Send us Fan Mail

Do modern Bible translations actually remove references to the blood of Christ?

And what about people who struggle to understand the KJV—don’t we want people to actually read and understand the Bible for themselves?

In this episode, we look at two major audience questions from the KJV Onlyism debate:

1. Should Christians be expected to read a Bible they cannot understand?
2. Are modern translations removing key doctrines by omitting phrases like “through His blood” in Colossians 1:14?

The goal is not just to possess a Bible—but to know God through His Word.

If you enjoy careful, charitable theological discussion, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.

00:00 Introduction to Biblical Study

02:03 Understanding Scripture and Its Importance

06:43 The Role of the Holy Spirit in Understanding

17:00 Textual Variants and Their Implications

32:08 The Debate on King James Version vs. Modern Translations

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we continue working through audience questions from the Cravat–Canupp debate, focusing on King James Onlyism and textual criticism.

Can anything good come from Egypt? Should manuscripts be dismissed based on their origin? Did Origen corrupt the text of Scripture? And what exactly is textual criticism anyway?

We take a careful and charitable look at these questions, distinguishing between lower and higher criticism, addressing common misconceptions, and emphasizing why these issues matter for how we understand the Bible today.

My goal is not to attack, but to think clearly and faithfully about Scripture, history, and the tools God has given us to understand His Word.

If you enjoy thoughtful theological discussion, consider liking the video and subscribing.

📌 Let me know your thoughts in the comments:
– Should Egyptian manuscripts be dismissed?
– How do you understand textual criticism?
– Do translation differences affect doctrine?

00:00 Introduction to the Debate and Audience Questions

01:55 Critique of King James-Onlyism

07:36 Understanding Origen and Textual Criticism

14:23 Lower vs Higher Criticism in Textual Studies

24:54 Philosophy and Its Role in Theology

29:11 Examining Scriptural Citations and Errors

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we examine a common Roman Catholic objection: that sola scriptura is logically inconsistent.

But is that actually true?

Before responding to that claim, we lay out the positive case for sola scriptura, grounded in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and present a clear syllogistic argument:

• God alone is the final authority
• We access that authority through His Word
• God’s Word was given orally and in Scripture
• Oral revelation has ceased
• Therefore, Scripture is now the only access point to God’s final authority

From there, we evaluate whether objections to sola scriptura actually demonstrate a logical contradiction, or whether they simply challenge the truth of the premises.

We also interact with a video by Sean Hiller and examine several common misunderstandings of the doctrine.

00:00 Introduction to Sola Scriptura

01:18 The Positive Case for Sola Scriptura

05:02 Understanding Final Authority

07:57 Logical Consistency of Sola Scriptura

12:42 Addressing Objections to Sola Scriptura

17:48 The Role of Secondary Authorities

21:50 The Importance of Church Authority

25:11 Examining Mr. Hiller's Arguments

30:11 Clarifying Misunderstandings

34:11 Conclusion and Invitation for Discussion

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

Welcome back to Weighed in the Balance, where we examine whether claims can hold up to scrutiny.

In today’s episode, we wrap up the debate between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt—but the most interesting part is just beginning: the audience questions.

We cover:

• Nathan Cravatt’s final speech and whether it actually addressed the debate question
• The credibility issue and historical claims about James I of England
• Whether the debate truly engaged textual criticism
• A deep dive into Psalm 12 and the Hebrew grammar behind a major KJV-only argument
• Why masculine vs. feminine forms matter for interpretation
• A problematic answer involving the Holocaust and why it fails theologically
• How Scripture speaks about God’s preservation of His people
• The difference between the canon of Scripture and textual transmission

We also reflect on a broader principle:
Even long-held beliefs should be examined carefully and honestly in light of truth.

If you enjoy careful, charitable theological analysis, consider liking the video and subscribing—it really helps more people discover these discussions.

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we continue analyzing the 2021 debate on King James Onlyism—and take a closer look at a historical claim that simply doesn’t hold up.

