HalleluYah Keh-Dalia God meant His Word to flow as we read for greater ease and understanding of His plan. Modern translations use new, nuenced words at times more complicated and demote the diety of Yeshua calling him the "one" instead of the "Son" and the at times call God, "He".

Glad you enjoyed it!

Yahusha? It's Yahshua. Yahusha is a fairly recent invention by somebody that does not have a firm grasp of the Hebrew.

A digital version is currently being worked on. Sadly it is not ready just yet.

We left the errors of the KJV in the text for the sake of educating those who read the bible. We address the issue in the footnotes.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry I understand and appreciate that, although my question is; do you folks foresee doing it the other way around in the 5th edition? In other words, correcting the KJV where it is clearly wrong and then placing the errors in the footnotes instead of the other way around? Just curious, you folks do a wonderful job!

Perhaps, We are always looking for new ways to clarify and be more accurate. It is a consideration to be sure! Thank you for your kind words.

I certainly wouldn't say the Apocrypha was venerated in any way, we have to remember, There were a number of mystic and gnostic scrolls discovered along with the legitimate scrolls. Much like we said in our video, we have to prove all things. When Alan said it was a "Catholic invention" I believe he meant they canonized it. They made a decision to include some, not all of the Apocryphal books. Obviously there is some historic value, but the whole point was that the translators of the KJV once accepted them as canon thus calling into question the KJV only line of thinking. There are a number of apocryphal writings that are against the scriptures we have. We don't mind people reading it, but they have to recognize that they are not included for a reason.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry - Got it. I hear what you're saying, and agree about the KJV only inconsistency, but using the phrase, "they canonized it," applies to ALL the canon, so that too is an inconsistency and a moot point. Having read the Apocrypha (and Enoch) extensively, I would not even say that they "are against Scripture," which is a really broad brush! There a handful of lines that appear to conflict with the canon, but as I say, may simply be scribal error, and out of all the Books of all the Apocrypha, that only really applies to two or three. Books like Azaryah and Menasseh are incredible witnesses to the Name of Yahweh and His forgiveness.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry The KJB translators did not accept the apocryphal writings as cannon, they placed them into the KJB bible initially as "historical informatioin" but later removed them as people like yourselves incorrectly assumed they were canonised.

The King James is not a "Bad" translation. But it is certainly not the ONLY inspired translation.

I don’t like the KJV but I still read it sometimes

The issue we have with Enoch is that we have no ancient backing for any of it outside of a few fragments of a scrolls found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We do believe Enoch wrote and prophesied. But what we have now, including what you just quoted is most certainly NOT the original. Concerning 1 Enoch, Its only complete extant version is an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation made in Palestine from the original Hebrew or Aramaic and it was likely written around the 2nd Century BCE. So it is unlikely that it was actually Enoch's original writing. Part of it could be authentic, but we have no way of proving it. The other books attributed to "Enoch" date much later with 2 Enock dating to around the 2nd Century CE. 3 Enoch dating to around the 5th Century CE. Yahweh willing, we hope some day to find the original texts that Enoch wrote. But as of today, the "Book of Enoch" we have now is almost certainly a "modern" addition compared to the older more authentic books from the bible.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry There's still lots of information that really makes alot of sense, including some prophecy's and some that are yet to happen.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry What i just quoted is talking about those who added and removed from the bible.

@@Thruthlover - While I really like the Book of Enoch, I would be cautious about using the "removed from the Bible" line... Remember that, never in history was there a "Bible." There were multiple Scrolls, and to even own one was a sign of wealth and I, personally, see the Texts that speak of "adding" or "removing" as being specific to that Scroll or more importantly, the Torah.

