FOR THE MASTER

<p>Over the past few weeks, I have published multiple videos on the Septuagint. My first video, “Is The Septuagint a 4th Century Forgery or Myth?” was my first public work on Old Testament textual analysis. Last week, I continued that video with a follow-up. That second video addressed a question asked by a friend who [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A dear brother and friend asked me about the responses I have been getting to my video on the Septuagint. The crux of his question is this: “While they are forced to admit that there was a Greek translation of the Old Testament available before Christ, the pushback is the LXX we have now is [&hellip;]</p>

<p>If you like history, you will love this video. If you don&#8217;t like history, watch it anyway. You may learn something. I was talking with a King James Onlyist over the weekend who stated that the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, is a post-Christian 4th Century forgery. The actual comment said, &#8220;Maybe because the Septuagint [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Can you only learn Bible doctrine from a King James Bible? Roy Bell says so. Today, I want to look at another Roy Bell video. I have addressed him on a couple occasions. Some of you have asked me why I would waste my time on someone like Roy Bell. The guy has more than [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Let’s start with this premise, “…the Holy Spirit is not merely a “force” or “power,” but is, in fact, a person.” That phrase is common, but for the record, I took it from a great book called, “The Forgotten Trinity” by Dr. James White. The argument often follows, “but the Holy Spirit is a spirit [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A commenter on my YouTube Channel asked me this question in response to my last video where I addressed the Alexandrian versus Antioch schools and the related manuscript traditions. He asked, &#8220;How do we know that Jesus said the things the gospels say he did?&#8221; What an excellent question! I am happy to answer it. [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Many KJVO will tell you to consider the source. Have you ever heard this argument? Modern Bibles are based on manuscripts originating from Alexandria Egypt and are therefore bad while manuscripts originating from Antioch, Syria are good. This video addresses the genetic fallacy of this argument. CONTACT INFORMATION:DONATE: https://forthemaster.org/give or https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jonathanburrisWEBSITE: https://jonathanburris.comPODCAST: https://podcasters.spotify.com/p

<p>It isn&#8217;t easy being a pastor&#8217;s kid and growing up in the ministry. In this video, I interview my own son and daughter and we get very plain about the good, bad, and the ugly of dealing with imperfect people &#8212; including an imperfect father. Join us for this eye opening heart to heart, no [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Is man free or is man determined? This debate has raged for millennia. It is an existential question that does not begin with Calvin or Augustine. It was discussed by Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers like Leucippus, Democritus, and Heraclitus in the 5th Century BC, around the time of the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews. Stoics like [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Last week, I interrupted my series on Horrible Hermeneutics, opting instead on releasing a video dealing with some horrible Christology regarding Christ’s blood. The response to that video was shocking. While many, if not most, commenters were supportive of my teaching on the subject last week, there was a very vocal minority that came to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Where are the IFB when it comes to calling out one of their own? Let&#8217;s talk about one who needs to be marked and avoided. But it isn&#8217;t John MacArthur. Some fundamentalists have decided to accuse John MacArthur of heresy regarding the blood of Christ &#8212; again. This issue was put to bed decades ago, [&hellip;]</p>

<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>Let’s Talk about “Baal Gate” and the notion of “Non-Elect Infants”. And I want to warn you. This entire video needs a gigantic trigger warning. You almost need to sign a waiver before you watch it. This is such a sensitive issue and it would be insensitive of me to expect everyone to check their [&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>Today, I want to respond to an article that was published on Catholic Answers yesterday called, &#8220;Turning the Tables on a Protestant Prooftext&#8221; by Emily Torres. A friend of mine who swam the Tiber and converted to Roman Catholicism some years ago shared this article on Facebook yesterday and I responded to it there in [&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>