Was James I of England a Presbyterian but not a Calvinist?
Did he reject the Geneva Bible because of Calvinist theology?

The historical record tells a very different story.

Drawing from the Hampton Court Conference and the contemporary account by William Barlow, we examine what King James actually said—and why he objected to the Geneva Bible’s marginal notes.

This episode is a reminder of two crucial skills:

• Verify historical claims
• Follow the logic of arguments carefully

If you do those two things, you’ll avoid most bad arguments—especially on topics like Bible translation.

📌 Topics Covered:

• King James and Presbyterianism
• The Geneva Bible controversy
• The real reason behind the King James Version
• Calvinism vs. church polity
• Evaluating historical claims responsibly

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

Weighed in the Balance helps Christians evaluate arguments and discern truth. In an age of well-produced, eloquently spoken, and highly persuasive claims, this channel asks a simple question: Is this true?

In this episode, we continue analyzing the debate between Nathan Cravatt and Mitch Canupp, focusing on a critical question: Which manuscript tradition is most trustworthy?

But as the discussion unfolds, a deeper issue emerges: inconsistency.

Can the arguments for King James Onlyism be applied universally? Or do they collapse under their own weight?

We explore:

• Lower vs. higher criticism
• Internal vs. external evidence
• The “law of first mention”
• The claim that “Egypt = bad”
• Why inconsistency may undermine the entire position

Ultimately, this episode isn’t just about Bible translations—it’s about learning how to evaluate arguments carefully and honestly.

👍 Like, comment, and subscribe for more thoughtful theological analysis.

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we continue analyzing the 2021 debate on KJV-onlyism and examine two key passages—1 John 5:7 and Revelation 16:5—that raise serious challenges for the position.

While the King James Version remains a faithful and valuable translation, elevating it to the only acceptable English Bible creates major apologetic, theological, and interpretive problems. We also address common misconceptions about the New King James Version and its textual basis.

Quick clarification: While there are a few minor differences between the KJV and NKJV (such as “God” vs “Lord” in some places), these remain within the Textus Receptus tradition and do not indicate a shift to the Majority or Critical Text.

If you enjoy careful, charitable theological discussion, consider subscribing and joining the conversation in the comments.

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we continue analyzing the debate between Nathan Cravatt and Mitch Canupp on King James Onlyism. By examining the different types of KJV-Only positions—from simple preference for the King James to claims that the KJV itself was re-inspired—we evaluate the arguments, evidence, and reasoning used in the debate.

Along the way we look at textual criticism, the Textus Receptus, numerics claims, and how to critically evaluate theological arguments.

If you enjoy careful and charitable theological discussions, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.

Mark Ward on False Friends in the KJV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1awUlUOhwfI
Mark Ward on the language of the Westminster Standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsMXQGORrA

00:00 Introduction
01:04 The Debate Question
03:10 Why KJV-Onlyism Is a Shrinking Position
05:02 The Five Types of KJV-Onlyism
05:45 1. “KJV Is the Best Translation”
09:01 2. The Textual Argument
12:37 3. Textus Receptus Only
17:20 4. The Inspired KJV View
19:25 5. The “New Revelation” Position
23:00 Why the Debaters Talk Past Each Other
26:10 The “Perfect Line of Manuscripts” Claim
30:25 The 1611 vs 1769 KJV Issue
34:40 How KJV-Only Arguments Use “Things That Are Different…”
39:02 The Psalm 138 Translation Issue
44:16 Evaluating the Debate Arguments
47:40 Emotional Appeals vs Evidence
49:40 “The Language Got Purer and Purer” Claim
52:30 Numerics vs Numerology
57:00 The WWII Chapter-Verse Claim
01:01:40 Misreading Romans Through Numerics
01:05:30 Erasmus and Codex Vaticanus
01:07:00 Is English the Closest Language to Hebrew?
01:09:10 Moderator Intervention

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!