More King James Only Misrepresentation

Hey folks, another quick screen flow video here, got a lot of positive feedback from the last one.

And someone had sent me a video link, probably the best way to respond to some of these things if I'm not going to do a whole dividing line on it or something like that.

This is a King James only from av1611 .com, I don't know who this guy is,

I didn't see any identification. But since he's holding my book and grossly misrepresenting my book at the same time, you're just like, don't you think people might check this out, guy, you know, seriously?

So I just wanted to respond to it, and this seemed to be the best way to do it. So let's take a look at what he has to say, and then we'll respond to it.

So here's the section. The preference, really, I mean, probably the newer ones were better, easier to understand based on better manuscripts, and really all you had to do was avoid this one.

This is the New World Translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Just avoid that, you'll be okay, right?

I think the Joseph Smith translation, and as I've said many times, almost all

European translations and really the vast majority of stuff coming out of liberalism, those would all be good ones to avoid as well.

New Living Translation, which isn't the translation, in my opinion, it's a paraphrase because when you translate something at a lower level than the original you're translating, you're not really translating it anymore.

There's all sorts of translations that I cannot begin to recommend, not that this fellow's really going to allow me to say that.

Here's James White's book, it's called The King James Only Controversy. Couldn't even get the current edition, second edition, but oh well.

Can you trust the modern translations, where he tears down the King James Bible and says that they're all okay?

Really? That's what I do. Let me show you something.

By the way, I've had a lot of folks that say, I wish I could get the King James Only Controversy in eText. You can.

Lagos just did a collection of my books, all the ones from Bethany, well I'm not sure about all the ones, but the ones from Bethany House Publishers, and it's in there.

Let's take a look at it right here, and please notice what

I said in that book. It is very important to understand the motivation behind this book, it is not intended to push one particular translation of the

Bible over another. I have no desire to get everyone to read the NASB or the NIV or the NKJV or the RSV or any modern translation.

On the other hand, I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation.

This book is not against the KJV. I know many fine Christian people who use the

KJV and for whom the translation works just fine. However, I do oppose those who would force others to use the

KJV or risk God's wrath for allegedly questioning His word. I oppose

KJV -onlyism, not the KJV itself. Now that's before the section he's going to read, so if he actually read the book, he would have had to have actually encountered those words, but so much for accurate representation, something very common as we look at KJV -onlyism and the people who promote it.

You just, I'm sorry, you just can't trust the people, they only see certain things, they don't see everything else that's actually on the page.

But let's look at the section he reads, which by the way is interesting because I edited this section and you'll get to see what it looks like between the two versions, which

I thought was sort of interesting and somewhat educational too. And on page five, he basically says what

I used to think. I'm going to read this aloud, but I'm a little ashamed of this because this is what I used to think.

Well, here goes. The use of a particular English translation of the

Bible is surely a personal choice. Many factors can and should go into your decisions as you purchase

Bible translations. Whether you like a more literal, formal translation or a more dynamic, free -flowing translation will impact your choices.

Study editions, companion volumes, concordances, and even print style and size are all issues to take into consideration.

So is this really true? Is the text of the Bible really no more important than the font that it's printed in?

Now, you think that's what I was saying? You think that's why I have defended the inspiration of Scripture against atheists and Mormons and Muslims?

Do you think that's why I wrote this entire book on the King? Because it's a font style issue? Seriously?

Honestly? Come on. The level of absurdity here is really hard to follow, but as I said, notice what it says now.

This is the second edition. Notice the slight change. The use of a particular English translation of the

Bible should come from one's study of the relevant issue and from one's involvement in the local fellowship of believers.

Well, that is a personal issue, but I wanted to expand that evidently. And notice

I attached it to the use of one's translation in one's church. Many factors can and should go into your decisions as you purchase translations.

Whether you like a more literal, formal translation or a more dynamic, free -flowing translation will impact your choices. Study editions, companion volumes, concordances, even print style and size are all issues to take into consideration, which is obviously the case.

I mean, there are all sorts of Bibles of all sorts of different translations I can't even touch today in a print edition because I can't read the font.

