Research Zechariah 14:9 Isaiah 41 4 and revelation 1:8&17-18 see the cross references

Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the *word of a king* is, there is *power:* and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” This verse is one of those definitive verses on the Authorized Version (with Ps 12:6-7; Ps 138:2) If you want a Bible with *”power”* , then you need one translated under *”a king”* Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James - Jacob in Hebrew). And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude) The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify . So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible.

@@Kevin-nr9hp why is Latin used in the OT then?

@@Watchmanonthewall626 Latin was one of 7 seven languages that the Bible was translated in. Psalms 12:6-7 KJV

When the King James Bible was being done, the world was very different! The British Isles were governed by a King and human government was far more personal and their world views were quite different! We do not live in that same world/life paradigm anymore. The translators knew that God is. They knew that God is a personal God. They knew that there’s a heaven, hell, Satan who hates God, and that human beings are sinners who need to make peace with God and live in peace with fellow human beings. By the time that the last and seventh stage of church history arrives, the church time period called Laodicea, the emotional and spiritual landscape had changed. The British isles were no longer under the jurisdiction of a God fearing King but by a Parliament of new generations of men and women who had very different world views! 19th century rationalism frowned upon the notion of a heaven and hell, a personal God and Satan who still seeks to lure as many souls to hell as he possibly can. The approach to ecclesiastical issues are no longer a personal issue but much more an academic and intellectual goal. To the translators of the King James Bible, the search for truth and a real personal relationship with God and the spiritual health of the people were of highest priority! To the translators of the scriptures from the days of Wescott & Hort to the present, the stakes are not so personal. They are academic and intellectual. The need to make true peace with God, and to live righteously with your fellow human being so that the spiritual health of the people are strong, are no longer of highest priority. The approach to truth is academic and intellectual, not spiritual and personal towards the Lord Jesus Christ! That’s the difference between the church time period of Philadelphia and the church time period of Laodicea! We are indifferent about the spiritual issues important to God! The church of Laodicea doesn’t hate (cold) the Holy Bible but it also is not in love (hot) for the Bible as during the time period of King James I! The present church age of Laodicea is indifferent (lukewarm) towards the Bible and spiritual issues. We are all living in this last and seventh stage of church history! From a materialistic standpoint, we are the luckiest generations of Christians! We enjoy the highest standards of living. Our quality of life is higher than King James I had! We have cars and refrigerators and ovens and stoves and stores to shop and medical advances that King James I could not even imagine! Yet, as Revelation 3 warns us, from a spiritual standpoint, we are miserable and poor and blind and naked! That’s why I know that the King James Holy Bible is far better than any translation done during the church time period of Laodicea! I’m guessing that the church time period of Philadelphia began around the time of Martin Luther’s stand against the Papacy, the Reformation, to the death of a Queen who was born again and knew that her country was blessed because of the strong Christian faith of the majority of her peoples! Queen Victoria died in 1901! The pure Cambridge edition of the King James Holy Bible came out around 1900! If my opinion is accurate, what a fitting tribute to the end of the Church time period of Philadelphia! This is my personal opinion: instead of subscribing to a more modern version of the Bible, I think a far better idea is to use a Holy Bible that teaches you all the places where the words in the King James Holy Bible has changed slightly in meaning! There’s two that I recommend right now: “The Defined King James Bible” and the “Sword King James Version Bible”! The later is still in print and you can easily purchase them at your local Bible store or online at the “KJV Store” or “Christian Book Distributors” or EBay or Amazon. Sadly I think the Defined King James Bible is currently not in publication.

🤠 WUT IN TRANSLATION 🤠

Ill take one of them there Lone Star Bibles😂😂😂

@Dwayne Green what are those issues? God said that he will preserve his words, where are day? It is the TR?, or the CT?, or the MT? It must be one of them.

​@Thomas Glass the TR is an artificial text, so are the MT and the CT, they dont exist in the manuscripts but are the product of comparigin multiple manuscripts together following certain ideological methods of prioritizing variances

​@@thomasglass9491 it must be! After all, God is as small as us, and does everything exactly as we think it should be! How could his word be preserved in more than one place??? You're all going to hell because your Bible says "whoever" instead of "whosoever."

...a message lost on the KJVO crowd.

In their day, they rejected the Codex Vaticanus as a viable source of ancient Scripture. Only in the mid-1800s, Westcott and Hort began their crusade against the KJV with their adaptation of the Greek New Testament, published in 1881, over 260 years AFTER the publishing of the KJV. Your answer is moot. They could never have known the multitude of translations we have today.

The KJV was updated, the latest version is from 1769. Most KJV bibles today use that version.

The translators stated that their goal was to create “one principal good one” the goal of the Bible itself was to unify English bible translations into one authoritative one.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9x3Y9Oau8u9mYU.html

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy. Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"

The countless Millions of souls that have been led to God by the KJV, only Heaven knows.

