Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
In studio today, a friend, a guest, a scholar in residence at Grand Canyon University, and the author of the King James Only Controversy, James White, delighted to have you in studio today. It's good to be with you.
You have written a controversial book about a controversy, and I want to be the first to say that I think this is a tremendous piece of work. In my endorsement of this book, on the back cover of the book, I say a clear, compelling, and conclusive case contradicting the claims of King James Version only advocates.
Your confidence in God's preservation of scripture through credible translations such as the NIV and the NASB will be solidified. And I think that's one of the things that you wanted to do through the book, is enhance and solidify the confidence that people have in the word of God.
That's very true, especially in light of the claims that are commonly made by King James. Only advocates, who would cause people to doubt whether the Bible translation that they're utilizing, if it isn't a King James, is going to accurately lead them to a knowledge of God.
I've had many people contact me who were using another translation, and the book has helped them to get through the confusion and the concern, the real concern that was caused to them, that maybe I haven't been getting everything God would have me to have.
Your problem is not with the King James Version, but with King James Version only.
Exactly. The King James Version of the Bible is a tremendous work of scholarship, and it certainly served the church tremendously well, but the King James Only movement makes the King James something that the translators never intended for it to be.
And really, in many ways, I'm standing for what the King James translators believed about how you should do translation, the necessity of revision, and so on and so forth. And so we are not here to say, if you find the King James Version to be your translation of choice, that there's something wrong with you, or trying to convince you to abandon the use of that translation at all.
Instead, the book responds to those who would say, unless you use the King James Version, you're not actually reading God's Word.
Let's take a little bit of a whirlwind tour from the secular Koine Greek, the common language of the day in which the majority of the New Testament came to us. From the secular Koine Greek of the day, to where we are today.
Okay. Well, first of all, the language itself, a very beautiful language, a very expressive language, and it's the language the people spoke at the time. So God communicated to us in a way that was understandable to the people of the day.
He didn't write it on a kindergarten level. He didn't write it in the high classical Greek. He communicated to people like you and I in a language that we could understand.
By the way, there's a principle there for us in looking at modern Bible translations. Very much so.
I'm concerned about many of the translations that have come out very recently that are attempting to make the level of the Bible simpler than the Holy Spirit did.
So you don't want college level or first grade level, maybe fifth or sixth grade would be appropriate.
You don't want unnecessary confusion, but neither do you want to lose anything that's there. It is a tight line that has to be walked, and I believe that there are a number of modern translations that do it quite well.
But from that language, you have the writing of the scriptures themselves. They are God-breathed. It is the scriptures that are God-breathed, not the men that are writing them. They're not described as being God-breathed.
It's the scriptures that are God-breathed. It's God speaking to us. But we don't have what Paul wrote to Ephesus or to the Church of Colossae. We don't have that letter anymore. In fact, I think you'd probably agree with me if we did, it would probably be someplace in a shrine and people would be lining up to worship it, just like they did in Israel of old.
We don't have those. And so the question that looms in everyone's mind is, how did those words that were given by God come to be in my possession today in my English Bible? What was the process? And unfortunately, the King James only controversy thrives in the fact that that's not something that we talk a lot about.
It's not something that we emphasize a lot in our sermons and our teaching, helping people understand that. What we recognize is that the first difference between the Christians and the Jewish people before them is that the Christian people wanted everyone to hear about Jesus Christ.
And so they were very open in allowing their scriptures to be copied. If a letter was, for example, found in the Church of Colossae, when a Christian would come through and he said, I want to read about this, it talks about the preeminence of Christ, they would be allowed to make a copy.
And very, very, very quickly, entire sections of the New Testament ended up buried in the sands of Egypt. They ended up in Gaul, in Italy. They're being translated into Latin and other languages very, very quickly.
The scriptures were spread all over the known world because people everywhere believed that people needed to hear the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. Now there are two side effects of that methodology that God chose to use.
The first is a wonderful one. And as you know, I deal a lot with Mormons and dealing with the claims of the LDS Church. And one of the claims they make is that the scriptures have been altered and changed and many plain and precious truths deleted because someone didn't like it, so on and so forth.
There was never a time in history when any one man, group of men, religious organization had control over all of the manuscripts of the Bible. If all we had was, say, the originals in control of a powerful religious group today, we would have no way of knowing whether 1 ,000 years ago, 500 years ago, they decided to change the theology and delete the deity of Christ or insert this doctrine, insert that doctrine.
We would have no confidence of that.
So because they're spread out all over the world, that's an impossibility. It's an impossibility.
In fact, if someone does come along and try to make some radical change in a manuscript, when you compare that one manuscript against the other 5 ,000 that we have, it sticks out like a sore thumb. So that was never a possibility for anyone to do.
And when we talk about the preservation of scripture, I believe this is how God has preserved it in that way. But there's a second result of that. And that is, if you and I were to take the Gospel of John and sit right here in a well-lit place and we're both to hand write a copy of the Gospel of John, I'll let you say that yours would be the most accurate, but ours would not be word for word identical.
We would make errors. We would skip lines. We would misspell words. There's all sorts of common errors that human beings make when they do that type of activity. I do it in front of a word processor with word processing equipment that checks and corrects my spelling as I type.
I still make errors. That is what happens when in the history of the New Testament you have Christians simply making copies and sending them out all over the place. You have what we know as textual variance.
That is places where the Greek manuscripts will differ from one another. There are no two Greek manuscripts in the world that read word for word identical with any other. Now, most of them are exceptionally close.
85 of the text in the New Testament exhibits no variation at all. Of that remaining 15%, at least 90 of that is easily resolved. So we're looking at about 1 to 1 .5 of the text in the New Testament where you have to do serious textual examination to be able to determine the original reading.
One of the illustrations I like in your book is where you say, okay, let's say we had an original and 10 people sat down in a room and copied that original. You'd end up with 10 different copies. If you lost the original, you would be able to get back to it with those 10 copies that are different.
In fact, it's really interesting. Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminary has his students do a little thing every semester where he takes an apocryphal story and he tells one person, you be sloppy while you copy it and you be the smart one.
You be real careful and you just try to hurry through it. And then they just get rid of the original, copy those, and then destroy them. And then their project is, can we get back to the original? And I think he said he's done this 32 times and in every instance, they have been able to get back to the original within one word and that word was either to or also.
And the reason is because you don't all make the same mistakes at the same place. Exactly.
The smarter students are going to make the lesser mistakes. They're not going to make mistakes in the same places. By comparing against other manuscripts, you're going to see real obvious errors, so on and so forth.
So we are able, modern Christian scholars truly believe, that not only do we have the original readings in the manuscripts that we have, what I mean by that is that no original readings have simply fallen out.
They haven't simply just disappeared. We have the original readings, but we are able to determine with an extremely high level of accuracy what those original readings are. And when we don't know, when we are uncertain, that's why your NASB and your NKJV and your NIV have those little notes down at the bottom of the page.
And the King James Version did it as well. The King James did it originally. There were a number of notes like that, but most of the modern King James translations do not have that in their margins, but many of them did for many, many years.
Take us to the time of Desiderius Erasmus. Okay, now you are around 1516 and you have the first printed, published version of the Greek manuscripts.
That's really where the modern history of the Bible begins in the sense that now we are getting to the foundations of the King James Version. Of course, printing is invented in the middle of the 15th century.
The first thing to come off the press is a Latin text of the Bible.
And of course, he sat down with 5 ,000 manuscripts.
No, Desiderius Erasmus was a Roman Catholic scholar. He was a Roman Catholic priest. He was known as the Prince of the Humanists and at that time, the term humanist simply meant a person who wanted to go to the original sources, an individual who wanted to not just simply hear what everybody else had said about a subject, he wanted to read about it for.
Himself. So when you call him a Catholic humanist, you are not saying that in a pejorative way.
In a pejorative sense at all. In fact, he was a pain in the side of the established church in many ways for many of the things that he wrote. But he wanted to put out the first printed and published edition of the Greek New Testament.
He also provided a new Latin translation along with. He originally started work in England, then he went to Basel, Switzerland and he thought he might find some more manuscripts there. His first edition was based on about six manuscripts.
We have of various portions of the New Testament 5 ,366. Today he had six. They all came from the same family of manuscripts. None of them were more than 1 ,000 years old. In fact, the older they were, the less he trusted them.
So in other words, he didn't trust even some of the better manuscripts that he had available to him. But what he had to do is he had to sit down, he had to compare the manuscripts and he had to determine when they differed what reading to put into his text.
Now why is that important? Well, Erasmus put out five editions during his lifetime. The third edition became the most popular. His editions along with some other editions were available to the King James translators and were utilized by the King James translators as the basis of the King James New Testament.
Why do I emphasize this? King James only advocates need to deal with the fact that human beings, frail, sinful human beings like Desiderius Erasmus were involved in making the textual choices that make up their King James New Testament just like in the NIV or the NASB and in point of fact they had less information available to them than we have available to us today.
And so the King James didn't just simply fall down out of the sky. There was a human process that was involved in its translation just as there is a human process involved with the NIV, NASB or any other modern translation.
Well let's talk about James I who actually commissioned the project in around 1604. The project was done in seven years which must mean it's the perfect project. And there are those that would say look, James I was morally bankrupt, he was a homosexual therefore we can't trust the King James version.
On the other hand there are those who say look we can't trust the NIV because Virginia Mollenkot who was an English stylist who worked for a small period of time on the NIV stylistic changes, she wasn't on the translation committee, was a lesbian and that came out later on therefore we can't trust the NIV.
Let's talk about the absurdity of using those kinds of arguments.
Unfortunately King James onlyism can be defined as the argument that uses double standards and circular arguments more often than anything else I think I've ever encountered and here's a good example of this.
Otto Scott for example has written a book that details a lot of the problems that King James had on a personal level as far as his personal life was concerned and his behavior. But that does not have any impact upon the accuracy of the King James as a translation.
And yet modern King James only advocates will attempt to say that everyone from Westcott and Hort to all the modern translators who were involved in modern translations were somehow infected with some type of either sinfulness in regards to their personal lives or theological problems and this automatically results in corrupted translations or corrupted Greek or Hebrew texts.
The problem with that is that modern Greek texts for example the Nestle All in 27th edition that I hold in my hand right here, you will notice at the bottom of the page there are extensive notes that are provided to you and what you have down here is information given to you about all the different readings the manuscripts have.
Now if you are trying actually because you are a sinful person to hide something in the scriptures you are not going to provide extensive footnotes at the bottom of the page that says by the way all these other manuscripts read like this.
You are just going to go ahead and delete what is there and get on with it. That's not what modern scholars are doing and that's not what modern translations are doing either and again everyone needs to examine the arguments that are presented by anyone myself included and see if they involve double standards and in the King James only controversy do those who support the King James as the only infallible Bible on the planet utilize the same standards in examining the King James and where it came from as they do modern translations and my research has an unambiguous answer to that and it's no.
On page 22 of your book, the King James only controversy, you talk about translational disputes, disagreements over how to translate what was originally written by the prophets and the apostles and you talk about two different kinds of translational disputes.
The one is a textual dispute and you give John 647 as an example. The second is a translational dispute and you give John 336 as an example. Talk about that for a moment.
Well most of the differences between the King James and the modern translations are based upon one of two types of things. In the first instance what we would call a translational dispute. You have the exact same Greek and Hebrew terms in the manuscripts that we are utilizing.
The manuscripts evidence that the King James translators utilized is the exact same in a verse for example of what we utilize today and yet the modern translations will translate it differently. For example, we're all familiar with Paul's words to Timothy, study to show thyself approved.
Most modern translations say be diligent. Now both are translating the exact same Greek term, they're just translating them in different ways and some people feel that the King James really defines how everything should be translated.
They start with the King James and sort of argue in circles from there but they say well you're trying to insert things because of the way you translate things. The other type of difference is textual and that is where the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that we are utilizing differ from the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts of the King James and so at that point you are translating a different original into English and obviously that is going to result in a different reading in your English translation.
By the way there is so much that could be said about that and when we talk about translational disputes people might think that is boring but if you pick up this book and you start to read about it the first thing it will do is it will make you understand how we got the Bible we have today and the second thing it will do is it will give you such incredibly interesting information on even how languages are translated from one culture to another.
I think that is something we ought to just touch on for a moment James and that is the difference between dynamic equivalency and formal equivalency. Big words perhaps but the concept is pretty easy especially if you are bilingual.
Most definitely so unfortunately a lot of Americans aren't bilingual but if you are familiar with another language even if you just took a semester of Spanish in high school or something like that you are aware of what these issues are.
You can translate from other languages into English in more than one accurate way. Most of us when we start studying other languages we start translating as formally as we possibly can that is literally we are simply taking well this word means this and this word means this and frequently our translation isn't very good it doesn't make really good sense but at least we have some idea.
Formal translations are those translations that attempt to maintain as close a possible connection to the wording of the original language text. NASB is very close the King James is a very formal translation but there is no perfectly formal translation.
It can't be done. Greek word order for example defies English word order and you cannot just simply assign a meaning to a word and stick with that all the way through because you and I don't use words with the exact same meaning in every single context.
We change our meaning as we change context. So do the biblical writers. So the more formal translations will be a little bit more difficult to read. They won't flow. Now you have other types of translations, dynamic equivalency translations and these individuals, we are not talking about paraphrases here, there are some paraphrases out there some that are very nice but basically a person is just saying well I think the writer was saying such and such.
A dynamic translation is attempting to maintain as close a contact as possible with the original text but they recognize that there are places where if you give a literal translation English speaking people are not going to understand what you are saying.