I haven't preached from a paper translation except the beautiful German Bible that the guys at EBTC gave me last year when

I was teaching in Berlin. Then I did preach from an English text. But since I got my iPad, that's what

I preach from. Because I like being geeky? Well, probably. But the primary reason is font size.

I mean, I can put both the Greek and the English on that thing and I can back away from the pulpit without my progressive lenses on and still read it.

So that is an important thing. And if you have a certain translation you like, but it's not available to you in a font you can read, that is a practical issue.

At least I think it is. I think it's rather obvious. Then notice what I said. What translation is predominant in your local church is important as well, especially if you'll be teaching or leading

Bible studies. Well, yeah, obviously. But one thing that should never be a factor, he didn't read this part, is intimidation.

You should never have to wonder if you're going to be accepted by others if you use an ESV rather than a KJV or vice versa.

Fellowship should never be based upon the English translation one carries in studies. So that's what

I actually said. I do not tear down the King James Version. I give you the history and the facts of the

King James Version. And if you don't like the facts of the King James Version and its history and its translational problems, maybe you're just not being honest with history.

Maybe you're not being as honest as the King James translators themselves were. And where did I say they were all okay?

I never said that. I have been very clear. Any honest person looking at what

I've said over the years could never state what this gentleman just stated. It's sad to see.

But let's go on just a little bit farther than that. Is this just a personal preference?

Well, this can only be true if all of the Bible versions really have the same message.

If they're all saying the same thing, then we can really just pick and choose whatever makes us feel good is a good choice.

Well, we should test that. In Acts chapter 8, the Holy Spirit tells Philip... By the way, before we get into yet another of the really obvious, often responded to, discussed in the book he just tossed on the desk and will not respond to,

Acts chapter 8 never said what makes you feel good. It's what's important in your church, what's important in your own study, obviously looking for accuracy in translation, all those things vitally important in looking at Bible translations.

But on to Acts chapter 8. To go to this Ethiopian eunuch to preach the gospel to him, and the eunuch gets baptized on the spot.

So, here's what it says in the NIV. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said,

Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized? And he gave orders to stop the chariot.

Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. Did you notice that in the

NIV it just jumps from verse 36 to verse 38? Here's what it says in the

King James Bible. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water, and the eunuch said,

See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So do these books really teach the same thing?

In the NIV, Philip treats the Ethiopian eunuch's question as a rhetorical question, and never gives him an answer, and he just gets baptized.

If you're reading through the NIV, there's nothing that hinders a baby from being baptized, for example. There's no hindrance.

In the King James, it's very clear. Philip tells him that he has to believe in his heart, and then this

Ethiopian eunuch makes a verbal confession before he's baptized. Let me ask you this.

If you go to a Baptist or an evangelical church that won't baptize babies, can they give you a clear scriptural reason for that, or is it just church tradition?

Is your final authority on infant baptism the tradition of your church, or do you have a clear scriptural support for saying, we don't baptize babies?

Now I don't want to get off topic. This video is really just about the fact that there are significant differences between the

Bible versions, but this is a good place to point out something. In the NIV on this verse, it has a footnote that says, some late manuscripts have this verse, the one that they left out, and they include it in the footnote.

What the footnote doesn't say is that some late manuscripts, means over 25 of the manuscripts we have with this passage on them, do contain the verse.

What it also doesn't say is that Irenaeus cited it in 202 AD, and Supreon cited it in 258

AD. And this is what I started finding out when I would get into these verses. The footnotes don't tell you the reasons why these verses have been changed.

In fact, they give you misleading information like that. I mean, in this case, you've got a verse with tons of evidence that shows that it existed in the 3rd century, and the critical text scholars pull it out and say, no, no, no, this didn't show up until the 6th century.

It's just not true. Now let's find out if our friend here is accurate with his information.

We have up here in accordance the relevant information, and you see right here, here's where verse 37 is indeed missing.

Let's go ahead and let's make sure this is going to be nice and visible for everybody. How's that?

Let's use some, get things big here. We can close CNTTS, give us a little more screen here.