" If God wants us to have His Word, do you really think He's going to wait a few thousand years to expose more of His Word that's fragmented and hidden in a cave." Sure he would. Proverbs 25:2: It is the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. The idea that Yahweh's word is immune to corruption is silly. Why else would Yahweh lay out punishments for altering it? Deuteronomy 4:2: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of Yahweh your Elohim that I give you. Deuteronomy 12:32 See that you do everything I command you; do not add to it or subtract from it. Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. Yahweh CLEARLY needs people to retain and protect his word, because there are obviously those who would alter or change it whether by ignorance or maliciousness. Scripture says so. He wants his people to protect and cherish His word. So while you speak so dismissively about scrolls found in caves, it give us the opportunity to prove the words we have against a more ancient form and make corrections to those thing that were added to or subtracted from allowing us to honor the command Yahweh gave over and over.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry I am a Messianic , Hebrew roots Christian. I do check and test everything, not just the modern bibles but also what text type is used. As I alluded to previously that the KJB is the only bible that's from the majority Byzantine text and not the Critical Alexandrian text. (critical because they are much fewer in number and disagree with each other. You seem to have overlooked this major fact!)! New modern translations are copy righted and belong to Zonderfan publishing , all owned by Rupert Murdoch. I do believe in Gods inspired word and that He had it printed and shipped around the world in the English language for 300 years without a problem, until Westcott and Hort started to incorrectly use the Alexandrian text. And there we have it , a major money making scam and that's why they keep bringing out new versions. As you say we must not add or subtract. The KJB does'nt whereas 64,000 words are missing from the NIV through all modern translations down to the NKJV that have removed 2,400 words all owned by Zonderfan publishing. (The NKJV also uses the Byzantine text but makes its footnotes from the Alexandrian text causing much confusion, exactly what the adversary wants. Remember in the garden when the adversary said "did God really say that" to Eve! Eactly why Yeshua asked us to be mindful of this. I observe Yahs feasts including the Passover and definitely don't do easter and yet you say its a "miss translation", (wow) to use easter. (If the KJB is Gods preserved word as He says it is, see below bible verses, then surely you are questioning Gods Himself) I'll say once more that at 20 times passover is translated as passover but only once translated as easter by the KJB holy and very scholarly men. Why, because Peter was placed in a roman prison with roman gaurds in a roman city at the same time the Romans were celebrating their pagan ritual of easter. Easter that year fell at the same time as the Passover feast. God has preserved His Holy Word as He promised from the originals....... Psalm 119:89 Isa 40:8 Psalm 12:6-7 Mat 24:35 1 Pet 1:25 Every word of God is pure, Prov 30:5 Mat 4:4 He magnified the word above His name Psalm 138:2 Don't add or take away Deut 4:2 Add or take away from this book and your cursed Rev22:18-19 I responded to your video in this way with brotherly love I may add and because you say all translations have faults. Wont the adversary just love that! adding to more confusion. As believers we should know that we have Gods book, His Holy Word in our hands and not go around in an amalgam of cherry picking His words to suit our mans needs. Call me silly maybe but I know I have His word totally 100% in my hand . Can you say the same brother! Shalom

"As you say we must not add or subtract. The KJB does'nt" Except, it does. You are simply willing to ignore it to suit your narrative. 1 John 5:7 for example is a well known addition to the word. Based on the fact that Matt 28:19 was not followed by the disciples in a single instance when baptizing people, it looks to be a later addition as well. After all, not a single baptism recorded was done in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Perhaps the apostles just ignored the Messiah? Or, the verse attributing these words to Messiah was added. Which is more likely? A fellow named Charlie Garrett compiled some interesting information over on Superiorword.org I'll post a few excerpts. From the preface of the 1611 KJV: Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.] Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, published another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. Charlie Garrett then quips: "The finger of the translators not only points back in time to those who accuse translators of various Translations of being in bed with Satan, but they point forward to the KJV Only crowd who make exactly the same claims. Further, they make it quite clear that the Lovaine and Hentenius, as well as the Paris edition are all authoritative. Further, the Bible published by Sixtus and that by Clement are also of equal authority - and that had “infinite differences” from the translation of Sixtus and that of the Latin" Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by con- ference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearful- ness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case alto- gether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God. Even the Translators disagreed with the KJV only attitude. They acknowledge and even encourage the use of various translations because they knew they missed the mark in some places. It is no wonder they removed the preface in later editions. If there is a SINGLE error in the KJV then it is NOT what you claim. Even the translators disagreed that it was perfect, they acknowledge the issues with translating the way they did. They even point out that other versions are equally authoritative. If you will not acknowledge the errors in front of your face and you will not heed the words of the men who translated it, I cannot help you. I pray Yahweh removes the scales from your eyes and that you open your mind to study the word without the artificial boundaries set in place by using 1 single flawed translation of Yahweh's word.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry Your detailed response is appreciated and i will continue to search as we all should for a greater understanding of His word. You quote a couple of verses that you say were added by the KJB. I would prefer this to thousands of words removed from all modern bibles, but that's just my opinion presently . Shalom