And actually you are missing the point and you are not translating meaning and so a dynamic translation will sacrifice the literal words if it can help with the meaning. The example that I use in the book is Luke 9 .44.
In Luke 9 .44 in the King James and the NASB Jesus says let these words or these sayings sink down into your ears. Now you and I don't speak that way. The NIV says listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.
Now that is the dynamic equivalence. That is what it means. The literal Greek words are let these words sink into your ears. But what does that mean and that is what the dynamic translation is trying to get at.
Give me two examples from languages that we are familiar with today, German or French.
The one I have used for years all my students are sick and tired of hearing about it. The Germans have a phrase which literally means the morning hours have gold in their mouths which doesn't mean anything to you and I.
However that is their way of saying our saying the little bird catches the worm. The French say which literally means I have the cockroach but what that means in their language is I am depressed. I have the blues and so when we translate things how are we going to translate them?
If we want to translate meaning then we are going to have to and in fact when we read a translation of a foreign language text we are awfully appreciative when they help us with the meaning.
So if you do a formal equivalency and the text comes out I have a cockroach translating from the French. Basically I am not going to understand what you are talking about but if you say I have the blues you have given me a dynamic equivalent of what the person was trying to communicate in the idiom of the French language.
And the argument of course that most people make is look if you are giving a dynamic translation. This is the people who for example would oppose the NIV. They would say if you are giving me a dynamic translation you are interpreting one step that I want to do for myself.
It is a lot safer to provide a merely formal translation. You are really hanging yourself out for some shots if you give a dynamic translation and yet you have probably spoken with people who upon encountering like the NIV or a translation that communicates with them much better their entire understanding of faith has increased dramatically because they just could not understand before.
And so God has a place for both. I suggest that people do not limit themselves to any single one but that they compare back and forth.
It is kind of interesting I speak Dutch and there are certain things I am trying to communicate to my wife and I have no English word to communicate it so I can only say it in Dutch and so this whole issue becomes clear if you understand other languages and we are going to be coming back in just a few moments with your questions right here on the Bible Answer Man broadcast.
Any questions that have to do with the King James Version only controversy today and you can get in by dialing 800 -821 -4490 again to ask questions of my in-studio guest James White the number 800 -821 -4490.
We will be back in just a few moments with more. Welcome back to the second half of the Bible Answer Man broadcast. I am your host Hank Hanegraaff president of the Christian Research Institute and I am in the studio today with James White the author of the book The King James Only Controversy and it is kind of interesting that I had actually begun writing this book.
I developed the acronym KJV Only and I was about a month into the project when I heard that you were doing it knowing of your background I knew that I had better wait and see what you came up with. You came up with this book sent me the manuscript.
I quickly read wrote an endorsement for this manuscript and aborted my plan so thank you for saving me all that work. This is an excellent piece of work.
I appreciate that and I am very appreciative of the fact that there have been many many people. The mail has been 25 to 1 positive. People who have been very very thankful for the fact that they now have a reason to trust the Bible they have been utilizing.
They don't feel like they are constricted. We have to realize that some of the folks who take the King James Only position can be extremely extremely strong in their denunciation of modern translations and things like that and it can cause real problems in people's lives.
So I have been very very thankful for the reception the book has received.
Well you have had a good reception. You also have had some rather interesting opposition. Tex Mars writes. Don't write me again speaking to you unless in sincere repentance you are a devil. And I understand well why Miss Ripling does not respond to your ridiculous assertions.
Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan can have strong words there. I saw the book that you brought in today where Gail Ripley Gail Ripling who wrote New Age versions quotes Samuel talking about how the mighty have fallen referring to me the fact that I broke my shoulders.
I only broke my shoulder and have had people assail my character therefore the mighty have fallen. These people really take this issue seriously. And one of the things you do in your book is you divide the King James Only people into categories so you don't paint with a broad brush.
There are people who are very strongly committed to King James Version Only but they are not going to assail the character of those who have an NIV in their hand.
That's exactly right and that's a real important distinction to make and I am frequently accused I'm sure you've experienced the same thing. Individuals like that will contact me and you paint with a broad brush when I ask for specifics well I can't give you specifics but there are those who go way beyond the call and engage in rather nasty calumniation shall we say of anyone who disagrees.
There are those who hold the King James but not with the type of anger toward others and they do utilize different arguments and in fact we should distinguish between the two major King James Only groups.
You have those individuals who are really King James Only in the sense that the King James Translation itself is something special about it. It's either inspired, inerrant, advanced revelation as Peter Ruckman says.
It is a re-inspiration of the Bible and then you have what I call TR Only individuals. TR standing for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text is utilized as the basis of the King James and their arguments will be a little bit different though I have to admit in every conversation I've had I've debated D. A. Waite, I recently debated Thomas Strauss and in every conversation I've had with individuals who defended just the Greek text it eventually worked around to having the same impact and same effect.
In other words even when I could present clear and obvious errors in the TR the answer was well it's a matter of faith.
I think it should be pointed out that the TR or the Textus Receptus, the received text is a term that as I recall was coined by the Elzever brothers or Bruden as you would say in Dutch who wrote in Leiden, they were publishers basically and that was a publisher's blurb.
It was an advertisement. D. And it was in 1633 long after the King James Version the first edition had been completed.
A. They said this is the text that has been received by all therefore Textus Receptus means received text. The problem is the TR, first of all there are over 100 different editions of it and most people aren't aware of that but the TR that a lot of King James only advocates have today did not exist until 1894 when Scrivener created it and in fact that text did not exist until 1611 when the King James translators created it.
There is no one manuscript in the world that reads word for word like the TR, not at all.
D. Folks it's a fascinating book. The King James only controversy. You have to get a hold of it. It is a resource for a lifetime. It's available through the Christian Research Institute. Actually I was going to charge $15 because we throw in some other things.
I'm going to do something special. I'm going to give it to you for $10 less than what you can buy it in a bookstore. I want to put it in your hands. This is something that you need in your library. Again the King James only controversy, radio offer number 337 by my in-studio guest James White a suggested donation of just $10.
I want to go to our first caller up today, Don Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, listening on WORD. Don, welcome.
Hi, how are you doing? I'm really honored to be on your program, Hank. Glad to have you. Hey, this book, if anybody's listening and they've ever been through this, if they have a friend in this, it's worth every penny.
This book is worth its weight in gold, especially for me. I went through this. I have some guys that work and we went through this, but one of the problems I had was it's almost like you have to witness these people.
How do you try to communicate with these people? Yeah, that's a good question.
How do you communicate without creating heat?
Well the heat unfortunately is already there and in fact that's one of the main problems is that this whole movement splits churches, it destroys ministries, it's a very difficult thing on that level.
The heat's already there and unfortunately with a committed King James only advocate who is already thinking and arguing in circles, all the facts in the world, they're impervious to logical argumentation.
There's nothing that you can do at that point. You can simply present the facts and say now Christians who are followers of he who called himself truth should not utilize bad argumentation and illogic.
We as Christians should have a very high standard of truth and a very high standard in what we accept to be true and you can call them to accept those standards, but you can't force them and I think it's important to realize I believe that the King James only movement is a tradition and a lot of people who hold this, you know what happens when you start questioning somebody's traditions.
Boy, I'll tell you the sparks can fly and a lot of these folks, really the major group that believes this are independent Baptists and Baptists, I grew up very, very conservative Baptists, I'm a Reformed Baptist, but the point is we Baptists don't think we have any traditions and those people who don't think they have traditions are the most blind to their traditions.
If I may, sir, one thing that I really found the most helpful of all was I have a 1611 translation or a reprint. From Thomas Nelson? No, it's like from, it's a 1911 reprint. Okay. And when I found those verses that were different from what is printed now compared to what was originally printed, they're wholesale changes that were made errors, which throws the entire inspired argument out.
Yeah, that's a really good point, in other words, King James version is not King James version.
Well, exactly, and what you are carrying today, what most of the King James only advocates have today is the 1769 Blaney revision, which differs in a number of places from the 1611, but I'd like to ask the caller, have you ever shown a King James only advocate page 80 where I talk about Jeremiah chapter 34, verse 16?
I showed him nine different verses and at that point, it's like he shut down, this was a pastor of an independent Baptist church, and he was like, basically like what you said before was, you just have to take it on faith.
Right, right. And it's, they're not, once confronted, it's like they're going to retreat into their shell.
Yeah, but you know the good thing is, and the answer ultimately to your question is to prepare yourself as though your life depended on it, and if God opens their heart, then you can give them answers and use those answers as springboards or opportunities for sharing how we really got our Bible.
Good talking to you, Don. I want to go to Russ, Austin, Texas, listening on KIXL, Russ, welcome.
Hi Hank and James, it's Austin, you were here not too long ago. Yeah, I remember. Yeah, I got to meet you while I was here and that was a great blessing, and I'd just also like to say that it's a great blessing to my life and I'd like to thank you all for what you all are doing.
Appreciate it, Russ. And this is a subject that I've been kind of studying some lately, and in these tapes that I've been reading, there's a lot of different words that Austin should use that he believes that, then I guess the older like Alexanian or Indian manuscripts, and his comment on these if he were, one book was by Hills, it's called The King James Version Defended.
Yes, I addressed Hills in the book. Okay, and then there was three other books written, a man named David Fuller. Yes, Which Bible Society. Right, and when, in a different group, which Bible or which reading should you accept?
Well, first of all, the books that you referenced are King James books. Edward F. Hill's is addressed briefly in Chapter 5 of my book. He takes a rather unique perspective, but I think it's a very circular perspective.
It starts with its own conclusion. The problem with the perspective that is taken by most of these individuals is it does start where it ends up. It is a circular argumentation. And when you examine the Textus Receptus, I have invited a number of individuals who defend it as being the best to interact with some of the most glaring problems in it.
And I could give you a whole list. It wouldn't mean anything to you. I talk about them in the book. And they are not really willing to put the TR in the same position of examination of something else.
And that's a real problem. When you say, when you ask the question, well, when you have variant readings from different families, which one do you take? Modern Greek texts do not simply say, well, you always take the reading found in this family.
You see, the practice of textual criticism today involves you in examining every single manuscript in its own context. And so there are times when a modern Greek text like the Nestle-Aland 27th, which just came out, will take a Byzantine manuscript reading.
And I should explain that the major families are the Alexandrian, the Western, the Caesarean, and the Byzantine. The Byzantine is primarily what the Textus Receptus is. There are times when it will take a Byzantine reading over against an Alexandrian reading because in the context, that is what is suggested.
A modern textual scholar is going to look both at the external evidence and the internal evidence. And so it's not just simply a matter of modern textual scholars throwing the Byzantine text out the door.
That just simply isn't the way that it is. Even though that's normally how it is represented in King James-only materials, that is not how it actually works out in practice.
I do want to mention that, without putting words in Chuck Smith's mouth, I go to Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, and I know that Chuck likes the KJV best, but he has never kicked me out of the church because I'm carrying an NIV.
And there are many Calvary Chapel pastors that will preach out of NIV or memorize NIVs. And so, again, he really reverences the KJV, but he is not insisting that everybody agree with him on this particular point.
And that's really, I think, the point that we want to get people to. We're not saying that there's anything wrong with the KJV. The thing that we're trying to say through all of this is that we should have real confidence in the manner through which God has preserved his word to this very day.
In point of fact, our problem comes to us because we of all the language groups on the earth today are the richest in the blessing of God and having the most number of excellent translations available to us.
There are entire language groups that don't have any. So they obviously aren't going to have an argument about which one is best in that situation, but we have so many that we have arguments about it.
When I first started studying the King James only issue back in the 80s, I was sent tapes by Chuck Smith and I wrote to Calvary Chapel and I got a letter back that said those were older tapes. Chuck is not quite as convinced of that position now as he was then, so on and so forth.
So I've encountered it a lot, but I would hope maybe you would pick up the book because I do address those issues that you're talking about in the book fairly in depth.
Good. I want to go to Jeff, Memphis, Tennessee, listening on WCRV. Jeff, welcome. Yes, sir.
How are you fellas doing? Doing okay. I would like to ask Mr. White a question.
Well, there are a number of Bibles you can go to. That's the whole issue. We need to be very careful that we do not sacrifice truth for certainty. You see, up until there was a printed edition of the Bible, whenever Christians gathered for over 1400 years in a church, if you had a manuscript and the person next to you had a manuscript, those two manuscripts were not identical to one another.
Does that mean they didn't have God's truth? Sure it does. No, it doesn't. In point of fact, when individuals, for example, would use the Greek Septuagint, there were many differences. Septuagint? The Septuagint, yes.
The Greek Septuagint. The Greek translation of the Old Testament. I didn't know there was one in existence. There certainly was. In fact, the New Testament writers quote from it the vast majority of the time.
Okay, where is absolute truth at?
The absolute truth is in the Word of God, sir. Which one? It's not a matter of which one, sir. We're not talking about multiple Bibles.
There are over 250 different translations out there.
The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, sir. That is what God revealed his Word in. We have translations thereof. And as the King James translators themselves said, even the meanest translation, as long as it is faithful to the original, is worthy of the phrase, the Word of God.
And I agree with them.
By the way, let me ask you a question before you ask a question. Do you think that there are any two Greek manuscripts that agree perfectly? Sir?
Do I think there are any two Greek manuscripts that agree perfectly?
Which one, sir? There are over 100 of them. Well, which original do you hold to? No, we're asking you, which one do you hold to? Just so you can be specific.
See how it goes around. See, the problem is when we ask which manuscript, which one are you wanting to invest this absolute perfection in, as I explained before, when God preserved his Word for us, he did so in such a way that it could not be altered in any fundamental way.
