The King James Only - What is the standard?

If you were hoping that there was going to be a whole room full of King James -only advocates, it has not been my experience in my life that that would take place.

Just briefly, I was raised, say, in the General Association of Regular Baptists, independent from the most

Baptist tradition. I was not raised King James -only. Certainly, that was my first Bibles.

A lot of my first Bible I ever read through was a New Schofield reference edition,

Oxford. Well, that was a great Bible. The leather on that is still good, even after all these years.

So, I'm familiar with the mindset, and it was very early. I was still in high school when

I first encountered the King James -only movement. I remember my parents talking about going back to Tennessee Temple.

I had a relative that taught there, and they were talking about church splits over the

King James -only issue and stuff. I started thinking about things like that back then, and as soon as I started in college and started studying

Greek, I started corresponding with some of the leaders of the movement and things like that.

But it was not until 1994 that one of our volunteers with the ministry heard a woman on a local

Christian radio station. She called me and said, You've got to call in and listen to this. So, I turned on the radio, and the woman's name was

Gail Ripplinger. Gail Ripplinger wrote a book called New Age Bible Versions. How many of you have seen

New Age Bible Versions? Not very many of you. That's interesting. The book was really making the rounds.

I called the guy on the station, and I said, Man, you've got to have somebody on to give you the side, because he was obviously on her side.

He said, Well, she said that no one will debate her, but she also said that she won't debate anyone who hasn't read her book.

The book is 700 pages long. So, I said, Well, I'll debate her.

I'll read the book. So, I went by the station, picked up a copy of the book. If any of you have heard the result of the debate, it was the last time that Gail Ripplinger ever did a debate with anyone.

Ever since then, she has made sure that there are only pre -screened questions that she wrote, because it was fascinating.

I don't have this in the presentation. I do have one quote from her, but she had something in the book called

Acrostic Algebra. Acrostic Algebra. Any math people in here? Ever heard of Acrostic Algebra?

Neither did I. Neither did anybody else. What she did is she took an

NASV, an NIV, and an

AV, and then she subtracted the letters out, and the last letters that were left were

SIN. And this proves that the

NASV and the NIV are the same, because it's obvious.

And so, during the debate on the radio station,

I pointed out to her that everywhere else in her book, she had referred to the

NASV, because that is the official designation. In the American Standard Bible, that's the actual name, is

NASV. But that was the only place where she used NASV. Now, we all know that if she had used

NASV, you would have ended up with something like SIMBA, or something like that. So, I asked her, if you call it

NASV everywhere else in your book, except there, why would you do that?

Her answer was, because that's what the Lord calls it. Oh, okay.

And so, when I asked her, where did you get Acrostic Algebra? God gave it to me.

It's really hard to do a meaningful debate with people who talk to God, and get all their answers just directly from God.

But everyone can see that there was really no consistency in this whole stuff. And so, what happened was,

I had written a bunch of notes for the radio program, and I put them together in a booklet. And my dad worked at a large little

Baptist church, in a print shop. And so, he was allowed to print stuff for me, and so he'd print out these booklets.

And bookstores all across the United States started contacting us. We need this stuff. We're getting hit with this book all the time.

And so, I'd already written a few books. I'd written Letters to a Mormon Elder, and The Fatal Flaw in Roman Catholicism, and stuff like that.

And so, I was talking to my editor at Bethany House, and he said, sounds like there's a book there.

And so, I wrote The King James Only Controversy in four months, in 1994.

And what most people don't know is, I also typeset the book. Because in 1994,

Bethany House could not do the Biblical language stuff. And so, they literally bought a 1 ,000

DPI Laser Master printer for me. We couldn't afford anything like that.

And as I would send out copies of that book for review, and there were corrections we made.

I did all that work myself. I typeset that entire book. That was a labor of love, believe me. We even sent a copy to Gayle Ripling, because we said, you're mentioned in here.

There's a chapter where I talk about your arguments, and so we want to be fair. If there's anything you'd like to say.

She, of course, didn't respond to me, but she did write to Bethany House publishers, saying that she would sue them if they published a book.

And that actually delayed the book a little bit, because they're like, we've never done anything like this before.

Everybody was threatening us in that way. They ran by the attorneys. The attorneys said, well, let her sue.

And of course, she never did. But that was the kind of response that you got from those folks.

The book has had a huge impact. Interestingly enough, it is my biggest selling book over all these years.

It's still in print. It came out in 1994. It's in its second edition. And it's primarily used by schools,

English -speaking schools, to introduce people to the subject of textual criticism. It also obviously has a pastoral bent to it as well, because once the book came out,

I started getting letters from all sorts of people, saying, oh, I wish we'd had this book five years ago. My church split about this, or I had to come home from the mission field because of this.

Oh, if we'd just had this information then, et cetera, et cetera. So that launched me into this area.

Now, I can't point you to a whole bunch of debates on this subject, because it's next to impossible to get the advocates of King -Jantoliism to debate.

If you want to see what happens when that does happen, the 1995 John Ankerberg series, it was an eight -show series that we recorded in Nashville.

And that's fascinating. I have hair and round glasses, which is sort of the way things were in 1995,

I guess. It was already thin enough. I should have gotten rid of it even back then, to be honest with you. But the hair,

I mean. But that was a fascinating encounter, and I think you can really get an idea of where the various King -James -Only guys are coming from in that particular encounter.

And then I did a debate with Jack Mormon in London in 2011, and that's available on YouTube, and I think that was a very, very useful one.

I've done a few radio encounters, but that's about it. You can't get the big guys to come out and do debates, because fundamentally

King -James -Onlyism requires you to use one standard for the King James and another standard for every other translation of the

Bible, whether it was done before or after the King James. And so in a debate, where you have to cross -examination, that doesn't hold up real well.

And so that's one of the reasons I think they don't do that kind of thing. So I want to start off with a little bit of historical material from the

King -James translators themselves. Oh!

Well, okay. Now this may explode in my hand and kill me, but let's see here.

Oh yeah, look at that. Okay, this is about the brightness of the one that – you know,

I almost got in trouble at an airport in Germany for having one that was that bright.

They almost didn't let me on the plane because it was that bright. But this will work. So if you weren't here last night,

I did inform folks that if you fall asleep during my presentation, I will take this super bright green laser and I will shoot it in your mouth.

Your eyes will glow. I'll take a picture and post it. Well, I can't post it on Facebook, can I? Facebook's dead. We'll put it on Twitter, but thank you very, very much.

I will definitely utilize that as best I can this year. So I love lasers anyways.

Lasers are always fascinating to me. From the time I was a kid, I wanted those things. Anyhow, all right.

What I want to do is give you some historical material. Thank you. From the translators of the

King -James Version of the Bible. Because the last people who would ever be

King -James only -ness were the men who produced it. That's the fascinating thing to recognize, is that the men who produced it would be absolutely mortified by what has been done with their translation in the

King -James movement. Which, by the way, goes back to a Seventh -day Adventist in the early 1930s.

That's as far back as it goes. That's its origin. And so, certainly there were people who argued about the best text to be translated, and things like that, before that period of time.

But as far as any type of elevation of the translation itself, to where it becomes literally the synonym for the word of God, it is less than 100 years in its existence.

So, the KJV translators face the same arguments that are hurled against the godly men who worked on the NASB or NIB.

Wasn't the KJV good enough for you? Why prepare a new translation? Here is their reply. This is the King -James translators themselves.

From 1611. Many men's mouths have been opened a good while, and yet are not stopped. The speeches about the translation so long in hand did take them seven years to do it.

Or rather, peruse those translations made before and ask, what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment?

Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with wine?

That is, do we condemn the ancient? In no case. But after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.

As if he said, being provoked by the example of the learned men who lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent and the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to God's church, lest I should seem too labored in them in vain, and lest I should be thought too glorying in them, although ancient, above that which was in them.

