Would the KJV Translators Be King James Only?

Your Calvinist

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

I think we have to realize that there is no single textus receptus.

00:03

There are textus recepti, multiples of them, that even differ with each other.

00:09

I will give you a list that I have put together of variations between textus receptuses and where the King James actually chooses different TRs for different situations and you can see textual criticism in the King James translation as they were looking at different manuscripts and putting it together.

00:27

Welcome back to Conversations with a Calvinist.

00:48

My name is Keith Foskey and I am a Calvinist and I am joined today by my good friend David Martin, who is the voice behind many of the audio books that I've been listening to lately, and my new friend Joshua Barzon, the author of the Forgotten Preface, Surprising Insights on the Translation Philosophy of the King James Translators.

01:13

Josh and David, thank you both for being on the show today.

01:16

Yeah, thanks for having me.

01:18

Thank you.

01:19

Well, gentlemen, we are here today to have a conversation about your book, Joshua, that you have published on the subject of the King James Translator's Preface, and that is something that I think a lot of people don't even think about when they think about the question of the King James controversy, the question of things like King James-onlyism.

01:46

And many people know what that is, and that is basically the belief that the King James Bible is not only superior to other translations of the Bible in English, but it is the only Bible that English-speaking people should use, and that is sometimes referred to as the King James-only movement.

02:07

Now, reading the book and having gone through it—well, let me back up.

02:11

Having listened to the book, having listened to David's buttery voice, which I always mention, he has that wonderful voice.

02:20

Having listened to it—yes, yes, he does.

02:24

Having listened to it, I know that you grew up in a King James-only situation.

02:31

Can you tell us a little bit about that and what your situation was growing up, what kind of church it was, and your background? Yeah, I'd be glad to, and thanks again for having me on.

02:43

My background's kind of interesting because I've had different theological stages of life, but up until recently in my adult life, the King James was kind of the thread that held the different denominational and theological views of my family together.

02:59

So my mom and dad actually grew up nominal Catholics, and then my dad worked with the State Department in the military.

03:08

We lived over in the Middle East, and it was actually in Saudi Arabia, right off the coast of the Red Sea, when he was presented with the gospel at a Bible study on his compound, and trusted the gospel, trusted Christ, and was saved.

03:22

And we were more in kind of a charismatic, non-denominational-leaning movement at that time, but the King James was definitely held up and taught to my dad and us as well as, you know, not just a version, but the only version.

03:38

You know, everything else is a perversion to some degree.

03:41

And then as a teenager, we kind of moved into another theological realm, another denominational realm of what is often referred to as IFB, or Independent Fundamental Baptist.

03:55

I would say that is where the King James Only doctrine started to actually get taught to me.

04:02

I went to college for ministry at a college in Northwest Indiana, had a great time there.

04:10

I still retain a lot of, you know, Baptist beliefs that I was taught there and that I hold to this day.

04:16

But that's where the doctrines of King James Onlyism was even more so solidified in my mind, teachings that, you know, if we don't have every word, you know, individual, we don't have the Word of God at all.

04:29

You know, the modern versions, they're changing doctrines by removing passages and parts of verses, and, you know, they're using manuscripts that were found in trash cans in the Sinai Desert, you know, things like that.

04:41

We laugh, but I mean, those words have come out of my mouth to people.

04:46

To my shame, in my past, in my zeal, there are inner city people I used to work with outside of Chicago that would bring an NIV to church, and I'd swap it out and give them a King James and say, you have to have the Word of God.

05:01

And I have a lot of regret from people that I think I hindered in the past.

05:07

And that's the background.

05:09

I won't go too much into what brought me out.

05:11

That's a whole other conversation.

05:13

But that's where I was.

05:14

I believed it.

05:15

I thought I was trusting what God had said about His Word, and I think I had a true love for God's Word, but was unbalanced in that view of King James Onlyism.

05:26

Well, that's a very honest and fair assessment of your background, and again, still showing some respect for people who I'm sure loved you and loved God, you know, just maybe are wrong in this area.

05:38

And I want to be clear that even though at times tonight I may say some things and we all may say some things that would be in disagreement with the King James Only movement, we're not saying that these people are not saved, or that they're a cult or anything, even though I do think that there can be some cultish behavior in some of the very, very strong King James Only movement, and we do see some very extravagant behaviors in what you just said, statements about things that are very hardcore.

06:15

And so, you know, we want to be fair.

06:17

This is an intramural debate, at least from our side, we would say this is an intramural debate.

06:24

Absolutely.

06:25

Now, David, as I said, you're the voice of the audiobook, and just again for the audience, if anyone is interested in getting this book, you can find this book on Amazon.

06:35

It is called The Forgotten Preface by Joshua Barzon.

06:39

You can get it in a digital format, or you can also get it in an audiobook format, which David is the audiobook voice.

06:49

And again, this is the third time we've been together, David, and I want to thank you so much, just not only for being a voice in my head now, but also for being, just being so encouraging to me that you keep bringing people to me to interview.

07:04

So I'm thankful for you.

07:06

You've been a big help to the show.

07:08

Oh, thank you.

07:09

Thank you, Keith.

07:11

Absolutely.

07:11

So if you would, tell me whatever background you have with this.

07:16

Before the show, I don't want to take the words out of your mouth, but before the show, you said you really don't have a dog in the hunt in the sense that...

07:21

But what's your background with this issue? Do you have a background with this issue at all? I don't have a background with King James only-ism, specifically.

07:33

I have grown up with and used a New King James Bible pretty much all my life through several different churches and a couple different denominations.

07:44

I mentioned when we were talking before the show that I've sometimes been in some other churches using NIV or ESV, where something will be read from the pulpit, and sometimes the pastor will comment, this word might be better translated as...

08:00

And I glanced down at my New King James there and, oh, look at that.

08:03

That's the word that they use there.

08:05

So I've been very happy with the New King James as a translation.

08:09

It's very readable.

08:11

And I know from recording Joshua's book that the translation philosophy of it was to hew as closely as possible to what the King James used whenever possible, although with updated language and idioms and that sort of thing.

08:31

And I know Joshua is not advocating for New King James only either, but he mentions it as a positive, a good modern translation that follows the same text sources that the King James did using modern language.

08:48

And yeah, as it happens, I've been very happy using it for pretty much all my life.

08:53

Absolutely, absolutely.

08:55

And later on in the program, we are going to talk a little bit about the textual basis difference between the King James and the more modern translations.

09:03

Our church, we are ESV only.

09:05

People don't understand.

09:06

No, I'm just kidding.

09:07

That's a joke.

09:08

That's a joke.

09:09

No, but we do use the...

09:11

I preach from the ESV, and that's what's in the pews.

09:14

So I jokingly...

09:15

Anytime I meet a King James only, I'll say, well, we're ESV only, and I like to see their eyes just pop, get real excited.

09:21

Well, I've been thinking about going to the Passion Translation Only myself, but...

09:25

Oh, no.

09:26

I think I have to log off here.

09:29

Well, what's funny about...

09:32

It's funny you mentioned that, David, because the reality is, even though I would say I don't believe in King James only-ism, I do believe that there are some translations that are good and some translations that are bad, and you just happened to mention one of the bad ones.

09:48

So I want to be honest that there are definitely some that we would not recommend using.

09:54

Right.

09:54

Yeah.

09:55

So real quick, Joshua, before we get into the meat and potatoes of the book, you mentioned earlier about the trash can analogy, and of course you're referring to Codex Sinaiticus, which is...

10:05

The story goes in regard to Constantin van Tischendorf, who was the one who discovered the manuscript in the monastery there, that prior to the discovery of the manuscript, he had seen some leaves that were in a trash can, and so the story goes that he found Sinaiticus in a trash can, but the actual reality was it was in a cloth inside of a closet in one of the rooms of the monks, and there's a good...

10:35

The story is actually in a book that I'm about to teach through, which is Neil Lightfoot's book, How We Got the Bible, if nobody's ever read it.

10:44

It has a whole chapter on Codex Sinaiticus, so if anybody's interested in that story.