But he did so in such a way that it allowed for textual variation. And so I don't believe that there is any one Greek manuscript that is perfect. So you can't ask me that question. You're the one who said that you do believe that the textus receptus is perfect.
Is that the 15th and 16th edition of Erasmus? One of the other four that came after him? Was it Stephanus' text?
Was it Baze's text? Is it Scrivener 1894? Just be specific. Which one of those alternatives do you choose? I choose the AB 1611.
I've got my hand raised. Okay, so actually the TR is irrelevant if you're saying that you're actually holding to the King James. The TR doesn't really matter. I'm a TR man. I'm a King James man. Okay, you're not a TR man.
So the TR doesn't matter then, right? Huh? Which TR doesn't matter? What matters to me is that God said he's not the author of confusion and you've got these people in these churches and the preacher stands up.
The problem is if God is not the author of confusion, how come you are so confused about what you're saying right now? You don't even know what you've got a hold of right now.
Jeff, have you ever even noticed that Psalm 1267, which you were just citing there, is not in reference to God's words? It's in reference to his people?
Well, it's not what anybody holds to. It's just a plain reading of the text.
It's just a matter of looking at the text. The point is, sir, I recognize your desire to have absolute certainty, but what I'm suggesting to you is that you may have sacrificed truth to have absolute certainty.
Are you aware of the fact, for example, that the reading of your King James Version of the Bible, Revelation chapter 16, verse 5, did not exist prior to the end of the 16th century anywhere in the world?
I don't believe that. Well, let me explain what I'm saying. You're trying to destroy my faith. No, I'm not.
No, sir. No, sir. Let me ask you something.
If your faith is placed in falsehoods, then that's a faith I do want to destroy and have it replace the faith in truth because God's truth can examine.
Hey, Jeff, you know what you need to try to do for just a few moments? Yes, sir. Is listen. Just open your heart and your ears and just listen. Even if you disagree, just listen, and that way you can argue with what is said on the basis of what is said, rather than what you think he's going to say or what he didn't say.
Just listen for a moment. Revelation chapter 16, verse 5, in the King James Version of the Bible. I mean, we all know it. It's been turned into hymns and everything. It says, and I heard the angel of the waters, I'm sorry, verse, chapter 15, 16, verse 5, and I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and was, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
The reading, and shalt be, did not come into existence until Theodore Beza, John Calvin's successor in Geneva, when working on the Greek New Testament, looked at it and said, that doesn't make any sense.
And I could go into the forms of the words, but he made what's called a conjectural emendation. In other words, he didn't have any manuscripts to back him up, but he changed it anyways. And he changed the word, and if you look at all of the translations, you look at all the manuscripts that existed for 1 ,500 years of church history, all of them say, which art, and was, O Holy One.
Now he changed that. He didn't have any warrant to do it, but it ended up in the King James Version of the Bible. I would suggest to you, that if you are unwilling to recognize, that the King James Version is what its translators itself said it was, a translation done by human beings, that is liable to revision, that the faith you are talking about has been misplaced.
And I would like to suggest to you, God saved you by his grace, not by a translation. Don't put your faith in a human translation, place it in the Savior, whose blood avails for your sins.
Hey Jeff, thank you for being as gracious as to be willing to listen as I asked you to. I really appreciate that.
You understand that? If God hadn't got a perfect book, the God that floated the ark.
Now by the way, we do believe Jeff, in the infallibility of Scripture, and the inerrancy of Scripture. In the originals.
Have you ever met anybody to Jesus with a Greek text? Sir, I preach from it all the time,.
But that isn't the issue. I think people need to understand, when you say if you don't have a perfect Bible, what you are saying is, if you do not have a single, inspired, perfect English translation of the Bible.
We need to keep these issues clear, and we need to make sure that we recognize, the apostles didn't think they needed one. The apostles used the Septuagint, and there are all sorts of variations in the Septuagint, and sometimes they quote the variation.
Were they wrong? Would you be willing to look into it? Have you read my book? My preacher did. Well I understand how that might be.
I mean I study, I read on my side of the fence, I need to stay on. Well that's just it. If you are only on one side of the fence,.
You can only get one side of the story. There is a reason Jeff, why the vast majority of Bible believing, actively sharing their faith, Christian scholars like myself, don't agree with your position. Because I don't believe that the King James, is something that it's own translators, didn't design it to be?
That's not the issue. I think it is.
Hang on one second Jeff, because I want to ask you a question here, that I think will perhaps help us. Let's talk for a moment, about the Comma Johannium. 1 John 5 .7. This is an argument that is brought up, by King James Version only advocates, over and over again.
Let's talk about that for just a moment. I think it will help clarify things for you Jeff. Hang on. Jeff are you familiar with the passage, referring to 1 John 5 .7 .3? Yes it is.
The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Exactly. So you are familiar with what is called, the Comma Johannium, or the three witnesses? I'm not familiar with the text. The text itself.
This is a passage of scripture, that even scholars like Dean Burgan, who is frequently cited by David Otis Fuller, by Edward F. Hills, recognized was a much later insertion, into the text. In fact there are no Greek manuscripts, prior to the 16th century, that contain this reading.
Let me ask you a question. This passage was not utilized by, for example, the early Christians, who were fighting against, the heretics that denied the Trinity, or the heretics who denied, the deity of Christ.
They didn't use it, because they didn't have it. Were they somehow, missing something, from your perspective? The Apocrypha was in the middle. The middle of the text. The Apocrypha aside, let's get back to what I was just saying.
There are a number of places, I can show you. 1 John 5 .7 is one of them. Luke 2 .22 is another one. There are readings, in the Greek manuscripts, from which the King James, is translated, hence in the King James, that Christians, for 1 ,600 years, had never seen.
Are you saying, that the church, did not have God's truth, until 1611? Yes sir. The door of Revelation, closed in 1611. Can you recognize, that that is a belief, that is completely, extra biblical. It has no biblical foundation, at all.
In fact, it becomes an object, of faith for you, and why that might be dangerous? The Bible says, that the word of God,.
Works in you. That's true, but that doesn't have anything to do, with the King James translation. We could argue all day, but then they come in. No sir, you give them the word of God, and if they understand, the NIV, better than doing the King James, don't you dare limit them, to a translation, they can't understand.
We don't give them a Bible, that takes the blood out, in Colossians 1 .14. There is another example. Okay, let's talk about that, for just a second. We only have about 30 seconds, to talk about it, and then I'm going to, wrap up the broadcast.
Colossians 1 .14, is an excellent example, of a reading, that's based on, a very small percentage, of very late manuscripts. Again, it's something the church, didn't have, and I'd like to point out, it's also found over, in Ephesians 1 .7, in all the manuscripts.
Why take it out, of just some, if you're alleging,.
A conspiracy here? So in other words, the point is, the blood is not taken out. The blood is not taken out, it's right there, in Ephesians 1 .7. I'm out of time, Jeff, thanks for being a gentleman, with your differences.
I'm out of time, for this edition, of the Bible Answer Man, broadcast. Only controversy, the title, James White, the author, a suggestionation, of $10. We're making it cheaper, than you can buy it, in the bookstores, for one reason, we want to put it, in your hands.
It is a welcome addition, to the library, of every Christian. This is something, that will establish, your confidence, in the word of God. I like what you say, here on page 13. Over the 1100 years, following Jerome's publication, of his Latin translation, of the Bible, which was known, as the Vulgate, his work became, the most popular translation, in Europe.
By the early 16th century, the Vulgate was, everybody's Bible. It held the position, in the minds of Christians, that the subjugant, had held a millennium before, and just as Jerome, himself, had ruffled feathers, with his new translation, so along came a great scholar, who again, upset the apple cart.
This man's name was, Desiderius Erasmus, the prince of the humanists. Now interestingly enough, you point out, that he dedicated his book, to Pope Leo X, the same Pope, who by the way, excommunicated Martin Luther.
You're going to say, the beat goes on. It would be funny, if we were not so serious. Jerome takes the heat, for translating the Vulgate, which eventually, becomes the standard, and then Erasmus comes along, and takes the heat, for challenging Jerome, and for publishing, the Greek New Testament.
Then, 400 years later, it is Erasmus' work, itself, in the form of the Texas Receptus, which has become enshrined, as tradition, by the advocates, of the authorized version. He who once, resisted tradition, has become tradition itself.
The cycle continues. Will there someday be, an NIV only movement? We can only hope not. Now your point, there is nothing wrong, with tradition, as long as we don't, confuse tradition with truth. Exactly, and unfortunately, all of that came from, being a church history professor.
I love talking about history, and if we look back at history, we see that Christians, like their traditions, and once you get used to, hearing the word of God, in a certain form. In fact, what you didn't get a chance, to look at there,.
Is there was a riot, a long time ago, in Carthage, because Jerome's translation, comes out, and it doesn't quite, read the same in Jonah, instead of saying, a gourd grew over his head, he came up with, a castor oil plant, and they had a riot.
Now we Christians, have sometimes done, some silly things, and I think that was, fairly silly. The fact of the matter is, a lot of us grew up, on the King James translation, and we hear God, speaking to us, in that language, and so when new translations, come along, it's real easy, for us to become, very defensive.
Maybe not thinking through it, but it's an emotional thing, because God said, for God so loved the world. He didn't just say, God loved the world. You don't want to, change anything, because you've heard,.
God speaking to you, in this certain type of cadence, and it's beautiful. It's rhythmic, and it's beautiful, and it's poetic, but we like our traditions, and unfortunately, when we have our traditions, challenged, we tend to become, rather emotional, really quickly.
Now you believe, in full plenary, or full. Inspiration of the text. Inspiration of the text. You believe in, inerrancy. Right. Right. So how is it, that you can say, holding to inerrancy, holding to the full, inspiration of scripture.
How is it, that you can say,.
That there are not, two Greek manuscripts, that agree exactly? Well, and that's an excellent, because of the fact, that for a lot of, King James only advocates, it's an oxymoron. They really question, the fidelity that I have, to the authority, of scripture.
The problem is, the term inspiration, and the term inerrancy, refers to what God did, a long time ago, in inspiring the scriptures. So we're talking about, the autographs, the originals. The original writings, when Paul sat down, and he wrote, to the Thessalonians, he wrote a letter to them, and what he wrote to them, was, Theionoustos, God breathed.
Now, there is no promise, anywhere in scripture, and I have read, the King James only, materials from, stem to stern, but no one, has ever shown me, a promise in scripture, that says, scripture is inspired, and all copyists, thereof, shall be inspired, for the rest, of the transmission, of the text, of the Bible.
I can't find that, anywhere, and the historical fact, the matter is, is that God, did not deem it proper, to keep, every single manuscript, of the New Testament, from textual variation. He didn't do it, so if he didn't do it, historically, if our theology, forces us to come up, with some other concept, we're making history, and God's truth, clash against one another, and that's a dangerous, thing to do.
The simple fact, the matter is, God did promise, to preserve his text, it's how he did it. Does he do it, by re-inspiring the Bible, in 1611? Does he do it, by overriding copyists, so there's one manuscript, somewhere out there, that's absolutely perfect, or did he preserve his text, in another way, in the way we described, in the previous program, we talked about, the multiplicity of manuscripts, that immediately went out, into the world, so that the fundamental, doctrines of the gospel, could not be changed, could not be altered, you couldn't take, the resurrection out, you couldn't insert, some other concept, into the New Testament, since within, a matter of years, of the writing, of the New Testament, manuscripts are buried, in the sands of Egypt, outside the control, of anyone.
God did it, that way, which I think, is far more important, than really, classical scholars, look at us, like we just landed, from another planet, because in comparison, to what they have to work with, to reconstruct, the writings of Plato, or someone like that, we are so rich, it's unbelievable.
I mean, the purity of the text, in the New Testament, is incredible. Example, Hebrews 7 .24, I deal with it all the time, 7 .24 -25, I deal with it with Mormons, where it talks about, Christ's priesthood, he holds it, without successors, there are no textual variants, on that term.
The Greek manuscripts, all say the same thing, and with 85 of the text, that is exactly the way, that it is. The point is, you are not trying to rid, people of their confidence, in Scripture, rather you are, through this writing, you are saying, to people, we can have, the greatest confidence, that God has indeed, preserved his word.
And the reason, that I wrote the book, is I had to take away, a false confidence, that is just simply placed, in a human translation, and replace it, with the truth, that God has preserved, his word. He has given us, more evidence, of the truthfulness, of that word, more evidence, of the transmission, of that word,.
Than any other, ancient text, whatsoever. He has preserved, his word, he just hasn't done it, the way the King James, only advocates, would like us to believe. And if he had, it would actually, have worked, or militated, against preserving, the truth of the text.
In point of fact, for those who take, the strongest King James, only position,.
The entire issue, of the preservation, of Scripture, becomes irrelevant, because the King James, is a re-inspiration, of Scripture in 1611. Who cares, what happened up to then? We had a caller, in yesterday's program, who said, they didn't have, God's word, up until the King James, came along.
That, I think, undermines, the most fundamental, assertions, that the Church, has always made, about the veracity, of the Scriptures. In a sense, the gates of hell, would have prevailed, against the Church.
We want to go, to our first caller, up today,.
Lorraine, San Diego, California, listening on KPRZ, you're on with, James White. Hi, thank you, for taking my call, I really appreciate, the subject matter, I've been going, back and forth, on this lately, with a pastor of mine, I have a couple, of questions, one is about, the question of, deity, the deity of Jesus, and the different versions, in Carson's book, the King James version, the whole chart there, about how different versions, indicate the deity, and others don't.