Thus St. Jerome may be thought to speak. They quoted Jerome a lot. Regarding their reliance upon the use of many

English translations that preceded their work, because remember, the King James is not the first English translation. The Puritans loved the

Geneva translation. The pilgrims that came over to this nation would not even bring the

King James with them. They detested it. They instead brought the Geneva Bible with them.

And King James did like the Geneva Bible, because the Geneva Bible contained notes that limited the authority of kings, and referred to tyrants, and things like that.

So, regarding their reliance upon and use of the many English translations that preceded their work, the translator said, yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be wiser, so if we, building upon their foundation that went before us, and being halted by their labors, to endeavor to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us, they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

And so they acknowledged their indebtedness to those that came before them. Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not just so to be accepted against, and hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

So they admit, we were using stuff that came before us. The KGB translators had a very different view of the use of Greek and Hebrew text of the

Bible than King James only has due. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the

Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where through the olive branches emph themselves into the gold.

St. Augustine called them precedent, or original language of St. Jerome, fountains. The same St. Jerome affirmed that as the credit of the old books, he meaneth of the

Old Testament, is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the new by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the original

Greek. You will find King James only is who will constantly ridicule you if you make reference to the original languages, which the

King James translators did over and over again. Their view that the word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.

They said, now the latter we answer that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the

Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, for we have seen none of theirs, the whole

Bible is yet referring to all the Catholics, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

And so they affirmed that even the meanest translation, that is the most basic translation of the

Bible in English, contains the word of God and is the word of God.

As the King's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated with French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the

King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

So in other words, translations can continue to communicate the intention of the original, that was what the

King James translators believed. Did the King James translators use the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations and other languages, consulting commentaries and the like?

Well certainly, here's what they said. Neither do we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Calvi, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, nor the

Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither do we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.

But having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor covening praise for expedition, we have at length in the good hand of the

Lord upon us brought the word to that past that you see. Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin.

The original King James, and most of the people today are certainly not reading the original King James. They're not reading 1611.

They're reading what's called the 1769 Blaney revision. But if you find an old -style

King James, you will find all sorts of notes in the margins. There were thousands of them. And so some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, because there were places where it said, or this, or translated this way, or maybe this way.

Lest the authority of the scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.

But we hold their judgment not to be sound at this point. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that preemptorily.

These men were scholars of the Bible, and they knew the danger of people taking a particular phrase and reading a meaning into it that the original did not actually convey.

And this is what exactly they're saying. And that, unfortunately, is what happens in King James -onlyism all the time.

Therefore, as St. Augustine said, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen King James -onlyism mock the idea of comparing translations so you can have a better idea of what the original is.

If you don't have access to the original language, we have so many fine English translations, comparing them, oh, that's just terrible, that leads to, that's not what the

King James translators believe. They believe just the opposite. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear must needs do good, but yea, it's necessary as we are persuaded.

For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the

Spirit of God hath left, even the judgment of the judicious questionable can be no less than presumption.

Wow, that is a good warning for any interpreter, but especially those who utilize the

King James the way they do. So there's just some quotations, just to give you an idea of the facts.

The King James translators themselves would not be King James onlyists. That should cause you to go, why would that be?

Well, a lot of King James translators, there's different kinds of King James onlyists today. There's King James preferred people, and that's fine.

If that's what you were raised with, that's what I was raised with. If that's something, if it communicates to you better, great, fine, wonderful.

If you want to be preferred, that's fine. Most of those folks will compare the translations and really don't fit into the

King James only movement. Once you get into the King James only movement, if you really want to define it, you ask someone, is there any place where the

King James version could be improved? Now, the translators believe, yes.

The translators knew that there would be translations after they're gone and that there would be improvements and so on and so forth, but when you ask someone, is there anywhere in the

King James that could be rendered better? If they say no, then they're definitely King James only.

So a lot of King James onlyists really detest the new King James because it's based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts.

And so it reads very much the same, but because it's so close, there is a real detestation for it.

And then you can actually get into, I think, clearly cultic King James onlyism, where this becomes a central tenet of the faith itself, where your very salvation is dependent upon how you view the

King James version of the Bible. And I've met many of these folks. Some of you may remember the old

Jack Chick tracts, the old Jack Chick comic books. Remember any of those? I was sent to the principal in fourth grade for passing out

Jack Chick tracts on the playground. And so I'm a fourth grader.

I'm nine years old. I think I was nine years old. And so I had never been sent to the principal before.

I was the guy in high school who never got a demerit. I was never tardy for class. I was that guy. I was also classed as valedictorian and never got a

B, so I was that guy too. Sorry. You hate people like that. Shame on you. Anyway, and so I had never been sent to the principal before.

And so I walk into his office and he's sitting there behind his desk. And so I just walk up to his desk and hand him a

Jack Chick tract. So he thought that was interesting. I remember he told me, you just can't force anyone to take one.

And I was one of the smallest kids in my class. I was sitting there wondering, how could I force anyone to take one anyway? But anyway, can you imagine what would happen if I did that today?

But Jack Chick, remember those are the cartoon tracts. And one of my accomplishments in life is

I have gone from being sent to the principal for passing out Jack Chick tracts to having written the

King James on the controversy of being identified by Jack Chick as the Antichrist. So that is quite a distance to go, honestly, in one life.

But he passed out, he also made comic books about Alberto Rivera, who was a former

Roman Catholic priest. So they're anti -Catholic comic books. And I heard that Rivera was speaking at a church in Phoenix.

I drove by it just recently. And so I and a friend went to hear what he had to say, and we were surprised that it was not, it was a non -Trinitarian church.

It was an Apostolic Oneness church, which I found very odd. But afterwards, we met him, and he was about yay tall.

And I introduced myself, and no one at this point in time knew who in the world I was.

And I've got my New American Standard Bible in my hand. And he says, what Bible is that? I said, it's the

NASB Open Bible. And he says, does it have 1 John 5, 7 in it? We're going to talk about that later on.

And I knew what he was talking about. And I said, no, you're going to hell. You're going to hell.

So I've had many a person determine my spiritual state, not on my defense of the doctrine of the

Trinity, my belief in the resurrection of Christ, the defense of the atonement of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or any of those things.

But does the Bible you're carrying and you're defending contain the reading of the

King James Version? It is really the fundamental issue.

And so there are King James -onlyists who, for example, do not believe the Greek or the Hebrew is relevant. They believe that the

Bible was, in essence, re -translated between 1604 and 1611. And that the translation in English is the standard.

This was represented by Sam Gipp on the Engelberg Show, if you want to go back and look at that from 95.

And so it is the final authority, it is the final form of the

Word of God. And it is the Word of God, even more than what was written in the ancient times, and cannot be corrected as a result.

That becomes the cultic kind of King James -onlyism. So, as I said,

I am real popular amongst the King James -onlyists. Anybody remember Tex Mars? Tex Mars is a fascinating guy.

I did a radio debate with D .A. Waite on a radio station in Texas in 90...

I think it was before the Engelberg Show, so it was probably 94, 93, 94, somewhere in there. Anyway, Tex Mars called in, and that was a fascinating encounter.

I'm pretty sure it's on Sermon Audio someplace. I think it's on our website somewhere. Anyway, James Waite, a boastful

King James Bible opponent, continues on his baseless crusade to bash King James -only believers.

It makes for a rather sad spectacle to observe critics of the King James Bible like Mr. Waite humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God.

I am praying you will be given a repentant heart and know the grave damage he is doing in the kingdom of our Savior. Elsewhere, Mars calls me a servant of Satan and a devil.

So, there isn't really... there's no political correctness here. Gail Ripplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions, calls

Waite a rude, crude heretic and a serial soul killer. Now, when you say serial soul killer, a lot of folks get confused as to which serial you're talking about.