A flat earther dies and is waiting at the pearly gates. St Peter says to the man, before entering heaven you may ask YAH one question. The man asks YAH , is the earth flat or a globe. YAH replied, the Earth is most definitely a globe . The man exclaimed, holy crap , the conspiracy runs deeper than I could have ever imagined.

Lol

Yes, we believe the earth is a globe, just like the other planets we can clearly see that Yahweh made. From planets to isolated atoms, which are spherically symmetric, this all shows a pattern of Yahweh's fingerprint. Just like atoms are suspended and held in place with the Holy Spirit, so is His planets in space. There are many ways to prove this, let alone the numerous pictures, and videos from space agencies, governmental, as well as private. Many U2 spy plane photos are available from the cold-war that clearly show a globe. The U2s intent and build was to fly 70k' to evade surface to air missiles while spying, another benefit is atmospheric imagery. We do not believe hundreds of thousands of people are "in on" trying to fool the masses regarding a "flat earth" throughout history, that's preposterous. Yahweh's globe fits with His pattern of creation, which we should expect. Blessings

That's hilarious Straitway Life!

Wrong, we announced that it is on US to prove all things, exactly as scripture states. As in my previous comment, Yahweh warns against adding to or taking away from the word. If we simply accept everything that comes in our Bible as absolute truth, we are ignoring that command and letting wicked men corrupt the word. The KJV is NOT exempt from correction. "The Deceiver is here to confuse and your helping this along." sure, by encouraging people to study what the word says and to be vigilant against additions to and subtractions from the word WE are the ones being deceitful. Not the guys who mistranslated words, added wrong punctuation and added extra words to the scripture, those guys are on the up-and-up.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry those same guys changed the sabbath to Sunday. Removed passover and replaced it with Ishtar/Easter. They changed Yahwehs rules for the doctrines of men. The so called Nicean fathers changed Yahweh's words.

@@OKBushcraft without authority from YHWH, they made themselves the authority by saying the Pope is infallible when he is definitely fallible. The Nicene creed is from the doctrines and traditions of men, which Yahshua warned us about.

The issue with Enoch is that only a few fragments of a book called Enoch were found in the dead sea scrolls. The "Book of Enoch" we have now is a collection of documents many of which date HUNDREDS of years after the Dead sea scrolls. So we cannot prove it to be authentic.

"Yall obviously don't understand Hebrew!" so please, enlighten us. Where are we in error?

I love my Rsb since I use the name of Yahshua and YAHWEH I am much closer to Them Haleluyah