Right, in fact, I expanded greatly, on that chart, on page 197, of my own book. Okay, it's obvious, you have a lot, of questions, I'm going to have, to get that book. Also, I have another question, one, well let me,.
Before we leave that, I think it's important, to point out, just so that people, don't think we just, bypass that one, when you're talking, about the deity of Christ, one of the main, objections that is raised, by King James only advocates, is the allegation, that modern translations, somehow downplay, or attack the deity, of Christ, and that's why, I include an entire, chapter, chapter 8, is solely on passages, relevant to, the deity of Christ, and the virgin birth, because I have dealt, with Jehovah's Witnesses, for years, and I have studied, these passages in depth, and I think that, it's really terribly unfair, the King James only advocates, will play upon a doctrine, that all of us Christians, believe in deeply, and would immediately, identify with, but in point of fact, it is simply, a false accusation, to its core, and any semi unbiased, examination of the facts, demonstrates that, to be the case, that the modern translation, like the NIV, or the NASB, are attempting to hide, the deity of Christ, in point of fact, Dr. Kenneth Barker, who is the head, of the NIV translation center, the general editor, of the NIV study Bible, has said, that one of the most, consistent criticisms, he's received, of the NIV, has been how strongly, it proclaims, the deity of Christ,.
Which it really does, I have dealt, with Jehovah's Witnesses, for many years, and most people, who do that recognize, the single English translation, that is strongest, on the classical passages, that teach the deity, of Christ, is the NIV.
And you know, what's really interesting, about this chart, in the book, for this chart alone, this chart points out, where the NIV, and the NASB, are very clear, on the deity, of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and where it's actually, absent, from the King James Version, for example, John 1 .18.
Right, John 1 .18, is a passage, where in the modern, translations, Jesus is described, as the unique God, and in the NIV, the King James, that is the only, begotten son. But the chart, also addresses, another passage, like 1 Timothy 3 .16, where the King James, has God was manifest, in the flesh, whereas the modern, translations have, he who is manifest, in the flesh.
So I think, it's very fair, it goes very in-depth, on that, because the deity, of Christ, is extremely precious, to me. I'm going to be, writing a book, for Bethany House, on the Trinity, it's something, that is very, very important to me, it's obviously, vital to apologetics, and so, I'm not, I didn't want, I want to make sure, people realize, we deal with, the deity of Christ, very deeply, in regards to your question, because it's very important.
Did I understand you, correctly in saying, that the missing passages, just couldn't be, written in Greek, like NIV apparently, is accused of missing, certain passages, and other scriptures. Well, when we use the term, missing, realize, when you talk, when you use the terms, like deleted, removed, missing, and this is what, King James only, advocates like to do, that sets the King James, up as the standard.
The question, that we always have to ask, is what did Paul write, what did John write, what did the original, writers have, and the King James version, comes from a family, of manuscripts, that I describe, as a fuller family, that is,.
They came about, at a later period of time, and they are longer, for example, the titles, of the Lord Jesus, if it's a fuller, if the earlier manuscripts, have the Lord Jesus, the later manuscripts, will have the Lord, Jesus Christ, they will expand titles, or, and this is very, very common, in the gospels, the scribes, that copied the manuscripts, very much wanted, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to say the exact same thing, in the exact same way.
This last Sunday, I preached, from Luke chapter 18, and I used a Greek text, that has the various, gospel writers, in columns, next to each other, and it was fascinating, to notice, how the later, later copyists, would try to harmonize, the gospel writers, to make them say, the exact same thing, with the exact same words, and we understand, that type of bent, when we're copying, especially if we're used to, let's say the way, Matthew does it, and we're copying Luke, it would be very easy, for us to unconsciously, make that type of a change, and so, the point is, not is something, been taken out, but was something there, originally, in the first place, and we've got to give, the modern translations credit, when they don't have, a particular passage, for example, Matthew chapter 18, verse 11, is not in the NIV, because it's not, in the best manuscripts, so John chapter 5, verse 4, they will always, provide you, with those verses, in translation, in the footnotes, in the translation itself, like that stoning, of the woman, the adulterous woman, they say, some translations, it's removed, and when I read it, you know, I feel like, it's inspired, and I never know, what to think about it, because they say that, you know, this is only in some, you know, translation.
Well, the fascinating thing,.
About that particular story, and again, I do address that, in the book as well, toward the end of the book, I give you the textual, evidence for that, but that story itself, appears at different places, in the gospel of John, and in some manuscripts, it appears in Luke, the point is, that's the only text, of scripture, we have like that, that is actually even found, in some manuscripts, in another book, it seems very obvious, because it's not, because of that, because of its absence, from the earliest manuscripts, and because of the fact, it's found at different places, that it was probably, a fragment of oral teaching, on the part of the Lord, Jesus Christ, that very early, was distributed, amongst Christians, and people wanted, to record it in the text, and they tried to find, a place to record it, and eventually, it ended up in John, but the fact, that it's found in Luke, is very, very indicative, of the fact, that John didn't originally, write it there, at 753 through 811, Luke certainly didn't have it, in his, it is a later edition, and I think, we need to be, just as concerned, about additions, as subtractions, but notice again, your modern translations, do translate the passage, for you, and provide it for you, in footnotes.
Right, what, Mexico has, this new Bible out, and I've seen it out, in other settings, the New Century Bible, are you familiar, with that? Well actually, it's, he's using, the New Century text, and then he has, his notes, along with that.
Okay, the only thing, that I can say, about the New Century, version, and I'm going to try, to keep this, as general as possible, is I've looked at it, some, and I do have, a problem personally, with translations, that attempt to make, the scriptures, simpler, than they originally, were.
In other words, if you're trying, to translate, at a level lower, than the Holy Spirit, inspired it, you're going to have, to lose something, along the way, and when you attempt, to artificially limit, the vocabulary, that you're utilizing, you're eventually, going to be losing,.
Now again, I think it's important, for everyone to recognize, if we would simply use, all the resources, that are available to us, and have multiple versions, if we don't learn, the biblical languages, and I'm going to avoid, my normal sermon, about the fact, that we waste our time, doing a lot of other things, that we could use, I don't think, there's anything wrong, with learning the biblical, languages personally, but I'm going to avoid, that sermon for now, even if we don't learn, the biblical languages, we have such a wonderful, and a plethora, of excellent translations, available to us, that even if you have, the New Century version, and you also have, the NIV, and the NASB, and the New King James version, and you're studying, and you're comparing, and contrasting, then you're not going to be, led astray, by any oversimplification, that one particular, translation might have, and so that's why, I really strongly, encourage people, to utilize the resources,.
Have multiple translations, I know we all like, to have our one favorite, really soft, dog-eared Bible, that we carry with us, and all over the world, and all over the place, and I understand that, but if we're serious, students of the word, then we need to utilize, multiple translations, while we're doing it.
Lorraine, thanks for your call. Okay, can I stand there, for the book? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. God bless you. A related question, Lorraine brings up, such great questions, Mark 16, so often, we have the question, about the long ending, to Mark 16, and the short ending, it seems to me,.
That the short ending, just doesn't make, any sense, it just stops, too fast, and you know, you've just, illustrated for me, without our even, discussing it, exactly why, there is not only, a long ending, but a medium ending.
There are a multiple, a multitude of endings, for Mark. Why would there be, multiple endings for Mark? The only reason, there would be multiple, endings for Mark, is that a lot of other, people have agreed with you, in the past, and again, I address this issue, in the book, but one thing, is for certain, this is a passage, where majority, text advocates, that is individuals, who believe, that the majority, of Greek manuscripts, should be trusted, to give us, the accurate rendering.
They say, here is a classic example, where most of modern scholarship, has jumped off, the edge of the earth, and it's important, to differentiate, between majority, text advocates, and King James only.
There's a big difference, between the two, people like Zane Hodges, and Art Farstad, would be appreciative, if we'd recognize, that they are not, you know, running around, and holding hands, with Gail Ripling, or individuals like that.
In fact, they're attacked, just as specifically, as anybody else, but the point is, they say, look, there's only two manuscripts, that miss this, and there are, all these other, thousands of manuscripts, that have it, obviously, here's an instance, where you've got a problem.
Well, I agree with B .B. Warfield, that the very existence, of multiple endings, can only be explained, with recognizing, that the earliest, gospel of Mark, didn't have any of them, and people felt, there needed to be one, so they borrowed, from the other gospels, or whatever else, it might be.
But that is, that gets us right, into the very practice, of textual criticism itself, and again, my saying, that I don't believe, that Mark 16, 9 through 20, is original with Mark, doesn't come from, some terrible, horrible liberal theology, that I have, or something like that, it comes from, examining the facts, and having certain standards, as to why, why we should believe, something was original, or not, looking at the manuscripts, looking at the internal evidence,.
So on and so forth, as I explain in the book, well you would still, consider it, like a conflation, in other words, most of what you find there, you can find somewhere else, exactly, most of what you can, some of which, you can't though, in fact, I wouldn't make, a whole lot of points, there's only about one thing, that I know, you're going to point to, it's got something, to do with serpents, and deadly worms, I was going to say, my book doesn't sell, too well in the hills, of North Carolina, because of my viewpoint, on that, and that is a place, where textual criticism, does impact theology, at that point, but I do think, it is incredible, to hold up the notion, that since Mark, is arguably the oldest, of the Gospels, that it would end, without the appearance, of the resurrected Christ, without the great commission, it's definitely, understandable, why people feel, that there needs to be, something more than that, but we have to, before we say, well it's incredible, that Mark would write it, that way, could there not have been, some reasons, why they ended it, the way they did, give me some good reasons, well read the book, it's in there, I discussed the whole thing, and that's exactly, what I want each one of you, to do, get into the books, I'm going to leave you, with that cliffhanger, the book we're talking about, of course, is James White's, new book, called, The King James Only, Controversy, and welcome back, to the second half, of the Bible Answer Man, broadcast, if you just tuned in, my in-studio guest today, James White, the author of, The King James Only, Controversy, it's our radio offer, all this week, it is a tremendous, that you don't, want to miss, reading, because it will inspire, your confidence, in scripture, we're going right back, to our telephone calls, Tim Newark,.
California, listening on KFAX, Tim welcome, how are you brothers, doing today, doing good, yes, a comment, and then a question, one of my comments is, I never hear, too many people, talk about, JP Green's, version, of the Bible, that he translated, Modern King James, and the literal, King James version, which, a really excellent version, his Modern King James, that he first did, in 1962, in fact, they read that, on Family Bible, Reading Fellowship, on Family Radio, and I think it's, an excellent translation, but I get a little confused, you know, their manuscript, and then the Texas Receptus, and I know there's, so many thousands, of manuscripts, and stuff, and JP Green, I've been listening, to this conversation, I do have his book, but I haven't, got to read it yet, although I prefer, the King James, myself, and not many, of my brothers, use the New King James, but I used to be hard, on the NIV, because sometimes, didn't just have, the thing of conviction, in some of the verses, you know, and I know only, the Holy Spirit, could teach you, what the Bible really says, but I really appreciate, the book, I've just been, but I've learned a lot, about this recently, through Christian Answers, and Pilgrim, those ministries, have a lot of things, you know, debate on videotapes, and cassettes, and I've learned a lot, and it's really amazing, how Gil Ripplinger, and you know, where she used that, GA Ripplinger, is supposed to be God, and Ripplinger, and you know, they're, you know, people that would, doesn't have the credibility, does it?
Yeah, but yeah, I was wondering, if you could comment, on those other versions, I just mentioned. Well, you know, Jay Green's stuff, as far as translations go, are real fine, for what he's working with, I have a problem, with his, I'm sorry?
Go ahead.
I have a problem, with his books, where he attacks, modern translations, and accuses them, of being Gnostic, and so on, and so forth, I think that, his material, as far as that goes, is rather poor, but the translations, are real good, I appreciate a lot, of the things he's done, and a lot of the books, that he's made available, as far as Westcott, and Hort go, these are the men, that King James, only advocates, love to hate, and they are primarily, vilified, because of the fact, that their text, dethroned, shall we say, the Textus Receptus, their 1881 edition, of the Greek New Testament, and normally, what is alleged, is well, you know, they were closet heretics, or this, that, or the other thing, they hated the King James, and they were just trying, to get rid of God's truth, and so on, so forth.
They were occultists. They were occultists, and so on, so forth. The problem, with all that is, let's say all that was true, which it isn't, the fact remains, that Christian scholars, who are not being accused, of occultists, have the opportunity, of examining, their work critically, every day.
Could someone please, explain to me, why generations, of Bible believing, Christian scholars, would look at their theories, and look at their texts, and agree with their conclusions, if in point of fact, their conclusions, come from occultism, or heresy, or something like that.
It just doesn't make, any sense. People just don't think, these things through, but as I said, those accusations are false, to begin with, primarily. They weren't fundamentalist, Baptists. They were Anglicans, of course, so were all the King James, translators.
They were either Anglicans, or Puritans, so I'm not sure, again, if we can't raise the flag, of double standards, at that point, but the modern translations, are not simply, warmed over versions, of Westcott and Hort.
It's very common, for Gail Riplinger, and others, to say, here's the Westcott and Hort text, and here's something bad with it, and therefore, all modern translations, are bad. Modern textual scholars, have recognized, that Westcott and Hort, were over dependent, upon two primary, unsealed manuscripts, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus.
We still think, they are extremely important, manuscripts today, but not only, have we discovered, the papyri, since then, that they didn't have, but we've also recognized, that in some places, they gave, too much weight, to those particular manuscripts.
So there has been, Now, if there was some great, conspiracy out there, you wouldn't find, modern translations, correcting, Westcott and Hort's, excesses, in regards, to any of those readings, would you?