I've had people very confused. Is that Life Serial? Is that Wheaties? Serial as in repetitively.

Serial soul killer. And she actually put out a book about me that was filled with the most amazing attempts at poetry.

Waite's Whoppers, Waite's White Lies. She just really liked to use the term

Waite and put it into every combination she possibly could. Sometimes, honestly, dealing with this whole thing has felt like I was back on the fourth grade playground where everybody always used your name and tried to insult you using your name.

You know, Waite the Weakling or something like that. It's just astonishing. It really is astonishing. But then, let's go ahead and come up to the modern period and your own fine little town here.

Because as some of you know, we had hoped that instead of only one person being up here tonight, there were going to be two people because I invited

Dr. Douglas Stauffer to debate me on the issue of the King James because he's written at least one book on the subject.

And I first encountered him in 2006. At that time,

I had challenged him to back up some of the things he had said. He never responded to anything that I said. But then

I didn't hear anything about him for a very long period of time. And thanks to Twitter, someone posted some materials on Facebook where he was doing a series in his study school class about me.

And one of the things he claimed was that because of his books, I had changed the

King James Olympic Conference. Now this was news to me because I had not read any of his books. And so when

I obtained the book and started looking at it, I was just astonished at what

I was reading. The main thing that he said was that he had refuted me in regards to Titus 2 .13.

Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1 are places where the King James does not render the underlying

Greek text with enough clarity for you to see that these passages teach the deity of Christ.

I think that's an important issue. I have defended those translations with Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians across the nation, really the globe.

And so it was an important subject. His arguments were completely backless, lacked any meaning to them whatsoever.

And so I contacted him and I said, hey, I'm going to G3, I'm only going to be four and a half hours away from where you are there in Niceville.

And so I'd be happy to come down and this is what I said, I'd be happy to come down, pay my own way, put myself up.

Of course I've got an RV, that's how you do it. No honorarium, no cost to you, we can do the debate at your church so you don't have to worry about trying to find another location, there's no cost involved,

I want to remove any impediments because all I want to do is, and in fact if what you want to do is we just do

Titus 2 .13, 2 Peter 1 .1, that's fine with me. So I wanted to make it as easy as possible.

The guy's been doing Bible studies about me, saying that I'm in it for the money, and I'm a false teacher, so there's no preparation before you've got all your notes.

I'm the one that's traveling so my disadvantage, let's do it. Well, I wrote and then eventually

I called and it took weeks before finally

I got a phone call from him and he was telling me how very very busy he is and he needed to pray about it to get peace about it and things like that.

To make a long story short, I'm up here alone, even though I would imagine the church is probably within the five minute drive of here one way or another.

And so some of the things that he has said just very briefly to give you an idea, because we will be looking at Titus 2 .13,

2 Peter 1 .1. The self -proclaimed scholars of today seem to have no problem with these alterations.

Now, catch something. Throughout all King James only writing and speaking, the

King James is the standard. Therefore, anything that's different from the

King James is an alteration. Something's been removed, something's been added. It is the standard.

They can never defend why it's the standard. That's where they start. That's the beginning of their reasoning process is the

King James is the standard. So they don't think historically. They don't think back to the early councils of the church.

They don't think back to when the church was dealing with the deity of Christ or the relationship with the Father, Son, and Spirit.

They didn't have any King James Bibles back then obviously. And they don't think about the fact that the

King James is a part of a number of translations that came out in that particular time period.

And so, it's the standard. And so notice, no problem with these alterations.

In other words, if a modern translation differs at all from the King James, it's altered the

Word of God because that's your standard. James White is a prime example of a Bible, quote, scholar, end quote, who believes that the oldest manuscripts are the best simply because of their supposed antiquity.

Now let me stop and say that's simply not true. And anyone who's read my book knows that's not true.

I have a rather full discussion of why I do think a manuscript that's only a hundred years removed from the original should carry more weight than one that's a thousand years removed from the original.

But I also talk about, for example, manuscripts 1739 and 1881, which are manuscript manuscripts from around the year 1000 that we know were copied from second century manuscripts.

So they actually have great weight. So I talk about all those things, but the assumption when people are quoting someone like me is their people are not going to check out their citations.

He states, quote, most scholars today in opposition to KJV advocates would see the

Alexandrian text type as representing an earlier and hence more accurate form of text than the

Byzantine text type. And then I discuss why that is, that the Byzantine text type shows evidence of conflating earlier readings and so on and so forth.

Of course, he has swallowed Satan's plan completely. So if you have any other viewpoint than their own, that's just Satan's plan.

It's not that there could be an argument there. They're not interested in hearing what the argument is. They have their conclusions, and there you go.

Here's a few other quotes from his book. A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's word concerning this passage continues.

That's about Titus 2 .13. So I'm saying, as we will see, that the

King James translators did not render Titus 2 .13, which should be translated, Our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

They have Our Great God and Our Savior Jesus Christ, which allows for a distinction where there is no distinction in the original language.

Both God and Savior are being applied to Jesus in Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1. The rule of Greek grammar that says that was not identified until hundreds of years after the

King James was translated. So I'm not faulting the King James translators. They were especially expert in Latin, but the

Latin article and the Greek article are very, very different, and this has to do with the use of the article in the Greek language.

And so all I'm saying is that our modern translations give us a better understanding of what was being communicated by the

Apostle Paul in Titus 2 .13. But notice the language. That is an attack on God's word.

That's not a historical discussion of and by the way, every King James translator would have gone, no it's not.

What are you talking about? That's not a topic. They had these types of discussions all the time.

They would never ever accept anything. But again, when you start with the idea the word of God alone equals the

King James Bible alone. That's your starting point. You don't defend that.

You just start there. That's where you get this. My attack on God's word.

So what I'm doing is I'm discussing Greek syntax in defense of the deity of Christ, and that's an attack on God's word.

That's the mindset that you have. I would be a hypocritical diluted liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected everyone to believe me.

Welcome to the world of James White. This was where I had said at the beginning of my book, this book is not against the

King James Bible. Because it's not. It was against King James -onlyism. But in their mind, that's the same thing.

It's not the same thing if you can't differentiate between the two. You're not thinking rationally, but that's where they are.

And so from his perspective, you're a hypocritical diluted liar. I'm a hypocritical diluted liar, if I made a statement like that.

Don't miss his point, because Mr. White's house of cards comes tumbling down based on the outcome of this single verse.

Titus 2 .13 again. He placed all of his eggs in this one spiritual basket, and they all just cracked, leaving him with egg on his face.

So, this is the mess created by the modern versions and supported by dishonest Bible critics like Mr.

White. Mr. White says, the modern text contained a very clear testimony to the deity of Christ. Once again, his virulent attack upon the

Word of God is unsubstantiated and blinds his objectivity. I was talking there about a chart

I'll show you later on where I compare some of the key places where the term Theos, God, is used of Jesus.

And the reality is, the modern translations are clearer in their testimony to the use of God of Jesus than the

King James. It's a fact, but you'll notice his virulent attack against the

Word of God, which, translated into rational thought, is his disagreement with King James only.

Clearly showing his true colors, Mr. White attacks the foundation for the King James Bible in his concluding comments concerning this passage.

That was in reference to what manuscripts were used by the

King James translators. They didn't use manuscripts. They used printed editions of the

Greek New Testament in their particular work. The inferior manuscripts to which Mr. White refers are those used by the churches for centuries and known as the

Received Texts, Textus Receptus. We'll talk about what they've been used for centuries. In their place, he elevates two

Roman Catholic texts that have thousands of differences between themselves, sheer lunacy and blatant hypocrisy. The real problem is that anyone who's read the book knows that I do not elevate two quote -unquote

Roman Catholic texts. Neither Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are quote -unquote

Roman Catholic texts. In the first place, they were written long before Roman Catholicism came to existence, so they can't be Roman Catholic texts.