God bless you!

SS,......So, you vowed to find a modern translation to appease some ungodly kids? If you think that the entire church is not 100% apostate and is selling a totally false manmade christianity, then you are as blind, lost, and deceived as those you preach your false christianity to. John M is a wolf in sheep's clothing and has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. You understand this correct?

@@tonybasoni8443 Calling someone apostate because they use a different Bible translation is heresy. You should be ashamed of yourself. The kids laughed because "Balaam's ass" sounds ridiculous to modern readers because the language has changed. That is exactly the reason why no church in the English speaking world should ever use the KJV as a primary translation.

@@AtiShard16 ,......I did not call someone apostate, I called the entire church apostate and it is. And I never mentioned that it was because of their Bible translation. What in the world are you talking about? No church should use anything but the King James version. Again, the entire church is 100% apostate and has nothing whatsoever to do with the God, Jesus, or Christianity of the Bible. The church as led by 100% phonys like John M, sells a totally different christianity to that of the Bibles. You are all steeped in deception and an antichrist christianity. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!

I used to love the CSB up until I started doing intense origin text studies…. That version is very bad IMHO. It’s better to just stick with that KJV and have a thought provoking Bible based on an accurate text tradition. GOD bless! ❤️

@@narrowistheway77 Thank you so much. 🙏🏽

We still use English today? If you mean the complexity of the words, just keep in mind it’s still third grade English and mostly single syllable words Instead of thinking how the words of God can better serve you and your education level, rather think which translation is the actual words of God instead of a man made translation not inspired by the Holy Ghost And if you wonder why we read a book from a king then go ahead and read Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV) which was completely slaughtered in the LSB , I wonder why :-)

I love the Geneva Bible

Agreed! God bless 🙏

There is no perfect translation, if you read the translation philosophy in the preface of most English bible versions, they freely admit that.

Some parts of the Bible are hard to understand. Job, for example, is largely poetry, so the language can be obscure, and the NLT tries to clarify it. Other parts of the Bible, such as one of the gospels, would probably be pretty understandable in any translation.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9x3Y9Oau8u9mYU.html

@Jerrod Wertman I suppose that I prefer the 77 over the 95 because It seems to be a more literal translation in my opinion. But I'm no scholar either. It still uses thou, thee, and thine when addressing Deity, so, it's similar to the KJV in that sense. Both the 77 and the 95 are good translations.

James, I saw your comment and just wanted to mention to you about the SKJV, the Simplified King James Version. It just came out from Barbour Publishing. Like you, I grew up on the KJV and like you prefer it more than the NKJV & MEV. My opinion on the this new version that is the SKJV is this: it is what the NKJV should have been. I bought one when it first came out a month or so ago and I definitely like it more than the NKJV. Blessings in Christ.

Which translation do you prefer?

@@duranbailiff5337 You can't go wrong with the NKJV. My friends mostly like the NIV, and one staying firm on the KJV. I have a NIV, but still prefer the NKJV. I'm glad you enjoy your MacArthur study Bible in NKJV..

The NKJV is my preferred translation and pretty much all I use. I lean more towards the TR than critical text, I’m more in the majority, over older group. However, reading the NKJV doesn’t mean you’re only getting the TR side of scripture, NKJV literally lets you know basically every place the other variants differ and what they say. So, essentially…. an NKJV bible is all you REALLY need. In my honest opinion, that’s just how I see it. But if you use the NKJV, it’s a translation that doesn’t hide anything from you, it’s open, honest and a truthful translation.

I grew up with the KJV and comprehend every word, but once I realized the NKJV existed, and saw how it flows better but remains essentially the same style and language, I have started reading it. I also like the Lexham English Bible because it's not afraid to use the Name of Yahweh, who COMMANDED us to use it and praise it among the nations. I have heard the LSB uses His Name too, so I'm looking forward to reading it. I also like the CSB and think it's best for sharing the Gospel with the average (non-theologian!) audience, especially in homeless and prison ministry. Digression: regarding KJV only, I remmember when I was ministering in prison once, and was using some translation that wasn't KJV. One prisoner was KJV only and started telling me how the translation I was using was satanic and he didn't believe it. One of his problems was that the footnotes were wrong. I told him so what, we weren't reading footnotes, and attempted to show him how similar the language, and identical the meaning, by reading John 3:16 in my Bible so he could compare with his KJV. I read "For God so loved..." and before I could get further he jumped up, clenched his fists, and said, "If you read one more word to me out of that f-ing book I'll f-ing kill you." THAT, is actually the default, baseline personality of KJVO people. Imagine thinking you're a good Christian with God's Own Perfect Word™ and you're threatening to murder people (while already in prison.) What a joke!