And yet, that is what you find. What does that mean? It means, that modern textual scholars, are concerned, about determining, what John, or Paul, wrote, and not pressing, some worldwide conspiracy, or new age, infiltration.
Okay, am I still on here? Yes, you are. Good, I've got one more question. In fact, I was on, the Monday show, that you did, earlier this week, and I asked, you know, the Psalms 110, verse 3, where in the Kings James, it says, thy people shall be willing, in the day of thy power, and all the Puritans, and men of old, have always used that, you know, for election, as a Calvinist view, because that's, Messianic prophecy, you know, those seven verses, in that Psalm, and all these other ones, talk about be willing, in the day of battle, and I was just, kind of concerned, with that, I guess maybe, overly concerned, but you know, just thinking of it, practically, you know, do you, James, as an individual.
You must be listening, to KFX then, because I had done a program, up there earlier this week. Again, when you are translating, Hebrew, the Hebrew terms, the Hebrew language, is a very, concrete language, it is not nearly, as complex, as far as, its vocabulary goes, and so the point is, that the term, that is translated, as battle, or power, you see how, they are related, to one another?
Yeah, to some degree, yeah. Yeah, and see, that's really, where the issue, is coming from, the NIV is not, trying to, again, translators, shouldn't be, sitting around, trying to, determine, how they can best, insert their theology,.
Into a translation. In fact, that is one of the reasons, Hank, that I suggest to people, when they are looking at, translations, one thing that is a positive, is if it is done by a committee. Now I'm not saying, that every single, translation done by, an individual, is bad, but you and I both know, if you are working, with a committee, you have checks and balances, that are going to help you, avoid putting in, maybe a little bit too much, of your own pet ideas.
Yeah, and not one individual, can be an authority, on every single, book in the Bible. And every single, aspect of it. And so, I'm just simply saying, in Psalm 110 verse 3, I think the reason, the NIV translates this, and other words, other versions, translate this way, is because the day, of battle, is a term, as a phrase, they have probably discovered, was a very common usage, in the Hebrew.
If that messes up, one of our pet verses, we need to examine, how good our use, of that verse was, in the first place. Really, if our theologies, drive from scripture, then it should be able, to be derived from, all good translations, of scripture, not just one, or our theology, isn't really good.
Before we go to,.
Our next caller, I want to make the point, that you can't take, all Greek manuscripts, and lump them together. In fact, I kind of use, the acronym LUMP, to give people, sort of a handle, on the different, manuscripts.
You have the lectionaries, or the church readings, containing selected, portions of scripture. Then you have, the unsulls, which are capital letters, rather than, the running script. Then you have, the minuscules, which are in cursive, and the papyri.
Talk about that, for a while. I would never, have been able, to come up with, that acronym. You are far better, than that. That's the only way, I can remember, this stuff on the radio. I really like that.
The papyri, were the earliest. The papyri, is a type of material, that doesn't last, for long periods of time. That's why, we found them, pretty much only, in the dry sands of Egypt. They were probably, what the originals, were written on, themselves.
It's very fragile. In fact, I had an opportunity, when the Pope, visited Denver, to see a page, of P66. I'll have to admit, my good friend, Rich Pierce, who was with me, had to keep dragging me away, because the security people, kept looking, who's that guy drooling, over that one display, over there.
I was saying, they are translating, this thousands of year old, manuscript. I loved it. We have the papyri manuscripts. They are all written, in unsealed text. That is, in capital letters, where there is no, real punctuation.
There is no space, between words, and so on, and so forth. This particular one, I saw in Denver, was obviously, written by someone, who didn't do too well, in penmanship, in synagogue school, or wherever else, they went.
It just really, isn't the fanciest manuscript. They are the earliest ones. We have some fragments, and there are some arguments, but without argument, P52, papyri 52, is a little teeny, scrap about, everyone in the audience, can see me, holding up my fingers, about yay big.
That is right. That is from, John chapter 18, which is probably, from about 125 AD. Very, very, very, very early. In fact, it threw a whole, bunch of problems, into a lot of the, liberal theologies, that had John way down, about the third, or fourth century, when you find sections, of his book, written a couple of, centuries earlier.
It really messes, your theories up. But anyways, from the papyri, you came to unsealed text, which were written, primarily on vellum, sheepskin type materials, animal hides. Obviously, this is when, professional scribes, start getting involved.
This is what, they would utilize, because not a lot of us, have a bunch of animals, in our backyard, we can kill for their skins, for our books. These have lasted, a great deal of time. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, which Desiderius Erasmus, actually wanted to, make reference to.
Even though, these texts are vilified, by modern King James, only advocates, he wrote to his friend, Bombasius, to find out if the, comma Johanium, was in the Vaticanus. So he didn't have, a problem with it, at that point.
But anyways, after, about, between the 7th, and 9th century, there was a transition, in the type of script, to the minuscules. And by far, the vast majority, of the manuscripts we have, are minuscules.
But they also, all come from the same, family of texts, because Greek, was no longer being spoken, or used any place else. They all come, from primarily, the Byzantine family. And we, literally have thousands, of them, dating all the way up, to the 16th century.
Which of course, a minuscule, that is dated, to the 16th century, that is probably, a copy of a copy, of a copy of a copy, doesn't have, in my opinion,.
Nearly the weight, of P52, or P75, or the other, early papyri manuscripts, that we have, that are much closer, to the original. Fascinating study. We want to get into, how we got our Bible. I've always enjoyed, Norman Geisler's, general introduction, to the Bible.
It gives us, really helpful, and interesting information. But he doesn't use, acronyms though. Can I use lump? I want to, can I? I think he calls them, hankronyms. Oh, okay. I tell you, I use them, because it just makes it easier, for me to catalog the information, in my mind, so I can come up with it, when I need to, because we're doing live radio.
I want to go to our next caller, Kurt, in California, listening on KKMC. Kurt, welcome. Thank you, Hank. I love your ministry, and your program, and the journal, I just devoured. You're kind. And thanks for the call.
I, I've talked to a few people, I'm not King James only. I've been reading the Bible, pretty seriously, for about 50 years. And I've used most of them, you know, starting with King James, when I started, that's all it was.
And most of the, modern translations. I really like the NIV, and I'll never forget, the first time I read the, New Testament, NIV New Testament. And there were, various passages, that I had been reading, you know, for years, and years, and years.
And never really, they just sort of lay there. But the first time I read them, in the NIV, I went, and I, I think it really, I think it probably comes closer, to being, you know, in our heart language.
Modern American English. My question, I've dealt with several, King James only people, and I just, I've just about given up. You know, I think it's beyond rationality. You know, there's just no, no way to, to, you know, to communicate.
Well, you've got to, as James does, in the book, distinguish between, King James version, only people, because some of them, do not want to be confused, with the facts. They're obscurantists, Gil Riplinger, Tex Mars, people like that.
But there are others, who are willing to listen, to the evidence, and also, are not denouncing, people who carry an NIV, as heretics. Well, one thing I found, useful, I've compiled a list, of some of the, you know, more obscure words, from the, King James.
You, you have a list like that, too, huh? I like to ask them, you know, what are, what are fridges, you know, and what are patches, and, or fetching a compass. Yes. This is the thing, but actually, my real question, I, I, I'd like to know, what your opinion is, Dr. White, I haven't read your book yet, but I want to get it, read it.
I'd like to know, your opinion, on the majority text. Okay, well, we need to be careful, it's not doctor, it's professor, because I'm sure, we have some folks, listening, who will write, long newsletters, about my fake, fake degrees, if I don't let, that one go by.
Anyway, just by virtue of the fact, but, anyway, well, you know, I, I just did a program, with Art Farstad, sitting right next to me, debating against, King James only advocates, and so, you're probably familiar, with Dr. Farstad, Dr. Hodges,.
They have majority text out, Dr. Maurice Robinson, their 1985 book, Dr. Maurice Robinson, has a majority text out, these are individuals, first of all, I'd like to say, have always been, Christian scholars, in their contacts with me, they've always been, very helpful, they've never condemned me, for disagreeing with them, they've been gentlemen, and they are, they should be distinguished, very strongly, from those individuals, that are not, and I won't go, any farther than that, but, I disagree, with the, their perspective, and I guess, I should define, the perspective, and that is that, functionally, the majority text, are determined, by looking at, what the majority, of the Greek manuscripts, say, and if, you have a reading, that's found in, 2 ,000 manuscripts, and a reading that's found, in only 100 manuscripts, the 2 ,000 manuscripts, is the one, that you're going to take, and I understand, a lot of the arguments, and I'm not going to, Pickering has produced, stuff on this, and I am familiar, with what the arguments are, but I do not believe, that for example, Pickering's, complex mathematics, can be applied, to the real world, of what scribes did, when they copied, manuscripts, and furthermore, I really believe, that it's sort of, self-evident, I think, that a manuscript, that is much closer, to the original, carries more weight, than the 10th generation, copy of a manuscript, farther down the road, and I don't believe, and I really believe, that as you look, at the history of the world, you see the Muslims, taking over North Africa, all the way into Spain, Palestine, the only place, where Greek is left, being a valid language, is in the Byzantine area, and so the manuscript tradition, that developed there, which I believe, you can demonstrate, is a secondary, manuscript tradition, in many ways, not in all places, but in many ways, the secondary, manuscript tradition, that of course, becomes the majority text, in the minuscule text, we were just discussing, I don't think, though, that counting noses, is going to determine, what the original text was, I have a problem with that, but one thing, that we do need to emphasize, if you sit down, with the TR, if you sit down, with the majority text, if you sit down, with my Nestle Arlen 27th, UBS 4th edition, if you use solid rules, of exegesis, if you pay attention, to context, if you allow, all of scripture, to say what it says, you will not derive, a different message, from any one of them, that is vitally important, to emphasize, you are not going to get, a different gospel, and a different belief,.
Whether you use, the majority text, the TR, or the modern, Greek text. With that, I am going to move along, I do want to mention, before we go to our next caller, that our board is just jammed, we are going to stay in, if you agree, in studio for an extra hour, I will take you out to dinner, how's that?
We will stay here, and we will continue, taking your calls, I will try to give, every one of you, an opportunity to talk to, my in studio guest, James White, he of course, wrote the book, The King James, Only Controversy, it is available, through the Christian, Research Institute, a suggested donation, of $10, which is very cheap, for a book, that is clear, compelling, it really deals, with the issues, well done, and available, through the Christian, Research Institute, I want to go to, our next caller, Ken Orlando, Florida, listening on WTLN, welcome.
Hey, thanks for having me, on the show. A delight. I am glad I got through, I have two questions, for the professor, there. One question, I have a friend, and I was, visiting him,.
On vacation, he says, that the Septuagint, was corrupt, apparently you read, a book, or read from an author, that said the Septuagint, was corrupt, what does, Professor White, have to say about that? What about the Septuagint?
Well the Septuagint, I think is a vital, vital, the Bible, for one very obvious, reason, and that is, that the apostles, quoted from it, all the time. In fact, I just was noticing, as I was working on, Romans chapter 3, that that long passage, where Paul concludes, and talks about poison,.
Under their lips, and so on and so forth, guess where that comes from? It comes directly, from the Septuagint, it's not in the Hebrew, and yet Paul cited it, and so we, I think again, if we are going to use, biblical standards, we are going to have to, ask the question, well, what are the apostles, doing here?
Just for other people, explain what the Septuagint, actually is. It is the Greek translation,.
Of the Hebrew Old Testament, that started to be translated, around 250 years, before Christ. The Pentateuch, the first five books, are done very, very well. They are obviously, done very professionally.
Other books, in the Septuagint, differ from one another, in the quality. Jeremiah is very bad, Isaiah is very good, so it sort of depends, on where you are, but the simple fact, matter is, it was the Bible, used by non-Hebrew, speaking Christians, outside of Palestine, for a very, very long time, and the apostles, utilized it as well, and so, when someone says, something is corrupt, what do they mean, by that?
Do they mean that, it has been purposely altered, or do they mean that, it has textual difficulties? The Septuagint, has textual difficulties, no one denies that, but does that mean, that the Septuagint, has been purposefully corrupted?
That's the big difference, between the two, and the King James, translators themselves, I hope everyone, will take the time to read, in fact, I quote from it, in the book, but if you ever get a chance, to read the introduction, to readers, that the King James, originally carried, you'll discover, that they talk about, the fact that they utilized, the Septuagint, they compared the Septuagint,.
If the King James, translators did it, certainly I think, we have a warrant, to do so as well. Okay, so, what does he mean, by it being, a Septuagint, corrupt? Corrupt. Yeah, because what he was saying, was that, it was 72 scribes, so to speak.
Yeah. And that's where he was, I guess, where it's him, or the author, one is trying to draw a conclusion, that if there's 72, then how can, we trust the Septuagint? That's straining, in the answer. That's really straining, especially, especially because, the letter, that they're referring to there, that gives the number of scribes, allegedly involved, is a later embellishment,.
And scholars don't believe, that's the actual story, about how it happened, that the Septuagint, that we have today, developed over time, but there is one thing, I'd like to address, Peter Ruckman, and Samuel Gipp, actually teach their people, their very extreme, King James only advocates, that there was no Septuagint, at the time of Christ, that origin made it up, despite the fact, that we have fragments, of the Septuagint, that exist before origin, but there was no Septuagint, and why does it read the same, as many of the passages, in the New Testament?
Pure coincidence, according to them. Okay,.
We'll leave it at that Ken. I have a question, he passed this one to, Matthew chapter 5, verse 22, I think it is, Sermon on the Mount, yeah, he says, and the King James, is angry with a brother, for without cause, without judgment, yeah, and the same passage, in the NSAV, NIV, he was saying, why is the, without cause omitted, from those two versions?