King James only folks in church history don't mix very well at all. They have a very odd, odd take on church history.

And each one has sort of a different take. But, everybody knows that I do not do that.

I do not make them the standard in the book. There's a large level of dishonesty there.

Mr. White believes the Westcott and Hort Greek texts with the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their primary basis are the most reliable manuscripts.

Again, anyone who's read my book knows that's just simply completely untrue. I mean, it's just a falsehood. I can show you page after page where I criticize

Westcott and Hort and criticize Westcott and Hort reading and so on and so forth, but Westcott and Hort are the big baddies in the

King James only world, so go ahead and take a shot at them and all is well. Last ones, because there's a 2013 update here.

Mr. White using his late 20th century revisionist pseudo -intellectualism arrogantly calls into question

Dean Bergen's contemporaneous account, never trust a biased view of history motivated by pride and driven by arrogance.

This is in reference to the finding of Codex Sinaiticus. I've done a lot of work on that.

In fact, I did a debate against a King James only advocate a couple years ago on their accusation of Simonides' accusation that he had made up Sinaiticus.

I just, the pseudo -intellectualism, pride, arrogance, they seem to be able to read your heart from afar and come to these conclusions.

And then, here is the claim, 2013 update, after Mr. White was confronted with the information contained in this chapter,

I would love to know when that happened. I would love to know how I was confronted with the information contained in this chapter because I wasn't.

Along with the entirety of this book, he has continued to ignore the truth and state that the Grambler -Sharpe rule would have changed the outcome of the translating the word of God into English.

For this reason, it is safe to say that Mr. White is heretically expounding falsehoods that will one day soon be called into judgment, pray that he will repent of the error of his ways, and not allow his pride to stop him from turning under the tree.

So I'm not a Christian. I'm a heretic. And I'm a heretic because he says he's refuted

Grambler -Sharpe's rule, even though the point is get his book, feel free to read it.

I do not believe a man can read Greek. I do not believe he can read Greek. He does not even try to argue the

Grambler -Sharpe construction from the language itself. And I think that's one of the main reasons I'm up here alone, is because if he had been here this evening, we would have found out whether he could read the language or not.

I've been teaching it since 1986, somewhere.

Yeah, I think 1986. So, yeah, I think that was what the problem was.

Alright, so, but don't they have a point? Let's make sure we recognize their arguments. For example, key text they love to use, 1

Timothy 3 .16. King James Version says, Controversy great is the mystery of Godliness. God was manifest in the flesh.

But the NESV says, a common confession, great is the mystery of Godliness. He who was revealed in the flesh.

King James says God was manifest in the flesh. That's a reference to Jesus. NESV says he who. So is the

NIV and the ESV as well. So, you will find King James only us will preach entire sermons about how this shows that the translators of each of these modern conversions don't believe the deity of Christ.

They're trying to hide the deity of Christ. They're trying to take it out of the Bible. And if you don't know anything about how the

Bible came to be, it can be a strong argument. Then their books will be filled with charts like this.

So notice, I'll use my super duper eye burning green one here.

God eye. Here's just a few. You can do pages of these.

The modern versions, he, King James, Jesus. The Lord, the

Lord Jesus. Jesus, Jesus Christ. Christ, Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ. In each one of these, the King James has a longer, fuller, and some people would say much more respectful reference to Jesus.

Now some of you are sitting there going, yeah, but even the King James has just a one word,

Jesus, so why would this be superior to that if that's superior to that?

How does that work? I mean, are you really saying that every single reference to Jesus in the scriptures should be the glorious Lord Jesus Christ every single time?

Every conversation between the apostles and Jesus. The apostles said, the glorious Lord Jesus Christ.

Is that what you're saying it should be? Some people would say, well, now, how many of you were not here last evening?

Oh, okay, wow. Alright, well, okay, if you were, you don't get to play this game, okay, because you already know what this is about.

But here is a test for all the folks using an NIV or ESV. So, if you've got an

NIV or ESV, who has an ESV? Who was not here last night? Alright, okay, grab your

ESV and look up John 5, 4. The Gospel of John, chapter 5, verse 4. And all of you who were here last night are going, we're on the inside of this one.

That's right. Test for all the folks using NIV, ESV. Don't think there's much, real much of a difference.

Think your translation is just easier to read. Okay, let's say you were sitting in your front room with a Mormon missionary, and he takes out his

Bible, the King James Version, and asks you to read with him from John, chapter 5, verse 4. Go ahead, look it up, what will you do?

Alright, ready? You have your mouth wide open. Why is your mouth wide open? Uh -oh, uh -oh!

There is no John 5, 4, is there? Is there a 5, 5? Is there a 5, 3?

Uh -huh, but there's no 5, 4. It's at the bottom of the page. It's in the little teeny tiny notes down there.

It's so small, I can't see it anymore anyways, but I know it's there. So if you have an NIV or an

ESV, your verse numeration goes from 5, 3 to 5, 5.

5, 4 is missing. And so if the King James is your standard because it has 5, 4, and this is the text about an angel coming down and destroying the waters, and the first person out of the water would be healed of whatever disease they had.

This is a description of the pool there in John, chapter 5. If the

Mormon missionary is reading from that, and you don't even have it in your Bible, there's an issue, isn't there?

Yeah, so we'll talk about it. But defenders of the modern translations are not without their arguments as well.

There are many issues one can raise when looking at the KJV. Let's look at a few examples. First, remember the appearance of God at 1

Timothy 3 .16 in the KJV. So they're saying, see? Jesus called God at 1 Timothy 3 .16 in the King James and it's not in your translation.

Does that mean your translations are denying the deity of Christ? Well, let's look at this. John 1 .18, the

King James Version says no man has seen God in any time. The only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the father, he hath declared him.

But the NRSV reads, no one has ever seen God. It is God, the only son, who is close to the father's heart, who has made him known.

Now, other translations will say the unique God, or the only begotten God, but modern translations will use the term

God of Jesus in John 1 .18. The King James and New King James do not. Now, if you were here last night, you know why that is.

It's because of the underlying Greek text. But if you're using King James -only thinking, then this means the

King James translators don't believe in the deity of Christ trying to hide it, right? And the modern translators believe in it, and they're trying to promote it.

That's the reasoning you used before. Why wouldn't you use that reasoning now? Key primary thing to remember.

King James -onlyists do not use the same standards as the King James. They use for any other translation, either before or after the

King James. That, on any logical, rational level, is the ultimate reputation of the system.

If you can't use the same standards, and let me give you an example. I have debated

Muslims all over the world. I have stood in one of the largest mosques in South Africa and defended the deity of Christ.

I've debated Muslim apologists at Pochestum University in South Africa, in London, in places in Australia.

And I have said over and over again, we must use the same standard in criticizing the

Quran that is used in criticizing the Bible. And Muslims won't do that. They will use a different standard to defend the

Quran than they use to attack the New Testament. And I say, you have to have even scales. You have to have equal scales.

So I won't use some of the arguments that some of my friends will use against the Quran, because I know they're inconsistent with the way that we have to defend the

Bible. I seek to have standards that are consistent.

That's the only way you can define truthfulness. King James -onlyists have no concept of that whatsoever.

I've not met a single King James -onlyist ever in my lifetime that even tried to do that.

Not once. Not once. And I can simply say to you, go ahead and talk to a few and find out if I'm not telling you the truth.

My book came out in 90, actually came out in 95, so I've been doing this for a while. And I've got a lot of experience.

In the same way, the KJV agrees with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation in not having a reference of prayer to Christ in John 14 -14.

Modern translations agree that here the Lord speaks of prayer to Himself, while the KJV lacks the word me in the phrase, if you ask me anything in my name.