10:50

But can you share with me some other things? Growing up in this situation, can you share with me some of the other arguments that you remember hearing and even using that endorsed the King James that now you realize aren't good arguments? Yeah, absolutely.

11:07

I got my stack of Bibles right here.

11:12

This is fruit for my labor of all my study.

11:15

I told my wife, I said, hey, if I'm doing this, I'm allowed to get translations and use them and expense them for study material, but I'll go to my King James that I have here, and I would say to start with the Bible, I think it'd be best to go to the textual, the biblical reasons they would use to support King James-onlyism.

11:37

Let me read you what I think would be the hallmark passage, and if you go to any church that holds a King James-only position, I'll buy you a coffee if you can find their doctrinal statement that does not have Psalm 12 as a verse tag next to why they use the King James-only.

11:57

I have never seen anyone use or purport a King James-only position without going to this passage.

12:05

So let me read you the passage in question here, and it says, you know what, I'm sorry, Psalm 12.

12:14

I'm so used to my other translations, I gotta find where I'm at now.

12:20

Okay, here we go.

12:22

Psalm 12.

12:23

Okay, here we go.

12:25

Psalm 12, verse 6 in the King James reads this way.

12:29

The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

12:37

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

12:43

And that is the hallmark passage used to say this passage is talking about the King James version, that God would not just keep his thoughts, his idea, he would keep his words for all generations.

12:58

So if we don't have every word of God because we're told to live by every word, then we don't have the word of God, and then further modern translations compare it to the King James, well look at all that's missing from them, all that is omitted, this is the pure word of God that we have.

13:14

And then to go even further to what I would say is a more extreme King James-only position, they would take the part that says thou will preserve them, or you'll try them as silver and purify them seven times, they'll take that to say the King James is the seventh edition of the Bible that God fully preserved and purified into its final state.

13:38

And they'll take two different ways of saying, you got Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, early English, so forth, basically they start with the number seven being English and work down to make sure it adds up to that, and then they'll take the English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva, you know, whatever it takes to get to the King James as the seventh.

14:03

There's many spectrums here, but nonetheless, I've never met a King James-onlyist that does not use that passage to support King James-onlyism.

14:12

Wow, okay, and was that one of the arguments that convinced you when you were in that position? Did you feel that that was a legitimate argument? Oh, absolutely.

14:22

I would look at that and trust God at His word and say, I'm going to take this literally.

14:26

If God's words are pure, and God said He will keep them forever, then, you know, I'm going to have faith, I'm going to trust that God is true.

14:35

I'll say the linchpin of what broke me is when I read the context of Psalm 12.

14:40

And the context of Psalm 12 actually shows what that passage is talking about, and it is not talking about God keeping His words, it's talking about God keeping the righteous, and God protecting the oppressed.

14:53

Thou will keep them, the oppressed, from this generation forever, O Lord.

14:59

And when you start reading through the first five verses of Psalm 12, and you see David crying out and say, God, you know, the godly man seeth, as the King James says, where are you? And God promises, I will protect you, and I'll keep you forever.

15:13

The funny thing that I tell people within King James-only-ism is, if you actually get a 1611 King James version of the Bible, and you go to that passage, in the marginal notes, you will see on the side that even the King James translators put in the side that the them is referring to the righteous and not to words as the object of preposition there.

15:38

So I'm kind of going back and forth in my journey, but that was definitely something you asked about.

15:44

What was it like? What were some things we believed? I think that's one of the key things we believed, and then I showed you that was one linchpin that brought me out of that particular belief.

15:55

That's awesome.

15:58

You answered my question really before I asked it, because I was going to say, well, what made you change? And what made you change was context, right? Really understanding the passage.

16:11

And I want to say something, because some people may just be listening to this, because some of you in our audience, some of your audio, some of your videos, some of you are watching the YouTube, some of you are listening through Spotify or Apple or whatever.

16:24

Joshua is like a really young man.

16:26

If you can't see his face, he looks so young, but he's so intelligent, and I appreciate it.

16:31

How old are you? I hate to ask, but...

16:33

I'm getting old.

16:34

I just turned 29.

16:36

See? Look at that.

16:37

He's still in his 20s, and you're a very intelligent young man.

16:42

Again, the book was very well written, and we're going to get into it here in a minute, some of your arguments.

16:48

But I appreciate you being candid about how you grew up and the situation you grew up in.

16:54

I want to ask you this before we get to the book, though.

16:56

You mentioned your father being very instrumental, and I know family can be a very difficult thing to have to go against, especially when it's the context of faith, if there's something that the family believes and you decide to believe something different.

17:13

I remember when I became a Calvinist, my parents were not exactly thrilled because they didn't know what that meant.

17:20

To them, that was weird, and it may be weird to you guys.

17:24

David knows me.

17:28

If you ask me about my top five authors, they're probably all going to be Calvinists, so don't worry about me.

17:34

Well, I was going to say, the funny thing is you came on the show, and you know the name of the show.

17:38

Oh, yeah.

17:38

Don't worry, it's here.

17:39

Yeah.

17:41

But how did the initial response of your family, and have they moved now, or are they still in the same position that they were in? Again, if that's too personal, please feel free to tell me.

17:53

I'd rather not say.

17:54

Not at all, because I'll give you two sides to this.

17:58

My parents are still very much so of the mindset of holding a King James only position.

18:04

I would say similar to you, this was a disappointment to them, and there was some strife and tension of trying to have these conversations explaining why I have come to the position I have.

18:15

You can ask me later if you want of what brought me to that, the events that led to that.

18:21

That's interesting providential way that God did it more than just reading a book.

18:26

But it has allowed me and my parents to grow in love towards each other, understanding that the gospel is the core of what unites us, and understanding that there will be differences as life goes on, and that love is not really true love until it's hard to do.

18:45

It's easy, as Jesus says, to love those who love you.

18:48

It's hard to love those that don't.

18:50

I'm not saying my parents don't love me.

18:51

They do.

18:52

They would give their shirt off their back for me, do anything.

18:55

I love my parents.

18:56

But this has been something that there has been some tension, but it has been an amazing sanctifying grace of God, and I think showing us how to love the brethren, even with secondary differences that we might have.

19:09

I'll pivot here and say this.

19:11

My wife's family was another story.

19:15

My wife grew up, I would say, even more hardcore King James only than even I did, believing the purified seven times and all those things.

19:24

Her parents, when I started talking to them about this, my in-laws, they were skeptical, they were worried, but they let me explain these things to them, and they have actually left King James only-ism and now read out of modern translations and are highly blessed and benefited from the privilege they have.

19:45

The third aspect I'll give here is not just my parents, but when I left King James only-ism, I was on staff as an assistant at a Baptist church that held this position very highly.

19:58

And when I brought this position to my then pastor, there were some long conversations because I held teaching and leadership roles at the church.

20:07

I was essentially the youth pastor, the song leader, children's ministry, etc.

20:13

And he realized, if you do this, it'll be an affront to my position in the church's position.

20:19

And I tried to bring a compromise of, listen, while I'm at the church here, I will gladly use the King James for all pulpit preaching and teaching, but in my own discipleship with others and my children, my conscience basically constrains me to use vernacular, understandable translations with those that I teach the word of God.

20:40

It came to a point that that was not accepted, and I was asked to leave my position at the church because of the position that I came to.

20:47

That is what I would say was the most stressful, the most, I would say, strifeful situation that I had to come into and rely upon God's grace for a long season, even up until now, of dealing with relationships and approaching those topics.

21:03

Yeah, absolutely.

21:05

And I did want to mention too, David, being as this is your third time on the show, you get to serve sort of as a co-host.

21:10

So feel free, if you have a question for Joshua or something you want to add, just jump right in, because I definitely want to, I don't want to leave you out at all.

21:18

I'm glad that you're here.

21:19

I'm always glad to have you.

21:21

But Joshua, you mentioned about what the, before we get, again, I want to get to the book, I promise, but I'm so interested in you as a person.

