Word. I don’t know if this is due to brainwashing or ignorance. But, you are right, we need to pray for them, & God will judge them for all this infighting. I have washed my hands of this, & as Jesus said, ‘brush off your feet & go to the next town.’ In Christ, Steve.
I also have a question. I was reading my KJV the other day and I came across the account of Paul’s conversion, at Acts 9:7 it says that the men that were with Paul “heard a voice” but later, recalling the same incident, the same author, Luke, recalls the incident differently, this time saying at Acts 22:9 that the men “heard not the voice.”
This is very disconcerting because my entire spiritual life depends upon an every word, correct, perfect, preserved word of God which came down out of heaven in 1611.
Okay, I have a question for anyone out there. What is the difference between Sheol, Hades, Hell, Gehenna, Tartarus, & the Lake of Fire? If you choose to reply, please let me know if you are ‘KJV only’ or not. I am just curious what the responses will be. We did Bible studies on these topics, & I’d really like some feedback & some input from both ‘camps.’
In Him, Steve.
“The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp. Having a firm grasp of the issues that arise in transmitting an ancient text to the modern day and then translating that text from a rich foreign language into our less rich English tongue is not only vital in providing an answer to the KJV Only advocates, but it is also extremely important to the Christian mission in our day. As we proclaim the Gospel to an ever more skeptical world, we must be clear on why we believe the Bible to be God’s Word. This calls us to be students of that book, and requires us to study its history and the reasons for our trust in its veracity and accuracy.” From James White fine book “The King James Only Controversy”
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about bible translations.
Can anyone tell me the details of Sam’s formal education? It’s funny, over nearly 20 years I’ve read a variety of his books, and I can’t name his alma mater. Anyone?
I don’t think it matters. I believe he got his education from the KJV.
I use the KJV but I’m not a KJV only person, nor do I accept all new translations. I think the whole debate is pretty fallacious in that there so many equivocations about the terms “true”, “accurate”, “translation”, “version”, etc. We need to be comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
Arriving at an “accurate” meaning is a different task to arriving at an “accurate” text and require different considerations. Getting an “accurate” text does not garentee modern readers an “accurate” understanding. Even if we had the original autographs most average people will not be able to understand them.
HOWEVER, I think the solution is education, not just spoon feeding people more bible translations. Many of the new translations encourage people to be ethnocentric and intellectually lazy.
Dave…I couldn’t agree more with you, & I think you nailed it when you said the answer is ‘education’ & that most people would probably not be able to understand the original manuscripts, even ‘if’ we had them. Personally, I use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, as well as other versions, & what I have found is that there is no ‘perfect’ version, because they are ALL translations. For example, 2 Peter 2:4-5 talks about ‘hell,’ when in reality, the translation that is closer to the original Greek is ‘tartarus,’ which is not in most translations, but can be found in other versions like Hollman, Youngs, & the New American Bible translations. However, this whole issue gets down to many Christians being ‘married’ to a particular translation, rather than looking to see if the words chosen in their particular translation is closer to the original Biblical languages or not. I have found concordances & online sites, like http://www.blueletterbible.org to be invaluable in understanding whatever translation I am reading, more than reading it on my own. But, every individual Christian has to make their own decision what they base their understanding of God’s Word on – other people’s views & opinions or by educating themselves & asking God for guidance in that understanding. In Him, Steve.
There’s a better day coming!
Judgment Day.
This guy is brilliant =^_^=. The Holy spirit must guide whoever into all truth when the KJV is used. Don’t, and end up being a warmongering, accusing, condemning stone thrower.
Isaiah 1; 17 KJV, is God saying do not oppress. what do humans do to Pedo’s ,gays, zoosexuals, bestialists, furries, and their Yiffing, and nude art? They oppressing them. The level system is built to oppress humans trying to make one human that dies to somehow be worse than another human that dies. Sodomites rush doors like a swat team. Gays don’t do that. Therefore the humans inspiring what sodomy is saying it is gay sex or zoosexual sex are the sodomistic humans trying to act holy, but are not holy at all.
Humans without the spirit of God will use the KJV, and all of the other translations to do what Jesus would never do, and that is throw a stone at anyone. Had Jesus thrown a stone Satan would have won with Jesus being imperfect. Yet humans are froward against Pedo’s as they are called to give guilt or zoosexuals, bestialists or furries doing Yiff. All of it known by one word, sex. The humans against them are abominable. Proverbs 11:20
20They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the LORD: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.
Someone who is froward is openly rebellious, just the opposite of someone who is forward not being “affable, friendly”, What we needed are affable; and friendly humans. To arrest anyone is not being affable, friendly.
First I would like to say that above all else I am a Christian.
I have read the responses to this video and find myself in bewilderment, I know some people a very much against the KJV however the type of name calling and accusations happening in these comments bring me to ask, How many of you responders are indeed Christians?
I may not be an authority of which bible was translated from where but I have serious issues with what I read as a youth no longer exists or is extremely modified in the bibles of today.
The behavior of most of the anti KJV responses is a great help in deciding which bible to choose.
Well done Bill.
oops,
I meant Well Done Sam.
Andrew, it’s not that ‘non-KJV-only’ Christians are ‘against’ the KJV. What they are saying is that if a person uses a modern version of the Bible that is more true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, that doesn’t mean they aren’t true Christians. If you read some of the responses below from ‘KJV-only’ Christians, they use terminology of ‘non-KJV-only’ Christians as ‘hating God’s Word,’ ‘changing God’s Word,’ & other ‘hurtful’ statements like a ‘perversion’ of God’s Word, when in reality ‘some’ ‘non-KJV-only’ Christians are merely using versions that are more true to the original languages, & they are merely pointing out that the King James Version is ‘version’ or ‘translation’ from the original languages, but not necessarily the only version a Christian should use. I have found that by using multiple versions of the Bible, they have helped me to understand God’s Word better, than the KJV alone. And when you actually research some of the historical claims of Dr. Gipp, you find out that not everything he says is entirely accurate. For example, check this video clip out:
http://youtu.be/UNGa_dRTNMo
Jesus calls us to go out to all the world & preach the GOSPEL to every creature (Mark 16:15) – not convince Christians which ‘version’ is perfect – which there is none, because they are translations, but we can still trust God’s Word & plan of salvation – Jesus Christ & Him crucified.
Dude, none of us are “against” the KJV. Perhaps what you’re hearing is frustration that comes out when KJV only people constantly make smart-mouthed remarks about you, cause all sorts of trouble in your churches (once even trying to get my dad fired because while he would only use the KJV, he wouldn’t publicly condemn someone for not using it), and constantly imply (or just say) that it’s a sin to use another translation of the Bible.
Andrew – I was wondering where these anti-KJV folks are? I haven’t found any? Most of the folks aren’t responding here are not against the KJV translation, they are against KJVonlyism, two very different things. Maybe you should read back through the comments, I have been as outspoken as anyone against KJVonlyism, but I’m mild compared to the KJVonly’s, they are some of the meanest, nastiest folks around, but what can you expect, when their KJV daddies are people like Peter “Piper” Ruckman and Samuel “Bullgipp” Gipp.
Would all you KJVonly’s pls turn in your KJV’s to Acts 9:7 and then turn to Acts 22:9. See the problem? In Acts 9:7 the guys that were with Paul “heard a voice” in Acts 22:9 the guys didn’t “hear a voice” Ok, it’s not huge, and doesn’t affect any major doctrine, but good modern translations fix this obvious KJV mistake.
KJV Spelling Words: pannag, ossifrage, milcom, manch, lapwing
I would recommend you read New Age Versions by Gail riplinginger. You may not agree with her conclusions but the evidence is profound. There is also some doctrinal statements by wescott and Horton in the book that are grade a heresy.
I meant Hort, my phone auto corrected me.
Jessie – Have read it, never has there been a book with so many misrepresentations of people and outright lies put forth in the name of Christ. This thrice-married woman (all ex’s still alive) with a degree in home-economics has done much harm to the body of Christ. She has said the reason she put G. A. Riplinger on the cover is to convey the idea of “God and Riplinger” God as the author and she as the copyist. That’s near blasphemous!
Just “google” Riplinger’s lies and you will find documented evidence that her book is simply one lie after another. Huge KJVonly’s like David Cloud and the Waite’s even admit to her lies.
Do you understand that there could be (and is) a difference between…
“hearing a voice” AND “heard not the voice of Him that spake to me” ??
One’s personal…one’s not. Could be a “Charlie Brown’s Teacher” voice in one case, and the other is Christ’s voice and words to Paul.
Meditation and the Holy Spirit are required for all Bible understanding.
(Acts 9:7 -vs- Acts 22:9)
wow!! i love King James Version! It was so powerful as ever.
So do I Ryan, I also loved those that preceeded the KJV, as well as many that have came after.
2 Corinthians 6:11-13 KJV
“Oh ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
Pitiful, anti-intellectual KJVonly’s, this is why we need modern translations. WAKE UP!!!! Don’t send Samuel “Bullgipp” Gipp another dime, he’s laughing all the way to the bank.
As another individual said, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. That being said, to rudely express an uneducated opinion makes you sound like a fool(although you may not be one). The men who put together this video seek no financial gain in doing so and have a passionate love for truth. I would suggest studying the issue further and spend time in prayer, and then express an opinion.
So Jessie – What if I told you that I can defend the KJV better than this Ruckmanite clown. Actually there are many good men of God that can. I have studied the matter deeply, I can tell you absolutely that he doesn’t have a clue, and apparently you don’t either. This “expert” says at 2:30 in the vid that we still have some of the “originals” I suppose you believe that. Sam “Bullgipp” Gipp may not be making any money off of this vid, but by keeping his name out there, uneducated folks will buy his propaganda. You seem to want to suggest that I spend no time in prayer. Why would you judge me so. I haven’t lied one time in a video.
so… God was able to preserve His Word for thousands of years, but somehow is not able to without our help in this modern day?
Wasn’t Erasmus a faithful Roman Catholic priest? Thank God for those Catholics! Amen Ruckmanites?
Erasmus was the worst Catholic ever born. That guy rebelled against everything they wanted him to do. He was a true believer in Christ and he was very vocal about the truth. He had a backbone to be admired.
Garry – Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
Garry – You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Pls don’t be as silly as Ruckman. Dear Erasmus was quite prolific, please just read some of his stuff, and you will very quickly find out just how Catholic he was. Yes he had some issues with Catholicism, but that in no way shape or form, meant he didn’t hold fully with the church in nearly all matters. Do some reading and come on back, I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I just want you to get some light on these KJVonly pushers.
Right, Greg. I’m sure you also believe King James was a homosexual like every other uneducated seminary graduate?
Garry, I’m pretty sure that Erasmus was the main papist that Martin Luther debated.
So debating someone automatically means they are bad? The biggest thing Martin L. and Erasmus debated is the subject of Predestination. That has nothing to do with being Catholic or being “prolific” or whatever.
Alright man, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I’ll admit that I haven’t researched this a whole lot. I do know, however, that Martin Luther debated several papists. His biggest complaint about them was that they never quoted the Bible, and instead they would simply quote church leaders like the pope. Erasmus was the papist most often debated by Luther, and Luther thought so little of him that at one point he said that Erasmus was,”The most vile miscreant to ever disgrace the earth.” So, I just thought I’d throw that out there.
Question: How many manuscripts did Erasmus have when he made his translation?
Question: How many manuscripts does God need to make a good translation?
6, Barry but that doesn’t matter to these true believers.
Jonathon,……since YOU don’t agree…and YOU don’t think…and YOU don’t like…it appears you have made yourself the final authority.
@Bill K…just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think Jonathon believes that he is the ‘final authority’ of?
Christ’s command to His ‘true’ follwers were to make disciples of all nations, by spreading His gospel to every creature, even to the ends of the earth (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8), which can be accomplished using translations that are true to the original Biblical languages – NOT just the KJV. Christ said ‘nothing’ about trying to convince people what the ‘perfect’ translation is. True genuine faith is always tested (1 Peter 1:6-7), which requires us to examine if our faith is truely genuine, or if it’s just a result of sheep being led in a ‘blind belief,’ such as the ‘KJV only’ movement.
If you are a part of this movement, & have chosen to watch Dr. Gipp’s video, then you should have no problem having this movement’s claims tested, & watch the video response by another genuine Christian – James White:
http://youtu.be/UNGa_dRTNMo
Only you can choose whether or not to watch it, but if you choose not to, then what does that say about your objectivity (or lack thereof)?
In Christ,
Steve.
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your faith in telling the truth & dispelling all doubts of which “bible” to read. Since becoming a “born again” Christian some 35 years ago I have read nothing but the King James version of the Bible, but it is becoming more scarce to find these days as the world becomes darker. God Bless you for your work & may he continue to make you a blessing!!!
Love in Jesus
Marlene
I’m delighted that you enjoy your KJV Marlene! It most certainly is God’s Word in 17th century English, therein lies the problem with the modern reader, most of us can’t understand it, that’s why God has seen to it to bless of with translations that we can understand, isn’t God wonderful like that?
Old tired arguments with flashy new camera angles … James White has already begun a very thorough critique of this video. I recommend it to all …. http://youtu.be/UNGa_dRTNMo
@John…I just finished watching the video by James White. His critique is very good, very thoroughly researched, & very logical. Regardless of whatever side of this issue a person is on – ‘KJV only’ or ‘not KJV only’ – it’s worth at least taking 22 minutes to watch it. Although I’m afraid most ‘KJV only’ Christians & churches won’t take that time, since they may view it as ‘hatred of God’s Word,’ even though they want people to watch Dr. Gipp’s video. If that is the case, that speaks volumes to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of ‘KJV only’ supporters. Thanks for posting the link, John! God bless! In Christ…Steve.
I watched White’s video, and I can’t watch him without thinking “This guy is arrogant.” I don’t like his demeanor. That aside, I don’t believe Christians should get involved with textual criticism in modern day. There was a place for it when God wanted to make a Bible, but there is really no need for any more versions. People need to stop changing the Bible and start living it. Even Charles Spurgeon didn’t agree with textual criticism:
http://garrydavid.tumblr.com/post/16782837032/did-c-h-spurgeon-agree-with-textual-criticism
Garry, there is no doubt that you love the Lord. But you have listened to too many Ruckmanites. Every translator uses Textual Criticism, they must, including the good, baby-baptizing Anglicans that translated your favorite versionl
Ummm….Nutjob.
