Bosch dishwasher

Dishwasher.

Dr. Gipp compares the NIV verse and word (64000) deletions with the KJV. By using outright lying and deception these translators have produced a translation…
Video Rating: 4 / 5

25 comments

  1. Truth Seeker says:

    No one is against the KJV! They don’t just believe the foolishness that
    clowns like Gipp say about this fine old 17th century translation.

  2. ReekoChet says:

    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. (Revelation 22:19
    KJV).

    What’s left to say about the NIV…END OF ARGUEMENT…PERIOD!!!

  3. thelastroadrunner says:

    The King James Bible is the Traditional Scriptures which the Church has
    used ever since there were Scriptures to use. Before 1611 it existed in the
    Erasmus text. Before Erasmus it existed in the Byzantine text. Before the
    Byzantine text it existed in the Old Latin text. Before that the Old
    Syriac. Before that the Greek and Hebrew texts.
    People who reject the King James Bibe usually do so because they are
    running away from their own conscience. They don’t want to answer to a
    final authority and so they attack the authenticity of the KJV.

  4. tallswede68 says:

    “parents” is not “father.” Father is a term for the person who begat you.
    As far as what Mary said, she lied when she said that. Mary is a sinner,
    the words that she speaks are NOT infallible.

  5. Keith Bennett says:

    Why can’t you acknowledge this? It’s alright to do so. :-/ I’m not trying
    to play “I’m right, you’re wrong” games. It doesn’t suddenly bring your
    world crashing down. I’m saying that you cannot use this verse to support
    your belief that it is wrong for the NIV to refer to Joseph as Jesus’
    father.

  6. Keith Bennett says:

    As for the Luke verse, while God was, of course, Jesus’ ultimate father,
    Joseph was His “official” one as far as the earthly records were concerned.
    Mary and Joseph were Jesus’ earthly mother and father. They brought Him up.
    They taught Him. How could calling Joseph His father possibly be seen as
    heretical? Don’t you think Jesus would have called Joseph “father”? If not,
    what would He have called him?

  7. Keith Bennett says:

    Fair enough then.

  8. hadji1981 says:

    Hey you NIV lovers!!! Go and Read Matthew 18:11 in your NIV!!! Matthew
    12:47 Matthew 17:21 Matthew 21:44 Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24 I could go on and
    on…….. The NIV removes 63,625 words!! thats why it is so eaiser to
    understand since so many words are missing!

  9. tallswede68 says:

    The NIV is full of errors, and that’s not the only one. It says that
    Elhanan killed Goliath, but only after saying that David killed him.

  10. tallswede68 says:

    …And “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” 2
    Peter 1:20. So interpreting “father” to mean something besides “father” is
    wrong. And for that reason, the NIV has an error.

  11. Gutcheckcoming says:

    just so ppl that understand the bible was translated from hebrew, “the
    brother of” does not appear in the hebrew of textus receptus therefore you
    have to question the hebrew not the english translations. The common sense
    based on social science is that other members of Goliaths family took on
    the name in honor of the fallen family members, or the hebrew of textus
    receptus which the kjv used is wrong and the kjv is right which is insanity.

  12. tallswede68 says:

    …As for the Wycliffe, it is in middle English. I dare you to try to read
    it. Plus it was translated from Latin, not from the original languages.
    Tyndale never finished translating the entire book. He got through the New
    Testament and half of the new testament. Tyndale used Luther’s manuscripts,
    but he was only one man. The King James was called the “Authorized Version”
    because all the best scholars gathered and went through the entire Bible
    without stopping.

  13. 4096x says:

    hadji1981 : The NIV removes 63,625 words!! don’t be so daft.

  14. hadji1981 says:

    the KJV 1611 is God’s Word. not some crap thing called the NIV. if your so
    numb headed that you do not realize or want to listen to even the videos on
    YouTube about the NIV. well there is no help for you.

  15. Keith Bennett says:

    🙂 You’re another charming Ruckmanite? And I’m listening to this video now.

  16. Keith Bennett says:

    I’d like to ask you a question. If the KJV is the only preserved Word of
    God, what did the church use for 1600 years before the KJV was written?

  17. Keith Bennett says:

    The verse in Isaiah is not speaking about Jesus or Satan, but the king of
    Babylon. The original Hebrew word here means “shining one”, and has been
    said to be referring to such things as the planet Venus, although I’m not
    sure about this. But just because the NIV uses “morning star” in Isaiah
    here does not mean it is calling Satan Jesus. It is not referring to Satan
    in the first place.

  18. Keith Bennett says:

    Alright… Whatever you say.

  19. tallswede68 says:

    Oh blow it out your nose. The facts are the facts. Would you rather we all
    just keep quiet and let Christians lose their faith in the word of God?

  20. Keith Bennett says:

    I haven’t denied the KJV is the Word of God. It is, as is the NIV, Good
    News, RSV, NRSV, etc. But they are translations of the original
    manuscripts, which we no longer have.

  21. tallswede68 says:

    It doesn’t say that Joseph was his “official” father, or his “earthly”
    father. It says that he was his “father.” Jesus would have called him
    “Joseph.” Jesus addresses his mother twice in the Gospels, and he calls her
    WOMAN (John 2:4), do you think he would hesitate to call Joseph by his name?

  22. Keith Bennett says:

    These are uses of the earthly term “father”. Surely that makes it clear
    that the command to call no man your father is referring in some way to a
    spiritual use of it.

  23. tallswede68 says:

    No, they are also condemned in the new testament, and likewise with
    Antioch, seen positively in the old testament and in the new. Outside the
    Bible, we know that Philo, and Origen, two of the worst Bible correctors
    had their schools in Alexandria, and Lucian, who defended the Bible was
    from Antioch. And yes, they used the Antiochan manuscripts.

  24. Keith Bennett says:

    There we see David being called Jesus’ father. You simply cannot point to
    Jesus saying, “Call no man your father upon the earth” and then, in the
    light of that, say that that means referring to Joseph as Jesus’ father is
    wrong. It says call NO man father, but there are plenty of examples in the
    KJV, which you see as the one divinely inspired Bible, where people,
    including Jesus, doing exactly that. Come on… :-/ Please think about it.
    There’s nothing wrong with Joseph being called Jesus’ father

  25. Keith Bennett says:

    But I would implore you to think about what you’re saying. Look at your
    whole view. KJV Onlyism, whether it be from the likes of Gipp, Riplinger,
    Marrs, Ruckman or yourself, is doing terrible harm to the body of Christ.
    It is confusing people, and causing much unnecessary guilt and hurt. I can
    only pray that people who might read our discussion might have a think
    about what we have said, and can be guided by the Lord, whom both you and I
    love, to see the truth.