21:27

And I think knowing you as a person is going to help somebody understand the book, because I read the book without having really met you, except for through email.

21:35

And I feel like I learned a lot about you just reading the book.

21:40

But now that I'm talking to you, I'm hearing things, and I'm putting more pieces together.

21:45

So what was it that, you know, what was the moment? You said it wasn't really reading a book that changed your mind.

21:51

What was the moment? Yeah, so I wish it was just, you know, reading James White's The King James Only Controversy, and my eyes are open, but God did not have that in his plan.

22:02

It was two things.

22:04

I was working on, at the time, in my ministry at the church on becoming ordained, getting ordained.

22:10

And for that, within my kind of denominational structure was putting together my statement of faith, my doctrinal statement of faith, you know, all the theologies.

22:20

And I came to them saying, I can't just repeat what I learned in college and copy and paste my systematic theology.

22:28

There are some things I have questions about, and I need to ask God to open my eyes if I'm off on something, because I'm afraid of stamping this and being afraid of the fear of man for the rest of my life, because I said X, Y, and Z at my ordination.

22:43

So as I studied bibliology, I realized the bibliology I was given was just King James Only-ism packaged as bibliology.

22:51

And I began to look into the history of the English Bible and realizing the beautiful history of the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible and Wycliffe and Tyndale's translation work.

23:03

And I realized, my goodness, God's Word existed then, and it even differed from the final version of the King James.

23:10

Where was God's Word before 1611? God either gave it in 1611 and was a liar before, or God's not a liar, and he's allowed this ambiguity within the realm of translation.

23:22

So I read all the books.

23:24

On one side, I read D.A.

23:25

Carson's, you know, A Plea for Realism, James White's King James Only Controversy, Mark Ward's book, Authorized.

23:33

Highly recommend that as a primer for this topic for people.

23:38

And then on the other side, I read the King James Only views of, you know, people such as Thomas Strauss, people such as, you know, even Sam Gipp and David Cloud and even Gail Riplinger.

23:50

And I just knew with her that she was a couple of fries short of a happy meal, so I didn't read too much of that.

23:56

And I was so conflicted in seeing, you know, these views.

24:01

I just had to zoom out so that everybody could see David and I laugh, because that was a good...

24:05

Sorry, it's the truth.

24:09

I have to stop you right there and just ask, and you were going, so I apologize, but what's the general consensus in King James Only circles regarding Gail Riplinger? Is it relatively positive, negative, or is it mixed? It's mixed.

24:29

The hardcore ones will love it and use New Age Bible versions as a textbook, but I know many more responsible King James Onlyists that will even say, no, we know she's not right and even lies.

24:43

And I appreciate that about those that will at least admit that about Gail Riplinger.

24:48

Do you know Thomas Ross? In a tertiary way, he actually graduated from the Bible college that I went to.

24:57

Okay, well, I recently interviewed him on the show, and he's going to come back on eventually because we're going to come...

25:02

he's going to come on and talk about landmark Baptist theology, so looking forward to that.

25:08

Oh boy, yes, I want to listen to that.

25:10

But yeah, well, in our interview, he mentioned that he thought that Gail Riplinger and even Sam Gipp were gifts to the other side, I think was the term he used.

25:24

They were like a gift to the non-King James position because they made the King James position look so foolish.

25:32

Yeah, I could see that.

25:33

And I appreciate him at least admitting that and not trying to excuse their behavior.

25:39

I felt like he was honest about that, yeah.

25:42

Yeah, and I guess what I was saying and where that all connects to is, I'm reading all these books, and I'm so conflicted, and I'm like, God, help me.

25:49

And then I realized and remembered that I learned in Bible college, just as a passing note, a guest speaker had said one time that there's an interesting letter in the front of your Bible that you should read sometime that the King James translators wrote to you.

26:06

And I don't think he was actually endorsing it.

26:09

I think he was just being kind of hokey of like, you should read your Bible from cover to cover, even read the maps.

26:14

And then he was like, even at the beginning, if you had that letter, you should read it.

26:18

And I opened up my King James Bible, and it wasn't there.

26:23

And I thought I was gypped.

26:24

I want a refund on my Bible.

26:25

Like, why didn't they put this letter in my Bible? So that was kind of a spark that went off.

26:30

And I went on Amazon, and I bought this, a mass media print of the Translators to the Reader Preface with updated spelling and an introduction by Edward J.

26:42

Goodspeed from the early 20th century.

26:44

I began to read this.

26:46

And if I can show you as I flip through a little bit, I began to highlight and notate and put all my notes in here as I read it.

26:57

And I remember sitting on the couch reading this, and my wife walked by, and I looked at her and I said, honey, the King James translators weren't even King James only.

27:05

And it blew my mind realizing this.

27:09

And I would say, you know, I've been accused of Josh is saying that this isn't the 67th book of the Bible, and he treats it as if it's inspired.

27:18

No, that's the whole point is I so believe in the canon of scripture that I'm going to trust the philosophy of what these men graciously told us that we actually see materialize in their translation of what they've put in here as an introduction to it.

27:32

So that ended up becoming my book was my 10 theses on what they believed.

27:39

And funny thing is, I put these theses together to present to my former pastor and some people in my old ministries about why I believe this.

27:47

They didn't want to read it, honestly.

27:49

So I thought, well, I don't want to waste this.

27:52

And through some encouragement from others, I put it in a book format, and it took off more than I ever thought a random 10 thesis paper I wrote would ever do.

28:04

Well, that's fantastic.

28:06

And that leads us right to where I wanted to go, because I do want to get into sort of the meat and potatoes of the argument.

28:14

And as you've already alluded to, if you look at the contents page of the book, I've got it pulled up here on my screen, it really is just four parts.

28:26

The first part is what the King James translators believed, and that's your 10 theses.

28:32

And then there is an endorsement, and then there is the new King James version defended.

28:38

We're going to talk about that in a moment, because you actually, you are not, you don't use the new King James version, but you endorse it in the book.

28:49

Correct.

28:49

And we're going to talk about why that, yeah, going to talk about why that is, and maybe even get into a little bit of textual conversation.

28:57

Sounds good to me.

28:58

Yeah.

28:58

It sounds like you've dipped your toe into that topic.

29:07

Yeah, absolutely.

29:11

So Joshua, tell me why Westcott and Hort were devils.

29:14

No, don't tell me.

29:16

Well, they had 666 tattooed on their upper forearm, if you ever see any old pictures of them.

29:22

Yeah, but they were textual critics, so they probably had 616.

29:27

Yeah, yeah, got the papyrus there.

29:30

So, and David, what's, I'm curious even of you, you said you don't have a dog in the fight.

29:35

Have you heard these different attacks and arguments against the critical text, or is this kind of foreign to you even? I'm familiar with some of it.

29:44

I'm sure I'm not as familiar with it as you are.

29:47

I'm blessed.

29:49

Yeah.

29:51

I'm definitely familiar with some of it.

29:52

I have a reprint of Bishop Burgin's or Dean Burgin's book on the longer ending.

30:03

Some of these discussions I have a little bit of familiarity with, but I haven't studied them nearly as extensively as you have.

30:10

Yeah, it's very niche, so I'm not surprised.

30:15

Yeah.

30:15

I actually did have a question for you, Josh, if that's okay.

30:18

Absolutely.

30:19

You mentioned about the preface being dropped.

30:23

Do you have any history on why that happened? Was that just sort of a cost-cutting measure, or do you think there was some sort of, was there anything nefarious there, or is it just a matter of convenience? That's a great question, and I, as much as I can piece together, having, you know, hoping all things and having charity as my driving principle, I don't think there was anything nefarious with it.

30:46

What I've traced with Bibles I've collected and that I've looked into with facsimiles and such is it seems right around the end of the 19th century, end of the 20th century is when you start to see it dropped out.

31:00

And I think it became, with mass production, growing populations, you know, the boom of, you know, modern missions, you know, with D.L.

31:08

Moody even and R.A.

31:09

Torrey and their evangelistic meetings, and you have more Bibles getting printed.