What kind of coffee did people drink before the KJV?
Those darn disciples, speaking aramaic and writing in Greek instead of the King’s English!
Concerned,
While humorous, most KJV-only proponents would not agree with the idea that the disciples spoke in King’s english, though that is a widely held misconception/jab.
A KJV-only proponent would say that throughout history God has always been preserving his Word and he has done so most recently through the KJV via the Textus Receptus. Obviously the form of God’s inerrant Word was different before the KJV, but God has preserved his Word, free of tampering, in the KJV.
I don’t agree with any of that, btw, but we should at least give the KJV side a fair hearing. Humor sometimes glosses over the bigger issues … just saying.
John.
Great point. I disagree with all of the arguments laid out in this video, but making wide-sweeping jabs at people with these convictions doesn’t do any good. They have a concern for the Bible being honored and upheld, and if you know someone who holds these beliefs (as I do) then there is great opportunity to have a conversation that could lead to greater understanding (though I know that in my case it has not led to changes in opinion).
Dear brethren,
My name is Vadim. I live in Odessa, Ukraine. God be thanked for your work! I have translated this video into Russian and it’s available on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__oJe4NRxc
I am a KJV only bible believer since 2011 and “The Answer Book” REALLY helped me to become such. But Kent Hovind was the man who introduced me to this book in his seminars. Praise the LORD!
Say Hello to Dr. Sam Gipp for me, please.
Vadim.
Vadim,
I am glad to hear of your growth and enthusiasm in the Lord. Please consider reading a book by Dr. James White entitled, “The King James Only Controversy.” Dr. White thoroughly documents and explains both sides of the issue. Like Sam Gipp says in the video, don’t take his word or any man’s word as your final authority. Read both sides and see for yourself what the reality of the matter is.
You can find Dr. White at aomin.org D. A. Carson has a thorough and God-honoring book on the matter as well.
God and His Truth above all else!
Blessings to you,
Greg
Good job guys ! Some will get it and some won’t. Psalm 12:6,7
In the FAQ under “Why do we make an issue out of using the KJV?” You state the KJV does not have a copyright. This is incorrect. It has a copyright held in the UK by the British Crown. It’s just not enforced.
That sort of raises a moral dilemma for me. Is it OK to go over the speed limit if I know it won’t be enforced?
The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone from reprinting the Authorized Version, which is the modern purpose of a copyright today.
It was only copyrighted back then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For over 400 years now, we have been printing millions of copies of KJV’s without requesting permission from anyone, and more than eight hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties to anyone. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.
Joshua – I have an extremely important message for you from the KJV- 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 “O ye Corinthianns, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.”
Simple friend, the above three verses are why we need modern translations. Don’t you want to know God’s message for you and your family, go ahead look up the above verses in an NIV and be blessed!
This was in the footnotes of my KJV study Bible about 1 John 5:7-8.
Greek manuscripts are unanimous in showing that verse 7 should end with “record.” (Literally, it says: “There are three who bear witness.”) Likewise, verse 8 should read simply: “The spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” The longer versions of these verses made their way into the traditional printed Greek Testament (TR) and thus into the King James Version due to influence of the Latin Bible and only four late Greek manuscripts.
It seems that these footnotes in my KJV study Bible are stating that although the parts of verses 7 and 8 are in the KJV, they were actually added later by the church, rather than being taken out later. So, since it’s a KJV study Bible, then does that mean that the KJV shouldn’t be the only version of the Bible we should read, since it’s not perfect?
Dude, we have to have those verses otherwise there’s no way of knowing that there’s a trinity!!! I mean, you definitely can’t base the doctrine of the trinity on Matthew 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (ESV), or on Matthew 3:16-17, “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” I mean without 1 John 5:7-8 there is no mention of the trinity at all in the Bible. And that would mean that you could question the deity of Christ, because obviously the whole, “Before Abraham was, I AM” verse clearly can’t prove that, and Colossians 1 has nothing to say about the deity of Christ. I mean all it says is, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Basically, if we lose 1 John 5:7-8, there’s no way we can prove from the Bible that the trinity exists or that Jesus Christ is God. (I really hope everyone reading this gets my sarcasm)
Jonathon, although it would be very convenient to have 1 John 5:7-8 in the Bible, which would make a very strong and obvious case for the Trinity, if it isn’t part of the original text, then it should not be in the Bible, just to prove it. Also, Matthew 28:19 does support the context of the Trinity. If you notice, it says “in the ‘name’ (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” It doesn’t say ‘names’ (plural). This means, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God (name). And during Jesus’ baptism, all three ‘persons’ of the Trinity are mentioned in different places (God in heaven, Jesus on earth, and the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus from heaven), to show that they aren’t different ‘names’ for the same God, but rather rather three different ‘Persons’ in the same one God. 2 Corinthians 3:14, as well as verses in Titus chapters 2 and 3 also support the Biblical concept of the Trinity. So, 1 John 5:7-8 should not be used for support for the Trinity, since it doesn’t appear to have been in the original texts, and other passages do support the Trinity. Blessings! Jim
Jim, I was making the same case that you just made. I was just trying to show how ridiculous it is that people loose their minds because one verse reads differently in a newer translation. Not only will people not accept that the KJV could have been wrong, but they also claim some grand conspiracy that people are trying to remove doctrines from the Bible. I listed all of those verses because when someone who is KJV only says that a translation like the ESV is attacking the trinity because 1 John 5:7-8 is different, they are essentially saying that all of the other verses that speak of that doctrine are somehow either less important or just don’t speak of the doctrine. I was worried that perhaps my sarcasm wouldn’t be picked up quite as well through text. Sorry about that.
Jonathon, sorry for not reading into the sarcasm. After rereading your post, it’s obvious now what you were trying to get across. Kind of reinforces the idea that one person can read something (like say…the ‘KJV’) and not understand what God is trying to get across, but when they read another ‘good’ translation, that is faithful to the original languages of the Bible, they understand a Biblical concept (like the Trinity), it is much more clearer. After all, God didn’t say that we would be understand His Word through a particular translation, just that we would have the ability to understand it. Personally, I like the ESV and NASB, but I’m not ‘married’ to them like KJV only Christians. Thanks for the clarification. Blessings, Jim
Q. What will be the longest line in Heaven?
A. The one to see Jesus.
Q. What will be the 2nd longest line?
A. The line for apologizing to Wescott and Hort.
Well, neither of those men will be in Heaven by the testimony of their own writings.
And even IF they did happen to be in Heaven, the joke still wasn’t funny to begin with. Westcott and Hort were about as saved as Judas Iscariot. Oh…. he’s not gonna be in Heaven, either.
Joshua…I would agree with you the Judas is not saved. That is very clear from Scripture. But, to say that “Westcott and Hort were about as saved as Judas Iscariot. Oh…. he’s not gonna be in Heaven, EITHER” (emphasis added) cannot be backed up by Scripture. Outside of people mentioned in the Bible who are in heaven, Biblically, you can’t say, one way or another, if someone outside of the Bible is in heaven or not. Only Jesus can ‘judge the thoughts & intentions of the heart’ (Hebrews 4:12; c.f. – Matthew 12:25). You really need to get your emotions in check. If you are believing that they are destined for hell because of your disagreements about Scripture, you are believing in a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). I would seriously do a reality check on your own salvation (which it sounds like is more from your loyalty to the KJV primarily, rather than to Christ). Even if someone denies Christ & dies, you can speculate that they ‘may’ be destined for hell, but you still can’t make that judgment, because you don’t really know what is in their heart…In Christ, Steve.
Joshua, also, your comment “neither of those men will be in Heaven by the testimony of their own writings,” cannot be backed up by Scripture either – in fact that’s a different gospel than the one taught in Scripture. A person doesn’t end up in Heaven because of what they wrote, or what TRANSLATION of the Bible they read or write, but rather if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their SOLE personal Lord & Savior for the FINAL payment of their sins, by His atoning work on the cross. Even Dr. Gipp in the video said that the young man’s father, who got saved from reading the NIV, by trusting in Jesus Christ as his personal Lord & Savior, is saved. Granted, there are bad translations that do teach a ‘different Jesus,’ such as the Jehovah Witness’ New Living Translation and the Mormon Bible, which have been edited to eliminate Jesus’ Deity & teach a ‘works-based’ salvation. However, the translation of Wescott & Hort teaches the SAME Jesus & SAME plan of salvation as the KJV does, as most modern translations do. If you believe that they are going to hell because their translation is different than the KJV, you better worry about your own salvation, Joshua, because I’m afraid you are preaching a ‘different gospel’ (Galatians 1:8-9). In Christ, Steve.
Steve,
I said “by the testimony of their writings” to clarify my meaning. Apparently you missed it. The Bible says that you can know them by their fruits. By their writings and the lives they led, there is no evidence of a born again life. Just observing their fruits, I can biblically say that there is no reason to believe that they will be seen in Heaven. There is nothing of their lives or writings to indicate otherwise.
Joshua…You also wrote, “Westcott and Hort were about AS SAVED AS JUDAS Iscariot. Oh…. he’s not gonna be in Heaven, EITHER.”
This is the point I was trying to make, which you are not acknowledging: By saying ‘they were about AS SAVED AS JUDAS,’ & ‘he’s not gonna be there EITHER’ (emphasis added), you are implying that based on their writings, you KNOW where they are spending their eternal destiny. You are making a judgment call that, based on Scripture, you can’t make – only Jesus can. Although we can ‘surmise’ where they ‘might’ be based on their declaration (or lack) of faith, we can’t know for certain, and that is exactly what you did, when you said ‘he’s not going to be there EITHER.’ Even if ‘their writings and the lives they led, ‘show no evidence of a born again life,’ you still can’t make that judgment call – none of us can. Otherwise, you are doing the God’s job, which is blasphemy. Martin Luther was the ‘Father of the Reformation’ & he made some pretty racist comments about the Jews, considered giving charity a form of ‘grace’, & believed in regeneration of water baptism, but I can’t say for certain where he is spending his eternal destiny, because I wasn’t around to actually be able to look into his heart & I can’t look into Heaven & know he is there or not. Only Jesus can know that for sure.
Also,
if you truly believe that Westcott and Hort’s Jesus is the SAME Jesus, then maybe you need to re-evaluate your understanding of their Jesus.
If possible, you really ought to obtain a copy of their respective biographies. You might (or on second thought, might not) find the contents to be rather shocking. They deny Christ’s sufficiency to save, they believe that baptism is the regenerative element, and denied a literal heaven. I can easily provide quotes from their own writings to support each thing listed above.
As if that is not enough, they also deny the biblical account of Creation, and were horrendously racist, which is only logical considering their great admiration for the racist works of Charles Darwin.
I’m not slinging mud or making things up. I know and share these things from their own pens.
Again, “by their fruits ye shall know them.” If a man denies creation, hell, Christ’s atonement, heaven, and instead accepts a godless evolution, racism and socialism…. I can tell his fruit already.
That’s Bible, my friend.
Joshua…What I wrote was “the TRANSLATION of Wescott & Hort teaches the SAME Jesus & SAME plan of salvation as the KJV does, as most modern translations do.” I didn’t say anything about their extrabiblical works. I was referring to their TRANSLATION of the Greek New Testament. Does it contain the message of John 14:6 that Jesus is the ‘only way to the Father’? Does it contain the
parts of Ephesians 2:8-9, that say that ‘by grace you have been saved through faith…not of yourselves…it is a gift of God…not of works’? Does it include John 3:16 that ‘whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life’? Does it include the word ‘names’ instead of ‘names’in Matthew 28:19, which support the Biblical concept of the Trinity? Does it include passages like Jesus saying ‘I AM’ in John 8:58 & ‘the Father & I are one’ in John 10:30 which support the Deity of Christ? If so, then the TRANSLATION is not inaccurate, because those, as well as other similar passages of the Gospel message, are teaching about the SAME Jesus as the KJV & modern translations. As far as their extrabiblical writings, I would strongly agree with you, that if they ‘truly’ disbelieved in the Deity of Christ & Christ’s sufficiency to save, and believed in regeneration of water baptism, then that is teaching of a different gospel. However, even with that, you still can’t judge with CERTAINTY where they are – even based on their personal beliefs or their ‘fruits,’ & that’s exactly what you are doing, because only Jesus can know for certain & only Jesus can look into their hearts – not you or me, or anyone else. And THAT’S the Bible truth.
Joshua – Please understand this, that you should be fully awake when attempting to engage folks on the internet.
thanks! i just shared this on my blog… http://faithly.com/index.php?option=com_content&catid=34&id=100&view=article
We do not have the originals of the scriptures-we only have copies (actually handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies…). There is no such thing as a perfectly preserved book. Does a person have to deny this to have faith? Does someone have to almost worship a particular bible translation to be a christian?
Although I disagree with it’s contents, the video was well done and this website is organized really well.
I went to hear Sam Gipp speak in Dorset last year. I can’t see how anyone can take him seriously.
I’m with you Jo A, why waste the gas. I can better defend the KJV than this very foolish fellow.
A well done video, but historically a farce. Saying that ‘modern versions’ take verses out is a complete misunderstanding of the translation process and the use of footnotes where there is a question (That same argument can be turned around to say that the KJV added verses to the Bible). To say that the KJV was translated from the TR is just plain wrong. The TR came about as a result of the KJV translation work.
What else should you expect from a guy whose so-called ‘doctorate’ came from Ruckman. Any thinking person who has any research ability can see through this shoddy scholarship. It’s sad that people actually follow these guys.
Trevor W. – tks for your response. The folks that put out the video, and in fact most of the folks that post here haven’t a clue about translations and the issues involved. I feel sorry for them, but madder still at simple men that continue to promulgate this KJVonly foolishness.
For most of these “heretically omitted” verses, there is usually a footnote attached, explaining why they were omitted as well as quoting the text of the omitted verses.