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy. Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"

@@denisemaxwell51 Revelation was written in Greek about 1600 years before there was a KJV. The original manuscripts are the inspired legacy.

Yes, brother Edwin, for literary and historical reasons, the KJ stands alone among English Bibles. But to keep promoting it as somehow more faithful to the "original" texts and to hold to its late Shakespearian English today is problematic, if not absurd. Yet, this controversy goes on and on and on, in an endless Calvinistic bit of belly gazing.

@@carlosreira413 😄 yes it is. As if 2000 years ago they all spoke elizabethan english. We live in very polarized times, there is no nuance anymore. Which is the best and most faithful bible translation? the one that speaks and connects the most with you. At least as far as the NLT. God is great in that he connects with his children in many ways not just one.

@@edwinalvarez1619 Amen, brother, we are so fortunate to have such free access to the Bible. This is unprecedented on planet Earth. Possibly our problem is no longer "a famine for hearing the word," but a lack of "doing the word." Still, of course, there are many places yet untouched by the Gospel. Blessings of revelation and joy to you and yours this Christmas season and into the new year!

The KJV is still great to read, but I agree. When I just want to "read" the Bible I'll use KJV because it's so familiar to me, like a very old friend. But to study (something I've just really begun) a modern reading is so much better!

Yes, the KJV is in error. Hence the number of revisions it has received over the last 140 years, none of which make much use of "modern vernacular" (as opposed to translations outside of the Tyndale-KJV tradition, which gladly indulge in modern vernacular and thus feel outdated in a shorter time). It is still a lovely translation, but it's one with plenty of minor faults (none of which should be blamed for the greater faults found in KJV-Only churches). And no, the verses you referenced do not promise to give us a miraculous understanding of Jacobean English in 2021.

@@MAMoreno the verse 1cor2:13 tells us that we are to understand Gods word by comparing scripture with scripture, this is what Isa 28:10. This isn’t a miracle. There has been no substantive changes made the the KJV since 1711. And you want to tell me which translation has Col 2:18 correct and how you come to that conclusion?

@@ChathuraImbulagoda The KJV isn't what Paul meant by "spiritual things" in 1 Corinthians 2.13, which should be obvious since Paul was writing nearly 1600 years before the KJV was made. No Bible verse refers to the KJV in particular, so even if Paul meant that we are to understand one Bible verse by looking at another, he does not mean that we are to understand Jacobean English by comparing it to more Jacobean English. And "not" should not be in Colossians 2.18. It's an example of a place where the Western text agrees with the Alexandrian text instead of the Byzantine text, and the Western text is typically the one that adds things rather than subtracting them.

@@MAMoreno I didn’t say the Paul was referring to the KJV. I’m just saying that to understand scripture your meant to compare scripture with scripture, with modern translation which are always changing the connections you can make are being lost. And col2:18 is correct in the KJV which is why you don’t see angels in this dispensation. Btw can I ask what form of theology you hold to? I would guess that you: Don’t believe in multiple gospels, don’t believe on once saved always saved, and don’t believe in the pre tribulation all rapture. Would I be right?

@@ChathuraImbulagoda The idea of multiple gospels is a heresy (Galatians 1.6-9). The difference in the presentation of the gospel for different audiences (Galatians 2.7-8) is not the same thing as two different gospels. The phrase "once saved, always saved" is a rather unfortunate expression of the "preservation of the saints" doctrine held by Calvinists and some Arminians. The New Testament doesn't have much nice to say about apostates, but the OSAS expression suggests that apostasy is a-ok. And no, the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not present in the New Testament, and both Paul and John would be left scratching their heads if you tried to tell them that they said such a thing.

thats funny because I do too, I dont want verses that only appear in the catholic latin vulgate to be in my bible

Totally agree-three great choices

I'd add the CSB to the list.

@@jamesgossweiler1349 I do have a copy of CSB also, as well as NIV. Easy to read and understand. I've not used the CSB that much yet. It is ironic how much it resembles NASB & NIV, combined. If you do a side by side comparison, it's uncanny.

The Byzantine scrolls are younger than the Alexandrian scrolls and its within those scrolls where many of the "removed" texts are missing. Erasmus bungled his TR. The Volgate is slightly dubious. That's what I go by .

The best and only version to use is THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Same here, Billy. My own study and research has kept me glued to the NASB '95, even from what I've seen of the LSV.

LSV - Literal Standard Version. LSB - Legacy Standard Bible. These are two different versions.

I meant the LSB (since that is what Tim was talking about not the LSV which I also compare with). Thanks Jojo for pointing that error out.

@@mesisson Thanks Mark. I have tried a couple of versions because I feel it's important to compare versions with each other. But since I've only been reading the Bible for about 4 years I really have come to love and trust the NASB 95. I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas brother.

@@jojo.gabriel - Thanks. My bad. I meant to say LSB.