31:12

I think it was a cost-cutting measure, and I actually wonder if I could go back in time and have them put them in there if maybe it would have neutralized King James-onlyism in kind of a butterfly effect way.

31:25

So yeah, I don't think it was anything nefarious, but I actually wondered that at first and was, you know, kind of disappointed to figure out, like, no, people were just saving a couple bucks, I think, with printing.

31:36

Kind of like a back-to-the-future thing where, you know, if you could go back like Marty McFly and make it to where they were in there, maybe that would have changed everything and all the future would have been different.

31:46

This is totally off-topic, but it's hilarious because I saw it today.

31:49

I saw a meme of Donald Trump from, like, 1980 when he's young, and it says, why do all these time travelers keep coming back and trying to kill me? I'm just a realtor, you know? And I saw that, and then I thought about our interview, and then David mentioned that question, and, you know, I can see these producers, you know, of Bibles in 1899.

32:10

I mean, like, why are you guys coming back and trying to put this preface in here, you know? And, you know, hindsight's 20-20.

32:16

That's funny.

32:18

That's funny.

32:19

Well, I have a question for you.

32:21

David inspired me to a question because not only was the preface a part of the original 1611, but the apocrypha was also part of the 1611, and we never, ever hear—and I realize this argument is—I'm not making an argument.

32:38

I'm just saying this is something we don't hear King James Onlyists typically advocating for the inclusion of the apocryphal books, even though they were in the 1611.

32:47

When you were a King James Onlyist, how would you have responded to that if somebody said, hey, we should have these additional 12 books, or 14, or however you count them? Your answer would have been? I would say, well, the one I have now doesn't have it in it.

33:00

You know, I know that's kind of basic, but at the end of the day, you know, that's kind of what you have to go off of, and I think it connects to the point that nobody uses a 1611 King James translation anymore.

33:11

At the best, most people use a 1769 Blaney revision of the King James translation that even updated spelling and grammar, and even to some degree, some word changes were made in 1769 versus the 1611 that most King James Onlyists don't know about.

33:29

So I think that kind of erased the apocryphal tradition, but if I was pressed harder, I was asked that one time by someone, and I said, you know, whoever put it together, my limited knowledge, they understood it was below scripture, which I even hold today, you know, even if someone claims it should be in there, they understand it's deuterocanonical at best, historical, honestly, at the best practice.

33:58

Okay, so you would just argue it was never really the Bible, even though it was in the printing.

34:05

Yeah, it was like, you know, they put it in there, and then some, you know, conspiracy theorists I've heard say the Catholics were behind putting it in there, and then God purged it in 1769 and got it out of there.

34:16

You know, as long as you end with what you're holding in your hand, anything you say justifies it at the end of the day, you know.

34:23

Well, in fairness, if you look at a reprint of the 1611, you'll see where the apocrypha is.

34:28

They took pains to print apocrypha on every page where that appears.

34:33

Yeah, interesting.

34:34

So, you know, there may at least, I know it's on the first page, I believe it's on every page, though.

34:39

The publishers, the printers were...

34:41

No, you're right, I'm holding my 1611 up now, and unlike the other parts of the Bible, it says apocrypha on both pages, but when you go to the Bible, it doesn't say Bible on both pages.

34:54

So I did not know that, David.

34:55

That's very interesting.

34:57

I'm going to tuck that away as a little nugget in my mind.

35:01

A little red flag that this isn't really Scripture on every page that it appears.

35:06

Yeah, very interesting.

35:08

Well, as we go back again to the book itself, your book, not the King James, but your book is based on 10 theses that are related to the question of the King James translators.

35:24

Now, for people, again, who are unfamiliar, the King James Bible was translated not by a single person.

35:32

It wasn't translated by King James himself.

35:34

I've heard some silly people who talk about the king as the translator.

35:39

That's not...

35:40

That's a very ignorant thought.

35:42

But it was authorized, and therefore a lot of King James advocates will call it the authorized version because it was authorized by the king.

35:52

And your first thesis says that the King James translators believed that any attempt to produce a modern translation of the Bible would be met with resistance and suspicion.

36:04

So you're saying in here that even they were met with some of the same critiques and arguments that people today who are translating Bibles are met with, that they're nouveau, that they're creating something that doesn't need to be done.

36:21

So speak to that for a minute, just this first thesis, because oftentimes we frontload our most important point.

36:27

And I'm not saying that is your most important point, but I'm sure you have thoughts about it.

36:31

Share with us why you put that one as the first thing.

36:34

Yeah, so I would say part of the reason I put that as the first thesis is that was chronologically one of their first points that they bring up in their preface.

36:44

These theses kind of came as I would write in the margins of my preface that I bought.

36:52

And as I looked at this one, I realized, as you said, they realized that any modern translation work would be met with resistance.

37:00

And I'll read you a quote of theirs from the preface that is in my book.

37:03

They said that new works, basically, we could substitute in their modern Bible translations are welcomed with suspicion instead of love, with emulation instead of thanks.

37:16

And if there could be any hole left for a petty objection to enter, a petty objection, if it does, we'll find a hole and make one.

37:24

It is sure to be misconstrued and in danger of being condemned.

37:28

This will easily be granted by as many as know story or have any experience.

37:33

Was there ever anything projected that savored any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying and opposition? I just think it's hilarious that their point there could get applied to the scorn that even modern translations have faced over the years in the same way that their translation was treated at the time that they produced their new translation in 1611.

37:59

Yeah, and something to consider, and I'm just glancing down in the third or fourth paragraph here, you said the translators clearly understood that their endeavor to make a new translation of the Bible, actually a revision of the bishop's Bible of 1568 would cause that translation to be set upon a stage to be mocked and nitpicked and criticized by the religious crowd of their day.

38:21

So the King James Bible itself is a revision of an earlier Bible? Absolutely.

38:26

The King James is a revision of the bishop's Bible.

38:31

In fact, if we want to be honest, the King James is just Tyndale 2.0.

38:36

The King James, I forget the percentage, but I think it's over 80% of the exact wording that Tyndale had in his New Testament is verbatim in the King James translation.

38:48

Granted, 15%, there's a lot of leeway of changes and such, but we have here a beautiful English history of translation just being continued and passed on with a torch with the King James Version.

39:00

Yeah, and very quickly, just as I said, I'm looking through as we're talking here, the second thesis, not to jump ahead too fast, but it says, the King James translators believed that the Bible should be available in the common English of the then-present age.

39:16

And I have heard, and I want you to speak to this for a moment, I have heard the argument that the King James English was never the common English, that it was always a special type of English speaking.

39:31

David didn't like that argument, I don't think.

39:33

He may—I'm sorry, I'm looking at you, brother—but speak to that for a moment.

39:39

Is the King James in the vernacular of the day, or is—what are your thoughts? Yeah, so let me start off and read you a quote from the preface.

39:48

And again, we have to understand these things, reading the primary sources, which any historian does when they're going to say, this is what the Roman Empire did.

39:58

Well, where are your sources? What makes you say that? So for someone to say, well, the King James was in a different holy language of the day, what are your sources? I've yet to see any.

40:10

Now, here's my claim, here's my thesis.

40:12

The translators wanted the Bible to be in the common language so that the average man could understand it.

40:19

Here are my two supports for that.

40:22

Number one, we have William Tyndale, much earlier than then, but the King James translator is carrying on his legacy.

40:29

And Tyndale said he would make it that the plowboy in the field would be able to know more of the Bible than the bishop sitting in his room having dinner with him at that time because he so wanted people to have the Bible in his common language.

40:43

We fast forward to the translators and they say this in their preface.

40:47

They say, but we desire that scripture may speak like itself as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood by even the very vulgar.

40:57

Two interesting things here.

40:59

This opened my eyes when I realized they were saying the same way a Israelite at the bottom of Mount Sinai heard the Decalogue read aloud and understood it vernacularly.

41:11

So too do we want the man of 1611 to hear God's word in that way and prophetically saying, and so too should the scripture always read that way.