Such passages have been omitted from books like the ESV because, in the judgment of the translators (also an exhaustive committee), the most reliable Greek manuscripts did not include them. Many very reliable ancient manuscripts have been uncovered, some older than what the TR used. While none of these more recently discovered manuscripts call into question any major doctrine of Scripture, they do often provide helpful insights concerning the Bible text.
One thing that recent research into the Bible text has shown is that, as scribes faithfully copied passages of Scripture before the days of mechanical printing, they would sometimes insert marginal words or phrases that they intended as clarifications of the actual Bible text. In fact, the KJV translators did this, some of which King James himself made them remove b/c he deemed them offensive. But, through the centuries, some of these “clarifications” were mistakenly thought to be part of the actual Bible text. The discovery of earlier manuscripts has helped biblical language scholars pinpoint many of these scribal additions. (Portions of this argument have been copied from http://community.crossway.org/crossway/topics/why_are_certain_verses_missing_from_the_esv_text)
Question: Is it possible that the “word-for-word” modern translations could be attempting to be MORE faithful to the original text?
@Jonathon…very well put. Could it be that the supporters of the ‘KJV only’ movement are doing something similar to what the Roman Catholic church did with the Apocrypha? Just as the Apocrypha was written – not as Inspired writings – but as an addendum to the Bible for Christians to know some things of the Intertestimonial period but later ‘made Inspired’ by the Catholic church at the Council of Trent, likewise, the 16 or 17 verses in the KJV (not considered by other translations as Inspired) were originally Biblically-based side-margin notes to support passages of the original texts but later were thought to be passages from the original text & added to the Bible as the Apocrypha was? Historically, there is more examples of people attempting to add to God’s Word, than taking away from it.
Jonathan, don’t just copy what someone else said, do a little research. I have never heard that any copyist inserted anything into the text to clarify while copying. I have always heard that if a scribe made even one small mistake while copying, he destroyed the document and started over. The KJV translators were honest enough to put the words in italics that did not appear in the original and they did that because there was no single word in the english language for the word in Hebrew or Aramaic. A good book to read about the manuscripts and how we got the TR is “Identity of the New Testament Text” by Wilbur Pickering.
Interesting video. I do not know Mr. Gipp, but the abuse of history is sad. First, the church at Antioch was not the center of the Christian church, Jerusalem was.
Second, since Antioch is where they were first called Christians (which by the way was a negative term at first) and that Egypt is negative reference is the reason we choose those manusicripts is ridiculous. If you use this thinking, one would never choose the King James Version, as it was politically motivated under an alleged homosexual/philanderous king (of whom the version bears the name)
Third, the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do come from the Masoretic text.
Fourth, Please read the opening statements of the 1611 and read what the translators said. How anyone can read their statements and then declare that this version is without error already has made up his mind and will not change
Finally, the KJV is an excellent version. I was raised on it, memorized it and still use it regularly. That being said, the KJV Only movement is a heresy. Look at those who hold to it? They hold the version above the gospel itself.
P.S. How can one be saved from outside of the KJV but not be sanctified outside of that version? Do you listen to yourself?
P.S. 2 – The KJV only movement came out of the 7th Day Adventist movement. That should cause one to really consider this thought process.
Matthew…very well put! If anything, the 16 or 17 verses that are in the KJV & not in the KJV are more likely to be additions, rather than removals from the ‘Alexandrian’ versions, simply by looking at history. There has been historical evidence that people have attempted to add to God’s Word, rather than take away from it. For example: ‘the additions to Ester,’ ‘the additions to Daniel,’ ‘Psalm 151,’ the article ‘a’ in John 1:1 & the word ‘other’ added six times in Colossians by the Jehovah Witnesses, & of course the Apocrypha (which was originally in the KJV). Now, one could say that the none of these are in the KJV, & the Apocrypha was not considered Inspired when it was in the KJV, but rather an ‘addendum’ to it. However, these are concrete examples of people attempting to ‘add’ to God’s Word rather than ‘take away’ from it.
It saddens me that someone can make a video, & like lambs to the slaughter, sheep will just automatically believe what it being said without checking out these claims independently for themselves, demonize other versions, & call ‘non-KJV-only’ Christians ‘haters of God’s Word’ for not acknowledging the KJV as the ONLY translation that is Inspired. How said.
BTW, I wrote a comment of the use of the term ‘Lucifer’ in the KJV/NKJV below, that is not in other translations, which no one has answered yet. Could you give it a shot? Thanks! Steve.
This is great! I showed it to my bible college students, any new film from you guys?
Wow, you showed this to bible college students?? What college??
They probably meet in a little church basement somewhere.
If you showed this to a “bible college” class and didn’t get laughed out of the room, I’d fire whoever is teaching church history.
http://biblecommenter.com/1_john/5-7.htm
I am confused about this verse (1 John 5:7) since upon further study it seems that this verse was added somewhere between 14th and 16th century and cannot be found in any Greek text before this. Can someone explain this?
@Christy…the part of 1 John 5:7-8 that says: ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This is called the ‘Comma Johanneum’ (‘Short clause pertaining to John’).
According to the video above, ‘KJV only’ Christians & churches believe that it was part of the original Greek autograph from Antioch, but some individuals who copied it from Alexandria, who didn’t believe in the Biblical concept of the Trinity, took the verse out. However, they also believe that the original autograph from Antioch, which got copied, kept it in, which remained up to the Textus Receptus & eventually to the translation of the King James Bible, which is why it’s in there & not most other translations.
The problem with this belief, is if a person wanted to remove the verse because they didn’t believe in the Trinity, then why didn’t they also remove other verses like Matthew 4:16-17; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14, which blatantly affirm the concept of the Trinity too? Also, the 1st couple of editions of the Textus Receptus did not have the ‘Comma Johanneum’ in it. However, due to pressure from the Catholic church to add it (which the ‘Comma Johanneum’ originally came from a Catholic homily), in order to affirm the concept of the Trinity, Erasmus added it to later editions of the Textus Receptus. Here is an article on the ‘Comma Johanneum’ in 1 John 5:7-8:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
Also, my John MacArthur NKJV Study Bible, p. 1973 (which has the ‘Comma Johanneum’ in there), has this footnote:
“External manuscript evidence, however, is against them being in the original epistle. They do not appear in any Greek manuscripts dated before ca. tenth century A.D. Only 8 very late Greek manuscripts contain the reading, & these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Furthermore, 4 of those 8 manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. No Greek or Latin Father even those involved in the Trinitarian controversies, quotes them; no ancient version except the Latin records them (not the Old Latin in its early form or the Vulgate). Internal evidence also militates against their presence, since they disrupt the sense of the writer’s thoughts. Most likely, the words were added much later to the text.”
This is why most other translations (both modern & ancient) either don’t have the verse in it, or they have a footnote making a similar comment as the MacArthur Study Bible. Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible omits the ‘Comma Johanneum’. Even though it affirms the Biblical concept of the Trinity, it is an addition to God’s Word – not a removal – & should not be in the Bible, unless it is put in brackets with a similar note in the study notes.
Hope this helps…God bless!
Steve.
Ok, got one more question for anyone who is willing to give it a shot, because I’d really like an answer to this one. In Isaiah 14:12 in both the KJV & NKJV, the Hebrew word, ‘heylel’ is translated ‘Lucifer.’ Now, I know this is referring to Satan before his fall from heaven when he was a ‘good’ angel, which is apparent from Luke 10:18 & other passages like Ezekiel 28. However, it is my understanding that ‘Lucifer’ is actually a translation from the Latin, not from the Hebrew, which is why most modern translations translate ‘heylel’ to ‘shining one, morning star, or day star,’ which is the more direct translation from Hebrew. So, if the KJV is the more ‘perfect’ translation, then why does it translate ‘heylel’ in Isaiah 14:12 as ‘Lucifer’ (a Latin word), rather than ‘shining one, morning star, or day star’ (Hebrew words)? Thanks in advance, & God bless in Jesus’ Name!
Steve.
They translated it that way because “lucifer” means “bringer of light” in Latin. It is clear that the passage is addressing Satan, therefore, instead of translating the Hebrew literally, they took a Latin word with a similar meaning and made it a name. At least that’s what I’ve been able to find. It’s the only time that the word, Lucifer, appears in the KJV as far as i know.
@Jonathan…thanks for the response. So, another ward, you are saying the word “Lucifer” isn’t a direct translation from the Hebrew, but rather from a Latin word with a similar meaning. I guess that means that although the KJV is a good translation, it doesn’t always translate with the most Biblically accurate word – in this case from the Latin as a name (“Lucifer”), rather than from the Hebrew as a term (“light-bearer”).
I think this is a good example that, as Christians, we shouldn’t be ‘married’ to only one version of the Bible, & that other versions can have both ‘better’ & ‘worse’ translations than the KJV, & that by reading multiple translations, it can help give us a better & a more accurate understanding of His written revelations to us, than from just one translation alone.
Thanks again, Jonathan, for your input, & God bless in Jesus’ Name!
Steve.
Just real quick on Lucifer. It comes from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 400 AD, It simply became “popular” and the KJV translators even though knowing better simply bowed to popular opinion and left it in, that’s it, not a horrible mistake, but simply showing that these good Anglican, baby-baptizers were not translating gods, but merely men, how else could one explain a Latin word in an English translation of an ancient Hebrew text. I simply howl when I see ummm….idiots like Bullgipp Gipp, jumping through hoops trying to make this be the “right” translation. I know I shouldn’t call names, but it is so hard, and God bless the pygmies in the Amazon……………
ESV, FTW!
I have a legitimate question that I would really like an answer to, from anyone who is willing. Who are the ‘sons of God & daughters of men’ in Genesis 6:1-4. I have heard 3 possible answers: 1) ‘Sons of God’ refers to fallen angels who married & interbred with human females (‘daughters of men’) – which would not contradict Matthew 22:30, which is referring to obedient, holy angels – not fallen ones; 2) ‘sons of God’ were powerful human rulers; 3) ‘Sons of God’ were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain (‘daughters of men’). The study notes in my girlfriend’s King James Study Bible say they are ‘option #3.’ Also, who are the ‘Nephilim’ (‘Giants’) in that same chapter?
I know what I believe based on a literal reading of Scripture as a whole & from the original languages, but I’m not going to criticize or disagree with anyone’s remarks or opinions. I would just like to know what people think, with support from Bible passages.
Thanks ahead of time, & God bless!
In Christ,
Steve.
The sons of God are more than likely a reference to the fallen angels that followed Lucifer out of heaven. The reason I do not believe this process was a natural one is because it would be suggesting anyone who was godly (Seth) would produce giant babies, which is silly. The giants in this passage are literal. The fallen angels took human forms and they produced these half breed humans. Some believe because they are not entirely human, they most likely do not have a spirit and therefore cannot obtain salvation. And upon the death of these “Nephilim,” they become part of the “devils” we know today.
@Garry, thanks for your response. God bless!
Steve.
There are several problems with the idea that this is angels. Primarily, angels do not have physical bodies & (in the words of Christ) angels do not marry (Mat. 22:30). 2nd- Context:c. 5 speaks pf the descendants of Adam (men). Continuing in this contest c. 6 speaks of “men” multiplying on the earth. 3rd “Nephilim” – not “giants” (look in Heb. lexicon not just a “Strongs Concordance” but a Heb. lexicon) but “fallen mighty men” who usurped authority over others (rebels). See Nephilim in Num. 13:33 (sons of Anak- men). 4th- there is no proof of “half-breed” demon- men…5th- no other example of angels breeding with humans in the Bible but NUMEROUS examples of God telling His people not to take husbands or wives of unbelievers. Best interpretation is line of Seth taking wives from non-believers (see numerous other commentaries: Jamieson, Fausset, Brown; Geneva Study Bible, John Gill, etc., etc.). God bless.
@Barry…thanks for your input as well! I’ll have to look into those sources. I can see that within the Body of Christ, that everyone isn’t in complete agreement on this issue. Thanks again for your feedback.
Thank you so much! Excellent video…have already shared it.
Blessings!
-Amelia
http://youtu.be/3EcqHZq3PPk
Please watch from the beginning upto the end!
This is not just about the NKJV, but also other PerVersions!
What does the NKJV have in common with other Versions? See for yourself. (Notice the last part of this video, regarding the “pronouns” used in the NKJV, and learn the importance behind even not changing the pronouns used in the KJB.)
Very informative website that not only promotes usage of the King James Bible, but your website helps prove it as well. Sam Gipp is a very blessed teacher.
Grace & Peace
Samuel Gipp does not have even a cursory grasp of what goes into the making of a translation. Bullgipp Gipp is simply a Ruckmanite. Btw the KJV is a fantastic translation, I can defend her better than this pitifully stupid, anti-intellectual video.
Amen brother Scott. Thank God for this man. It was bible believing men like Otis Fuller, William Grady, and Sam Gipp, whose writings have inspired me to stand by the Authorized Version. We have recognized His Word and by God’s grace are not moved by the lying, liberal, Satanic and subtil movement to change the inerrant and infallible scriptures! I gladly stand by those who believe God is able to preserve His Word perfectly. Ever since I was 15yrs old I’ve been convinced that we got it right brother! I’ll tell ya this too friend…the preaching has always been more powerful from men who believe it than them that don’t. We must stay biblical, literal, and rightly divide. (2 Tim.2:15)
I have a question about the KJV, that has never sat well with my spirit.
In Is. 45:7 the KJV says that God creates evil. Comments ?
Without getting into a long response. Let me leave you with a few quick thoughts.
1. I think you’re equating evil with sin. This of course can’t be the case as we know that God is not the author of sin. Nor could He be a righteous Judge and condemn mankind if He is responsible for sin. (Just an aside, in case you’re not saved, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and receive life eternal with no condemnation. John 3:36 / Romans 8:1)
Evil in the Bible can mean: trouble, grievous, or bad.
2. Let’s the leave the verse intact. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Without light what do you have, darkness. In like manner, without peace what do you have, trouble, grief, or evil. God can and has removed his peace, which can be thought of as judgement. Judgement = BAD (for the unrepentant sinner) but is not to be misconstrued as sin. God created hell, which is BAD (evil), but is not sin.