So, in talking about after He's gone back into the presence of the Father, in the NASV it says, if you ask me anything in my name,

I will do it. What's the only way you can ask Jesus now that He's gone back into the presence of the Father? Anything in His name?

My prayer. Look at the KJV. If you ask anything in my name, not ask me, if you ask anything in my name.

So you don't have a reference of prayer to Jesus in John 14 -14. This is one of the references of prayer to Christ that demonstrates

His deity. I've used it many times talking to Jehovah's Witnesses. The King James agrees. It must be the King James translators don't believe in the deity of Christ, right?

By their standard, yes. By the rational standard, that's absolutely absurd, but there you go.

Compare the KJV at Revelation 1 -8. KJV says, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.

Sayeth the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty. This is Jesus speaking. The New American Standard says,

I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Now what's fascinating is what you'll see is that when you point these things out to a true blue King James onus, they will attack these texts as having anything to do with the deity of Christ.

They would rather have fewer texts teaching the deity of Christ than have any problem with the King James version of life.

That's been my experience over and over and over again. Now we saw this one last night, so stick with me on this one.

How's this for a conspiracy? The NASB at 1 John 3 -1 says, see how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called the children of God, and such we are.

But the King James version, behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.

No affirmation that we are. And such we are is not there.

What happened to adoption of sons? Do the King James translators not believe in it? And see, as soon as you get into this, well, if it's different, then this must mean something about the translators.

You have left the realm of objectivity and history. You've left the realm of objectivity and history.

There are fundamental answers to these questions that do not require conspiracy theories. Unless you're

King James. But in reality there's no conspiracy involved on either side. There are simple logical reasons why there are differences in translations.

Unfortunately, few people take the time to learn the backgrounds of the Bible. Hence, they are easily misled and upset by variations that are perfectly understandable and do not indicate any kind of evil intention or corruption.

Let's look at some of the passages cited above. Let's start with 1 Timothy 3. One of the favorite patches of KJV advocates to understand why modern translations differ from the

KJV and KJV. We need to know something about the text from which these translations came.

The KJV and NKJV. The New Testaments are based upon a 16th century Greek text known today as the

Textus Receptus. Modern translations are based upon the Nessia Holland Greek text of this century.

So, if you go to well, in London you have something called the Trinitarian Bible Society and they published a little blue case bound

New Testament, Greek New Testament which most KJV advocates would understand to be the

Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus is a Latin phrase that means received text. It was first used in an advertisement to sell the book in 1633 by the

Ellsinger brothers. Back then, believe it or not, you advertised in Latin. It wouldn't work very well today, but everybody could read it back then.

That's how much better educated, to be honest with you, most people were in that century than we are today. Most of them were not monolingual.

And so, Textus Receptus just simply meant the received text. well, the

Textus Receptus represents what is called the Byzantine family of manuscripts. These manuscripts constitute about four -fifths of the ancient

Greek text in our possession, yet the majority of them come from the 10th to the 15th centuries. So, they're basically more than a millennium removed from the originals.

That is, they represent the later ecclesiastical text rather than the more primitive text of the first century. This is the majority text, though the

Textus Receptus differs in over 1 ,800 places from the majority text type.

So, if you do the majority text thing where you just count the manuscripts, and we talked about this last night, the

TR disagrees with that methodology over 1 ,800 places in the

New Testament. I showed you this last night, but this is now a little more relevant. So, you have the

Alexandrian manuscripts, you've got the Byzantine manuscripts, these are the centuries. You can see in the early period, these earlier manuscripts predominate, and then the

Byzantine starts becoming predominant in the 9th century as these decline.

And so, the majority text early on was obviously not the

Byzantine manuscripts. And we saw this last night as well, but this gives you an idea, starting here in the 9th, here in the 10th century, these are your

Byzantine manuscripts primarily. And they all come at a much later period of time. Let's remember one thing.

What happens, oh, here's a quiz for you. Let's see if you all are still awake. Let's see if you're all still awake.

What happens right here that is very important in history?

In the 8th century. So, that would be right there. What major world event that changes the very face of Europe and North Africa?

Who dies in 632? Muhammad.

So, what is 632 to 732? It's the century of Muslim expansion. Islam expands all across North Africa, across into Spain, Portugal, what we would call today, all the way up to the

Holy Land, out toward India. Only Constantinople holds out and keeps

Islam coming from that direction into Europe. For 100 years, they cannot be stopped. But then they're stopped in 732 at the

Battle of Tours by Charles Martel. That has a huge impact upon the copying of the

New Testament. All of North Africa was a Christian place. Where did Augustine live? Where did

Athanasius live? Where did Cyprian live? All of North Africa. What is North Africa today?

It's Muslim. And so, that's going to impact the copying of manuscripts, isn't it? Yeah, you bet.

So, major major important stuff happens there. And so, the Byzantine text comes out of Byzantium, that is

Istanbul, Constantinople. And where these other manuscripts were predominant, become

Muslim. That's going to impact their transmission over time. So, here's an example of the style of the early manuscripts of the

New Testament. I mentioned to everybody last night that for the first 900 years, you had long lines of capital letters with outspaces between words and no punctuation.

That's what you have to read when you're reading the early manuscripts of the New Testament. That's what they look like. Around the 9th century, the minuscule text became predominant, which is very similar to our modern text.

So, here you have capital letters spaced between words. There's no punctuation in that. And certainly, the diacritical marks, accenting marks, and things like that come along at a later point in time.

And they're not a part of the original manuscripts. And the minuscules, you can see they start right here.

And they are Byzantine manuscripts as well. So, the Texas Receptus was created by the work of a

Roman Catholic priest and scholar. He was called the Prince of the Humanists. Humanists did not mean back then what it means then.

The humanists, their saying was ad fontes, to the sources. Go back to the

Greek. Go back to the Hebrew. Don't just rely upon medieval commentators and stuff like that.

Their humanism would eventually lead to our humanism today, but we need to keep things in order.

His name was Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed and published the first edition of the

Greek New Testament in 1516. Notice I said printed and published. There was one that was printed before his.

The Competentium Polyglot by Carter Jimenez had been printed before his, but back then if you were going to publish something, you had to get papal approval.

And you want to talk about bureaucracy and red tape and slow? It had been printed and it was sitting in a warehouse.

And would be sitting in a warehouse for years. So, Erasmus beat him to printing and publication not by getting approval from the

Pope, but by dedicating the volume to the Pope. That's how you do it.

I'll dedicate it to him and hope he doesn't burn me to the stake for having done that. And that's what he did.

So the first edition came out in 1516. Some of you may be well aware of it. That was extremely important.

Why? Because one of those first editions was purchased and used, because it was a diagram.

It had the Greek on one side and the Latin on the other. And that first edition was used by a monk in Wittenberg at the

University of Wittenberg by the name of Martin Luther. And it was by looking at that text that he recognized that the

Latin quonitentium agitate, do penance. You look over at the other side and the

Greek says, metanoiate, repent. Not the same thing. The light started to dawn in his world, because he had

Erasmus' Greek contestment. Which is fascinating because what then is the first printed debate of the

Reformation? Who is it between? Erasmus and Luther on the bondage of the will.

Ten years later. Fascinating that that would be the case. The third edition of his text was particularly influential.

A total of five editions came from him. So there's five editions of Erasmus. Then you have

Stefanus' 1550 edition. Which I own one of.

And it's a 1550, so it's 400 some odd years old. It was donated, don't worry, we're not rolling that kind of money.

But it is worth about $40 ,000. I sometimes carry it with me. I've had it rebalanced, so it may not be worth as much because it covered fallout, so I wanted to protect the text.

But I had Jeffrey Rice remind me. And it's beautiful. I mean, it's awesome. I should have brought it with me. In this humidity,

I'm not sure I would have, that probably wouldn't have been a good idea. I just haven't felt humidity like this in a long time. Anyways, Stefanus' is 1550, and Beza's is 1598.