41:23

That would be my response to that claim.

41:26

Absolutely, absolutely.

41:28

And honestly, it does to us seem like a foreign and obscure and maybe somewhat of a lofty language because again, we are 400 years removed from the time of the King James usage.

41:45

So to any one of us saying, yes, this sounds like a special type of almost like a Holy Ghost language.

41:52

Well, yeah, it doesn't sound like the way we speak.

41:55

And I'll be honest, when it comes to just the grandeur of it, there are times where I prefer the way the King James says things just because it's the way I'm used to hearing them.

42:09

For instance, with the 23rd Psalm, I do funerals quite a bit.

42:13

It's part of my ministry.

42:15

I serve grieving families.

42:17

And I mean, every time, you know, I speak from the King James when I give the 23rd Psalm because every other version of the 23rd Psalm, with the exception of maybe the New King James, because I don't remember how it goes, but every other version, it sounds weird.

42:34

You know, it doesn't sound like you think it should sound.

42:37

If you grew up in a situation where you were used to hearing it, or even John 3, 16, to hear it in a way that doesn't use, you know, believeth in him or something like that.

42:50

Or the Lord's Prayer, you know, something like that, that, you know, is so structured.

42:54

And let me say this as a point.

42:56

I tell people all the time, I've been accused by some King James-only-ists that know me of saying, you know, Josh, you just hate the King James.

43:03

Why are you always trashing it? And again, I ask them, can you give me one soundbite of me ever saying anything negative? I actually feel like I have a greater appreciation for the King James now with my understanding of the preface and the history.

43:17

And like you said, there's passages, you know, the majority of my memorization is still King James.

43:22

I have to translate my memorized verses all the time.

43:26

But I will say this, you know, my family passage, you know, we have it hanging on our wall in our kitchen is in Deuteronomy 6, you know, the Shaman, you know, love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and thy soul and thy mind, thy strength, you know, and talk about it when you riseth and when you sitteth and when you walketh.

43:44

And we say that together as a family.

43:47

I've got two daughters, a four-year-old and a two-year-old, and I want them to know that even in the King James, because it connects to my history as well.

43:55

I'm not ashamed of the King James and my history, but it's when it becomes an idol that I have a problem with it.

44:01

And I think that's the balance we have to have is I still love and use and respect it.

44:06

And I've even been at some places that use the King James and have asked me, hey, when you preach here or teach here, can you use it? And I say absolutely, because I appreciate the history that we have.

44:17

And I think that goes along with your question of, you know, understanding the pros and the cons of, you know, even the understandability and, you know, how common it is with the average person.

44:27

Yeah, and I—go ahead.

44:30

I think sometimes people confuse the high quality of the translation and the beauty of the King James, which is undeniably there, with thinking that it's so highfalutin that the common reader of the day wouldn't have understood it, or a listener of the day wouldn't have understood it.

44:46

Something can be well-spoken and well-written and very clear and very beautiful, but also easily understood.

44:53

And I think that's what we have in the King James in the context in which it was written and translated.

44:58

My father was an English major in college, and he still likes to use the King James, and he talks about the—just the beauty of it from just a, you know, a lyrical standpoint and the way it flows.

45:10

And it's beautifully written.

45:12

Absolutely.

45:13

The problem is it's not in the vernacular today.

45:17

Yeah, and I think it's interesting is where we have to go with this is there has been a, you know, regression in the average person's understanding of English over, I would say, you know, even the past 40 to 50 years.

45:31

And again, that's me as not even a 40 to 50-year-old saying this, but I understand this from studying history and reading it.

45:37

So I get the desire of people saying, you know, like, well, what are we going to have next, an emoji Bible? And, you know, it actually does exist.

45:46

It's interesting.

45:48

I wouldn't preach out of it, but—and I understand—that would be funny.

45:54

How could you? Exactly.

45:56

And I understand the zeal there and what they're thinking.

46:01

But here's my thing is, so you're telling me that we're going to hurt the person that has been hurt by their education, who's been hurt by their socioeconomical upbringing, and we're going to tell them, hey, I'm sorry, you know, you're a product of English, you know, regressing for 40 years.

46:18

You know, this is on you now, rather than in love coming to them, bringing to them the word of God.

46:25

You know, we have the blessing of both functional and formal translations.

46:30

And I think that's a gift that the church has for both the scholars and for both the average person on the streets.

46:39

Yeah, absolutely.

46:40

And speaking of that, one of the things that you do also in the book—and I'm not going to give all 10 of the theses away because it is—I want people to get the book.

46:53

We're not going to read the whole thing to them.

46:55

But David will read the whole thing to you.

46:57

If you want to get a copy of it on Audible, he will be happy to have already read the entire book to you.

47:03

But one of the things you do mention in the book is the vast amount of words that are in the King James Bible that are no longer in use today, or more importantly, and I think you call them false friends.

47:19

Am I remembering that correctly? Correct.

47:21

Absolutely.

47:23

And what that is, if I remember from the book, is a false friend is a word you think you know the meaning of, but when you read it in the King James, they have a different meaning than what you mean.

47:36

Can you share some of those with our listeners so that they know what we mean when we say there are false friends in the King James? Absolutely.

47:44

And I will first off give a credit here.

47:47

That phrase is not mine.

47:49

I have happily stolen that phrase from a good friend of mine, Mark Ward, and that comes from his book, Authorized, the Use and Misuse of the King James Version.

48:02

Mark Ward has grown up in King James-only-ism, or let me rephrase that, he's grown up around King James-only-ism his whole life, but he's never really been directly affected by it.

48:14

But now he's made a ministry out of helping bring people out of it.

48:17

I would highly recommend that anyone checks out his channel on YouTube, and he has a series called Words You Don't Know That You Don't Know.

48:24

I think he's on like Word50 right now, and he does a whole video on them.

48:29

But I'll read you some just from his book here that he has.

48:34

One of the ones that got me was just a simple one, was something such as suffer.

48:42

When Jesus would say, suffer the little children to come to me.

48:46

And I have had someone hear that before and go, like, Jesus wants to hurt these little children? He wants them to suffer? And the word suffer in our language now means to allow.

48:59

Jesus was saying, allow the little children to come to me.

49:01

But in 1611, suffer meant to allow.

49:05

We understand that even as we look at history of suffrage, suffrage acts, even in older writings, you can kind of pick up on it.

49:14

That's one example.

49:15

Another one is in the Old Testament, there's a story of the prophet on the mountain.

49:20

I think it's Elijah, and he tells, you know what, I'm botching it.

49:25

I think it might be Joshua.

49:26

It's in the Old Testament, OK? It's not in the Apocrypha.

49:29

But somebody says, how long will you halt between two decisions? And the word halt in common English today means to stop, you know, halt there, stop.

49:40

But the way it was used in 1611, and you know, you go to the Hebrew word that doesn't change, it actually means to go back and forth, to deliberate back and forth on a decision, giving the idea of somebody halting on crutches.

49:54

They're hobbling.

49:55

They're going back and forth.

49:57

These are just two of many, many false friends that have changed their meaning, not because God has not kept his promise, but because translations are the product of adapting with changing language over and over and over again.

50:12

So yeah, plug for Mark Ward.

50:14

He's got a whole video series.

50:16

But those are two of many, many dozens of false friends that are in the King James Version.

50:21

But that concept of false friends, I just want to mention, is not exclusive to older English.

50:27

I remember when I was learning French, the word librairie means bookstore.

50:31

It doesn't mean library.

50:33

But that's a false friend between French and English.

50:35

And that's actually where I first heard the concept.

50:38

And that really clicked with me when I was reading your book.

50:41

You're talking about this idea of false friends within the English language.

50:45

And that's the problem.

50:46

It's another language.

50:48

It's very, very close to English, very close to modern English.

50:50

But it's early modern English.

50:52

It's not today's contemporary English.

50:54

It's subtly but surely, in some respects, a different language.

50:58

And that's the problem.

50:59

Yeah.

50:59

Wow.

51:00

And that's interesting, just even within languages today, like you're saying.