God is not obligated to maintain peace. Yes, He is long-suffering but there is coming a day when sin has to be reconciled with His holiness. At which time, The great and terrible (evil) day of the Lord will be upon this world.
Romans 1 is a perfect example of God removing His hand thereby giving man over to his own wicked heart. Bad (evil) things are present without the harnessing of man’s heart through the presence of God.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness…
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections….
The gospel take-away is this. Receive the peace of God through Jesus Christ so that you don’t receive the evil (grievous trouble) that awaits those who reject God’s Son.
God bless,
Bob
Here is a video response to your question, directly dealing with the KJV’s usage of the term. Hope it helps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwo8CaJv5c0&context=C3d798e8ADOEgsToPDskJgc6EQ7iqE4A_4_gD95dzX
@LJU, in Isaiah 45:7, when God says, “I make peace & create evil,” obviously this doesn’t mean that he ‘created’ evil – God is incapable of that. We have to remember that God’s Inspired, inerrant written Word was not written in 17th Century English (the translated language of the 1611 KJV), but rather in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. English is just a translation of these 3 languages that God chose for men to write down His revelations.
Having said that, the original Hebrew word for ‘create’ is ‘bara’,’ – the same Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven & the earth.’ ‘Bara’ (‘create’) in Hebrew means ‘to create, shape, form, or fashion something new.’ It’s where we get the Latin term (‘ex nihilo’ – ‘out of nothing), when describing how God made the universe.
The Hebrew word for ‘evil’ is ‘ra`,’ which means ‘adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery,’ which is why many modern translations uses one of these words, or even ‘calamity’ or ‘woe,’ rather than ‘evil.’ Although ‘ra`’ can be translated ‘evil,’ when it does so in Scripture, it is referring to man’s ‘wickedness’ as a result of the Fall (Genesis 6:5), but in the context of Isaiah 45:7, it is referring to God punishing Israel for their disobedience. So, rather than looking at it as ‘God can and has removed his peace, which can be thought of as judgment -> ‘judgment = bad,’ a better way of looking at Isaiah 45:7 from the original Hebrew, is that God ‘creates’ (‘forms, fashions, shapes’) ‘calamities, distress, woes’ (see Isaiah 45:9) to Israel, when they are disobedient to Him, rather than ‘God creates/fashions evil/wickedness.’
Here’s a good article that discusses why more modern translations, which attempt to stay true to the original Biblical languages, use more Biblically accurate words in their translations, like ‘calamity, distress, affliction, or woe’ for ‘ra`,’ rather than ‘evil’:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7.html
Hope this helps. God bless you, in Jesus’ Name!
In Christ,
Steve.
As emotional beings with the ability to rationalize, man often complicates what can be solved by simple logic.
First, two truths:
1. God is infallible
2. Man is fallible
Do I hear an AMEN!? If you don’t believe this, go away and stick your head back into the sand, you’re no good to this discussion.
The fact is that the originals do not exist. Originals, being defined as, the first writings–using papyri for example as a medium–by those that penned the scriptures. What we have, therefore, are copies of the originals.
So when some fool (sorry, highly educated intellectual) comes along and postulates, for instance, that Mark should end at verse 8, and continues on with his thesis as to why this is, you have a decision to make. Remember, the original piece that Mark wrote is not available for review. You can choose to believe man or believe God–I refer you back to the above axiom.
Listen, if you’re going to question one part, because the originals do not exist, the whole must be brought into question. Strangely, Christians believe God has the power to raise the dead, but is somehow impotent when it comes to preserving His word.
We’ve trusted Him with our souls; why not trust Him with the Bible.
Likewise, Bob, Christians create an additional problem. They say that the words could not have been preserved today because of “fallible” and “sinful” men who were charged with the task of transcribing, translating, and preserving the words through the ages.
So they believe that God could give a perfectly inspired Word thousands of years ago to murderers, adulterers, thieves, and blasphemers, and expect them to write it correctly. But expecting God to work in spite of a well-meaning scribe is just too much.
There’s a Greek word for that: BOLOGNA. God inspired His word and promised to keep and preserve it. I have His perfect Word today, just as He promised!
I hope I wasn’t misunderstood. I believe with all of my heart that the same God that defeated death when He rose from dead can also preserve His word through scribes and translators. It is a no-brainer!
If you don’t believe this fundamental truth, you can’t believe any part of the Bible–because the originals are no longer around to testify. This forces you to rely on man’s wisdom to tell you what’s accurate. He [man] now becomes the voice of God. If I place my trust in a man to reveal the truth to me, I may as well become a Mormon.
Don’t tell me which parts of the scriptures are accurate–YOU’RE [speaking of these critics] NOT GOD!
Our faith crumbles without a perfectly preserved Book, period!
Bob, based on your comments, if a person is honest and looks at things logically, their faith will crumble. We do not have the originals of the scriptures-we only have copies (actually copies of copies of copies of copies…). There is no such thing as a perfectly preserved book. Does a person have to deny this to have faith? Does someone have to almost worship a particular bible translation to be a christian?
Although I disagree with it’s contents, the video was well done and this website is organized really well.
@JohnW…I think the difficulty that people like Bob & Joshua are having, is a lack of understanding that since we don’t have the originals anymore, that belief that God will keep His word 100% intact – word for word – without unintentional (as well as intentional) scribal errors from hundreds of years of copying, is based on Scripture that says that His Word will remain intact. However, they don’t realize that they are reading this from a COPY of a TRANSLATION, from another language, from the original manuscripts, that we don’t have anymore. Now, that doesn’t mean we can’t trust our modern translations (or even the 1611 KJV), because the copies that we have today (and in 1611), are greater than 99.99% accurate to the earliest copies that are still around today. However, we cannot say for certain, if the KJV or the modern translations are EXACTLY the same word-for-word as the originals, because we don’t have the originals to go by (and neither did the TRANSLATORS of the 1611 KJV). And when people like Joshua say, “I can trust in KJV even if there are passages that I don’t understand, because God will reveal it to me,” that is really dangerous, because although I don’t limit God’s omnipotence, Scripture says that God offers a blessing to people who ‘heed’ the words of Scripture even the book of Revelation, which is a highly symbolic book (Revelation 1:3), which we can gain understanding of symbolic language from looking elsewhere in Scripture. But, Scripture doesn’t support the idea of trying to understand a difficult passage by praying & then ‘personally interpreting Scripture’ (2 Peter 1:20), but rather praying for understanding by using the resources God has given us, such consulting multiple reliable translations, based faithfully on the original Inspired languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, and consulting people who have been gifted by God, to help us understand difficult passages (Acts 8:30-31). An example, is that Pastor Powell of Hope Baptist Church preached during a Sunday school that ‘HE believed’ that the antichrist was going to be Judas Iscariot, because they are both called ‘son of perdition.’ This is obviously ‘HIS’ personal interpretation of Scripture, because the Bible says “it is appointed for men to DIE ONCE and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). I have found that Christians & churches who hold to only one translation of the Bible tend to base their understanding of Scripture from their own personal interpretation, rather than from God & the tools He gives us to help us to understand difficult passages. This is a classic & sad example of pride that I have found, even with Biblically-based Christians & churches. We need to pray for them, as well as ourselves, to remain humble & for TRUE understanding…In Christ, Steve.
Steve,
If only 99.99% of the Bible is accurate today, then I am glad to know that you are discerning enough to recognize that Psalm 12:6-7 is found among the 0.01% of error. How laughable!
If God did not preserve His Word accurately today, then how can God justly judge us according to an impure and incomplete Word? Exactly what parts are in error? And who is an authority to point those errors out? It is at that point that a scholar becomes an authority OVER the Word of God, which means that his final authority is his own fallible self rather than God or His Word.
Imagine, if you will, that the parts of Scripture dealing with salvation were the very parts within the 0.01% of error. Can you WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY claim that they are not the parts in error? Or can you, at best, only hope that they are not the very parts within the error? How, then, can God truly judge us with a Word that is incomplete and impure? That is grossly out of character for God.
Maybe you need to re-read my response to you about TRANSLATIONS being inspired. There are, to my knowledge, at LEAST three clear examples from the Scriptures themselves that demonstrate how translations of God’s Word are still inspired.
Study, my friend.
In Christ,
Josh
Josh…The same could be said about ‘KJV scholars.’ While they are making themselves to be the ‘authority’ that the KJV is the ‘only’ translation that is the ‘perfectly preserved’ Word of God, they then condemn other translations of the Bible as being ‘corrupt’ & the translators as having the ‘authority’ to determine if certain verses were either added to or removed from the original texts. The point of the ’99.99% accuracy’ I was trying to make, was that although Dr. Gipp INCORRECTLY stated that we have the ‘originals,’ in reality we don’t. But we can have assurance that the COPIES that we possess today can give us ASSURANCE of our salvation (1 John 5:13), because these copies are within 99.99% accurate of the earliest copies that we possess. The passages that Biblically-based ‘KJV only’ & ‘non-KJV-only’ Christians & churches disagree on, do not pertain to salvation. And, if you really want to push it, since we don’t possess the original manuscripts, we can’t be certain that ANY of the copies we have – including the KJV – are an EXACT copy of the originals. It is ASSUMED by ‘KJV-only’ Christians & churches that the KJV is the ONLY translation that is an EXACT copy of the originals – & there’s no proof of that assumption.
And as far as Psalm 12:7-8 goes, yes, I would agree that God has been faithful in preserving His Words & keeping them pure. However, you can’t know for CERTAIN that it was preserved,
word-for-word, through the KJV. And as far as this ‘Antioch’ vs. ‘Alexandria’ controversy goes – first, the center of the Christian Church was Jerusalem where Jesus ascended into Heaven & the Church was establish (Acts Ch. 1 & 2) – NOT Antioch like Dr. Gipp INCORRECTLY states in the video, despite Paul returning there from missionary journeys. And even though believers were first called ‘Christians’ there, that doesn’t make it the ‘hub’ of Christianity. It was actually a derogatory term toward followers of Christ, established by those who were antagonistic to the Gospel. Furthermore, there were Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire, especially Jerusalem, where Peter & other Church leaders gathered to discuss what should be done about circumsion & the Gentiles (Acts 15).
As far as translations go, even though the New Testament writers, & even Jesus Himself, quoted from the Septuagint, it was still just a translation, which (by the way), the EARLIEST copies of it do NOT include the second ‘Cainan’ in Luke’s genealogical account of Jesus, which supports that it was later ADDED (most probably inadvertedly) by a weary scribe, which the error then got copied into the Textus Receptus & then into the KJV & other translations.
Although you have no problem pointing out the possibility that other translations may not be a faithful translation of the original Inspired texts, why is it so difficult to believe that the same could not be said about the KJV, considering we don’t have the originals to compare the KJV to? There’s a difference between GENUINE faith in the preservation of God’s Word, & a BLIND belief that the KJV is that preservation, despite a lack of evidence for that belief.
And as far as the Inspiration of Scripture goes, I noticed that you did not offer the passages which say that translations are just as Inspired as the originals – not just the originals. If that were the case, then I could argue that ‘some’ modern translations, which are more faithful
to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek, than even the KJV is, are also ‘Inspired.’ The only passage that directly talks about Scripture being Inspired is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, & Peter even indirectly uses ‘prophecy of God which is led by man by the Holy Spirit’ in the PAST tense (2 Peter 1:20-21). And it was this prophecy that was WRITTEN down by men through the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the original manuscripts, in the original Biblical languages that ‘God breathed’ (Inspiration) into the original Scriptures – NOT the copies.
In Christ,
Steve.
Steve – A great comment! I could not have said it better. I don’t think the hard-core KJVonly’s even look carefully at well-thought -out comments like yours. If they would they would have to at least pause and think for a few minutes. I take a different tactic usually, I throw short, little bits of sarcasm at them, in an attempt to make them think, I don’t believe I’m alot more successful than you. I came out of a crazy-eyed KJVonly church, in fact, I was as crazy as the rest of them. But one day the under-educated Pastor started talking about a hidden code contained in the KJV, by that time I had already started having my doubts about all the wild claims they were making for their golden ca……..favorite translation, anyhoo, Pastor says a certain amt of consonants and vowels and you could get some kind of a “secret message” I’m sure he took it out of some bizarre KJVonly book, maybe Bullgipp’s here or his daddy Ruckman, so I knew right then and there I couldn’t stay in that mess. I walked out that day about 5 yrs ago, and have only gone back for funerals. I look at my combatting this cultic KJVonlyism as a ministry, they are in so desperate need of “knowledge.” God’s word is indeed Precious, and it is in fact “forever settled in Heaven” We must continue to teach them that we have God’s Precious Word in aggregate, and it is contained in any worthy translation.
@JohnW
You said, “There is no such thing as a perfectly preserved book. Does a person have to deny this to have faith? Does someone have to almost worship a particular bible translation to be a christian?”
Let’s move the argument away from the KJV specifically and simply discuss preservation.
So you believe in the power that brought forth Jesus from the dead but you question His ability to preserve His Word? The same power that took the dust of the earth and formed man is somehow powerless to perfectly give us His Word? O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory, but O NO I can’t preserve my Word.
“For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”
“Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith….”
I would assume you believe believe in eternal security? Therefore, without giving it a second thought, you place your soul into His care and in faith believe He can keep it; but you lack the faith it takes to believe He is able to keep His Word.
What are you holding fast to if you don’t believe in an inerrant translation, your own wisdom? “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.” And for the sake of this argument, I don’t care which translation you pick. But your camp won’t stand behind any of them. You’re building on sand; we’re building on Rock.
We don’t worship a book; we worship THE WORD! And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.
You have the audacity to claim that God has left a void that only those of your ilk have enough intelligence to fill. People like you are nothing more than a voice for Satan, yeah hath God said.
Fighting with a Sword, not a butter knife!!