The question, okay, thank you very much, the question, and let me lay it out, the King James, version, Matthew 5, 22, but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother,.
Without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, the NIV, at the same place, but I tell you, that anyone who is angry with his brother, will be subject to judgment, the phrase, without cause, is not found, and again, notice how it is always presented, it is deleted, what does that do?
That makes the King James, the standard. The issue is, is the Greek reading, the best Greek reading, and when scholars, look at things like that, they not only look at the manuscript evidence, but they also ask the question, would this passage, have caused a problem to a scribe, and the simple blanket condemnation, whoever is angry with his brother, is subject to the judgment, is a very, very strong statement, especially, in light of the fact, that the Lord Jesus was angry, was he not?
And so, the tendency, on the part of later scribes, is to, is always toward orthodoxy, is trying to smooth things out, trying to take care of alleged contradictions, when most of the time, the scribe just simply, isn't really understanding, what's going on.
In context, we understand, what Jesus is talking about. We understand, that this does not contradict, Jesus being angry, with a righteous indignation, but what later scribes, are trying to do, is to try to sort of, help us out with that.
And so, it's not a matter of, they're deleting something, and trying to make Jesus a liar, or something like that.
The question is, what did Matthew write? What reading best explains, the others? That's the question. And that's why, it's very important, for us to understand, the concept of conflation. Now, that is a, sort of a technical term, explain it for our listeners.
Conflation is where, and we have many examples, We call it the fuller text. The fuller text, where the scribes, if for example, they had two manuscripts, in front of them, and one had one thing, and one had the other, their natural tendency, was to keep both of them.
And so, the text would become larger, because they are afraid, to lose either one, and frequently, you couldn't go back, and ask the guy, who had copied this manuscript, before, what did you mean by this?
Why did you put this here? Or why did you put this, in the margin for example? Maybe the guy made a note, in the margin, and you would stick it in your text, because you would want to, maintain everything that was there.
And another reason, why the Byzantine text, is longer, is because of the fact, that we like to use, longer terms, when we are pious. I remember doing, a radio program, and we were talking about Mormonism, and this lady called in, and said, you all are wonderful, I like what you are doing.
You hear that all the time, when everyone calls in, and says, I love what you are doing, get ready to duck. They are coming after you. But she says, you keep saying, Jesus said this, and Jesus said that.
What you need to say, is the Lord Jesus Christ, said this. And she was a nice, Christian lady, she meant it quite seriously. But that type of piety, is very much at play, in the later manuscripts, of the New Testament, and what the scribes were doing as well, in the expansion of titles.
And it gets, actually in some places, it gets absurd. You have, I noticed across the way, there Metzger's work, on the New Testament. He has some examples, in there, where the book of Revelation, for example, the title given to John, and descriptions of John, end up taking about a paragraph, in some later ones, the beloved theologian, apostle, disciple, and it just gets long, and long, and long, and long.
We have a lot of examples.
Of that happening. For everybody, hanging on right now, I want you to be patient, I am going to get to you. We are going to stay here, as long as it takes. This is a fascinating subject, and again, I highly recommend, that everybody get a hold, of the book, King James Only, Controversy, by James White.
We talk about the word, controversy, and Walter Martin, was famous for saying, controversy for the sake, of controversy of sin, controversy for the sake, of the truth, is a divine command. I think that this is, controversy for the sake, of the truth.
There are people, on the other side of the coin, however, who have really taken shots, not only at you, but also at me, Gil Ripplinger, Tex Mars, and others, who have basically,.
Branded us, children of the devil. Most definitely, and that is really, the motivation, if anyone wants to ask a question, James White, why did you write this book? I wrote this book, because the King James Only, Controversy, splits churches, it damages ministries, and it disrupts the peace, of the church of Christ, and it does so, on the basis of falsehoods, and ignorance, and that is why, I wrote the book, because I know of churches, that have been damaged severely.
I get letters all the time, from people who have read the book, that relate to me, what happened to them, and their churches, and when something touches, the local church,.
That really, is of a concern, to me. And that is why, I wrote the book. I appreciate that, and of course, the local church, is the God ordained, means for evangelism, that is where we worship God, in spirit and in truth, and that is where we have, fellowship with one another, and that is where we are equipped, to go out, and reach a lost, and searching world.
This is one of the tools, that I want to put in your hands, so that you will become, an equipped Christian, always ready, to give an answer, a reason for the hope, that lies within you, with gentleness, and with respect.
I want you to equip yourself, the time will come, where someone, is going to ask you, a question whereby, you are going to have, to demonstrate, that the Bible is divine, rather than human, in origin.
Let me say, that this book, will really help you, in that process. From Southern California, welcome to the, Bible Answer Man Broadcast. I am your host, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the, Christian Research Institute, with a special broadcast, in store for you today.
We got so many calls, on the King James, only controversy, the switchboard, lit up all the time, that we asked, James White, to continue on, with us, and he's in studio today, as we continue, talking about, the King James, only controversy.
You want to join us, on the broadcast, remember you can do it, in the U .S. and Canada, by simply dialing, toll free, 800 -821 -4490. Our address, the Christian Research Institute, Box 500, San Juan, Capistrano, California, zip code, 92693, and remember, our telephone number, 714 -855 -9926.
If you're ordering materials, or making a donation, using Visa MasterCard, or the Discover Card, we have a toll free number, available to you, that number, 800 -443 -9797. Remember, if you're contacting, our Canadian office, you can do that, by dialing, 403 -571 -6363, and if you're calling, toll free, we have a number, for you, to dial, 800 -665 -5851.
That's in British Columbia, and Alberta, only, in Canada. Delighted, that you've joined us, for the broadcast. As always, delighted, to have James R. White, in studio, with us. He is, a scholar, he is also, a great author, and I really, appreciate, the work, that you have done, with this superb book, which Dr. J. I. Packer, calls, sober, scholarly, courageous, convincing, and courteous.
Delighted, to have you, James R. White. It's good to be with you. A great book, and again, as you know, the studio, has been, lit up, since you've been here. This is a book, which is, controversial, no doubt.
You have taken, a lot of hits, and I noticed, that not only, Gil Ripplinger, who went after you, in New Age, Bible versions, but also, has gone after me, in her new book, King James Version, Ditches, Blind Guides, and I guess, you and I, are blind guides, that are leading people, into the ditch.
She talks about the fact, that since I took, on her book, on the Bible Answer Man, broadcast, all kinds of things, have befallen me, broken shoulders, and varied tribulations, and she says, quoting 2 Samuel, chapter 1, how the mighty, are fallen, in the midst of battle, but I only have, a page devoted to me, you have 20 whole pages, and I've even got, cartoons of people, sitting at desks, with a knife, hacking up Bibles,.
With pictures, of Westcott and Horton, in the background, with halos, so it's really amazing, to me, and it's very unfortunate, and the amazing thing, to me, about that particular, publication, is that whenever, someone is sighted, there is no reference given, you can't check anything out, you can't go and look, and see if there's anything, taken in context, or anything like that, and it's a true shame, and I hope, that people will see, this type of thing, and realize, my goodness, what type of venom, is causing a person,.
To do this type of thing, can't we deal with this, in a Christian attitude, and I really tried, to do that, in the King James, only controversy, to what my question, why is this kind of, vitriolic language, well, amongst those, who are followers, of people like, Dr. Peter Ruckman,.
They consider it, to be almost, an example of, prophetic activity, and so like Elijah, mocking the prophets, of Baal, or something like that, and so, they just consider, themselves, to be speaking, honestly, I can say, they just don't have, any manners, but they really, view it that way, and I think, some of the folks, who take a leadership position, I mean, Gil Ripplinger said, that to her, G .A. Ripplinger, meant God, and Ripplinger, and I really think, that she does believe, that God has revealed, to her some tremendous, conspiracy, and anyone, who would question her, even a man like, David Cloud, who is a strong, King James only advocate, comes in for the, nastiest attacks, by Gil Ripplinger, why, what can explain that?
Well, if you really think, that God has given you, a position of leadership, and exposing, the controversy, then anyone, who questions you, is automatically, a part of that conspiracy, as well. It's almost a, cultic mentality, she sort of, holds her book out, to be as being, an inspired version, itself.
Well, you know, when she says, God and Ripplinger, she would, of course, not say that, well, it's not inspired, like the Bible,.
But, if you question anything, I have never found her, to be willing to admit, any error. In fact, when I have documented, her errors, she has always responded, by just simply, covering them over, and not admitting, that she made any mistakes, whatsoever.
And so, it's a shame, but what really, bothers me, Hank is, okay, I can understand, how some people, will be taken in, by conspiratorial books, like that, but I know, solid individuals, who have been, in good churches, have good backgrounds, that have been, thrown off base, by this book.
I've heard, of entire churches, that have had, NIV burning parties, after sermons, based upon things, like this book. That concerns me. How can anybody, though, that is rational, and sentient, take this book, seriously?
For example, she's got a section, called Acrostic Algebra. Page 148, yeah, I know. Well, the problem is, these types, of writings, feed upon, the often, complete, ignorance, that Christians have, about the history, and the transmission, of the Bible.
When was the last time, and maybe in your churches, this is the exception, but when was the last time, you heard any real, serious discussion, about why there are, differences in translations, where the Bible came from, the process?
American Christianity, doesn't talk about that. There's a lot more, exciting things, to talk about, aren't there? You know, that's a great point, because I think, due to the fact, that we are not only, biblically illiterate, but historically illiterate, this kind of rhetoric, can be circulated, without any opposition.
Well, almost no opposition. There's a few of us, out here, bravely waving the flag, going, no, this is untrue, but you are exactly right. Most modern, American Christians, are ahistorical. Church history, for them, ended about 25 years ago.
It ended with my mom, or my dad, or something like that. So, the whole background, of how these things, came to us, is just not something, that we are overly, concerned about. It leaves us open, on many fronts, for this type of deception, this type of false information.
Most people, would not even know, where to go, to look up the references, to find out, if they are being, accurately given. A lot of us, as long as a person says, Jesus three times, we will just trust, they are giving the information, right the first time anyways, right?
So, you end up starting, buying into these things, and if we role played, and I sat here, and I could selectively, choose the verses, that I wanted to look at, and compare your NIV, or NASB, with my King James, I can make it look, really bad.
If I was selective, and if I wanted to just, give one perspective. That is why, we need to be people, as you know, in all of apologetics, people who listen closely, to arguments, who reason closely. We need to be people, with a sober mind, as the scripture says.
This is one of the things, that we are trying to do, at the Christian Research, Institute. I kind of define it, in three words. Top, pop, and slop apologetics. I think it is very important, for you to do, top apologetics, so that you really get, the good information.
Then you popularize it. In other words, you try to communicate it, to people, in such a way, that they can grasp, the concepts. You are not playing, keep away over their heads. If you don't have, top apologetics, eventually, what you are going to have, is slop apologetics, and that is what, we don't need.
We have too much, within the church today, of what is called, slop apologetics, where people have, just enough information, to be dangerous. Yes, and they very, very frequently, utilize arguments, against others, that have turned upon, their own position, and refute them as well.
The double standards, does not advance, the cause of Christ. We are going to go right, to our phone callers. There are a couple of things, that I want to say, though, before we do. The first is, that it is true, that many King James Version, only advocates, believe, that there were, autographers, in Greek, and we have now, the 1611, autographer, in the English language.
People, who are followers, of probably, the most vociferous, leader, in the King James, only movement, that is Dr. Peter Ruckman, who will say, over and over again, that the originals, are irrelevant, that you correct, the Greek, and the Hebrew, on the basis, of the English, and when you have done that, you have really, completed the circle.
I mean, there is no way, to assail that, in any logical, or rational way, because you have, made the King James, something that, the Bible doesn't promise, is ever going to be. You make it the standard.
You make it the standard, of all things, and you cannot discuss, advances, in our understanding, of what Greek terms mean, you can't talk about, manuscripts, that's all irrelevant, completely irrelevant.
One thing, that I think, that many King James Version, advocates, only advocates, I should say, don't recognize, is that, there are many, King James Versions, out there. So, you have to ask, the question, which King James Version, are you talking about?
And, we are not only talking about, the very many revisions, that have gone around, because there is one, that is primary today, the 1769 edition, but, in an earlier program, I was starting to, ask a person about, Jeremiah 34 16, which I talked about, in the book, where you will be able, to find, if we right now, just went around, the offices here, and pulled the King James, down off the shelves, half of them, would have one reading there, and half of them, would have the other, and you would find some, from the same publisher, that would have both readings.
Now, once you have made, the King James, the standard, what do you do now? I have asked, King James only advocates,.
Which is the proper word, the difference is simply, between he and ye, it is not a big deal, but, if you have made, the King James a standard, you can't go back, and look at the Hebrew, the Hebrew is plain, it is not like, we don't know, what the original said, but, you can't go back to that, without betraying, your own position, and it is a passage, you can utilize, if you need to utilize it, to demonstrate, to an individual, you have no way, of answering that question, because you have made, something a standard, that was never meant, to be a standard, in the first place.
Very well said, I want to go to Jason, in Jefferson City, Tennessee, listening on WRJZ, Jason, welcome. Hi, I have a question, and then, to like, split, Okay, now, before you answer, do a little bit, of defining your,.
Yeah, there's got to be, a lot of definition, first of all, when you're talking, about dictated dynamic, are you talking, about the difference, between the formal, equivalency translation, which is very literal, and the dynamic, is that really, where you're going there, or is your question, a little bit different, than that, because when you start, getting into, cannon issues, that's a whole, another area there,.