All right. So you'll notice, yep, it's missing. And here in the Nessean 28th

Apparatus, here you have it. Now notice something. The, the first primary text, he didn't, it's very, notice you have right here,

Irenaeus and there's Cyprian. They're the two citations. By the way, this is the

Nesse -Oland, that evil, terrible United Bible Society produced text. Anybody who actually wants to know this information, it's available to anybody.

The English translations generally do not provide a massive textual discussion, just like the

King James didn't, specifically citing manuscripts, especially because the

King James didn't use manuscripts in that sense. They used printed editions, the five editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Basic.

Anyways, so there's Irenaeus, there's Cyprian. Evidently, this gentleman thinks that, well, if this phraseology is ever used by someone, that means that they had it in the

Greek manuscripts that they had. The problem is, the earliest Greek manuscript is

E. Here you have the others, but notice what he didn't tell you. See how easy this, they don't tell you stuff thing is?

Notice all the variants. Notice Alto, but has

Philip in E, different form of if in E. The article's missing in 2818,

Sue is missing in 323, so Thesai is missing in E. Notice, this is the telltale sign of a variant that has come in from outside the manuscript tradition, is that you have a number of variations, even within the manuscripts that contain at least the bulk of it.

He didn't tell you about all those things, see? He's hiding things from you. No, he probably doesn't even know those things, but notice, it's so easy to use this kind of argumentation and turn it on these folks, because the very essence of King James -only -ism is double standards.

You cannot have a King James -only -ism without double standards, just the way it is. Notice all of the variants here, but I want to add a parallel in here.

Watch what happens when we look at the Byzantine Greek text.

Let me get it the same size here. Look at that.

It's missing it too. The Byzantine text doesn't contain it.

This is a Western interpolation, Western. Like in Vulgate?

You mean the Church of Rome? Again, it's so easy to turn this stuff on these guys, because they just don't ...

Yeah, the Byzantine text likewise lacks this. Erasmus had it. Remember, when

Erasmus did his first edition, his focus was not primarily upon the

Greek at all. That's one of the reasons he could do what he did with the Book of Revelation and just sort of go, eh, because his big focus was on his own new

Latin translation. It was in the Latin versions that he had, and it was in the margin of one of his

Greek manuscripts, and so that's why he inserted it. But it's not a Byzantine reading. It's not the majority reading, so the majority text doesn't have it, the

Byzantine text doesn't have it. It is a Western interpolation with, as we saw, numerous textual variants in it.

There is a reason. And so when he goes off into all this stuff about baptism, has this guy ever debated anybody on baptism,

I wonder? I have. Did this text ever come up? No, because it's not central to either perspective.

He says, well, do you think a church that doesn't practice infant baptism, could they give you a firm foundation?

Yes, and every serious work I know on baptism does, and doesn't have to depend upon this.

So you have a late Western interpolation when you're using early church fathers.

Again, how do you know? When it says Irenaeus had it, okay, maybe, but remember, in comparison to the

New Testament, we don't really even have a truly critical edition of the patristic sources.

I mean, it's being worked on, you know, a lot of the earlier fathers, you have both a

Latin and a Greek version, very frequently very different from one another.

This clearly came in from the Latin. Could Irenaeus have undergone the exact same thing? All these issues come in.

All these issues come in. And there are all sorts of readings that this man will reject that have more ancient testimony than the one he's promoting here.

But since it's in the King James, then it must be there.

It's all circular, double standards and circular. That's why it's utterly indefensible. These people cannot defend this stuff in debate because the standards that they'll use for the one will not be the standards they use for the other.

And in cross -examination, that will become obvious. That will become obvious. So there you go.

Just a couple of responses. I don't understand the mindset of someone who can hold a book in their hand and then grossly misrepresent it.

He just attacks King James. The book says, I'm not attacking King James. He says all the modern translations. He has clearly said that all the modern translations are not good.

But it just doesn't seem that a lot of these guys are really concerned about that accuracy part in what they're doing.

So hopefully that will be of assistance to you. Notice this time I was least smart enough to keep the windows from overlapping each other.

But again, I enjoy doing these things. It's the fastest way I can see to respond to certain things.