Theodore Beza was Calvin's successor at Geneva. Stefanus was Calvin's printer.

Okay. So Erasmus' Roman Catholic, these guys are all reformed, they're all Calvinists.

And most King James onlyists are rabidly anti -Calvinist. They think Calvinists are just...

So, the vast majority of the King James translators were Calvinists. The people who made all the text except Erasmus were

Calvinists. But, anyway, there you go. So, there you have the editions that came from Erasmus, Stefanus, and Beza.

And those are the ones that were used by the King James translators in their translating New Testament between 1604 and 1611.

Okay? So, those, when you take...

Remember I told you about the little blue case -bound version that they think is the text that's receptive today?

That's actually Scribner's text. Scribner, in the 19th century, took all those printed editions from Erasmus and Stefanus and Beza.

Okay? And then he asked a question. What was the final decision of the

King James translators? Because they weren't... They were broken up into committees. So there was a committee that worked on the

Gospels, a committee that worked on Revelation, and so on and so forth. And they didn't necessarily communicate with each other really well.

It's not like they would whip out their cell phone and go, how did you guys do this one? Oh, okay, we'll do it that way, too. Couldn't do it that way. So there are inconsistencies in the

King James to how they do things. So, for example, in Matthew, I think it is, they translate the

Greek phrase ufan eusais, as thou shalt not kill. But in Paul and Romans, it's you shall not murder.

Now, in most modern translations, they're going to render it the same way because there's going to be one committee that's going to sort of go over things and make sure there's consistency at the end.

But there wasn't in the King James, and so there are inconsistencies in the translation. And so, what

Scribner does is he goes, I want to create a Greek text that actually reflects the textual choices made by the

King James translators. So it's actually a Greek text based upon an English translation.

There is no manuscript in the world that reads this way. Not a single one. So what Scribner does is he goes back and he looks at what the

King James translators chose as they're reading, sometimes it was from Erasmus, sometimes it was from Stephanus, most of the time it was from Baza, they relied mostly upon Baza.

And he created a Greek text that represents the textual choices of the

King James translators. There are thousands of young men running around learning Greek and preaching from this, thinking this is somehow the textus receptus, the received text that God has preserved when it's actually a

Greek text based upon an English translation. Fascinating.

But that's where the textus receptus comes from. Now modern texts are based upon an eclectic text that draws from a wider variety of sources in the

TR. When Erasmus did his first edition in 1516, he did it very quickly.

He said it was precipitated rather than edited. His printer, John Froben, knew that Cardinal Jimenez had already printed his.

He wanted to get his out first. So he's really pushing Erasmus, get it done, get it done, get it done.

Erasmus is really disappointed at how many Greek manuscripts he found at the University of Basel. He moved to Basel, Switzerland, thinking they'd have a lot.

They didn't. You know how many manuscripts he used? About six. And the oldest was from 1 ,000 years after Christ, and he didn't trust that one anyways.

His text represents the text from around the year 1400. And when he came to the

Book of Revelation, he could not find a single manuscript of Revelation. Couldn't find any.

And so he had a friend that had a Latin commentary on Revelation that contained the

Greek text in it. And so he borrowed that, extracted the Greek text from the

Latin commentary, and then found out that the last few pages of the book were missing.

So he didn't have Revelation chapter 22. And his printer's going, come on, come on, come on.

Erasmus had very little respect for the Book of Revelation. He really didn't think of the scripture. So he really didn't put a lot of effort into this, and so what he does is he says, alright,

I can't find a manuscript. So he back -translates from the Latin Vulgate into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation chapter 22.

Now he does a pretty decent job, but in the process he comes up with readings that no Christian had ever seen for the

Book of Revelation. Those are still the readings of TR today, and they are still the readings of King James Version of the

Bible to this day. Interesting, huh?

So, the modern text that we have today, like the Nestle, UBS 434, as I had here last night, the current

ECM, draw from a wider variety of sources of the TR, including manuscripts unknown to the days of Erasmus, obviously.

Some of the papyri manuscripts used in the modern Nestle, Allen 27th edition, Allen 28th edition, date to as early as AD 125, which we saw last evening.

But these different sources, being more primitive, do not show the effect of long -term transcription seen in Byzantine text, and hence are not as full as the

TR. What do I mean by full? Remember that chart I put up? The tendency of scribes were to expand titles, for example.

So, He becomes Jesus, Lord becomes Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus becomes Lord Jesus Christ. This was an expansion of piety.

And I had a really good illustration of this. Oh, probably 40 years ago now. Well, maybe 38, but I was doing one of the first radio programs

I ever did on this subject. And this sweet little old lady called me. And she said,

I really appreciate what you're saying and how you want to reach out to the Mormons, and this is wonderful, and this is great, but you keep saying

Jesus. And I just think it would be better if you said the Lord Jesus Christ.

See, it's the idea of piety. That that somehow is better. That shows more respect.

Now, there are many places in the King James Version of the Bible where Jesus is just Jesus. Or sometimes it just simply says

He. So, it's not pious to expand upon that, but people think it is.

And so you see this in the Byzantine texts and in the later texts. When we speak of textual differences between the

TR and the modern text, we need to immediately emphasize something that is often lost in this debate. There is no doctrine of the

Christian faith that is based upon any single text. And no doctrine of the faith is changed or altered by any variation of the text.

If, and I have challenged King James Omnius for decades now to debate this statement.

If one applies the same rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA, now 28th edition, the results will be the same.

The variations do not change the message. If you use solid, hermeneutical principles of interpretation on the

TR and the Nessian text, you're going to get the same faith. They don't believe that.

They don't believe that for a second. That's because they don't use consistent hermeneutical methodology ever.

It is not something that they are overly concerned about. So here's an idea that sort of gives you how things are related.

You've got the Byzantine tradition over here. You've got the Alexandrian tradition over here. You've got the Latin Vulgate up here.

You can sort of Byzantine tradition to the Texas Receptus. There's a little influence from the Latin Vulgate. King James, New King James, 1611 to 1984.

Alexandrian tradition, Latin Vulgate, and Byzantine tradition go into Nessie Olin for which you get the NASV, ESV, NIV.

Those are the dates when they first came out. Obviously there are modern versions of all of those as those translation committees still exist.

There's a NASV 2021, in fact. There's a Legacy Standard Bible that MacArthur's group is putting out that's a variant based upon the

NASV. But you can see where there's differences between them. Now, this is the chart that Dr.

Stauffer was referring to from my book where I put up these verses which have references to the deity of Christ.

And so, in the Gator's Word, where is with God and where was God, monogony, staios, do you meet

God, John 118, John 20, 28, my Lord and my God, Acts 20, 28, the blood of his own is the translation in some versions.

Romans 9, 5, where you have the reference to who's of the fathers and from whom is the

Christ, who is God over all. Philippians 2, 5 through 6, the carmen christi, where Christ does not consider equality with God, the father is something to be held onto.

Colossians 1, 15 through 17, creator of all things. Colossians 2, 9, where you have

Jesus described as Hati enauto katoi kai ponta pleioromates deatetas somaticos, for in him is dwelling all the fullness of deity, deatetas, in bodily form.

The King James confuses theatetas and theatetas, those are two different words.

Theat is used like in Romans 1, where it's talking about the divine nature. Theat is that which makes God, God. The very essence of deity.

King James translates that by the word Godhead, whatever in the world Godhead means. And so that's what you have in Colossians 2, 9.

1 Timothy 3, 16 we've already looked at. God was manifest to flesh. Titus 2, 13 is the

Gramble -Sharpe construction we'll look at later on. Hebrews 1, 8 is a reference to the sun as being

God. And 2 Peter 1, 1 is the Gramble -Sharpe construction as well.