Why not just list these quotes? I would love to look them up.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry - There are none. The same actually applies to the "baptism formula" (Father, Son and H*ly Ghost) found in Matt 28:19. Another later addition.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry Shabbat Shalom to all. 1 John 5:7 is the clearest word we have of the trinity. (I am not saying I'm a trinitarian though). This verse is so import and this Godhead has been under attach since shortly after the church began. A little list of quotes showing 1 John 5:7 is from and the earliest writings by ancient christian witnesses from as early as 200 AD. Tertulian writings in 200 AD makes ref; to 1 John 5:7 who wrote which three in one in reference to the Godhead indicating the existence of bible manuscripts at that time containing the Johannine comma. In 250 AD Cythian of Carthage wrote of the Father Son and Holy Ghost saying it is written, "written"is biblical language. 350 AD to the 1500' are numerous of christian quoting 1 John 5:7 415 AD the council of Carthage directly quoted from 1 John 5:7 in defending the trinity against arianism. 300 to 400 Bishops in the time directly quoted 1 John 5:7 in defence of the trinity in 400 AD. People were familiar with it and using it. Ancient witnesses should not be dismissed! In 157 AD the Waldensians (Loyal christians who gave their lives for the word of God) in the scriptures they used contained 1 John 5:7 predating the early christian writers. Its believed they received the scriptures from the Apostolic church in Antioch from 120 AD. Many were martyred for making the scriptures their final authority. These are a credible witness to 1 John 5:7 Bishop St. Basil of Caesarea considered a saint by the Eastern orthodox church who was part of the Greek church quoted 1 John 5:7 in the 4th Century The Father , the word and the spirit are one Godhead. If we read 1 John 5:7 in the Greek with their pronouns and remove the verse it does'nt make any sense structurally as something seems to be missing. I'm not to concrened about the history here really but feel lead by the Holy Spirit that 1 John 5:7 has a ring of truth of God about it. Once Erasmus found the evidence he required he made it inclusive. The KJB is the safest and surest Word we have today and is complete. Other modern bibles all point to new age agendas I'm afraid. This took me four years of searching to realise the Word that I want in my hand is the word of God. Remember the adversary in the garden saying "did God really say that" to Eve, he has been trying to change the word from the beginning and still trying. For 280 years the KJB was sent around the world in English without any problems and the churches were full of believers. Since then whats gone wrong.........Modern translations that's what.