Bob
Hey Bob – I have a Chinese friend could you please direct him to the inspired, infallible, with every jot and tittle (whatever that means) bible in his language. You see God is no respecter of persons, certainly He has a perfect Bible for them as well. Matter of fact God has to provide every group of people with their own bible. So next post just give us, oh say, 15 perfect, foreign bibles titles/translations.
thanks
Hi Greg,
Does it have to be spelled out for you that we’re talking about an English translation. Good grief! If the Chinese want to either translate from the KJV or from the TR, then they too will have a fully preserved, plenary translation of the Bible.
Jesus answered, “why tempt ye me” when being addressed by the scoffing, condemning crowd of unbelievers. Instead of using the liberal tactic of asking a ridiculous question to detract from the real issue at hand, why don’t you simply answer the question that was presented?
Do you believe the Creator has the ability to perfectly preserve His Word from the originals? I’m assuming your answer is yes. Therefore, pick one. Which one, Greg? Or has the Alpha and Omega fallen short?
If you don’t believe God has the power to preserve, just stop talking and move on with your life and away from this discussion. To limit God in this manner is down right foolish.
Bob
Hi Bob, It is you that is limiting God! I believe we have an embarrassment of riches in biblical manuscripts. Poor, old Erasmus, that faithful Catholic Priest had between 6-12 manuscripts to work from, when today a translator can avail himself of well over 5,000, my, my what a difference!! We don’t have to go to the Latin Vulgate as did Erasmus to fill in holes that he didn’t have Greek manuscripts for.
You should really study some about translations. You are showing yourself to be “zealous w/out knowledge” right now, but you’re sincere, and you think you are doing a good thing. Just show me the verse where God promises a “perfect, preserved, English translation in 1611″ and I’ll give you a million dollars.
The thought just occurred to me that I may actually be losing brain cells in trying to explain such paltry, simple things such as these. But the reason I do it, is because I was where you are now. Spouting off KJVonly BS that I picked up from the Riplinger’s, Bullgipps, Peter Piper Ruckman. I am ashamed I listened to such drivel, and you hopefully will be too one day.
Come out from among them (KJV Worshippers) and be ye (what’s a ye?) seperate.
Greg,
YOU STILL WON’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. It’s like talking to Joe Biden. What work has been preserved? Why won’t you pick one? Or do you just take a little here and a little there? You and your band of higher critics can take your scripture potpourri and wallow in the muck and mire of man’s reason. I’ll stick with God!
I don’t need a verse claiming KJV authority. The crux of the argument goes back to which manuscripts are accurate. I don’t read Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic; therefore I need an English translation. And I’m not going to start a never ending debate on manuscripts. Many books have been written. We don’t need to start quoting from our libraries.
You won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours, so this debate is fruitless. Free free to embrace the uninspired sodomites, God haters, and money chasers that have produced sordid works such as, The Message, The Good News bible, The Living bible, The gender neutral bible, The Voice, etc. Go right ahead and hang onto your gods (perverted translations) made by the hands of men, gods of wood and stone. I’ll maintain my allegiance to THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Ye is plural, more accurate than you. In our language, you can be plural and singular.
I don’t worship a book. I worship the Word that became flesh. You’re quite condescending. Why don’t you go proselytize elsewhere. You won’t get any converts here.
Mr. Gipp does an excellent job in this video. My only point of contention with him on the KJV is Acts 12:4, Easter. The word “Easter” is not derived from any pagan holiday. It means “resurrection” or “resurrection day”. See Coverdale’s 1535 edition in the TR line which used “Easter” over 40 times in the OT (!) because Miles Coverdale and Christians of the day knew and honored “Easter” for what it is, the fulfillment of Passover. I can shew more evidence if requested. Thank you.
“Easter” is the proper translation of pascha.
You may think you know Greek, but you certainly don’t know the feast days. The days of unleavened bread are AFTER the Passover – Numbers 28:16-18. The context of the passage demands something else. Pascha is referring to Resurrection Sunday. Herod understood what Peter and the others believed regarding Christ’s resurrection. He was waiting until that observation by the new Christians was over with.
Here’s something anecdotal – I grew up Syrian Orthodox, but was saved by grace through faith at the age 27 – thank you Jesus! Guess what they refer to Easter as? PASCHA!
Pascha means “passover” and passover only, it never meant Easter and never will, pls simply look at a Strong’s concordance.
When Luke penned the book of Acts, there was no such thing as “Easter” How could he speak about something that was not in existence. The KJVonly’s have done great harm here.
People should just stop buying a version of the Bible to fit their lifestyle and start Changing their life for the Perfect Word of God! (KJV)
In His palms – Did God leave English-speaking folks w/out the perfect word until 1611, is not, where was it. Please wake up and smell the coffee, really!!!
Many thanks for this clear and usefull video!!!
Not trying to be a pain, but your illustration about NKJV problems does not make sense for Titus 1:6. The terms dissipation and insubordination, used in the NKJV in place of riot and unruly, are actually are very clear. One of the listed synonyms for insubordination is unruly and the word dissipation means an act of self-indulgence. Circus is used as a synonym for dissipation which is very similar to riot. I don’t understand how that verse is any more difficult in the NKJV. Where could I find these materials that discuss the NKJV problems?
http://youtu.be/3EcqHZq3PPk
This is great! Straight to the point! And very sharp! Great job guys!
Hello,
Are Modern Translations Trustworthy? Play list – http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PLCFD8DC47E427831E
My Facebook is David Falanga
As long as churches are telling people that the KJV is a translation of the inspired texts as opposed to KJV being inspired itself then I have no problem. However there are churches today that believe that the KJV is inspired and that is scary, scary dogma.
How is that scary? I too used to deny the KJV’s inspiration claims. HOWEVER, I have come to realize a no-brainer conclusion.
The originals were inspired, right? And God promised to keep and preserve His Word, right? So if those originals were inspired, and those words have in fact been preserved, then our preserved Word of God is in fact those inspired Words that He preserved.
….interesting. It was hard for me to admit, but it is only logical, if God did in fact keep His Word.
Joshua – You have been long at the Kool-Aid, but I believe there is still hope for you. Have a look at your KJV at Acts 5:30, where your favorite translation has the Roman soldiers placing the dead corpse of Jesus Christ on the cross. Or how about the KJV calling the Holy Spirit (not ghost, ghosts are the spirits of dead people) an “it” at John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 26, 1 Peter 1:11, most new translations fix these horrible mistakes.
@Frank…I understand & agree with your concern. What ‘KJV only’ Christians & churches either don’t understand (or refuse to), is that only the ORIGINAL writings are Inspired, because those are the languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek) that God chose for men to write down His written revelations to us. When the Bible was translated into 1611 English (just like when it was translated into Coptic, Latin, modern day English, as well as other languages), the translators during whatever time period it was translated, attempted to use ‘then-modern’ day words from that particular time period that reflected the original Inspired languages. That is why other translations have ‘updates’ to their translations – not because they are trying to ‘change God’s Word,’ but rather, since language changes over time (like from the 1611 KJV translation to the 1769 KJV translation), they update their translations to accomodate for the change in their language. When a language changes in a culture, because of adding new words, linguistic changes within the culture, etc., the updated words continue to reflect the best translation of the original languages. It’s no different than using a concordance to understand what a word like ‘betwixt’ meant in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, except that the word used in the concordance is already in the updated translation.
Unfortunately, ‘KJV only’ Christians & churches don’t understand this (or refuse to), & instead insist that the language in the KJV is just as ‘Inspired’ as the original languages, rather than acknowledge that although it is a very good translation for its time, it is just a translation, no different than the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament being translated into the Greek Septuagint. The Hebrew/Aramaic words were more accurate than the Greek translation, because the words were based on the original language & words written in the Inspired languages of Hebrew & Aramaic. The Greek Septuagint was just a translation – albeit a very good one.
Blessings!
In Christ,
Steve.
I’m pretty sure that’s what your boy here believes. I know his daddy does (Ruckman) believes that the English KJV can correct the Hebrew and Greek, I’m not sure which of the 11 revisions he is speaking about, I guess it would be the 1611.
Good for you, thanks for the easy to understand clarity! So looking forward to a follow up video! I have heard many good teachings on this debate from others, including Dr Chuck Missler and his “Learn the Bible in 24 hours” series and Dr Kent Hovind’s Creation series videos. There are many other things we can and should be busy about, but our Lord and Savior said to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. Get into the game and Keep up the good fight! :{)
You know the Devil wants you to think that they are all OK and that the KJV is outdated. The more he gets people to turn away from the KJV the more he can corrupt a little at a time. He has been doing it a long time. How do you think these cults get started. They have to have some truth in them to bring people in. There was a magazine called the Plain Truth. My mother-in-law was suckered into it for more then 20 yrs. It was not till the founder died and his son came out and went against the teaching of his father that she would have the light of the Gospel in and she got saved. Sam Gipp is an old friend as is John Marshall. Keep it up guys
I am so glad that after STUDY this is a non-issue for me. There are so many other things we can spend our God given energy on (i.e. furthering the Kingdom!). Thank God for updated translations I can understand. This issue is so distracting from what really matters in faith and life.
I thank God for a translation I can TRUST, even when I don’t fully understand it. Can’t say as much for modern perversions. Yet I still plug away at spreading His Word to the lost.
A wonderful video, I look forward to seeing more! Don’t try to replace the KJV at my church either … Preacher has promised that the day the KJV leaves is the same day he does.
Wasn’t coffee meant to be Pure and Black?? No sugar cream or SALT **Blech!!** A great message against Starbucks too.
This is great!
Thank you Dr. Gipp and those who put together this video. I have grown up KJV only. I never have had an issue with it. I even at times have wondered why some folks get so worked up on the issue. THEN I posted this video. I was surprised at the response and the weak stance that many have on the KJV. Over the past 2 decades it has become fashionable to be KJV only, but I believe that trend may be coming to an end. This is a discussion that needs to happen. God’s word will stand, it always does. Thanks Again, Phil
Hello Bro Phil! good post bro!
I agree with the logic and analogies of the video, so therefore I do believe that the King James version is the best.
I would like to throw something out there for all to think about: Shouldn’t we be careful not to call it the King James Bible? It is more accurately the King James version of the Bible. KJB is a step far past KJV only. What about missionaries on foreign fields using translations? Do they not have a Bible because they don’t have a King James Bible? To call it the KJB is actually bordering on English-speaking supremecy and is almost a bigoted statement.
Love your Bible, but don’t merge King James version of the Bible into King James Bible. Be careful to clarify and use the right terms.
Greg,
It is not “English Supremacy”. It is merely God doing what God has always done.
When God chose to author the Old Testament, He chose Hebrew. And the Jews. Why not Syrian? Or Persian? Or Egyptian? Nope. He chose Hebrew with the Jews. Are the Jews better than everyone else? Far from it! They were sinful people who turned from God like we all have done. But it was God’s divine choice to use ONE language of ONE people group.
Then God chose to author the New Testament. He chose Greek. And the Christians. Why not Aramaic? Or Latin? Or Egyptian? Nope. He chose Greek with the Christians. Are the Christians better than everyone else? Far from it! We are sinful people who struggle with sin like all others. But it was God’s divine choice to use ONE language of ONE people group.
Then God chose to combine the two testaments into one cohesive work. What language can you find in EVERY country worldwide? Hebrew? No. Greek? No. English? Yes. God chose ONE language yet again. Are we superior to everyone else? No. But our language will allow His Word to reach the largest audience, so what better language to provide a perfect copy of His Word?
The argument that “if we have a perfect English Bible, then there must be a perfect German, French, and Spanish one” is a faulty one for the three facts above. It’s a straw man that ignores God’s clear examples throughout history.
Joshua, you need to be careful throwing around the word “perfect” and attaching it to anything that man has done. Sure, God choosing to use Hebrew for the Old Testament — perfect, because God is perfect and so is His nature. God choosing Greek for the New Testament — again, perfect because God Himself is perfect in everything He does. But man’s translation of God’s perfect Word in Hebrew and Greek cannot be perfect. Unless of course you believe in double inspiration, and you strike me as the kind of guy that does. You would probably also say something like, “If the King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me!” Do you have the mind of God? Can you understand that God’s Word is perfect in the original autographs? If the King James Version is perfect, then why did it have to edited and modified a few times?
What about the poor Chinese, over a billion of them? I guess they’ll never have a perfect Word of God? I love the King James Version and think it’s the best, but it is not perfect. And you’re assuming that God chose English and made it the language of perfection. Again, so glad you have the mind of God. How do you know that God doesn’t want us to read the Bible in its original languages?
You simply cannot use the word “perfect” and attach it to anything man has translated and copied. Sorry, but man usually takes things that God makes perfect from the source and ruins them.
Greg,
I do not use the word “Perfect” loosely.
In Psalm 19:7 we are told, “The law of the LORD is perfect…”
In Psalm 12:6-7 we are told, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
In Matthew 24:35 we are told, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
So if the Lord’s words are perfect and pure, and He promised to keep and preserve them “for ever,” then where are those pure and perfect words? Don’t tell me it is “settled in heaven” because that is not preservation. Either we have a perfect word to this day (still within the bounds of ‘for ever’), or else God lied.
I do not believe in double inspiration, because that is just stupid. Unless you believe that the Bible was written by one man in one sitting, then God inspired more than once as 44+ men wrote 66 books across 1,500 years. 2 inspirations doesn’t cut it.
BUT, knowing your point, I still don’t accept “double inspiration.” Rather, God inspired the originals, and those originals have been kept and preserved for us today, JUST AS GOD PROMISED.
You assume that God had nothing to do with translations, or that a translation cannot carry what was inspired. Hmmm. Well, we have a few problems.
1) In Genesis 42-45 we read of Joseph being reunited with his brothers. In Genesis 42:23 it says, “And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.”
It is generally accepted that no translation is word-for-word exact. With my knowledge of Spanish and American Sign Language, I am very well aware of this fact myself. So we understand that the Hebrew translation of Joseph’s words cannot be exactly what he said in Egyptian. Now we have a dilemma: whom did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph’s Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter’s verbal translation, or Moses’ written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
2) In Exodus 4-14, we read of Moses’s encounter with Pharaoh. Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian, telling him what God told him to say. He then translates both his and Pharaoh’s conversation into Hebrew writing in the Old Testament. Which did God inspire? The verbal statement made in Egyptian, a copy of which no one on earth has or ever did have? Or did He inspire Moses’ Hebrew translation?