51:04

I mean, I remember how disappointed I was when I realized that French fries weren't from France, you know? I mean, it's just, you know, these things carry over no matter what you're doing.

51:13

And, you know, I think even within my parents' generation, the word gay meant something different 60 years ago than it does today, you know? And, you know, let's just even take the word bowels.

51:27

I love reading a translation where Paul does not say that his bowels yearn for the believers that he loves.

51:34

You know, I mean, that evokes, you know, ideas of colitis and Crohn's in my mind now, you know, not his love for them.

51:42

And I get what they're getting at is, you know, the deepest part of you, you know, like in the Old Testament and the King James, David will say, I was pricked in my reins and in my kidneys.

51:51

That Hebrew, you know, ideology of your kidney being punched, that feeling of pain.

51:58

But the problem is, if the average person doesn't know what that's meaning, that actually is a piece of God's word that is lost to the average person that's reading it.

52:06

And you hear some King James advocates, and I'm sure you growing up around them, Joshua, you've heard this, but the King James advocates would say, but these are God's words and therefore they are right.

52:20

And the people should just, they should learn what they mean.

52:23

And so they put the onus on the reader rather than on the translator.

52:30

They say the translation is perfect, therefore the reader should simply just have a dictionary in their hand, even though the dictionary is going to have to be a few hundred years old.

52:42

Well, I'm not even being funny about this.

52:45

Within King James only-ism, we were told to have in our library a Webster's 1828 dictionary so that we would be able to find the words.

52:54

And, you know, when Webster put that together, he used the Bible, you know, the King James at the time as a basis for a lot of the explanations of the words and definitions.

53:03

So you're exactly on the money that you have to literally have a 200-year-old dictionary to even know what they mean.

53:11

And I want my kids to be able to use an Oxford English dictionary from school and realize that their spelling test and the words of the Bible have the same meaning.

53:20

Absolutely.

53:20

Absolutely.

53:21

Well, I want to move to the second part of the book.

53:25

As I said, I definitely want people to read it.

53:27

I want people to go get their copy and listen or read however they choose to consume it.

53:32

But in the second part of the book, which is a pretty large section, you spend time with your defense of the New King James translation.

53:42

Now, I will go ahead and say that when I first heard it, I was a little concerned.

53:49

And this is just honesty from one brother to another.

53:53

I was thinking, well, perhaps he is still married to the TR, even though he has stepped away from the King James only movement.

54:08

A lot of people don't realize this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm saying this right.

54:13

There are two different types of King James onlyists.

54:15

There are those who hold to King James only, and that's it.

54:18

But then there is a secondary, more subtle, and I would say more scholarly version, which says the TR is the perfect Greek text, and the King James is translated from the perfect Greek text.

54:37

Therefore, we have a perfect English Bible because we have a perfect Greek manuscript, which is called the Texas Receptus.

54:44

And we don't have time in the show to go through the history of the Texas Receptus, but it is a manuscript which is based upon a very limited amount of available manuscripts at the time.

54:59

When I say limited, I don't mean to one or two, but it was less than it was available today.

55:03

And so those who hold to it say this represents the true perfect Greek word of God, and the English is based upon that.

55:12

So when I heard you defending the new King James, like I said, my thought was, okay, he's a TR guy.

55:19

But then talking to you, you said that's not the case.

55:22

So tell me where you land on that, if you don't mind.

55:26

Gladly, and I'll keep it succinct because this could be a whole other topic on textual criticism.

55:32

But I would say I was kind of TR preferred, not even only, but preferred at my first stages of coming out of King James Onlyism.

55:42

And then upon further study and research, I understood even that was, I think, a wobbly position.

55:48

And the reason why is there is no Textus Receptus.

55:52

There's the Textus Recepti.

55:54

There are multiple Textus Receptuses.

55:57

I mean, what are we talking about? Are we talking about Erasmus' first edition or his fourth edition? Are we talking about Beza's TR? Are we talking about Stephanus' TR? Or as King James Onlyists don't realize, the TR they're referring to, if they give you a volume, a book of a TR, it's Scribner's back translation from the 1881 revised version where he just went through and took every choice the King James translators made, put it in the Greek, and presented that as the Textus Receptus.

56:27

So I think we have to realize that there is no single Textus Receptus.

56:32

There are Textus Recepti, multiples of them that even differ with each other.

56:38

If you're listening to this and you are in King James Onlyism and this has got your mind going, you're thinking, email me, contact me, I will give you a list that I have put together of variations between Textus Receptuses and where the King James actually chooses different TRs for different situations.

56:57

And you can see textual criticism in the King James translation as they were looking at different manuscripts and putting it together.

57:04

So Keith, I would say that is what kind of broke my very short stint vacation in the land of TR-onlyism.

57:11

And what you just said is very important.

57:13

I hope people watch this entire show because what you just said was worth the whole hour to me, that just letting people understand when they say we are TR-only advocates, there's no such thing, any more than there's one King James.

57:28

Because the King James was translated in 1611, the second edition had over 400 edits from the first.

57:35

So which one is correct? And then, like you said, the 1769 Blaney revision is different than the others.

57:41

And we say different, what do we mean? Well, it has changes.

57:44

If the Word of God is pure, based upon the psalm you mentioned earlier, and it's tried seven times and purified, then why does it need an addition and why does it need a revision and why is the Blaney revision the perfect one, but not the later revisions, which were based upon the Westcott and Hort and these different things that happened later? Why are these things bad, but that was good? And of course, we know a lot of the arguments about Westcott and Hort, a lot of them tend to be ad hominem, based upon the men themselves rather than the arguments from the text.

58:21

And I'll throw one thing out here, and it's one of my points, one of my theses in my book.

58:26

The translator said, I'm paraphrasing here, not to judge the character of the men from the past that have done translation work for us.

58:36

They even quote Symechus and Theodosius and Aquila, who they literally, in their preface, say are heretics.

58:45

One of them, they say, was a member of the Ebionites, which, a fun thing for you if you talk to Brother Ross about landmarkism.

58:55

Once you get into the Donatist and the Ebionites in that North African region there, I mean, there's some weird doctrinal views of Christ, whether he was Jesus at the baptism or before, kind of an ancient modalism.

59:08

The reason I'm saying that is not a rabbit trail, I'm saying the translators of the King James understood that they were standing on the shoulders of even heretics or men that they may not enjoy heaven with in eternity, and yet God providentially used them.

59:24

And I think that has to be used as well with our view of modern translations and those that have done the work into them.

59:31

Absolutely.

59:32

So even though you're not New King James only or TR only, you do make a good case for the value of the New King James version.

59:43

Now, is that something that happened as a result of you coming out of this and trying to find a translation that you wanted to use, or was that just your way of sort of trying to find a middle ground between yourself and those who hold to the King James only position? What was your reasoning for really—because, again, you do a good job of defending the New King James position.

01:00:03

What was your motivation there? Yeah, phenomenal question.

01:00:07

I would say both of what you mentioned.

01:00:10

The New King James was my stepping stone out of King James onlyism.

01:00:14

It was for me to be able to hold in my hand, and without really diving into the textual differences at the time, but understanding I needed to understand God's word vernacularly and use it with those I was discipling, the New King James fit the bill.

01:00:28

And for me, I was told all the time growing up and in Bible college that even the New King James and all these translations were all from the critical text.

01:00:37

I remember a very well-known speaker in King James onlyism, David Sorensen.

01:00:43

You'll never probably know of him, but people that are in it, you know who I'm talking about.

01:00:48

He came to my college, and he had two tables, and one was a stack of all modern translations, and the other one had the King James on it.

01:00:56

And he said the difference between these two tables is all of these, with all the translations, ESV, NIV, New King James version, these are all from the critical text, the bad text.

01:01:08

The King James is the only one today based on the TR.

01:01:12

So when I realized, wait a second, there are TR-based modern translations such as the New King James, the MEV, the modern English version, and even the modernized Geneva Bible, I realized for those whose consciences are still bound by that view of manuscript differences, God has even blessed you with modern translations that your conscience will allow you to use.

