<p>I want to teach you how to properly defend the KJV and teach you what arguments should NEVER EVER EVER be used. There are three areas where those who use the KJV may choose to defend it: 1. when talking with a non-theist who rejects any scripture given by any deity 2. when talking with [&hellip;]</p>

<p> @maklelan  states that he is going to argue that this statement is wrong on three grounds. First, he is going to argue that the Bible never refers to the Bible because the canon wasn’t closed. He is going to base part of this argument on New Testament references to non-canonical books. He also asserts that [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Do Modern Versions Pervert the Bible by Changing &#8220;Study&#8221; in 2 Timothy 2:15? For the last 8 months, I have had person after person bring up 2 Timothy 2:15 as an example of how modern English versions have corrupted and perverted the Bible and how the KJV is the only Bible that tells you to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Do modern versions corrupt the scripture by not using &#8220;study&#8221; in 2 TImothy 2:15? Here are the cold hard facts without commentary. Let the reader decide. Version Comparisons 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. LSB Be [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I get multiple comments, emails, and private messages every single day telling me that all modern English versions are perversions and purposeful corruptions. And it simply isn&#8217;t factually accurate to make such a statement. But while not all modern English translations are corruptions, some really are, and I wish to focus on one today and [&hellip;]</p>

<p>You have probably heard the term, but you may not be familiar with what it means. If you were raised in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement or if you are familiar with the King James Only movement, then you are likely to have, at least, heard the terms Ruckmanite or Ruckmanism. But what is it [&hellip;]</p>

<p>We have a MAJOR problem. Many Dispensationalists (not all) simply cannot defend the consistency, coherency, and cohesiveness of the scripture. Almost daily, I get emails, private messages, and more about how I don&#8217;t understand the gospel because I don&#8217;t accept that Jesus preached a works gospel and that Paul preached the true gospel of grace. [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Acts 8:37 is one of the favorite verses among King James Version Onlyists as an example of a modern English Version corruption or perversion. Why do King James Onlyists accuse the editors of modern versions of removing this verse? Because, modern versions are created by unsaved people who wish to take away the idea of [&hellip;]</p>

<p>1 Timothy 3:16 is a common verse that KJVO like to use to attack modern English versions. The argument is not new, but this week, the KJVO rallied behind this graphic that says, &#8220;SEE THE BIG DIFFERENCE&#8221;. The KJVO say that by using the word &#8220;He&#8221; instead of &#8220;God&#8221;, modern versions are attacking the deity [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I am part of a Facebook Group that discusses Textual Criticism, particularly that of the New Testament. There was a little bit of a dust-up yesterday when&#8230; I had better not say King James Onlyist, but I really think he is. But just to be on the safe side, I will say he is a [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Brooke Foss Westcott has long been a person of controversy and is considered anathema to King James Version Onlyists. His work, along with Fenton Hort and others, in producing The New Testament in Original Greek in 1881 has placed him among the most cruelest of heretics in the eyes of King James Version Onlyists for [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Does Isaiah 9:6 Debunk the Trinity? How could I even ask such a question? Because many Oneness Pentecostals use it to disprove the Trinity. Sadly, many Trinitarians contribute to the problem because they simply do not know how to handle that verse. Let&#8217;s have a look at the verse. CONTACT INFORMATION:WAYS TO DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/donations/donation-form/https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrishttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonatha

<p>Today I want to deal with this info graphic. This is produced by Jack McElroy. He is the author of several King James version only books. One of his books, “can you trust just one Bible”, contains list of answers to the most common anti-king James version accusations. I would point out there that it [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I have seen a few statements like these: &#8220;Modern Bibles are not a product of Biblical Christianity&#8221; &#8220;Your Modern Version is Roman Catholic&#8221; Why? Because, according to critics, the United Bible Societies &#8220;has the backing of the Vatican&#8221;. What is their evidence? This: &#8220;The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible [&hellip;]</p>

<p>CONTACT INFORMATION:WAYS TO DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/donations/donation-form/https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrishttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.comPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theoveropinionatedpastorFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/dr.jonathan.burrisTWITTER: https://twitter.com/thepastorburrisEMAIL: drburris@icloud.com</p>

<p>This video exposes and addresses the bad IFB preaching and horrible theology of popular Independent Fundamentalist Baptists like Robert Breaker, Tony Hutson, Jack Hyles. You don&#8217;t want to miss a second of this video. You might want to sit down for this one. If you are driving, be careful. If you have a heart condition, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Two videos on Revelation 1:8 and the one thing that keeps coming up is Tertullian. One quote, in particular, keeps being brought up as evidence to support Erasmus&#8217; omission of &#8220;God&#8221; from Revelation 1:8. This is an error that made its way into the early English translations such as the Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, and even [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Responding to questions about Minuscule 2050. Several people have asked me about Minuscule 2050. It is a 12th Century manuscript that does, in fact, omit “ὁ θεός” at Revelation 1:8. However, we must be very careful here. It is not accurate to say that it omits “ὁ θεός”. It omits an entire phrase. “λέγει κύριος [&hellip;]</p>

<p>&#8220;Modern Versions Leave out the Most Crucial word denoting &#8220;Jesus Thou&#8221; Son of God. The Verse in the Modern Versions doesn&#8217;t sound Right. Like it&#8217;s Missing the Fullness of its Rendering. Like the Devil&#8217;s don&#8217;t want to make a Connection with the Son of God being Jesus in its Entirety. So many Subtle Deficiencies and [&hellip;]</p>

Someone sent me this graphic and asked that I comment on it. As you can see, there is a variant at the beginning of John 9:4...