3) In Acts 22, Paul speaks to his tormentors in Hebrew. But Luke records the conversation in Greek. So did God inspire Paul’s words in Hebrew, or Luke’s written translation in Greek?
In all three examples, even the non-English Scripture is a translation of the original language, yet the TRANSLATION was just as inspired as the very words spoken by the men of God.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we read: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The word ‘SCRIPTURE’ comes from the root word “script” which means “written words.” All of the Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
Therefore we can know that the translations that we find in Genesis, Exodus, and Acts (among others in the Bible) are just as inspired as the original words that were given. Therefore by the Bible’s own example, translations CAN and DO carry the same inspiration of the original. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration. My English KJV Bible is Scripture, the Word of God.
If you reject the inspired Scriptures, that is between you and God, as that view flies in the face of revealed examples. But God promised that His words are perfect and pure and would be kept and preserved for ever. If we do not have perfect and pure words that were kept and preserved, then God lied. But if God did not lie yet the KJV is not it, then pray tell where it is.
Your accusation of having the mind of God? I sure hope so!
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:”
(Philippians 2:5)
God Bless!
@Joshua…actually, before English, God ‘chose’ Latin – not English – when the Bible was placed under one cover, because that was the ‘universal’ language of the time. Prior to that, the individual books & letters of the Bible were translated into other languages, such as Coptic, Syrian, etc. It wasn’t until CENTURIES later that the Bible was translated in English – first by Wycliff from Latin into English, then later Luther translated the Bible into German. Even people like Tyndale translated the Bible into English, before the 1611 version. So, to say that English was the next language God ‘chose’ to give us after He ‘chose’ the Hebrew for the Old Testament & Greek for the New Testament is historically inaccurate & very misleading…In Christ, Steve.
This all boils down to” Yea Hath God Said”.I have seen the downfall of dynamic Churches when the phrase became popular,”A better Rendering would be”and all the congregation said,Wow!.This man is smart. “This is what God really meant to say”A Great man once said”Two things that are different cannot be the same”They shall heap to themselves teachers having itching ears.
I also wondered if you had planned to add the differences between other editions of the Bible such as the NKJV, ASV, etc? I know there are major flaws in the NIV, but not everyone knows about those listed in these other types.
So happy you made this video! I see everyday how people have forgotten why we believe the way we do. They seem to be moving into a world mindset of “at least they are reading some kind of Bible.”
http://youtu.be/3EcqHZq3PPk
Please watch from the beginning upto the end!
This is not just about the NKJV, but also other PerVersions!
What does the NKJV have in common with other Versions? See for yourself. (Notice the last part of this video, regarding the “pronouns” used in the NKJV, and learn the importance behind even not changing the pronouns used in the KJB.
Charish,
I would be very careful calling God’s precious Word in other translations “Perversions.”
There were great English translations prior to the KJV and there are great English translations after the KJV.
It is one thing to love your particular translation, but to run down other translations, is really, how shall I say it? Childish! And I truly believe that you will answer to God for it. Without looking it up, I believe the KJV would call this attitude that you are displaying “Zeal without knowledge”
Would you not say that Colosians 1:4 in the New International Version is indeed a perversion?
Thank you Gentlemen for the great video! What a blessing! My 7 year old daughter thought the analogy of people being saved from an Niv but true spiritual health and growth come from the AV 1611!!
Looking froward to the next video.
PS. “the Answer Book becomes – a major motion picture”
Jerome – I’ll bet you have never even seen an AV 1611. You probably carry a 1769 revision of the 1611 that has been revised 8 times. There are more than 100,000 differences in your 1769 revision from the 1611, including 400 actual word changes. The KJV is a fine translation, just don’t get carried away about it like these anti-intellectual Ruckmanites do. Btw, Samuel “Bullgipp” Gipp is making a ton of money off of this controversey. He hasn’t the first clue about making a translation.
Greg,
You obviously do not know Dr. Gipp very well to say that he is making “a ton of money” over the king james issue. The way you have attatched yourself to this website, commenting on every comment, destroying peoples faith in God’s ability to preserve his word, is comical. Kind of like a parasite. You are a typical Bible agnostic.
The KJV version of the bible has tens of thousands of mistranslations in it place there by the anti-Christ Jews who are the children of the devil, not the Children of Jacob Israel as they claim today. In John 8:33 the Jews admitted to Jesus that they were never slaves in Egypt or Babylon so it is very clear biblically that they are NOT the people of the Old Testament. King David spent 6 months killing Edomite Jews in Edom about 3000 years ago and David was like Jesus NOT a Jew. See my web page at http://www.skipbaker.com for more on this interesting information. The Jews have stolen the Identity of the real Israelites, the White People of Europe who left Israel in 745 BC to found our father Abraham’s Many Nations in the wilderness of Europe.
Conspiracy theories. Gotta love ‘em. Way to slip in the self-advertisement.
Dr. Gipp was a huge impact on my life a decade ago. I was a Charismatic who used the New Living Translation. As I studied the issue I found there was indeed one. Dr. Gipp’s book was one of the first I ever read. Of course I also read James White’s The King James Only Controversy. I decided I had to do the study for myself and took a lot of the popular translations and compared them on key doctrines. The KJV came out superior on all issues. I decided to write my doctorate thesis on the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures as related to the KJV. If it were not for Dr. Gipp, and other men like Dr. M. H. Tabb, I may not have ever known this was an issue. Now, I am a KJV Only Baptist preacher. I am posting this to my site to spread the word. It is an excellent short film. I do hope to see more.
Praise the Lord! I do believe in King James Bible because God led King James and the group to establish the final authority,KJV 1611. Many people prayed for the Word of God to translate from Heb/Gk language into English version. They understood clearly with KJV 1611 better than other old versions of English bibles for many years until it is now as King James Version. We thank God for the awesome opportunity to understand and accept His Word forever. Salute to King James Bible!!
I understood that the other perversions were written by men whose hated the pure Word of God in these years. The bible versions are only for the comparisons and word meanings only. I am trusting KJV bible in my life for 26 years. I have other versions i never used where these on my book shelves. LOL… Trust God’s Word for the Assurance of salvation!!!
Here’s a good article about the “KJV only” issue:
http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html
Also, if you let a cup of coffee sit for 400 years, the water in it begins to evaporate & the molecular composition begins to break down to the point that it’s not coffee anymore. Likewise, since the meaning of language changes over time, translations that are ‘true’ to the original Greek & Hebrew manuscripts use updated language that better convey the intended meaning of the Biblical scripts, better than the 1611 KJV.
Steve, I read the article to which you linked, and it prompted me to go so far as to contact GotQuestions to address some subtle dishonesty I found in the answer.
While it is true that languages change over time, you have to step back and objectively admit that our language has DETERIORATED over time, not changed into a more vibrant, descriptive language. It is a fact that the English contained within the pages of the KJV is from an era that is most often considered the pinnacle of English glory, being in its purest and best form.
Consider the various translation comparisons. Words have meaning, my friend. When you change a word, you by default change meaning. Things that are different are not the same. When comparing the translations, you will often find the KJV’s word choice to be very precise and specific. The word “betwixt”, for example, has a different application than its modern counterpart “between”. To change it would introduce a variation that is not present in the original language.
In addition, your coffee adaptation lacks a certain luster. While you rightly argue that 400-year-old coffee evaporates, you missed the application within the video. Gipp was comparing the MANUSCRIPTS with the coffee, not the modern translations. The Critical Text is the one with the salt and the sugar added, from which all modern translations come. The coffee did not focus on current translations, of which the KJV would be “evaporated” in your opinion, but it instead focuses on the impurities of the Critical Text from which all modern translations are derived.
That being said, the point still stands. The KJV originated from a text that was pure in both its source and content. The other translations are based on manuscripts that were compiled and edited by men who did not even believe the gospel. Your illustration demonstrates that you missed the point.
If you have not already, I would highly recommend that you obtain and read Dr. Gipp’s book entitled “An Understandable History of the Bible”. It is without question the best and most thorough work on the topic.
God bless!
Joshua, please refer to my other post to you. By stating that the English in the middle ages is somewhat ‘superior’ to modern day English, is being really presumptuous. If not, then why don’t you speak & write that way, or read from a 1611 version than a 1769 version?
We have to remember, that the English language, even back then, was from words borrowed from other languages, like French, Latin, & Greek. It was just the ‘version’ of English that was spoken back then. Over time, as more words were borrowed from other languages, the language simply changed, but it did not ‘deteriorate.’
And as mentioned from my other post, the translators of the 1611 version didn’t have the originals to go by, but rather the copies, and it is the originals that were Inspired – not the copies, because over time there have been ‘minor’ scribal errors, which have not diminished the authenticity of the text, but shows evidence of human error. Also, if the ‘other’ older manuscripts were written by people who didn’t believe the Gospel, then why did they leave passages in their ‘version’ that taught about the true Gospel, like John 14:6 & the Deity of Christ, like John 8:58; 10:30-33; & Matthew 28:19, just to name a few?
By elevating the KJV to such a ‘superior’ status & ‘demonizing’ other versions, Christians are misdirecting their focus on why the Bible was translated into other languages to begin with – to spread the GOSPEL (not a particular translation) to every creature (Mark 16:15). By elevating medieval English into the ‘superior’ language of all time, Christians are indirectly saying that it is superior to even the original languages of the Bible & are focusing on the “creature (or creation) rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25), & almost making the KJV out to be a ‘golden calf,’ like when Hope Baptist placed a banner of the KJV in their church, in place of where – if anything – the cross should be.
Steve,
I suppose the point to be made concerning archaic words is to learn, as Dr. Gipp has always taught, how the Bible itself handles them. If a mentally impaired person cannot understand a certain word, then we can explain what the word means, but it does not give us the right to change the actual text. As I said before, to do this in order to “dumb down” the text (for lack of a better term) is to ignore the Holy Spirit’s role as teacher. There have been times that even I do not understand a word used while reading away from my computer. It is in those times I pray that the Spirit will show me Himself what that word means, as according to John 16:13, and I trust Him to do as He promised (which is a novel idea these days).
When you change the words of Scripture to make them more palatable to the less educated, you are taking action which is contrary to Scripture’s very example, and ignorant of its clear teaching.
Concerning your comment about scribal errors, I find it rather absurd in light of modern translations. If you deem the KJV less valuable today because of possible scribal errors in its copied sources, then how can you give ANY serious credibility to the modern translations whose sources were so mutilated by scribes that it was ultimately pulled out of a trash pile in order to be used? Its laughable, really.
The Textus Receptus is so called because it was the “Received Text” of the people. It has purer lines than modern translations whose text was trashed by the very men who transcribed it. Then we have the problem of… how many updates? 27? Or are we on UBS 28 now? I suppose if you stood today and preached from a Bible that used UBS 1, your sermon would not be biblical. But it was back then. And today, if you preach from a UBS 27 translation, it is accurate for now, until the next UBS text comes out, at which point, that sermon is moot.
You no longer have a firm foundation for an authoritative sermon, because you can be only as authoritative as your sources allow. But if your sources are constantly changing, then you are standing on shifting sands.
Ultimately, Steve, while there are some nuts who deify the actual KJV (and wrongly so, as you point out), the real issue is the philosophy behind my stance. I have faith in a God who can keep His promises and preserve His Word. I have faith that God did not allow men to be without His Word until modern smarty-pants had the education enough to fix God’s mistakes and losses. I am hard-pressed to find a modern textual critic who has that kind of faith in God. Rather, they believe that God allowed His Word to be lost in the sands of time, leaving countless generations without any real authoritative source for life and godliness, until one day universities could produce men smart enough to recover God’s loss.
It’s a faith position. The supporters of the King James factually have a higher view not only of the Bible, but of God Himself. We believe that God is not dependent on modern scholars to fix what He allowed to slip up, but rather has the big boy pants enough to preserve it Himself. Its a crude analogy, but no matter how you slice this debate, I can show you every time how it comes down to a lack of faith.
Read Psalm 138:2 in the King James. Now tell me if God’s view of His own Word would permit Him to allow it to be lost in the sands of time, awaiting the smarties of modern critics to fix it. If the various names of God have successfully been preserved and passed on to us, do you think His Word has not been?
In Christ,
Joshua
Joshua, where you & I agree is that there are ‘problems’ with other translations, & I am ‘not’ implying that other translations are ‘superior’ to the KJV. However, what you are not seeing is that the KJV does have problems too. It is NOT perfect. For example:
1) (KJV) “kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)
(others) “murder”
The Hebrew word used, in both KJV & other translations, is ‘ratsach,’ which means ‘premeditated MURDER or manslaughter’ which is a sin. It does not mean to ‘kill’ an animal & eat it, which is not a sin. That is a different Hebrew word. Since ‘murder’ & ‘kill’ are not the same, Biblically, the other translations are more accurate in translating the original Hebrew word for ‘murder’ than the KJV.
2) (KJV) “Easter” (Acts 12:4)
(others) “Passover”
The Greek word used, in both the KJV & other translations, is ‘pascha,’ which in every other translation, & also found elsewhere in the Bible, is ‘Passover.’ In fact, Acts 12:4 is the only place in the KJV where ‘pascha’ is translated ‘Easter.’ Every other place in the KJV, ‘pascha’ is translated ‘Passover.’ Keep in mind, Easter starts & ends on Sunday, while Passover starts on Friday, along with the feast of Unleavened Bread, which both conclude the next week. So, since Easter & Passover are different days & the KJV translates ‘pascha’ inconsistently in its own translation, other translations use the better translation for the Greek word for ‘Passover’ than the KJV.
3) (KJV) “servant” (1 Corinthians 7:21-23)
(other translations) “slave”
The Greek word used, in both the KJV & other translations, is ‘doulos,’ which denotes ‘ownership,’ which the text supports, rather than ‘oiketes,’ which simply means, ‘domestic, under the authority of another,’ but not ownership. Again, other translations are more accurate translating the original Greek word for ‘slave’ than the KJV does.