01:01:35

So that was the phase I was in when I wrote the book, but I wasn't very rock solid there, but I kept it in there when I published the book a while later, because I realized I would be giving too much to swallow by moving from King James-only-ism and tackling textual criticism in one book.

01:01:55

So I felt like the Lord led me to use the New King James as saying, hey, will you at least take one step? And if you truly do believe, hey, it's a manuscript issue, if I can get you to at least come there, then can you please accept the New King James? And I have seen that open up people being able to talk about, okay, now I understand why it's okay to use the ESV or the CSB or etc.

01:02:18

So it really is a stepping stone of me helping bring people out of King James-only-ism, and I've seen a lot of fruit from that, honestly.

01:02:26

Well, that leads to another question, and that is one of the arguments that I heard from someone who was a King James advocate who was arguing against the New King James is that, well, we don't allow the New King James because the New King James has textual marks that talk about the manuscript differences, and the King James doesn't have that because it's the pure Word of God.

01:02:58

And I want to ask you just to tell the audience, did the original 1611 have marginal notes? Absolutely, and I'm looking for it.

01:03:09

Here we go.

01:03:10

If you don't believe me, I'll literally read you one.

01:03:14

Here is Colossians chapter 3.

01:03:17

I have it bookmarked here with my orange mark.

01:03:19

I always go to this one, and this is a verse many of us have memorized.

01:03:24

Here it is in the King James.

01:03:25

It says, Most modern translations will translate affection as mind.

01:03:41

Set your mind on things above.

01:03:43

I have literally heard Sam Gipp and others attack that example and say, no, God doesn't care about your mind.

01:03:50

That's where the intellect is, and that gets you in trouble.

01:03:52

Your affections, that's your emotions, and that's what God wants.

01:03:56

He doesn't want your intellect.

01:03:57

He wants your affections.

01:03:59

The problem is, in the 1611, in the footnote, it also has mind in the footnotes as what that word could be translated as.

01:04:07

So I go back to this, and I say that's not just it.

01:04:11

There were thousands of footnotes, and I have been asked to do it, and I'm trying to work on it.

01:04:18

I'm hoping within the next year or so to put out a second book called The Forgotten Footnotes, going through these very forgotten footnotes in the King James Bible and showing the light that they also shed on this topic.

01:04:31

Well, I tell you what, that would be excellent, because I would be curious regarding not only translational footnotes, which is what you just mentioned, but also textual critical notes that mention various readings, because those are there as well, right? It is, and I don't have a bookmark, but I might be able to find it.

01:04:51

If I don't, I'll quit, but in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 22 or 21, it's the passage where it says, you know, one will be taken, one will be left in the field, one will be grinding, one will not.

01:05:06

Yeah, okay, so I think I'm here at it, and it says right next to there in the marginal notes, most ancient manuscripts do not contain this wording here in that passage or this verse.

01:05:18

There's another one I'm looking at here.

01:05:19

It caught my attention too.

01:05:22

Now, wait a minute.

01:05:23

What you just said was in the 1611? Yes, so I'll show you right here.

01:05:28

I'll read the verse.

01:05:29

If you don't believe me, go in your King James Bible to Luke chapter, I got to read the Roman numerals, XVII, 27, okay? Sorry, I'm not good with my Latin.

01:05:40

Go to Luke 27, verse 36, and it says two men shall be in the field, and one shall be taken, the other left.

01:05:48

There are two lines next to that verse.

01:05:50

Once you go to the margin, and I'll show you here, so if you're watching, you can see it.

01:05:56

It says right there, trying to get even, it says this verse is wanting or lacking in most Greek copies.

01:06:05

So you have right there textual criticism in the margins of them alerting you, hey, this might not actually be Bible.

01:06:14

This might have been added in later by a scribe to kind of balance off two women were doing this and two men are doing this.

01:06:21

So if you're going to say, don't use the New King James because of the footnotes that reference the modern translation, the NA, then have equal scales and don't use the King James either, or if that's really a problem, then you are able to buy a New King James that doesn't have footnotes in it.

01:06:37

There's lots of different formats out there, so that's kind of a straw man, I think, is an argument.

01:06:44

Wow.

01:06:46

Honestly, as I said, I really hope people listen all the way to the end because you are dropping some nuggets of gold because this is, I mean, this is, again, somebody who is caught up in this, somebody who maybe hasn't thought these things through or is sitting under the burden of the cultish mindset that is often behind some of the King James only movement.

01:07:07

And again, not all, not all.

01:07:09

There are those who are not that way, but among those who are, you are providing some very, very helpful information.

01:07:17

What you just showed, even on the screen, again, if you're listening to this, a person who's listening to the show, go and watch it.

01:07:25

He showed it on the screen.

01:07:27

I hope it comes through very clearly because that's something you think you would see in a modern translation.

01:07:32

I mean, when I'm reading my ESV and it says the older manuscripts or the majority of the manuscripts don't include this passage, you think that's a new thing.

01:07:42

That's 400 years old.

01:07:44

It's been around since the beginning of English translations.

01:07:48

So that's amazing.

01:07:50

Thank you.

01:07:50

Thank you for sharing that.

01:07:52

And I'll say this too, Keith, the reason I speak so passionately about this is not just because I'm a nerd and I love Bible translations.

01:07:59

I mean, I do.

01:08:00

Trust me, I am.

01:08:01

My wife has capped me on the Bibles I can buy for the rest of the year and theological books.

01:08:06

I've hit my expense already.

01:08:07

But it's more than that.

01:08:09

And it's my love for those who have been where I am.

01:08:12

Just like Paul had a heart for the Jews because that's where he had come from.

01:08:16

I have a heart for my King James only brothers.

01:08:18

And I'll be honest with you, Keith, I will give King James only, I will give you, I will concede to you one problem that you do have with those of us that use modern translations.

01:08:29

Sometimes we are very condescending towards you.

01:08:32

Sometimes we do speak down to you.

01:08:34

Sometimes we are sarcastic.

01:08:36

Now, let me just say this.

01:08:38

You are towards us as well.

01:08:39

So I think it's just kind of that give and take that we give.

01:08:42

It's part of life.

01:08:43

We got to have thick skin.

01:08:44

But I will be honest that I think there are some very derogatory remarks that they've heard without the truth being presented in a way they can handle.

01:08:53

And I look at my ministry, this little ministry I have of being kind of the fist down kind of a person as I approach this.

01:09:02

And, you know, praise the Lord that we have people like James White who, you know, I'd be scared to debate him over whether my name is Josh or not.

01:09:09

OK, like he would beat me and tell me my name is not Josh.

01:09:13

OK, that is very needed.

01:09:15

We need people like that in the church.

01:09:17

But I think we also need people that are willing to say, hey, we'll let the big dogs do the big stuff.

01:09:22

Let me just be a friend that will that will answer all your emails of you coming up with the craziest questions, but I'll answer them kindly and succinctly and keep talking to you.

01:09:32

And I've seen that be a very fruitful ministry of mine even over the past year.

01:09:38

Absolutely, absolutely.

01:09:39

And, you know, as we have to and I hate to, but as we've gone over an hour now, we're going to have to start drawing to a close.

01:09:46

But I do want to ask before before I begin to do that, David, do you have any other questions for Josh that you want to bring out or maybe something from the book that you'd like to to get people to think about as we begin to think about how we are going to bring this bring this plane into the hangar? Not particularly.

01:10:03

No, I really appreciate I just re-listened to it today since it's a short listen and that makes it relatively cheap on Audible, folks.

01:10:12

Yes, but I just re-listened to it today because I wanted to refresh the topic in my mind.

01:10:18

I think Josh did a great job of really hammering the key points.

01:10:23

There's no fluff in there.

01:10:26

Everything that's there is there for a reason.

01:10:28

And I really I appreciate having been associated with it.

01:10:32

So thank you, Josh, for the opportunity to read it.

01:10:34

Oh, man.

01:10:34

Thank you, David.

