King James Only Refutation Videos

[Trinitron]

There is more than this.  Obviously, most people will not even take the time to watch these even if they claim they are interested in the subject.  These explain what some of the King James Only people think, how they justify their position, and the origins of these thoughts.

 

Edited July 16, 2014 by OneLight
removed other video links - one video per thread please

[Guest]

Cool Stuff~!

[Trinitron]

Well, I don't know what do say about this...

Edited July 16, 2014 by Trinitron

[OneLight]

I removed the 30 other links in your post. Please post one video per thread.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Trinitron...

    Well,you are right about one thing.....I did not take time to watch the video.......when "Hi ,this is Albert" stated he was going to use the chart "that he is not sure where it came from"......that was enough for me to put Albert on my "pay no mind "list.......I am not really sure what your issue with KJV but as in everything,trust God & His direction,there are plenty of other translations out there..........personally,after years of my own study & research with what is available to me in early Greek Text,Latin Vulgate etc....I find the KJV a good & reliable version of Gods Word

                                                                                                                                 With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Trinitron]

Well there you go.

 

I had about 30 videos listed.  The moderator picked one less than 10 minute one so that's it I guess.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Trinitron

[Guest]

Well there you go.

 

I had about 30 videos listed. 

 

The moderator picked one less than 10 minute one so that's it I guess.

 

~

 

Beloved, Post Each Video

 

In It's Own Thread

 

And I Will Be Glad

 

To Review It

 

And To Release It If Appropriate

 

You Had Over Five Hours Of Video Bunched Up In One Post

 

And Besides Being Very Sick At Times, This Is Way Too Much For Me To Review All At Once

 

With Both My Wife And I Going To The Doctors As They Fight To Keep Us Smiling

 

And With My Duties To Keep Her Feed And To Enjoy The Time We Have Left

 

And To Clean Some

 

And With My Other Duties At Worthy

 

And A Strong Desire To Be Part Of This Community

 

And To Read And Enjoy Worthy

 

And To Contribute

 

But Still

 

The Videos I Did Watch Are Wonderful

 

So I Hope You Can Make The Time

 

And Give This Resource

 

To Your Family

 

At Worthy

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Trinitron]

1.  The new translations leave out portions of the Biblical text that was accepted as the Bible for hundreds of years, and their only explanation is "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  Defenders claim they do this because older manuscripts found in caves leave those verses out, but the only reason they are older is because they weren't in use and were preserved.  The others had to be copied as they naturally deteriorated with age.  The other excuse some have used to defend them is that the majority of the manuscripts leave out the verses they leave out, but that could be the result of a first copy leaving it out by mistake, and copies having been made of copies.  Do any videos explain any of that away?

New translations don't leave out anything.  The texts they are using do not have the portions you speak of.

More worn out means better texts.  So if a Jehovah's Witness bible gets worn out, it's the better and correct text?  

Find any texts of the same material from an older time to a newer time in history and you know what?  Magically the more recent ones are always longer and fuller than the older ones.  These are things that scholars and people that study all ancient texts know about.  The scribes that copied down the bible experienced something called cross pollination.  That is where when they were copying a Gospel or an Epistle, they think something's missing because there is a similar account in another Gospel or Epistle that they are more familiar with, so they add in what they think is missing.  Another thing that was common was, a copyist would add some some descriptive notes in the margins. Later copyists, unsure if it's part of the text would add it into the text since it must have sounded good to them and to let something go missing forever would have been the worse of the two choices.  As far as a specific old text leaving some out, there are enough older text sources to cross reference to make sure that does not happen.

2.  Those who hold to new translations all claim there is no Bible we can rely on to be 100 percent accurate.  Only those of us who are KJV only hold to the belief God preserved his Word.  Can they provide a reason why we should put our trust in a book that is perhaps only 95 percent accurate?  How do we put our confidence in books that are less than "state of the art" when it is possible new discoveries could lead to more of the Bible being removed?  Do they have any answers to those questions?