4) (KJV) “Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 27:1)
(other translations) “Zedekiah”
The Hebrew word used, in both the KJV & other translations, is ‘Tsidqiyah,’ which means ‘Zedekiah, Jehovah is righteous.” The Septuagint actually omits all of Jeremiah 27:1, while other translations use the word, “Zedekiah,’ & from reading the background of the story, Zedekiah seems to be the accurate name, not Jehoiakim. Again, the other translations are ore accurate in translating the original Hebrew name for ‘Zedekiah’ than the KJV.
I could give you many other examples, but this is just to show that although the KJV is it a good translation, it is not ‘superior’ to other translations, nor does it always go by the original Biblical languages. It DOES have translational errors in it. The KJV is a ‘translation’ of the Inspired Word of God, which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek – those are the Inspired languages, not 1611 English.
As I mentioned before, ‘good’ modern translations are ‘not’ trying to ‘improve’ on God’s Word, but rather since language changes over time, & even continues to borrow from other languages (just like 1611 English did), those archaic ‘English’ words don’t have the meaning that they have today. So, ‘good’ modern translations attempt to go back to the original Biblical languages & translate them into the best possible modern words of today. And it’s insulting to say that modern language is ‘dumbed down’ – that’s a ‘holier than thou’ attitude, implying that ‘your language is better than others’ – & you don’t even speak that way either, which is a bit hypocritical.
I too believe God is faithful & preserves His Word. But remember, His Word was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek – NOT in 1611 English. Using your logic, your method of ‘trusting God’ would be to only have people read the Old Testament in Hebrew & Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. After all, aren’t those the languages of God’s Word that we should be ‘faithful & preserve?’ If we should ‘trust God’ then we shouldn’t need the Bible translated to us in English, right? God should be able to communicate to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek and we should be able to understand it. Right?
Also, by saying that if you don’t have the ability to understand something in the KJV, then you have someone explain it to them. If that’s the case, then those people are being dependent on what another person is telling them what it means – not unlike the Catholic church who told people what the Bible said in Latin – rather than allowing the individual to read it for themselves & to be like the Bereans & “examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Yes, we all need people to teach & help us understand difficult passages of Scripture like the Ethiopian eunich, however, if we ‘blindly’ believe what others are teaching us, without a source we can understand to see if what they are teaching is true or not, then we run the risk of being like the Christians who based their salvation on the leaders of the Catholic church.
Lastly, I noticed that you avoided my question – again. If the KJV is ‘perfect’ & untainted from the original manuscripts, then how do you explain the ‘extra Cainan’ in the KJV that is in Luke’s Gospel, which is neither found in Genesis in the KJV, nor in the Septuagint? I know other translations have this ‘error’ in it too, but I am merely trying to get you to see with this, along with my other examples above, that the KJV is ‘not’ perfect or unblemished, & that other translations of the Bible (and that’s all the KJV is – a translation), are more accurate to the original Inspired text in some passages, than some passages in the KJV. If you can’t see this by now, then you are more like the Jews in Thessalonica (Acts 17:11-13) than those in Berea.
Peace in Christ, Steve.
Steve,
I’m not trying to start a big debate with you on here, because I know from experience that they get long and drawn out without really accomplishing anything. I do want to note, however, that your “Easter” comment is actually in error. If you read the passage very carefully, you will find a key phrase that clearly tells you that “Easter” is the only possible word there, else the Bible would have a very glaring error to call it Passover, as do the modern versions.
Also, so that you don’t accuse me of ignoring you again (which I promise I didn’t intentionally do in the first place), there are a few things to keep in mind about the “extra” Cainan. Firstly, “son of” or “begat” does not denote direct father/son relationship in the Bible. The most obvious being Jesus when called the son of David. David was called Saul’s son more than once. Ruth was called Naomi’s daughter. Yet none of theses are actually “correct” in our American understanding of “son/daughter”.
That being said, there are two plausible explanations for the “extra” Cainan. Neither of these explanations question the inerrancy or accuracy of Scripture, like so many scholars are quick to do now days.
Option #1:
Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his “father”. Remember, the word “son” or “begat” does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship.
Option #2:
Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad’s daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having “begotten” Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad’s “son”, even though he was in fact his son-in-law.
Both of these options offer a PLAUSIBLE solution that doesn’t break Scripture (John 10:35). I do not claim to know the absolutely correct answer, but these both fit the Scriptures.
If we do not have a correct, perfect Bible today, then pray tell what is in error. At that point, it is man who takes authority over Scripture to determine what is right and what is wrong. And we are at the mercy of the Scholars who claim that authority.
To help a man understand a single difficult word or phrase does not put them at your mercy in ANY way similar to what the Catholic church did to entire continents, and your comparison is laughable. But again, the Holy Spirit is our teacher. If you search the Scriptures daily as did the Bereans, God will guide you into all truth. I believe that many mentally handicapped men have a better understanding of God and His word than we learned men have. Frankly, I believe that because we are too smart for our own good. We try to explain away what we don’t like, while they approach it with the faith of a child. God blesses humility, and may God have mercy on me when I build myself up in the conceit of my own knowledge and wisdom (Proverbs 26:12).
God Bless, brother.
Josh
“Easter” is the proper translation of pascha.
You may think you know Greek, but you certainly don’t know the feast days. The days of unleavened bread are AFTER the Passover – Numbers 28:16-18. The context of the passage demands something else. Pascha is referring to Resurrection Sunday. Herod understood what Peter and the others believed regarding Christ’s resurrection. He was waiting until that observation by the new Christians was over with.
Here’s something anecdotal – I grew up Syrian Orthodox, but was saved by grace through faith at the age 27 – thank you Jesus! Guess what they refer to Easter as? PASCHA!
@Bro Ted…in the Bible, ‘Passover’ can either refer to the actual day, or it can refer to the ‘Passover season,’ which overlaps with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which lasts a week. ‘The Feast of First Fruits’ is what we today call ‘Easter.’ The origins of ‘Easter,’ which is actually a pagan holiday, which celebrated an evil goddess of fertility, is why many Christians prefer to call Easter Sunday, ‘Resurrection Sunday.’ Personally, I still call it ‘Easter Sunday’ to distinguish it from Passover, or ‘Good Friday.’ Also, Passover was a ‘set’ holiday for the Jews (Nisan 14), while Easter is a ‘moving’ holiday set by the Roman Catholic church, based on the moon, to coincide with Lent, which is why it falls on a different Sunday every year. That is why most major modern translations, that try to stay true to the original Biblical languages, translate Pascha as ‘Passover,’ rather than ‘Easter.’ And as far as the Syrian Orthodox goes, praise Jesus that you came to Christ!
However, the Syrian Orthodox did not write our Bible, so just because they call Pascha ‘Easter’ does not mean that they are the same day. Even the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible translates Pascha as ‘Passover,’ because that is the correct translation, especially when you read the surrounding text of Acts 12 in context…In Christ, Steve.
@Bro Ted…also, consider this: ‘pascha’ (πάσχα) – ‘the paschal feast, the feast of the Passover, extending from the 14th to the 20th day of the month Nisan’ (source: Strong’s Concordance). Matthew even writes that Passover was the ‘first’ day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26:17), even though it technically starts on Nisan 15. When you take this into consideration & read Acts 12:4 in context the way it’s meant to, ‘Passover,’ not ‘Easter’ is the correct translation, which is why most modern translations translate ‘Pascha’ as ‘Passover’ & not ‘Easter’ as the KJV does, & why ‘Pascha’ is translated ‘Passover’ in the rest of the Bible, including in the KJV. ‘Easter’ is just a mistranslation on the part of the KJV translators. I don’t fault them for that, but we need to acknowledge that they weren’t God. They are human just like the rest of us, & make mistakes just like the rest of us….In Christ, Steve.
@Bro Ted…one last thing, a Christian named James White has already started doing a very objective, in-depth, & thoroughly researched critique of this video & the whole ‘KJV-only’ movement. He was brought up on the KJV & offers his thoughts based on very reliable & logical historical evidence of the history of the Bible. Check out this link to “Part 1″:
http://youtu.be/UNGa_dRTNMo
I have faith in a God that didn’t leave his English speaking people without the word of God until 1611.
@Greg…AMEN! Well put!
and you win……. natta!
Great website. Sam Gipp’s “the answer book” is worth its weight in Gold.
Aaron – “The Answer Book” is probably the biggest piece of propaganda in KJVonlyism, right next to it is the thrice-married drivel of Gail Riplinger NABV.
Well, said – like the coffee & getting saved examples. I also liked the 2 bible angle. I only read the KJV – I believe that it is the word of God in English. I believe that the KJV defines its own words & that it’s grammar & punctuation are concise & consistent meaning that it could be simple for anyone to know exactly what God says to us. Jesus is the Lord.
Then I guess we should really be reading out of the original 1611 ‘version’ of the King James Bible, rather than the 1769 ‘update,’ and if memory serves me correctly, the Catholic Apocrypha was included in the King James Bible.
The 1769 edition is the same word as the 1611 edition. A printer making print mistakes and Christians correcting it does not alter the Word of God. If you want you can use the 1900′s Cambridge Edition. Or any other such edition in the family line. They do not change anything doctrinally. As for the issue of the Apocrypha, it was included between the testaments as a historical addendum and not as inspired Scripture. The puritans pushed to have it removed and by 1612 there were editions without the apocrypha already in publication. The Translators did not consider the apocrypha inspired. The inclusion of something in the Bible does not make it inspired. For example, the maps in a Bible are not inspired. Ushher’s timeline is not inspired. The notes in a study Bible are not inspired. We have to use rational sanity and sound faith when approaching a weighty issue such as the translations. The King James is perfect. Over a decade of research into every aspect has proven that more and more to me.
Dr. Bush, thank you for your feedback. My comment stemmed from the fact that many ‘KJV only’ Christians will only adhere to the ‘current’ 1769 KJV translation. What is your take on the 21st Century KJV update? Many ‘KJV only’ Christians are against it even though it is true to the Textus Receptus, just with updated, modern language. Also, if the Textus Receptus was translated today, would it use the same language as the 1769 version? Probably not.
Another question is: what was the purpose of translating the Bible into English to begin with? I believe it was so the common folk could not only read God’s Word in their native tongue, but also understand the gospel message of salvation, without having to rely on what the Church told them. Today, the KJV can be difficult to understand for the uneducated. So, what is more important – reading to them out of a text that they won’t be able to understand on their own, or allowing them to read a version that teaches the gospel accurately which gives them the assurance of their salvation, by using more updated, modern language (NASB, ESV, etc) that they can comprehend, but which is still true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek? Most of the translations today teach the Gospel correctly. If we hold too tight to a particular translation, rather than focus on the purpose God gave us His Word to begin with, we may become like the Catholic church – making the masses dependent on ‘our’ understanding of the Gospel & which translation is ‘perfect,’ & missing the real purpose of spreading the Gospel.
I also agree that the Apocrypha is ‘not’ Inspired. The Reformers knew this too. So, why did the Reformers leave it in the Bible for so long, & then other Protestants remove it later so long after the Council of Trent? I agree that there are ‘bad’ translations of the Bible that can mislead people, like ‘The Message.’ However, since the meaning of language changes over time, there are ‘good,’ modern translations of the Bible that use updated, modern language, which actually use language that is closer to the original Biblical languages, so the reader can understand, like “You shall not murder,” instead of “Thou shalt not kill,” & “dwelling place’ instead of “mansion” (John 14:2) & still be led to the real Jesus.
Spreading the GOSPEL is the Church’s job to lead people to Christ – not try to convince people which translation is ‘perfect.’ Also, if there was a conspiracy to remove certain versions to corrupt God’s Word & lead people away from the real Jesus, then why didn’t ‘they’ remove every verse that gave evidence of Christ’s Deity & the Trinity (like Matthew 28:19; John 1:1,14; 8:58; 10:30; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1), or that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (John 14:6)? – all which are in most modern translations of the Bible.
As the body of Christ, we have to be careful not to make God’s Word out to be a deity & break the 1st two commandments, nor go beyond our mandate to spread the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Peace in Christ, Steve.
To say that we must update the KJV because of “hard” words is to say that we should cater to the lazy. We have more tools and resources at our instant, online disposal than any human being in the history of the planet. Words have meaning, so to change the word is to change the meaning. Rather than change what God said just for the lazy to get it, maybe the lazy need to become dedicated followers of Christ who are willing to put some elbow grease into their Bible studies. The Bible says to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed…” If a person is not even willing to so much as pick up a dictionary, then pray tell how they can possibly qualify as a “Studious” workman that needeth not to be ashamed.
Some new translations cater to the “street” or “blue-collar” language so that the lost can understand the Bible. But this very attempt demonstrates an ignorance of 1 Corinthians 2:14, “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” So if the modern translators succeeded in their goal, then the Bible is a lie.
Furthermore, this argument totally ignores the clear promise of Jesus in John 16:13 when He said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” The Holy Spirit will guide in ALL truth. If a believer reads something they do not understand, the Spirit is there to guide them. Modern translations seek to circumvent that method and cater to the carnal ideas.
Joshua, with all due respect, I think you are missing my point. By saying ‘uneducated,’ I’m not talking about ‘lazy’ people who are intelligent but don’t want to make the effort to learn. I’m talking about people who don’t have the mental capability to understand the ‘old English’ of the 1769 version of the KJV of the Bible. Believe it or not, there are people who don’t have that ability, like certain people who live on the streets or people with mental impairments, etc. Even the young man in the video stated that the person he knew, got saved through a different translation.
We have to remember that the whole reason for translating the Bible into English in the middle ages was to translate it into language so that people could understand the GOSPEL for themselves. Think about it…if the same Hebrew & Greek manuscripts weren’t translated until today, today’s English Bible would read much different than the 1769 KJV. In fact, it would probably read closer to more modern translations. For instance, it would use ‘fill’ instead of ‘replenish’ in Genesis 1:28 & 9:11, and “dwellings or abodes” instead of “mansions” in John 14:2, because those words are more closer to the original Hebrew & Greek meanings. If the Bible was translated before 1611, they would also use different words than the 1611 version. So, it’s not that language has ‘deteriorated’ over time, it just changes. If not, then why don’t you read from a 1611 version & speak in medieval English? Or read & teach from the original Hebrew & Greek?