So that is the chart. And then I just simply compared them as to whether it's clear or ambiguous.

Romans 9, 5, the King James and the NIV rendering is not nearly as clear as the NIV in the assertion that Jesus is the

God who is blessed in Romans 9, 5. Colossians 2, 9, again, the

Thayot issue, the King James is ambiguous at that point. Titus 2, 13 is ambiguous because it doesn't translate the

Gramble -Sharpe construction. Same thing here. So all I'm doing through all of this is simply to as someone who has debated

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, around the globe, these are texts that I deal with all the time.

And so you put together the facts, I've taught Greek for decades, do the work of an apologist, this is how

I evaluate these things. This becomes an attack upon the Word of God by Dr.

Stauffer. It's not an attack on the Word of God, it's just simply, let's look at how these things are translated, and let's consider how this is.

So, let's get to the Gramble -Sharpe construction. Um, well, here's a quote from Dr.

Stauffer. Actually, this isn't where I'm going to deal with it, but here's a quote from Dr. Stauffer that's relevant to that chart. I had said in my book, the little book of 2

Peter contains a total of five Gramble -Sharpe constructions. They are 1 -1, 1 -11, 2 -20, 3 -2, and 3 -18.

No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. So in other words, when you go to 2

Peter, in each, in 1 -11, 2 -20, 3 -2, and 3 -18, it's

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And every translation, including the

New World translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, translates it Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, because that doesn't bother their theology.

But at 2 Peter 1 -1, where you have the identical Greek syntax and word order, it says

God and Savior. So the New World translation mistranslates it, because that's what the New World translation is.

It's a mistranslation. It's perverted and vile. But the King James missed it as well. And so what

I was saying is, no one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. No one would make that argument.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses don't make that argument. Notice Stauffer doesn't even understand that. Here's his comment.

Let me try to rephrase Mr. White's insightful comments. This rule did not exist when the

King James translators did their work. It's being used to justify changes that are unnecessary and unscriptural.

See how this works? It's not a discussion of what is the best translation. It's not a discussion of what did

Peter mean by using the form of language. That's irrelevant. The standard is now the

King James. The standard is what happened between 1604 and 1611. So notice to justify changes that are unnecessary and unscriptural has nothing to do with changes.

The death knell of King James -only -ism is simple. What did the apostles write that must be your standard?

If that's your standard, there's no room for King James -only -ism. Ever. But that's not the standard for that.

Furthermore, his arguments for the changes in the modern versions are bolstered by a rule that he says applies five times in one book but four of them are clearly exceptions to the rule?

I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule. I said none of them were exceptions to the rule. Did not even begin to understand.

And this is why I do not believe Dr. Stauffer can read the language. I just don't think he has any access to the language whatsoever.

And that's problematic if you're going to write books pretending that you do. Alright. What does all this have to do with 1

Timothy 3 .16? Which is where we started. Because I wanted to explain to you why is there a difference? Why does the

King James have a reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3 .16? And ESV, NASV, they do not.

Well, the difference between the two passages that they would have written originally would be this.

Well, that doesn't help you too much. Let's use some color. That's not a good color on the screen. But that's what the difference is.

Those two letters, let me show it to you in nice, big, there you go. Now you can see. This is the difference in the underlying

Greek text between the Texas Receptus and the modern translation. As you can see, this is the word

God and this is the word Has, He, Who. You notice they look a lot alike.

And these are written on what? Papyri. And what are papyri made of? They're made of the leaves of plants.

Remember when I showed you the papyri yesterday on the screens, the shots that we had?

What did you see? Lots of lines. There's lots of lines. It's not a nice, flat surface.

And so it's very easy to see how a scribe reading something that had been written 200 years before could confuse this for this, or vice versa.

So here's Codex Sinaiticus. And look, there is Has, so here is

Mousterion, mystery. Has, Ephanorothe, so He, Who was manifest.

There is Has, very clearly that's the original, same ink as everything else. And then you can see about 700 years later, dot, dot, dot,

Theos. Now, remember, I mentioned, I explained to everybody last night, you may be wondering, if you read it in Greek, you go, that's not

God. Yes, it is. This is called Anomena Sacra. Anomena Sacra is one of the sacred names.

God, Jesus, Lord, Spirit, something David. New Testament manuscripts, we don't know why, but they consistently abbreviated the

Anomena Sacra. And they would cut it down into two or three letters, normally two, with a line over top.

And so I showed you, for example, P72 last night showed you God in Anomena Sacra, stuff like that.

So this is God, that's He, Who. You don't need a conspiracy theory.

You don't need to say that, you know, I was a critical consultant on the NASB, so you must not believe in the deity of Christ.

I've stood in mosques and defended the deity of Christ, where the Muslim audience was sitting on the floor right there.

I've never met one King James only that would ever dare walk in those. So don't tell me

I don't believe in the deity of Christ. I do. But I also recognize it needs to be grounded in the reality of what the text actually said.

If it's going to be true. So, that's why there is a difference. The textus receptus follows the later

Byzantine reading as the os, and that's why it's there. Simple. KJV literature abounds with examples of circular argumentation at this point.

Keep in mind that for the vast majority of KJV only advocates, this is the starting point in our thought.

I've already said this, but you need to see it. The KJV alone equals the word of God alone.

When we realize this, we can understand why they argue as they do. You've got to understand that equation in their mind.

There is no historical process that leads to this. You start there, and then you do with manuscripts or logic or history or preceding translations, you do with them what you need to do to make that true.

That is what, and if you deny this, you're attacking the word of God. And you're probably not saved.

And you're probably demon possessed. The Antichrist, like Jack Chicks said to me, and stuff like that.

That's the way it works. The result of this mindset is seen in the language used in this debate.

Instead of asking what did John or Peter or Paul originally write? We hear about how modern translations have removed this, or deleted that, or added this, or changed that.

All these loaded words assume the KJV is the standard by which all others should be judged. Some KJV only folks go so far, as we said, to say that the

Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves must be judged by comparison with the King James Version of the

Bible. So how about John 5 4 that we made someone back there go where did he go?

You didn't know you were missing a verse, did you? How about John 5 4?

Well this passage is not only omitted by P66 and P75, the two earliest manuscripts we have of the

Gospel of John from around 175 to 200. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and others. But even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text, and some even mark the passage with asterisks or obelis, little marks that say, this is not original.

Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript, and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text.

This happened all the time. Because once you receive the manuscript, you may not have known who copied it.

You may not even be able to ask them. But when you're copying it, it was common, and I can show you pictures of Codex Sinaiticus where this has happened, it was common that if when you were copying it originally and you skipped something and you realized you had missed it, you'd write it in the margin.

So if you're copying it later on and you don't want to lose anything, what are you going to do?

You're going to insert it in the text. And so marginal notes would be inserted. John 5 -4 was an earlier marginal note.

It was explaining why there are all these people laying around the pool who were sick, and it becomes a part of the original text.

How about John 1 -18? The earliest manuscripts of John, P -66 and P -75, prior manuscripts dated around A .D.

200, as well as two of the earliest unsealed manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, all read monoghanes theos.

Now Vaticanus has ha monoghanes, whether there's an article there or something like that. But the point is, monoghanes means unique or only begotten, theos, use of the word

God, of Jesus. Literally unique God or the only son who is God. The bulk of later manuscripts read monoghanes quios, which is the normal.

In the Gospel of John, what does John 3 -16 say? Does monoghanes quios, only begotten son.

That's the normal. That's what you'd expect to come after monoghanes, not theos. So the only begotten son, the

KJV following the TR, reads son. Now that's why I said last night

I'm going to be really interested when John finally comes out in the ECM and the CBGM databases are created and it analyzes

John 1 -18. I'm going to be really interested in seeing what CBGM says at that point.