Okay, I had a feeling, that's what you're, referring to, and I think we need, to step back, and define some terms, you're talking, now, not about, methods of translation, of the NIV, or the NASB, you're talking about, aspects of, inspiration, and that is, where you're talking, about dictated, the idea, that the words themselves, were dictated, to the writers, or dynamic, where there are thoughts, or concepts, that are presented to them, which they express, in their own terms, and that's a very, very different thing, from the issue, of how we translate, the scriptures, now, I don't believe, in either one of the two, that you gave me, because believing, in plenary verbal inspiration, does not mean, that God turned people, into automatons, and overrode, their natural, stylistic, expressions, Paul's grammar, anyone who has, for example, translated Ephesians, knows that the writer, of Ephesians, didn't write first John, on the level of grammar, God used Paul, and his talents, God used John, and his talents, so on and so forth, and so, the idea of dictation, like a stenographer, or something like that, is not what we mean, when we talk about, plenary verbal inspiration, but neither do we mean, dynamic, in the sense, that just simply, thoughts and concepts, are impressed upon, the mind of a person, and he's left to express them, in his own frail, and human terms, and so, we're talking about, very different things, there at that particular point, so if it's not, either one of those, what is it?
Well, when we talk about, plenary verbal inspiration, we believe that God, is big enough, to know you and I, and to from, eternity past, have chosen to utilize us, and our situations, in our life situation, which is under his control, to be the conduits, through which he gave, his revelation, and when we look at, the Psalms for example, and we hear the heart cries, of the people of God, as they are going through, persecution and difficulty, we recognize that obviously, God uses people, in their life, where they are, when he was giving his word, and I certainly have been, very thankful for that, because I was able to then, enter into those prayers, when I too, was going through that, and if it was just simply, a, some like a dictionary, or something like that, that just laid out, truth one, truth two, truth three, it certainly would not, minister to me, the way that the word of God, actually does.
What you are really saying, is the Bible is dynamic, rather than static. It is dynamic, in the sense that, and we are using the same term, though in three different ways, which we need to be careful about, it is not simply, a list of rules for us, God decided to reveal himself, in a written form, out of people's lives, because we all have to, live his word, not just simply, study a book of rules, and attempt to apply those.
Now, in regards to the early part of Genesis, I guess if you recognize, where I am coming from there, then I would not have a problem, I would not believe, that there is a problem, in regards to God's, preserving his word, as it is actually written, with oral traditions, so on and so forth.
And in regards to the issue of Canon, it is very common, and I think, Geisler and Nix, do a wonderful job, on this subject, in the general introduction, of the Bible, they frequently cite, from another work, the Old Testament Canon, and the New Testament Church, by Beckwith, it is a different Beckwith, but anyways, that pretty well debunks, the Alexandrian versus, Palestinian Canon concepts, of the Old Testament, and this is a much earlier, that is really about, a hundred year old scholarship, there, and we were talking about, some difference there, you need to get those books, and take a look at them, and see where we are now.
Jason, thank you very much, and thanks for your call, before we go too far, over people's heads, let's go to David, in Virginia,.
Listening on WAVA, David, welcome. Yes, thanks. Hank, first of all, I mean that from the bottom of my heart, and we are going to ask, Mr. Comprised, you mean? Comprised, yes. Yes, Tyndale,.
Had the greatest, single impact, upon the New Testament portion, especially of the King James, you also have, the other great Bibles, that existed at that time, that would be, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, which were also, very, very important, and as the King James, translators themselves, said, we're taking a good translation, and making it better.
Okay. With the newer translations, how much impact, has the translations, and... Well, it depends on, which Dead Sea Scrolls, you're looking at, what the textual characteristics, of them are, they have been taken, into consideration, by for example, the NIV, especially when they join, with the Targums, or the Scythians, and having a reading, that is different, from the Hebrew, or especially, when the Hebrew reading itself, is very difficult, or obviously corrupt, and so, I think it's, again, it's to be assumed, that Christian scholars, will use, all the best material, that is available to them,.
To do the best job, that they possibly can do, and in this situation, if the Dead Sea Scrolls, can provide to us, an earlier glimpse, either at the Hebrew text, or at some variant reading, or something like that, that is helpful to us, in shedding more light, upon the text, then by all means, utilize them.
James, isn't this, another classic example, we find the Dead Sea Scrolls, they predate, the early extant text, the Masoretic text, by about a thousand years, isn't this another, great example, of how we ought, to have confidence, in the word of God, because we see, that there are no, substantial differences.
There are, the Dead Sea Scrolls, provide us, with a tremendous amount, of insight, into how the text, was transmitted, during that period of time, I think, it's a very, it's important to note, that, for example, the book of Isaiah, you have an almost, exact correspondence, the book of Jeremiah, is very, very, very different, in the Septuagint, for example, from the Hebrew texts, and so, we need to look, at everything, all at once, and Christian people, don't have anything, to fear from the facts, and the truth.
I don't know why, there are so many people, that are afraid of it, but every time, we have dug into it, certainly there have been times, when it seemed like, there was something, that was contradictory, to our beliefs, contradictory, to our faith, but the more and more, we've delved into it, the more we've discovered, how true God's word, really is.
Now, is it uncomfortable, sometimes? Yes, it's uncomfortable, sometimes, but who are we, really, when you think about it, to sit back and think, we've got it all figured out, right now, and no one can ever improve, upon what you and I understand.
There's a tremendous amount, of modernistic arrogance, in a lot of us today. No one's ever known, as much as we know. Well, there's still things, we've got to learn, too. Well, thank you very much, for taking my call, guys.
I appreciate that. Thanks for your call, your kind comments. I want to go to Pete, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, listening on K, or CKJS. Welcome Pete. Yes, how are you doing? Good, how are you? Oh, fine, fine.
First time caller, by the way. Thank you so much. I've been listening, to your program, half a year now. Great to have you with us. And, I appreciate it.
I have a few questions, here. Work on this, not an awful lot. The King James Version, to the NIV, that's missing. Can you, why, there are verses, missing? Yes, I can. In fact, if you can track down, the book sometime, there's an entire section, on that beginning, on page 156.
There's a chart, on 157, that goes through, a number of the passages, that are, quote, unquote, missing. Again, I just want to make sure, we all understand, you've probably heard me say, this a number of times, already.
But, when we use the term, missing, we're setting up, the King James, as a standard there. And, the issue, from the vast majority, of the passages, that we have reference to, for example, Matthew 18, 11, is a passage, that is frequently utilized.
There are a number of others, where you have, in fact, just, if anyone, is concerned, Matthew 17, 21, 18, 11, 23, 14, Mark 11, 26, Mark 15, 28, Luke 17, 36, and Luke 23, 17, are the specific, single verses, that will not be found, in the main text, of the modern translations.
And, that particular listing, is found, on page 155, of my book. What is the reason? Well, in almost, every single, one of those situations, those are verses, that appear, in another one, of the Gospels.
And, what we have happening, over, I'm sorry, what we have happening, over, and over again, is the tendency, on the part of scribes, when you are, say, relating the story,.
Of the rich, young ruler, you want, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to all say, the same thing. Now, I mentioned, as I was preaching, from this passage, from a parallel, Greek translation, only Matthew tells us, he was young, and only Luke tells us, that he was a ruler.
And, Mark doesn't tell us, either one. But, guess what? You will find, later scribes, making emendations, to all of them, to try to bring them, into consistency, with one another. It is simply, a part of the, standard practice of scribes, to try to make everything, harmonized.
And so, what you have, is the Lord's Prayer, for example, big time example, Luke's version, is much shorter, than Matthew's. Why do we assume, that Matthew and Luke, had to write, the exact same thing?
Why do we assume, Jesus only said this once? These are assumptions, that we operate on, that scribes operate on, that are bad assumptions. And so, many of these passages, it is not a matter, of deleting them.
The issue is, there is a clear effort, of harmonization, on the part, of later scribes, that inserted them, in later manuscripts, to make everything, look the same. Pete, with that, I'm coming up, to a station break.
If you want to hang up, or hang on, I should say, we'll pick you up, in the second half, of the broadcast. And welcome back, to the second half, of the Bible Instrument Broadcast. I'm your host, Hank Hanegraaff, President of the Christian Research Institute.
I'm in studio today, with James R. White. He is a scholar, in residence, at Grand Canyon University. He is the author, of the King James, Only Controversy, a book, that's a must read. Norman Geisler says, this is the best book, in print, on a topic, too often riddled, with emotion, and ignorance.
When I endorsed, this book, on the back cover, I said, a clear, compelling, and conclusive case. I had to alliterate this, of course. Contradicting the claims, of the King James Version, only advocates,.
Your confidence, in God's preservation, of scripture, through credible translations, such as the NIV, and the NASB, will indeed, be solidified. I was going to say, you won the award, for the most, single confidence.
I can't help myself. You know, we left the first half, of the broadcast, we were talking to Pete. I think you're still hanging, Pete. Are you there? Yes. Your follow-up. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Another quick, yes, I caught part of the show, this is way, in the beginning.
Okay. I caught the tail end, of something about, one of the translators, of the NIV, was a lesbian. Well, here's the point, that I made. I made the point, that we err, on two, ends, of the spectrum, if we get, into rhetoric, rather than dealing, with reason.
I pointed out, that there are those, who want to say, something negative,.
About the King James Version, and so they point out, that James the First, who commissioned the project, in 1604, actually, was morally bankrupt. He was a homosexual, and there are many people, that use that, to try to impugn, the King James Version.
I said, that's not fair. On the other side, of the spectrum, you've got people, like Gail Riplinger, who point, to Virginia Mullencott, and give them, a title they never had, and a function, that they never fulfilled.
She was an English stylist, for the NIV, for a short period of time, after the fact, it was discovered, or she, divulged the information, that she was a lesbian, and so people said, oh, oh, look at here, we have lesbians, working on the NIV, therefore, the NIV is corrupt.
I'm saying, both ends of the spectrum, are adding heat, not adding light.
It's interesting to me, that Dr. Kenneth Barker, who is the head, of the NIV Translation Center, has admitted, that if they had known, Mullencott's propensities, if she had been, open about it at that time, obviously, they never would have, referred to her, and there are some, people out there, that would think, that would be a terrible, horrible thing to do, so you can't win, one way or the other, unfortunately.
The point is, let's not use, double standards. James's particular, sexual proclivities, did not impact, the teaching, of the King James Version, that homosexuality, is a sin, and the NIV, is just as strong, and condemning, and the amazing thing is, people will focus in, upon the fact, that the NIV, does not use the term, sodomy.
Well, a lot of people, don't exactly know, what that's supposed, to be referring to. It uses the term, homosexuality, and yet, the King James, never uses the term, homosexual. Does that mean something?
Obviously not. We need to, we need to be clear, in our argumentation. Okay, what do you think, of the new, King James Version? The new King James, is a fine translation, it's an excellent, English translation, it's based upon, the exact same manuscripts, as the King James was, and so, I have some problems, that that's not as accurate, as it could be, but the new King James, provides wonderful, excellent textual notes, when there are variations, and so, it's an excellent translation, at that point, very formal, a little bit too formal, for my taste, but it's a good translation, I frequently teach from it.
Yeah, it's one of my favorite, translations as well. Pete, thank you for your call, I want to go to Manuel, in Lakewood, California, listening on KKLA. Hello. Hi. Yeah, thanks for taking my call. You're welcome.
I had a quick question, for James there. I've heard on, ministries, on the radio, of the verse, regarding Matthew 28, 19, where it says, baptizing them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I've heard that, that scripture portion, there's not the original, that was added on, and I wanted to know, what was your opinion, if you had information, about that.
Right, no, there's absolutely, no historical evidence, whatsoever, that Matthew chapter 28, 19, is not originally, with the Holy Spirit, it is known, from the very earliest, parts of the church, the didache, of course, contains it, all the manuscripts, have it, anyone who attempts to say, this was a later edition, is obviously doing so, for theological reasons, that they're trying to impose, upon the scripture, not from theological reasons, they've derived from the scripture.
So this is available,.
In most of the manuscripts? It's in all the manuscripts, there's no question about it. Okay, so where would you think, they would get it from, do you think they would, just make it up, because I've heard, in more than one, Bible teacher, that said, you know, that there's a, a translation, a copy, or a manuscript, that has a different thing, to that portion, of scripture, there?
No, the Nestle All in 27th edition, does not provide, any citation, of that, whatsoever, and any support, from that, unfortunately, I think I know, what group,.
Of individuals, from which these teachers, would be coming, they have a problem, with the theology, of baptizing, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because, it's oneness, advocacy, and that's, that again, is deriving theology, from some source, outside the Bible, and forcing it then, onto the Bible, that's there, and we need to deal with it, and it contradicts, their theology.
Thank you for your call, I want to go to Jeff, in California, listening on KFAX, Jeff, welcome. Hi Jeff, how are you? Good.
So for me, I've been a Christian, and it was, I had done, a lot of theology, and translation, there's a lot of information, that I, that, when I became a Christian, I just, people you mentioned in the book, which is DA Wake, now I've actually had, conversation with him, as have I, which has been interesting, to say the least, and I think he finds a way, if you begin to question, right now, my question to you, is, do you find, because you do outline, a number of people in the book, do you find that a lot of them, cling to, and I know the one person, along that same line, of thought, and theology?
Very much so, the vast majority, of King James only advocates,.
Are dispensational, fundamentalistic, that doesn't mean, that if you're a fundamentalist, and a dispensationalist, that you're necessarily, a King James only advocate, but that is the primary place, that it is found, now.