"A little list of quotes showing 1 John 5:7 is from and the earliest writings by ancient christian witnesses from as early as 200 AD." I do not see a single quote listed, I see a list of names and dates, but no quotes. Nothing for me to verify. I'll still respond. "Tertulian writings in 200 AD makes ref; to 1 John 5:7 who wrote which three in one in reference to the Godhead indicating the existence of bible manuscripts at that time containing the Johannine comma." I have Read through Against Praxeas. I do not see a single quote from 1 John 5:7 Many other verse references are laid out plain. I see several referenced stating that Tertullian obviously agreed with the Trinity doctrine. But nothing that confirms 1 John 5:7 as legitimate. If anything it looks like HE interpreted 1 John 5:7 in a trinitarian sense, which isn't surprising. But I see no evidence that it was ever written as we see in the KJV. (neither does anyone else in scholarship.) "In 250 AD Cythian of Carthage wrote of the Father Son and Holy Ghost saying it is written, "written"is biblical language." "Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt "(Liber de unitate ecclesiae 6) (reference) Cyprianus Carthaginensis, Liber de unitate ecclesiae in Patrologia Latina, vol. 4, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (Paris: Excudebat Sirou, in via Dicta D’Amboise, Pres la Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge 1844), col. 503A-504A. Did Cyprian have a Latin manuscript that contained the Comma? In order to answer this question we must make a clear distinction between a quotation and an interpretation. The former would indicate that at least one third century manuscript contained the Comma whereas the latter would simply show that at least one third century Christian understood 1 John 5.7-8 (without the Comma) as speaking about the Trinity. There are two reasons why this is not a quotation. Firstly, Cyrpian’s own wording precludes the possibility since he writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritus sancto” or “concerning (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” The little word de, translated “of,” “concerning,” or “about,” does not necessitate that the text actually mentioned them, rather it merely means that Cyprian thought the text concerned them. Of course, I am not saying that this alone is evidence that the text did not mention them, but I am saying that this cannot be used to prove that his Bible actually did include the Comma. An analogy would be the statement, “There is a passage about the Father speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit saying ‘Let us make man.’” Of course, Genesis does not actually say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit anywhere, but this does not stop theologians from interpreting it thus. The second reason why this is definitely not a quotation from some lost Latin manuscript is that the Comma reads “Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus” or “(the) Father, (the) Word, and (the) Holy Spirit” whereas Cyprian writes “de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto” or “about (the) Father and (the) Son and (the) Holy Spirit.” Of course switching out Son for Word is a subtle change but it is enough to indicate that this is not a direct quotation. Even if Cyprian did not quote the later version of 1 John 5.7-8 he did read the earlier version in a Trinitarian sense. He understood the Spirit, the water, and the blood to be referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Daniel Wallace, himself a Trinitarian, writes, “Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5.7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.” Daniel B. Wallace, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian (published on bible.org in 2004, bible.org/article/Comma-johanneum-and-cyprian), p. 2. Metzger suggests someone interpreted the original 1 John 5.7-8 in a Trinitarian way and wrote the Comma in the margin as an explanatory note, which then was copied into the main body of 1 John by a later scribe. He further notes that the text began to be quoted in earnest in the fifth century in North Africa and Italy (Latin speaking areas), and “from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. (Metzger, p. 648.) In contrast, John Painter suggests “the evidence indicates that the pressures of the Trinitarian controversy, especially in North Africa, led to the addition of the Johannine Comma.” John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, vol. 18 in Sacra pagina series (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press 2002), p. 308. Considering the intensity with which Nicene an Arian Christians competed for theological supremacy in the fourth century, it is not at all implausible to think someone concocted the Comma and inserted it to give the Bible an explicit Trinitarian proof- text. Still, if Painter’s idea is correct, it is remarkable that the Comma was limited only to the Latin speaking world whereas the Greek Christians completely ignored it. From the present data, I find it difficult to decide whether the Comma came into this fourth century manuscript by accident and was slowly reproduced (Metzger) or it was a theologically motivated insertion to combat Arianism (Painter). "The KJB is the safest and surest Word we have today and is complete." As I have shown time and time again, this is not true. Even the people you tried to attribute with "ancient Evidence" is spurious at best. It is Ironic, people quote these guys as if it is rock solid proof, when if they would just read the quotes for themselves they would see it was obvious they interpreted 1: john 5:7 to suit their narrative. Again Tertullian is the oldest example I can find and even he never actually quotes 1 john5:7 in the way it is written in the KJV. Because it was not there for him to quote.

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry Thank you Brother for this information and your time! its very much appreciated. In my opinion Yah doesn't want things to be to difficult for us to understand although He asks that we should test all things. We have tested the comma at 1 John 5:7 in depth but have come to different conclusions. As stated earlier I am not a Trinitarian but indeed we do have God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and therefore I see the Comma can be read contextually at 1 John 5:7 . Remove it as modern translations do and it doesn't quite read right to me. More context here: John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me...... Verse 15 Keep my commandments. V 16 And I Yeshua will pray to the Father and He shall give you another comforter. The Holy Spirit given freely to all who believe in the Son and the Father that sent Him V 17 the Spirit of truth. John 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 17:21 - 22 That they all maybe one , as though the Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me. Context, context, context I say brother. Please do not feel the need to kindly respond as I am happy and secure in the word and how I read the so called Comma. Thanks again. Shalom.

The Hebrew word to which you are referring is רְאֵם reem. The KJV translators used unicorn. This is a terrible translation. Reem is a wild ox in biblical Hebrew. Almost all translations have fixed this error. Blessings

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry I went back to listen to your video before commenting to your response here. The problem I have here is not with what some consider is the correct or even incorrect translation of the Hebrew word. It is with the comment (at about 9:30 into the video) that the translators of the KJV were referring to some mythical creature when they chose unicorn as the translation. There is no proof of this. It is an opinion of the fellow in the black shirt that this is what the translators were referring to. That is the chip on my shoulder that I am addressing here.