 

Yes, no bible can be 100% accurate.  The raw original language texts we have, do have variants.  When I say this, variants mean word for word.  That doesn't mean the meaning is changed.  From Greek to English, in many cases when there are words that vary from text to text, there still isn't a translatable difference.  For example, 24 different words in Greek can simply mean good in English.  Also, at the time of the KJV there were about 500 Greek words they weren't sure of where in modern times, it's down to about 50.  Realize that every single text discovered has variants to each other.  That's including the ones used for the KJV.  The Textus Receptus you can buy now from the Trinitarian Bible Societyscrivener's 1894 version is actually a backwards engineered KJV into Greek so it has the illusion of something that isn't the case.  Meaning wise, it is more accurate to say that every bible today is about 98% the same in meaning.  That doesn't mean that the doctrine can't be 100% accurate.  Yes, the many video's can prove many things that I can't possibly present all here unless it was my job.  If you were really interested in the truth, you would be actively seeking out all of this information instead of people trying to plead with you seek it.  I could P.M. you the links that are missing if you are interested(someone stop me if this isn't allowed).  

If you have any answers to those questions, please seek to have them posted first, because that is all I am interested in.  I don't care about all the other reasons why some have been KJV only.  I only care why I am KJV only.

 

I used to be KJV only and I have to tell you that for me it was a great feeling.  I felt much more secure and happy in the fact that I had God's preserved word in my hand and didn't have to question, doubt, or do any additional research for anything.  When I realized that it wasn't the truth, I had to move away from that notion.  The KJV dominated as a translation for 400 years let's say and that is a good argument?  The Latin Vulgate dominated as a translation for 1100 years.  So should I learn Latin and only use that version?  The apocrypha was part of the christian tradition for over 75% of the existence of Christianity.  So should I accept the apocrypha as Cannon?  The LXX also known as the Septuagint was the accepted text for Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity not to mention more often than not used to quote the Old Testament by the New Testament authors.  So maybe that's the only version I should use instead of Jerome's government enforced Old Testament Hebrew text based version that made the Latin Vulgate.  Do you see what's happening?  The LXX in a sense was deified, then the Latin Vulgate after resistance, then Erasmus came along and advocated primacy of the Greek Texts which was opposed and then accepted.  In modern day people are holding onto the KJV TR tradition.  As you can see, the cycle is consistent and has not changed much over time as regarding to the primacy of texts and translations of texts.  I choose truth over tradition.  The scholars we have today are honest and Godly and are trying to give us the most accurate translation possible.  They are trying to find out exactly what the authors wrote.  It will be resisted just as any change to the tradition always has this effect.

[Trinitron]

If you prefer your pre elizabethan era government issued bible that outlawed other bibles to be produced that used very few late added to texts that don't even resemble the Alexandrian or Byzantine Type, feel free.  You argue that the KJV is literal.  It's a literal translation, but of a dynamic Greek text, where something like the NLT is a dynamic translation of a literal Greek text.  Off course now you have exposed your true colors as all King James Onlyists secretly feel that new translations are Satanic Catholic perversions.  It's a big conspiracy against God breathed bible, the KJV, kept hidden away, until the worthy white anglicans came along worthy to receive it.  You do realize that you proclaim that the KJV is just your personal preference and no one should talk against it, yet you feel it's fine to down talk other Christians versions that they use.  That's not offensive or hypocritical.

[Trinitron]

 

 

You didn't answer any of my comments here, so I figured I would re-post them.  If you take this along with my response to your last post, it should be abundantly clear what I meant, and that it had nothing to do with a Catholic conspiracy.  I would also point out that when you are calling my comments offensive and hypocritical, and claiming I am talking down to people, it was you that made the sarcastic comments about the KJV Bible being found among the dead sea scrolls.  If you are going to accuse me of talking down to people, and being hypocritical, you need to look in the mirror first. 

 

 

Well, KJV being part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, please.  That was a joke.  The NT wasn't even compiled yet let alone the Hebrew cannon being established.  Also the English language not even close to being developed to where we would even recognize it today.  On the other hand, you are being serious about the new translations.  J.P. Green's works, the MKJV/LITV/KJ3 are from the TR and in modern language but I'm sure they are no good to you.  The NKJV is no good.  The YLT I'm sure is also no good.