@@duranbailiff5337 I've been looking for a reason to buy a second bookcase. You've piqued my interest. I have multiple premium bibles but only in my favored translations. I guess the search begins ...

7000 languages but most of them are derivatives of each other. You can find regions on the earth where there are hundreds of dialects in that small region. However when it comes to the vast majority of the world, there are not nearly that many languages.

therueuhy,........The word of God has already gone to the entire world hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There is no need for any more translations. The whole idea of all these translations is all based on the 100% apostate churches 100% false, manmade freewill gospel.

@@tonybasoni8443 ok

@@Rueuhy ,......Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!

NH,.....Animals in heaven? What? Also, John M. is a 100% false teacher.

@@SilenceDogwood. ,...What? You are joking right?

@@SilenceDogwood. ,....Why would I do that? If you think that Jesus is in heaven sacrificing animals, then you have zero Biblical understanding. You had better re read the entire Bible because you are completely Biblically bankrupt.

The NIV is one of the most accurate translations in my opinion.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9x3Y9Oau8u9mYU.html

Presbyterian theologian Robert Reymond interprets it that way in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. So that isnt a baptist translation, it's just another possible translation.

@David he is an outlier and it's not a legitimate translation since it completely changes the meaning of Peter's sermon and the entire doctrine of justification.

​@Chemnitz Fan it would only be illegitimate if you determined what peters sermon meant independent of the word, and then determined because of contradicts the already sstablished meaning of the sermon, which it doesnt

@David So we are saved by being convicted of our sin and then repent and get baptized because our sins are already forgiven? Or do we repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? You act like changing the word "for" to "because of" is just another way to look at it which doesn't effect the meaning. Except it does effect the meaning. In fact, it changes it radically.

@@chemnitzfan654 repentance brings the forgiveness of sins, not baptism, or did the thief on the cross go to hell?

Why is that important? Also King James Version is copyrighted in United Kingdom and commonwealth countries. Please do some research in the future.

Actually it used to be copyrighted in 1976

The only thing that can be copyrighted in a Bible ( KJV) is extra notes. The verses alone cannot be copyrighted. The verses alone in other Bibles can be copyrighted and that shows that they were put out for money.

@@oshea2300 but the KJV was copyrighted though its not anymore because of its age.

@@datchet11 I've done a lot of studying on the subject and I've never heard that but I will check it out.

I recommend "New Age Bible Versions" by G. A. Riplinger

Let's suppose you're right, and Psalm 12:6-7 is about God preserving the scriptures (it isn't, as is evident if you read the whole psalm rather than just cherry-picking those two verses, but let's suppose it is). Why is the KJV the way God preserved it? The Bible certainly doesn't tell you that. Why not, say Wycliffe or the Bishop's Bible? Or a more modern translation? How did God preserve his word before the 16th Century? Has he preserved it in any other language than English? Even if Psalm 12 means what you think it means, it says nothing about the KJV unless it says the same thing about every other translation.

@@danbrown586 ... it's not about me "being right", it's about God keeping his promise of preserving his pure word for ever. I know that he did because of the KJV! -//- Psalms 12 : 6 - 7 reads as follows..."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." --//-- Those verses are not taken out of context because verse #7 follows immediately after verse #6, and the psalmist is comparing the words of the wicked (vain words; flattering words; proud words) with the pure words of Almighty God! -//- Additionally, the writer of Psalm 12, King David, had a godly influence on his son Solomon, who wrote Proverb 30! Proverb 30: 5 - 6 reads as follows : "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." -//- It's baffling that you say you believe in the One True, Almighty, All-Knowing, Omnipresent God, but you then scoff at the fact that He could possibly preserve His pure words for ever! -//- Psalms 138:2 reads : "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified THY WORD above all thy name." -//- And in Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 God warns about the dangers of changing any of his pure words. The bible must be a precise document because Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is pure because he is God. Everything God does or says must be pure. He provided and preserved his Holy Scriptures for ever, and by his grace they're found only in one place, the KJV. -//- The Apostle Paul admonishes us four times, "Be of one mind"; "of one accord"; and Peter once says, "Be of one mind"! They wrote those passages under the inspiration of God, and they only make sense if there's only one bible! The incorruptible word of God (1 Peter 1:16-25; 2 Corinthians 2:17) -//- 2 Corinthians 2:17 “For we are not AS MANY, WHICH CORRUPT THE WORD OF God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” -//- So in the end you either trust God and take him at his word, or you take your place on the opposite team, whose "head coach" is Satan.

The LSB is so perfect you can use it to correct the KJV

@@ElvisPreachleyKingOfThought If you feel that way, I am glad the LSB works for you. I don't argue about which bible translation is best. I only offer what works for myself. God bless.

MacArthur is worse than a second hand car salesman.