We also have to realize that the original autographs are what was Inspired, not the copies or the translations. And since the translators of the 1611 version didn’t have the original Old & New Testament autographs, there is no way to know ‘for sure’ that the Textus Receptus is an ‘exact’ copy of the originals, regardless of what the video tries to get us to believe. For instance, in the KJV, Luke 3:36 states that Shelah was the son of Cainan who was the son of Arphaxad, while Genesis 10:24 tells us that Salah (Shelah) was the son of Arphaxad (not Cainan), while the ‘oldest’ copies of the Septuagint don’t mention Cainan. This is most likely a scribal error, but does not diminish the text, since we are reading ‘copies’ of the Inspired autographs, not the originals themselves.
We also have to be careful how we come across to people we are witnessing to. If we have 2 people – one who is KJV only & another who reads numerous translations & compares them to the original languages for understanding – and they are arguing about whether the ‘KJV’ is the ‘only’ version to use or not, that can be a poor witness for Christ when we’re witnessing to someone & can actually ‘push’ people away from Christ. It is a correct teaching the GOSPEL, ‘not’ a particular translation, that leads people to a saving knowledge of Jesus, which is written correctly in most modern translations.
“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.” – 1 Corinthians 1:10
“old english of 1769″…Huh?
The English Language developed in three segments:
•Old English: 449 AD – 1100 AD
•Middle English: 1100 AD – 1450 AD
•Modern English: 1450 AD – Present
Hmmm…I guess the KJB would be “Modern English”. Imagine that!
Btw Steve,
What would be your “Final Authority”?
Abraham, when I said ‘Old English,’ I was attempting to be as clear as possible that I was referring to the style of English that was spoken in 1611, with words like ‘shew,’ ‘thee,’ ‘ye,’ ‘believeth,’ etc. that isn’t used as much in TODAY’S ‘modern’ English. I didn’t realize that I would actually have to explain that. I figured that people would have had enough common sense to understand that. And as far as my final authority? It’s Jesus Christ as my personal Lord, God, & Savior for the final payment of my sin, which had eternally separated me from God, until Jesus died on the cross & said “It is finished” – and I accepted that after reading the GOSPEL from a translation, which was ‘not’ KJV.
BTW, I’m not ‘anti-KJV,’ nor do I ‘hate’ the KJV, even though many ‘KJV only’ Christians seem to believe that people who aren’t ‘KJV only’ actually ‘hate’ it. In fact, I own one & do reference it. However, I do cross-reference it with other translations, & look to the original Hebrew & Greek, which helps me better understand something I may not get with another translation, such as the KJV.
For example, in Revelation 21:17, the KJV writes, “And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel,” while the NIV writes, “He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man’s measurement, which the angel was using.” By using the word ‘thick,’ the NIV better helps the reader to understand which dimension of the wall is 144 cubits, which is not as clear as the KJV.
Also, if a person who is witnessing to someone who speaks another language, are you going to wait until they learn 1611 English since their language is not as ‘superior’ to 1611 English, or are they going to use a translation in their own language based on the original Hebrew & Greek? That is what ‘good’ modern English translations do, only it’s difference in generational speaking vs. difference in actual languages. In many ways, ‘KJV only’ Christians are not unlike the medieval Roman Catholic church – only instead of insisting on preaching from the ‘Latin only,’ you guys preach from ‘KJV only.’
If the translators of the 1611 KJV were alive today, I think they’d be shocked & saddened how their original intention of translating the Bible into a language, so people could come to an understanding & saving knowledge of Jesus Christ on their own from reading the Gospel, has been twisted into one translation, based on a version of a language in a certain moment in time, being the only translation that should be read. That is about as legalistic as you can get, not unlike the Roman Catholic church or the Pharisees.
“‘Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’” (Matthew 15:2-3)
Abraham, one more thing. I noticed you didn’t address the comment I made in the post that you replied to:
“In the KJV, Luke 3:36 states that Shelah was the son of Cainan who was the son of Arphaxad, while Genesis 10:24 tells us that Salah (Shelah) was the son of Arphaxad (not Cainan), while the ‘oldest’ copies of the Septuagint don’t mention Cainan.”
Since all Scripture is Inspired by God, it is unlikely that Luke would have made a mistake by putting in an extra Cainan in the genealogy. The only other explanation is that a later scribe, who was copying the text, inadvertently added another Cainan to the genealogy, which then was copied, & remains today in the KJV. So, as you can see, the KJV is ‘not’ perfect.
Steve:
Concerning your example with Shelah/Cainan/Arphaxad. It seems to me ‘telescoping’ of genealogies is a very typical thing that describes what’s going on in your example (http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-genesis-genealogies).
I do have reservations about ‘Alexandrian’ manuscripts. However, the obscurity of a lot of the old English language in the KJV does seem to be an obvious practical reality to me. A modern English translation of ‘Textus Receptus’ would be something I’d feel very comfortable with.
So wrong – Ugh on this comment – just plain ugh!
Wrong?
Abraham, also, did you notice that in the video at 2:30, when Dr. Gipp was talking about Antioch, he stated, “many of the originals we have today ‘MAY’ have been penned there” (emphasis added)? First, we don’t have the originals, & neither did the translators of the 1611 version. Second, by saying ‘MAY,’ Dr. Gipp is saying that he is ‘assuming’ that the were penned in Antioch. Even if that is true, we have no proof that they were penned there, which is why Dr. Gipp said, ‘MAY have been penned there,’ instead of ‘WERE penned there.’ Our faith in the authenticity of the Bible & on the God-man Jesus Christ for the final payment for our sins, should not be based on assumptions, but on evidence (Hebrew 11:1). Peace! Steve.
Some “translations” do cater to street lingo, and I dare say most of them are woefully inaccurate, but many modern translations(NASB, NET, etc) do not do that and are very accurate, very good translations. Just because something is modern doesn’t make it wrong. I have grown up on the KJV, and I love reading from it, and sometimes another translation will give a complementary nuance to the KJV wording. We just have to be careful, and study out which translations we should use, and which ones we shouldn’t.
Hi Chad,
We meet again.
I wonder about you sometimes. Do you really not know your subject matter, and just buy the old standard KJV only fare, or do you really avail yourself of source material and actually put your KJV biases aside and attempt to learn your subject.
For instance, do you really believe that the 1769 KJV revision and the 1611 translation of the KJV are the same with simple spelling and printing errors fixed? If a person wanted to know the answer to that question, using their computer, I suspect it would take no longer than 2 hours to fully find out as much as they ever wanted to about this subject. They would, in that two hours find out that “staunch”and may I add “honest” KJV supporters admit to over 400 “word” changes. PLEASE!!!! Have your KJV bias, but please don’t mislead folks. I mean we’re Christians right? Be honest!
Right now different publishers have their KJV’s out in print that don’t agree with one another, I just find it hard to believe that you don’t know this. So tell me if the Cambridge and the Oxford editions disagree with one another, which one should I believe, which one is the preserved, perfect word of God without error.
I’ll close with a quote from Claude Bernard, in his book “An introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine”
“It is better to know nothing, than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek, neglecting meanwhile everything that fails to agree with them.”
Chad – Do you know nothing at all about these issues, or do you simply swallow what the kings of KJVonlyism spout. There are more than 100,000 changes from the 1611 to the 1769 KJV commonly in use today, with 400 or so actual word changes. Pls have your KJV bias, that’s ok, I have my favorite translations as well, but please don’t lie about it!! After all, we’re supposed to be christians.
Will you list twenty of these “word changes?”
I’m tired it’s late, glad you challenged me, because you see I don’t know everything, but I do know a few things. I’m going to start with just 3 because I’m tired, but these three differences are fairly substantial. I checked these 3 tonight myself with my own 1611 KJV. You should definitely get one it contains the “The Translators to the Readers” You should probably read that first, because you will know for sure what these good, Anglican translators would think of this silly KJVonly business.
2 Kings 11:10 1611- “In the Temple” 1769 – “In the Temple of the Lord” So what is it, just any old temple or the Temple of the Lord?
Isaiah 49:13 1611 – “For God” 1769 – “For the Lord”
Jeremiah 31:14 1611 – “With goodness” 1769 – “with my goodness”
Not earthshattering but “different” What was that KJVidiots book title “Things that are different are not the same” You see I revere the KJV, it is a fine 17th century translation. Because of these simple differences here, I don’t condemn this translation. But I see all manner of vile negative comments on this site throwing around words like “perversion.” I don’t want to sound like a prophet, but folks will answer for calling God’s word in other translations perversions.
2 kings 11:10 Printers error. Found and corrected in 1638.
Jeremiah 31:14 Printers error. Found and corrected in 1629.
Isaiah 49:13 Printers error called “substitution.” Also found and corrected well before 1769.
As a matter of fact 70-75% of all textual errors in the Authorized version were found and corrected well before 1769. Most were fixed by 1638.
Nathan – We are supposed to both be Christians, those were not corrected. I have my 1611 KJV and my 1769 KJV right here still on my desk, the very ones that I checked those references, they are still in my 1769 KJV, are you calling me a liar? Or are you saying I got hold of a very strange KJV? I think what happened is that you got ahold of some stupid KJVonly book or wacky website and didn’t look these up for yourself. I appeal to you for your sakes, KJVonlyism is a very bad, graceless legalistic trap. Standing by for your apology, and yes I will accept it.
Not sure if the KJV translators thought the Apocrypha was inspired, but they sure did reference it an awful lot in the 1611 KJV, to the tune of, get this, 113 times!!!
More than 100,000 differences between the 1769 and the 1611, 400 of those are actual “word changes” Of course the 1611 has been revised now 11 times and counting, which is kinda odd, if you believe that God can “preserve” His word perfectly. Why change it 11 times?
And if your not doing much, perhaps you can explain how God can preserve every word, work with all the scribes and coypists, and then translators upon translators and then come to the printing press and whooops, it surprises God, He apparently has never seen such a thing.
We have God’s word in aggregate, and any faithful translation is God’s word.
What manuscripts were the ESV translated from?
” (snip) they’re all based upon the corrupt Greek work of heretics Westcott and Hort.”
see more here: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/esv.htm
From here the horses mouth: http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv/translation/manuscripts/
“The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.
The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.
In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.”
YIKES!!!!!
“Ladies and Gentlemen, if you would, please turn in your Bibles to 2 Timothy 3:16 for my sermon text today. Now, I am reading from the most current ESV which utilizes the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek text. Now, being the 27th edition, that means the prior 26 are less accurate and, well…. wrong. But this one is right. That is, until the 28th edition is published, at which point this one will be less accurate.
“So I now stand before you today to declare ‘Thus saith the LORD…’ er…. ‘This says the LORD,’ according to today’s rendering. But don’t hold me to it, because it might change next week. But it is accurate for today at least.
“Moving on, I am now going to preach on how we should always trust the Bible as our final authority…. until scholars take authority to rewrite it.”
At times, it cracks me up. At others, it drives me to tears.
Joshua .. all I can say is Bravo
Satan being the father of lies and confusion is oh so happy with the many different versions of the Bible, confusion they were meant to create and they do it very well. I myself could not even imagine sitting in a service conducted even a little bit as you describe above.
I am so thankful for the preacher that the Lord has given me that stands upon the KJV only truth. Most of all I thank God above for the KJV that I have sitting on my desk, the one by my chair and the 2 my wife carries.
I thank God for the Lord Jesus Christ.
Whom you would know nothing about outside of the Bible.
That’s such a weak analogy. The “1611″ version you hold to has also been tweaked and clarified through the ages (1629 and 1638). In fact, what many believe to be the 1611 is most likely the Standard Text of 1769, where 24,000 tweaks were made of which only 30 were reverted back to the original. PLUS, the heretical Apocrypha was included in the original 1611. Rightfully so, some who had incredible discernment saw fit to remove those unproven, false books. Aren’t you glad?
Actually the ESV is more of a paraphrase from the ASV, which was a translation finished in the early 20th C.
That being said, the fact that there are 27 editions of the UBS Greek text, is because there are often discoveries of manuscripts that are older, more complete, etc. Plus, you have to realize that most of the “changes” are in the apparatus section, as opposed to the text itself. The thing is, the earliest manuscripts in the TR are much MUCH later than those of the Alexandrian, and others that go into the Critical Text. And, the older the manuscript, the higher the probability of accuracy.
Thanks for the excellent reply Chuck! Man, we’ve never heard that “scholarly” explanation before. You’re the best. But we KJB Onlyists would appreciate if you would just limit all your future responses to the following format:
I am the final authority of faith and practice; not any version of the Bible.
Thomas,
I apologize if my response sounded condescending, because that was certainly not my intention. I simply put forth what I believe and why. I don’t understand the need for sarcasm, and I’m befuddled by your last statement. God should be the final authority, as He is the Author and Finisher of our faith. BTW, I love the KJV!
Or you could say the older the manuscript the higher the probability of corruption. See 2 Corinthians 2:17 in an Authorized Version.
Nathan, I’m starting to wonder about you. You do realize that both letters to the Corinthians were written in Greek don’t you?
Amen! Thank you for making this video. The King James Bible is the perfect word of God!
AMEN!! KJV or nothing…
Why would you limit God in this way?
Awesome concept. I will look forward to seeing more episodes!
i’m not drinking the coffee
I’m not drinking the kool-aid.
Interesting video! I never knew much about the whole controversy.
Peter – If you took any of this to heart, you know even less now!!
Your right Greg, it’s foolish to believe in a perfect Bible…
Nathan, Would you take just a minute and show me the verse that tells me God is going to give me a “perfect” English bible in 1611, well nearly perfect, had to be revised 11 times 12 if you count the NKJV, but most KJVonly’s don’t, calling God’s word in this fine translation a “perversion” as well..so I’m waiting……………yea, that’s what I thought.
“Come out from among them (kjv worshippers) and be ye (what’s a ye?) seperate.