FOR THE MASTER

<p>Today, I do want to talk about Bible Numerics or Numerology as I continue my series on horrible hermeneutics. Unfortunately, it is all too common to hear this so-called hermeneutical principle brought up among fundamentalists and especially King James Onlyists who use it to suggest the supremacy of a 17th Century Anglican translation. Let’s define [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In my last video, I began a series called Horrible Hermeneutics. After introducing the series, I addressed the Law or Principle of First Mention. In this video, I want to strengthen my argument by responding to some of the 60+ comments I have received as well as many other private messages. I won&#8217;t go over [&hellip;]</p>

<p>This video will be the first in a series on hermeneutics. In particular, as the name implies, horrible hermeneutics. A while back, I did a video that addressed the question, what good is a perfect Bible with horrible theology. But where does this horrible theology come from? It comes from horrible hermeneutics. Today, we will [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Easter brings about some odd arguments among Christians. Some Christians claim that Easter is pagan and should not be celebrated. Easter is used to describe the Biblical events regarding the death and resurrection of Christ as early as the 7th Century. Much may be said about the etymology, but history is clear that as that [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Jack McElroy has made yet another disingenuous accusation about a modern English version. This time involving Matthew 27:16. Let’s look at that verse in the NIV and also in the KJV: Matthew 27:16 (NIV)16&nbsp;At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. Matthew 27:16 (KJV 1900)16&nbsp;And they had then a notable [&hellip;]</p>

<p>If you told me 10 years ago that I would be defending the NIV and modern English versions from attacks from King James Version Onlyists, I may have wanted to fight. But, here we are. I was asked to respond to another of Jack McElroy&#8217;s infographics from his book of absurdities. In this video, I [&hellip;]</p>

<p>According to Jack McElroy and his book, “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?”, the NIV scrubs Jesus’ omnipresence. His supposed evidence is John 3:13. Let’s look at this verse in the KJV and also in the NIV. John 3:13 (NIV)13&nbsp;No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.&nbsp; [&hellip;]</p>

<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>