Edward F. Hills, was a Presbyterian, and there are some of those, individuals who are now, moving that direction, Theodore Elitist for example, is a Lutheran scholar, who is promoting, a TR only perspective, but the vast majority, and certainly the most vocal, King James only advocates, are generally, dispensational fundamentalists, that's very true,.
I did want to mention, that D .A. Waite, has certainly been gracious, in my correspondence with him, and my talking with him, we did a debate, on a radio station, last year, and I think, you would find that, most of the time, when I ask specific questions,.
The answer I got back was, well it's a matter of faith, you simply need to believe, and that's what you encounter, in a lot of this. Yeah, I got that very much, now in my library, well that's good, which is a great thing, yeah, you could have spent that money, on a lot less worthy things, oh, trust me, my library has grown tremendously, in the last year, you know, it's all worthy investment, my investment is going to, wow, wonderful, yeah, that's the direction I'm going, in fact, a lot of the teaching through people, and send away, and I thank God, and some of the other people, for taking all the information, only one quick word of advice, make sure you know, what you believe, before you get there, right, well, you know what, that's the one thing, I appreciate your advice, on that, because my foundation, has been created, and this is what I'm doing, in terms of, Jeff, thank you,.
Want to go to Forrest, in Santa Monica, California, listening to KKLA, Forrest, welcome, God, I love you, I love you too, King James, New English Bible, comprehensive, other things are good, King James, well,.
In regards, to the specific passage, you mentioned, there's a couple of pages, beginning on page 255, in my book, that deals with, Mark 16, 9 -20, and the endings of Mark, and there's a whole lot, of information, on that particular subject, but, when you say, how is it put together, the reason the King James, contains the passage, is because the Greek text, from which it was translated, contained the passage, and in fact, 99 .9 of all, Greek manuscripts, in the world, contain some ending, for Mark, the vast majority, the ending that you find, in the King James, version of the Bible, and so, the translators, were simply, translating the text, that they had, in front of them, and that text, contained the passage, and so they did so, now if you mean, is it, was it translated, dynamically, or formally, it is primarily, a formal translation, but sometimes, it surprises you, I give you an example, in the book, where I believe, it's Amos 4 .4, the King James, and the NIV, give the dynamic translation, the NASB, and the New Testament, the literal, formal translation, and so you find, the King James, and the NIV, joining up, and the others, provide more formal, so there are places, there is a real good example, in Matthew, in the crucifixion story, what does the King James, say, when the thieves, are reviling Jesus, it says, they cast the same, in his teeth, there is no word, cast, there is no word, same, there is no word, his, and there is no word, cast, in his teeth, anywhere in the Greek, the word simply means, they reviled him, but the King James, translators chose, to express that, in a more, dynamic meaning way, of saying, they cast the same, in his teeth, and so the King James, is not free, of dynamic translation, the amazing thing is, people like Dr. D .A. Waite, just attack, any type of use, of dynamic translation, at all, as being diabolical, and devilish, and yet you find, in the King James, itself.
Well, the initial idea, was placed, before King James, by John Reynolds, in 1604, and the King, was rather amenable, to the idea, because the fact, that the King, really detested, the Geneva Bible, the Geneva Bible, had notes, that undercut, his ideas, of what a King, should be, and so he was amenable, to the idea, of coming up, with a new translation, I think the irony, of ironies, is a few years later, someone took the King James, and put the Geneva study notes, with it, which I think, is a wonderful, wonderful thing, of history, but anyway, that's where, the impetus, came from, was from John Reynolds, suggesting it, at a famous meeting, with the King, in 1604.
Yes, I know, what you are referring to, and I didn't understand, what you are asking, yes, there were, the greatest scholars, in England, knew, 48 or more, it's hard to know, exactly, who was involved, in everything, they met at Cambridge, and other places, to work on the translation, over that period of time, we don't know a lot, about how they did it, specifically, their committee meetings, and stuff like that, the few notes, that were taken, were taken in Latin, in fact, they were actually, most of them, were better with Latin, than they were, with Greek or Hebrew, and in fact, the King James, has a number of places, that come from the Latin, and not from the Greek text, itself, Erasmus did the same thing, Acts 8 .37, is a good example of that, that comes from the Latin, rather than the Greek, and their translation, was very heavily influenced, by the Latin, as well, but yes, they were great scholars, it remains today, a monument, to Bible scholarship, there's no two ways, about it, but they themselves, would say, if you haven't learned, something more, after 360 some odd years, you guys are really slow, there's a problem here, you know, they would be right behind us, in providing translations.
Forrest, appreciate your call, again today, I want to go to Tony, in San Jose, California, Tony's listening on KFAX, welcome to the Broadcast. Hi, Dr. D .A. Waite, no, no, that was Dr. Samuel Gipp, in a recent debate, that I did, that was asked, if I today, lived in Russia, and I wanted to have, the perfect infallible, word of God, would I have to learn, and his response was, yes you would, that is a perspective, of the Ruckman-Gipp, viewpoint, Dr. D .A. Waite, would say, that you need to use, the TR, as long as you provide, a faithful translation, in Russian, of the TR, then you're providing, the word of God.
Well, but again, you're dealing there, with a secondary source, a secondary translation, from the original, and the problem, with the going, with the Latin, is that there are, all sorts,.
Of readings, that have far more, textual basis, behind them, than the comma, Johannium has, that are rejected, by the King James. I mean, we would have to be inserting, a tremendous number, of variant readings, that don't, that have a better, textual basis, that the King James, said, no way.
The comma, Johannium, simply, is not found, in any Greek manuscript, and no one, has ever been able, to explain to me, why that would be. Now, what you have, in some of these, early versions, first of all, you have some question, about exactly, how early they are.
Secondly, some people actually, go so far as to say, that early fathers, cited the comma, Johannium, when that is a little bit, of a stretch. What you have, in that statement, is simply, it's really, a conclusion statement.
It is a summary statement, that there is, one God, who exists in three persons, basically, Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God. This is a summary statement, and it is not a matter, of early fathers, citing this.
They are simply, alluding to a general truth. There is a difference, between alluding to a general truth, and actually citing, a specific passage, where they say, John said such and so. You don't find, the specific citation, where it says, John said such and so.
One of the important points, brought up by Tony, is the point, that if you are not English, and you can't speak, the English language, you just don't have a Bible. From the perspective, of Dr. Samuel Gipp, yes, that is the case.
He would say, well, English has become, the universal language. It is the language, of commerce, trade, so on and so forth. I don't think, any of those arguments wash, but it certainly, to me, I don't know what, the Wycliffe Bible translators, are doing out there, from that perspective.
They are certainly, not getting any support, from those churches, that is for sure. It is really, outside of English speaking, areas,.
A lot of Christians, and non-Christians, look at this whole thing, and just roll their eyes, like, oh my goodness, look at these Christians, who have gotten themselves, into now. I want to go to Paul, San Antonio, Texas, KSLR, you are on with James White.
Hey Hank, how are you doing? Doing good. I listen to you every day, I commute from. You have my condolences. I want to thank you, for letting me on the air. You are welcome. On this particular issue, I agree with you, and I have a few reasons, why, and I will be brief, God has given me the ability, to be brief, and I will run through it.
Hopefully, I won't sound argumentative, or anything. Quickly, to preface, what I want to say, is how I got into this, it wasn't through tradition, even though what I do, is church. I say, that is what type of Bible, I should get.
Most of the young Christians, are recommended an NIV. So I got an NIV, of course, being an assembly of God, I believed in tongues, and things of that nature, and I was reading one day, at the end of Mark 6, through 20, that this whole, I weren't in the oldest, and best church, on that point, and really had some problems, with the Bible, and the accuracy of the Bible, and I sort of got out of it, though I don't remember, exactly how, and then later, my pastor asked me, and another brother, called Jesus the prophet, of Islam, to come up, one on one, debating with him, and so he asked us, for one clear verse, on the trinity, and so I gave him, no I asked my friend, who had a new American standard, to give him one John 5, seven, he could verse, it might not be there, and all that, and of course, the Muslim fellow, knew what we were up to, and he said, well if you guys, want to be honest, you'll admit, that your Bible has, that sparked me even more, and then we went to one, Timothy 3, 16, on the deity later, and of course, it says he, and the new American standard, I believe the lines out, and they translated, he, and the new Bible, and so from that point, is how I got into it, so I don't really believe, that it's always going to be, a case of tradition, but D .A. Carson, read his book, also read Ruckman, and Hill, and I'm an engineer, by profession, so I don't, well my degree, at least is, quick to jump to conclusions, but I came out believing, King James, and eventually, even came to believe, that God, qualifications, and their sincerity, and evidence, they had, at this time.
Okay, let's let James, deal with the issues, you've raised. Okay, Hank, that was just a preface, no preface. Well quickly, because I don't want to, run out of time on you. Okay, great. Okay, go ahead.
Go ahead. Well, the primary thing, that I would say, is first of all, when you have troubles, because you've utilized, verses, that are not necessarily, the best verses to use, that in and of itself, is not an argument, against the originality, of the readings, that are found, in the modern translations.
I deal with, 1 Timothy 3 .16, rather extensively, in the book, and as you recognize, it is not a matter, of conspiracies, it's a matter, of a Haas versus, the nominal sacred, Thaos, the abbreviation, of the word God, so on and so forth.
The problem, that I have, in fact, I personally prefer, the reading God, at that point, by the way, I make that clear, in my book. The problem, I have though, is it seems like, you've read a lot of information, presenting the other perspective, but the only one, that you mentioned, was Carson's book, I don't know, if you've even seen mine yet, or dealt with that yet, but the simple fact, of the matter is, there isn't a whole lot out, that has responded, to the King James, only position, and I would hope, that maybe you might, suspend total, and final judgment, until you have, an opportunity, of really examining, interaction, for example, that's one of the reasons, I like doing, call in radio, I've challenged, these individuals, to debate, I've invited Mrs. Ripplinger, Peter Ruckman, that's a whole other story, about what happened there, D .A. Wade, and I have debated, I have been attempting, to get him to do, more of that, he won't even respond, to me, when you hear, both sides.
By the way, let's say right now, before you go on, that I'd be willing, to give the Bible Answer Man, broadcast, as a platform, for you to debate, some of these guys, so let them know that. I will most certainly do so.
James, I am presently, I'm going to go into, the ministry eventually, and I'm presently, working on a master's, in biblical languages, and I'm hoping, to take this issue up, when I do graduate, down the years, it's probably going to take, another two more years, could I possibly, debate you, on this issue, once I'm qualified, completely?
Well, my hope is, by then, you won't want to, but certainly, we could discuss, that at that point, but one thing, I want to say, if you're going, into the ministry, and you're going to use, the King James, the most important thing, is just this, preach it, teach it, believe it, live it, that's the most important thing, it's not a matter of, all these other translations, and so on and so forth, the Word of God, has found the King James, just as it has found, the new King James, and the NIV, and as long as people, don't go off the deep end, and start making, the translation the issue, that's the important thing, from my perspective.
Let's see if we can slide in, one more quick call, Jeremy in Kansas City, Missouri, listening on KCCV, you're on with James White. Thank you for taking my call. A delight. I'm just, I'm confused on the matter, I'm just trying to, figure it all out, but from what I understood, of the Alexandrian text, No, that's not true.
No, that's not true. No, that's not, that's a common claim, of the King James, only advocates, it has absolutely, not a bit, of patristic, or linguistic support, behind it. Origin utilized, the Alexandrian text, but there are people, who utilized it before him, and in fact, as I pointed out in my book, we have papyri manuscripts, that give us, the Alexandrian text, that were written, before Origin was born.
So therefore, that is a common, false claim, of King James, only advocates. And we will take, one more call, Tim in Memphis, Tennessee, listening on WCRV, Tim, welcome. Yeah, thank you very much. It's going to be really quick, I've only got about 30 seconds.
Okay, your thoughts on, maybe Dr. Stuart Custer, up in Greenville, South Carolina, he really seems to be, the bread of a lot of criticism, by Dr. Ruckman. Well, and that's because, he's had the temerity, to stand up against them, and say they're wrong, and the other thing is, of course, being at Bob Jones University, Dr. Ruckman really, really, really, really, since he graduated from there, seems to like to shoot, the people that are closest to him, as far as his background goes, so, but Peter Ruckman, likes to shoot at everybody, so it's, he's just one of the folks, that has taken a few hits, too.
If you thought, James White was fascinating, on radio, you're going to want to get, the King James only, controversy book. This was a book, that I wanted to write, I was a month, into the process myself, until I found out, that James was writing, this book, I aborted the process, I got his book, I wrote an endorsement, for his book, and I want you, to take this book, and make it a book, and make it a part, of your library, you can do this, by writing me, at the Christian Research Institute, and ordering radio, offer number, three, seven, a suggested donation, of ten dollars or more, to the ongoing work, of the Christian Research Institute, our address box, five hundred, San Juan Capistrano, California, zip code, ninety two, six, ninety three, you can order by calling, seven, one, four, eight, five, five, nine, nine, two, six, and remember, if you're ordering, using Visa, MasterCard, or the Discover Card, we have a special, toll free number, available to you, that number, eight hundred, four, four, three, ninety seven, ninety seven, we are delighted, to be able to, present you, with James White, he is a, apologist, that's making a difference, not only for time, but also for eternity, pray for him, in his ministry, he's taken a lot of heat, for writing this book, it's a book, that needed to be written, it is a book, that will inspire you, and give you confidence, in the word of God, James of the light, it has been the best, thank you, and we, will have him back, in the near future, thanks for being willing, to do for the truth, what the cults do for a lie, so long for now, see you tomorrow,.