01:10:35

And I appreciate you taking on the endeavor.

01:10:39

David helped me out financially with it from what he normally charges for audiobooks.

01:10:44

And me just being an independent guy trying to reach my brothers, I couldn't have done this without David.

01:10:50

So David, greatly appreciate you pairing with me and helping in this endeavor.

01:10:58

And please, David, I know it says davidkmartin.net, but just for a minute, use the platform to tell everybody what you do, how to get a hold of you, things like that.

01:11:08

If they're interested, just give yourself your own little commercial here for a second.

01:11:12

Tell everybody, anybody interested in what you do, what they need to do.

01:11:18

Sure.

01:11:19

Thank you.

01:11:20

My website is davidkmartin.net, not dot com, dot net.

01:11:26

And you can hear some just some general samples of a few books that I've put on there.

01:11:31

I think right now I might have a link to a YouTube clip of another book that I've recorded.

01:11:36

I do also have a YouTube channel, which just consists of excerpts from some different books that I've recorded.

01:11:44

And I believe there is a link with pretty much all my social media links, I think, are at the bottom of my website, davidkmartin.net.

01:11:52

And you can also contact me by email there if you have a book that you'd like recorded, especially if it's a Christian topic, especially something related to reform theology or something along those lines.

01:12:03

Those are my favorites, really.

01:12:05

So I'd be very interested in talking with you.

01:12:07

Thank you.

01:12:10

Absolutely.

01:12:10

And again, thank you for continuing to bring me great guests and good books.

01:12:15

And yeah, you've been responsible for a lot of my consumption recently.

01:12:19

And like I said, I'm now hearing my thoughts in your voice.

01:12:24

That's scary.

01:12:26

Well, Josh, as we begin to draw to a close, I want to ask you just this one simple question.

01:12:33

You know, if you had the opportunity to speak to somebody who was in the same situation that you were in—and I know there's so many things that we could talk about.

01:12:43

We could talk about textual criticism.

01:12:44

We could talk about James White.

01:12:45

I'm sure he is not very popular in King James Only circles.

01:12:50

You know, we could talk about things like the Kamiohanium and the longer ending of Mark, and there's a lot of conversations that could be had there.

01:12:57

But if you could say something to someone who's listening, who maybe is still in the cultish groups, who feels somewhat like they would be abandoning the Word of God if they went and were to pick up a New King James Bible or even an ESV or something.

01:13:15

What would be your initial outreach to them and your word to them? And we'll let that be how we draw to a close.

01:13:23

Yeah, I think that's a wonderful way to end this.

01:13:25

I would first of all tell that person, when you're looking at this issue, if you're listening, that means you definitely have some questions.

01:13:34

Ask yourself, is my fear of changing on this the fear of God or is it the fear of man? They can be very closely related sometimes.

01:13:43

We have authorities in our life.

01:13:44

We have pastors.

01:13:45

We have spiritual mentors.

01:13:47

But you need to ask yourself, at the end of the day, do I fear God or do I fear man? And if you keep thinking, well, what will they think about me and what will this person say? Then your fear is the fear of man.

01:13:59

It's not the fear of God.

01:14:00

If your fear is the fear of God and like, man, I don't want to corrupt his word.

01:14:04

I don't want to not have it.

01:14:05

Then my question to you is this.

01:14:07

If you truly believe that you hold every single word of God, not just the ideas, every word in the exact order in your hand right now from the King James, where was that copy in 1610 that your brother in Christ 400 years ago could hold in their hand and say, God has given me every word? Why has God given you a special revelation that you have every word in order that no one through history, according to your view, has ever had? The problem with King James-only-ism at its root is it makes God a liar up until 400 years ago.

01:14:41

Whether big or small, that's what it does.

01:14:45

And I also implore you to consider this.

01:14:47

Even though you might be able to understand it very well because you were raised on it, maybe.

01:14:52

How about the people you disciple? How about your children? How about those that are going to hear this preached and taught and they just have not been blessed to have the understanding that you do? The principle of love in the Bible commands us to think of others more than ourself.

01:15:08

And listen, if we're thinking of ourself, then yeah, let's keep using it.

01:15:11

It's tradition.

01:15:11

We like tradition.

01:15:12

We've always used it.

01:15:13

We're familiar with it.

01:15:15

But I look at Christ.

01:15:16

I look at his character.

01:15:17

I look at the holy week that we're in right now coming up to Calvary and his sacrifice for us.

01:15:23

And what Christ did is he laid aside his royalty.

01:15:27

He laid aside his comfort.

01:15:28

He laid aside his splendor to become one of us, to go to the cross, and to bear our guilt and our sin.

01:15:36

I'm not trying to make a big stretch here and trying to allegorize this.

01:15:40

But I believe even in this topic, we need to ask ourselves, what would the love of Christ constrain me to do? To stay comfortable and familiar with what I know, or to, out of love, make a decision that will help others love and know the word of God? And then with that, talk to people like me.

01:15:57

Talk to people like Mark Ward and others who have come out of King James-only-ism, and we will tell you we love the word of God.

01:16:03

We would even say more than previously because we understand so much more of it, because we understand all of it within our language.

01:16:11

My daughter now quotes Bible verses and sings Bible songs.

01:16:16

There is a joy in my heart knowing my daughter knows what all of those words mean, and she can say that to her neighbor, and her neighbor will understand all the words.

01:16:25

And she can say it to someone that's illiterate and doesn't know English well, and they'll understand what John 3.16 or this passage means.

01:16:32

Every word of it, not just some of it.

01:16:34

So I close with saying that if you are considering this topic, realize that we are doing this because we love God, we love his word, and we love his people, not because we're trying to corrupt it.

01:16:45

Please understand that is our heart and why we approach this issue the way that we do.

01:16:53

Amen, that is a wonderful appeal.

01:16:56

And I want to thank you again, Joshua, for putting together a great book.

01:17:00

And people can find that book again on Amazon.

01:17:03

The title of the book is The Forgotten Preface, Surprising Insights on the Translation Philosophy of the King James Translators.

01:17:12

And I want to mention also, I'm going to be using this.

01:17:16

I'm going to be teaching a course, and it is on how we got the Bible.

01:17:20

It's a survey of how we got the Bible, and I'm going to be using this podcast as one of the required things that our students have to listen to as they go through the translation of the English Bible.

01:17:32

So you have contributed not only to your book, but you and David are also contributing to our class.

01:17:38

And if anyone's interested in being a part of that class, we do make that class available for free online, and anyone who would like may go to sovereigngraceacademy.org, and you can create a username and create your own account there, and you can sign in and be part of our class.

01:17:56

It begins on April the 16th.

01:17:59

So again, thank you men both for being with us today and contributing to the education of our listeners and to the body of Christ.

01:18:06

Love you both, thank you.

01:18:08

Amen, thank you.

01:18:09

And again, I want to thank you all for being with us today on Conversations with a Calvinist, and I want to remind you that if you're listening to this or you're watching this on whatever channel you are, please take a moment and subscribe, whether it's to the podcast or to the YouTube channel.

01:18:26

Subscribing does help us.

01:18:27

It helps us to reach a wider audience.

01:18:29

If you want to support the show, the first way to do it is to subscribe and to like the content.

01:18:35

Another way that you can support though is through the Buy Me a Coffee ministry.

01:18:39

You've seen that come up a few times on the video today.

01:18:42

Go to buymeacoffee.com slash YourCalvinist.

01:18:44

You can make a financial contribution.

01:18:46

Or if you want to follow me on Twitter, ask questions, or do anything like that, you can go to YourCalvinist on Twitter.

01:18:52

I've been wearing my shirt that my wife got me that has my Twitter name on it so that people can see that.

01:18:57

And I also want to remind you that if you do have a question that you'd like me to address on a future show, you can send me an email at calvinistpodcast at gmail.com.

01:19:07

I want to thank you again for listening to Conversations with a Calvinist.

01:19:10

My name is Keith Foskey, and I've been your Calvinist.

01:19:14

May God bless you.