Yes, it is a mythological "one horned" creature. The proof is in the term itself coined in the middle ages and the etymology thereof. "The predecessor of the medieval bestiary, compiled in Late Antiquity and known as Physiologus (Φυσιολόγος), popularized an elaborate allegory in which a unicorn, trapped by a maiden (representing the Virgin Mary), stood for the Incarnation. As soon as the unicorn sees her, it lays its head on her lap and falls asleep. This became a basic emblematic tag that underlies medieval notions of the unicorn, justifying its appearance in both secular and religious art."

@@YahwehsRestorationMinistry What was all that? I don't know how to refute such gobbledygook. I'll just stick with my original comments and you are more than welcome to say you won.

@@duradim1 There is no winning? Learning the truth of any subject is a win. The word unicorn was added in error, this is not an opinion this is fact. The comment shows the etymology of the word around the time the KJV was written. Remember you commented on our video with an assumption the gentlemen said there is no proof of a mythical unicorn. The proof is the very word itself.

Gents, you say this is a biblical miss translation using the word Easter and yet you make no response to my comment!

Sounds like you haven't read the original 1611 preface like I recommended. "so why do the Holy scholars of the 1611 KJB use Easter." They were wrong, it really is quite simple. The original Greek used Pascha aka Passover. The KJV translators used Easter, because that is what they knew. Much like the Translation of Joshua as "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:25. This really displays the amateurish approach they took to translating. They saw the name of Joshua in the Greek, but because it is spelled the same way as "Jesus", they simply translated Joshua, as Jesus and called it a day. It is an elementary mistake made by sloppy translators. In my humble opinion, these 2 verses are among the most egregious mistakes. As I explained in my other comment to you. The men you call "Holy Scholars" admit they were likely off with many of the words they used. You yourself said " You quote a couple of verses that you say were added by the KJB. I would prefer this to thousands of words removed from all modern bibles, but that's just my opinion presently." So there you have it. The KJV does indeed have additions and subtractions but you simply prefer the KJV's error to someone else's. Fine. But this "it is the perfectly preserved word of God" nonsense has to stop. Your "Holy Scholars" disagree with you. On the perfectness of the words used, on the understanding of the language, on the validity of other translations, on the role of the Church in the translation and many other things. These men were humble about their work and were honest about it's short comings. It is truly ironic how that part gets thrown out and the humble men who worked on the KJV are suddenly thrust into "Holy Scholars" despite their efforts to avoid that. The only people who made the word look "luke warm" were the KJV translators and the people who are blind to the fact that the work wasn't perfect. Again, read the preface. They do not look at their work as perfect. They knew it wasn't. But that doesn't stop men from idolizing these men and their work. By the way, we are not avoiding your comment, but refuting the same person over and over simply is not a good use of our limited time. Especially when they won't even look at the previous comments and take them to heart. Other ministries don't even have comments enabled and just because we don't immediately answer doesn't mean you have us on the ropes. We write/produce/edit these programs with 2-3 people and then answer these comments on top of all that. If you sincerely want a response, be patient. We have hundreds of comments just like this every week.

I understand you brother, I'm trying to explain not just for the validity of the KJB but the way in which all modern translations are pointing to, the new age. The KJB never ever promotes this but modern translations do.... See below comments from our Church of England Archbishop : “God is not male or female,” the archbishop said in a lecture at St Martin-in-the-Fields in London. “God is not definable. All human language about God is inadequate and to some degree metaphorical.” God is now He instead of God and the Son is now the One, that's why I mentioned verses that don't like this that are removed NIV 64,000 words through to the NKJV 2,400 words removed that don't support the gender neutral position. They are talking now also to remove "Father" from the Lords prayer. I am trying to make people aware that all the modern translations support this! I also have evidence as you requested that 1 John 5:7 was present all the time so will reply to your request in a couple of days. Shalom

Apologies, I meant modern Bibles support the gender neutral position in their wording, whereas the KJB does not.