But right now, that's a well -kept secret. Though I've thought about getting over to Birmingham, England and bribing somebody who's working on it, but now

I can't get there. But some insist that the literal rendering, only begotten

God, actually undercuts the deity of Christ. Hence, it can't be right. Allegations of Gnostic corruption abound in KJV -only books.

But this is determining the text of Scripture, not the basis of the best evidence available, but the basis of one's own ideas of theology.

This is very dangerous. Where do you get your ideas of theology? You're supposed to get them from the

Scriptures. But if you use your ideas of theology to determine how to translate the Scriptures, how can the

Scriptures ever validate your ideas of theology? That's why you have to have one goal.

What did John, Paul, Luke originally write?

And how can I get the best translation of it? Once you start using your own, and that's what

Stauffer does in Titus 2 -13, well, it should read this way.

Because of these considerations, and you ignore the underlying grammar, you ignore the underlying manuscripts, you're no longer doing

Bible translation. And you're no longer believing in Sola Scriptura, either. So, in point of fact, the phrase does not necessitate any idea of inferiority regarding Christ.

In fact, while the phrase, Only begotten Son, was prevalent in Gnostic writings, the phrase, Unique God, and Agnese de

Aus, does not appear in the extant Gnostic literature from the time period. So, there's all sorts of these guys that will say,

The Gnostics said that, but the Gnostics never use that phrase. But they use Monogany de Aus all the time.

So if you make that argument, it actually is an argument against you. First John 3 -1, which we mentioned earlier, and we looked at last night, sorry for those of you who already saw this once,

First John 3 -1 is an excellent example of a simple scribal error. An error of sight that is common to us all.

Look at the passage in Greek. There it is again, in all capitals. You don't have to know

Greek to see how an error could have happened here. Look at the relevant phrase. You can see the two those are in different colors.

Sometimes, and I don't mean this in an insulting way, but sometimes men are colorblind, and they don't see it.

And there's a certain proportion of the human population of males that don't see that. So that's red, and that's red.

Notice how the two of these words end in the same three letters. U -N U -N.

Just as we often inadvertently skip something when our eyes come back to what we are copying because two words end in a similar ending such as I -N -G or T -I -O -N, so too an ancient scribe upon writing clathomen then returned to the text and instead of starting there, saw esmen, and such we are, and inadvertently skipped the phrase.

It's a standard scribal error. We have all sorts of examples of homo retaliaton from multiple languages, all across New Testament, Old Testament, things like that.

Again, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's not translators didn't like to say, believe that we were the sons of God.

It's totally and completely a matter of the underlying Greek text. In the same way there is no conspiracy in John 14.

14, here the older text joined with a large portion of the Byzantine text containing the word me, so it is the majority reading, but a part of the

Byzantine tradition does not contain the word, and that part underlies the T .R., because remember the

T .R. was based upon only about six manuscripts. It did not have a huge number to draw from.

The majority text contains the reading me at this point, demonstrating the T .R. is not identical to the majority text.

So this is just a major error in the T .R., and hence underlying the

King James Version of the Bible. Likewise, Revelation 1 .8 and the reference to the Lord God is another example where the

T .R. even departs the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The vast majority of text, including the later ones, contain the reading that is in the

ESV and the ESV, but not in the King James. The T .R. in the book of Revelation is particularly suspect, as I mentioned, due to the fact that Erasmus Rush, his work on the book, realized only one manuscript of Revelation that he borrowed from his friend

Johannes Reikland. As a result, entire words exist in the T .R. that are found nowhere else in any

Greek manuscript that nobody has ever seen on the planet Earth, but they're in the King James Bible in the book of Revelation.

Here's one of the big ones, Colossians 1 .14. We used to go up to the Mormon Temple, and if you need to run over and get a drink of water or something like that,

I'm going to try to be done in about 20 minutes, and that's fine. I'm not going to be offended that we're going long here, and if you stop at Starbucks on the way, you might have a problem, so go ahead and do that if it's no problem.

Every six months, we used to go to the General Conference of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City and pass out tracts. First weekend in April, first weekend in October.

They have completely hidden from COVID. They are in their basements. They haven't come out yet, and they're completely in hiding, because they haven't done it now since October of 2019.

I was up there. We used to go up every six months, and I was passing out tracts at the

South Gate of the Temple, and I saw this guy come up, and he started passing out tracts, too. I was sort of looking at him.

He was sort of staying off by himself, but eventually, we started talking, and he says, what

Bible are you using? I knew where this was going immediately. I said, well, I've got an NASV with me.

Is that the bloodless Bible? The bloodless Bible. I knew exactly what he was talking about.

This is what he was talking about. Colossians 1 .14. King James Version, Colossians 1 .14.

In whom we have redemption, through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. NIV. In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Through his blood is not in the NIV. Obviously, because the NIV translators do not believe that the blood of Christ is relevant or important or anything else.

It is on the basis of passages such as this that the KJV only folks have identified the NIV as the bloodless Bible, but is such a charge true, accurate, and honest?

No, it is not. First, any person studying the passage might note that Ephesians and Colossians contain parallel passages.

They do. They're very close to one another. Parallel to Colossians 1 .14 and Ephesians is found in Ephesians 1 .7.

Notice what Ephesians 1 .7 says. There is through his blood in the KJV and in the NIV. In him we have redemption.

Through his blood the forgiveness of sins in accordance with the riches of God's grace. So, if the NIV is trying to hide the blood, why include it in Ephesians?

Well, because you need to have it multiple times. If it's only there once, then maybe it's weakened.

That's normally the argument. But no, as we all know now, it's because of the underlying

Greek text that's being translated. In reality, the KJV here contains a reading in Colossians 1 .14

that goes against not only the ancient manuscript, but against the vast majority of all manuscripts including the Byzantine.

The earliest manuscript to contain the added phrase, through his blood, in Colossians 1 .14, is from the 9th century.

All of four manuscripts, all dating long after the original writing, contain the reading. So it's a small minority reading, almost a millennium after the original.

And why did it end up there? Because Colossians is parallel to Ephesians. Somebody who memorized

Ephesians 1 .7 probably even inadvertently, when copying it, inserted it in because they knew the text from Ephesians 1 .7.

KJV -only advocates would insist on their arguments. They would reject this reading. Since they do not, they prove they are arguing in circles.

And that is the fundamental... Every time I get these folks to do a debate...

Listen to a debate I did back during the COVID lockdown. It was one of the first debates

I've done online, which is not as much fun. I can assure you of that. But I was debating a

TR -only advocate. Somebody who says the TR, not the King James, but the TR, is the final authority.

And the point that I brought out was, no matter what text we look at, the arguments that a

TR -onlyist or a King James -onlyist are going to use for any one text, will change completely once you get to the next verse.

They cannot use the same arguments. They cannot use the same standards.

And if you have to keep changing your standards for what is proof and what is evidence, that means your arguments are invalid.

And should be rejected. Here's a simple Arab translation.

Acts 5 -39. Anyone ever notice this? If you're reading the King James? Look at the KJV. The God of our

Father has raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree.

You ever notice that? Did the Jews kill Jesus and then hang his dead body on a tree?

No. They killed Jesus by hanging his body on a tree.

Crucifixion. So you notice the ESV. The God of our Father has raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.

And if you read Greek, you look at this, and you look at the verb, and you notice the participle, hanging upon tree.

Oh, that's the instrumental use. It's a very common use of participles, especially in Luke and his style.

It's clear. It's obvious. How do you defend that? But I've had people defend that.

Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. No. Whom you killed by hanging him on a tree is what the

Greek is communicating to us. Here's a simple error in the underlying text.

Ephesians 3 .9. This is one that I debated with a TR only guy. The King James says, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery in Ephesians 3 .9.

The NSV says, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery. It was in preparation for this debate that we finally dug up a single manuscript from an earliest, the 12th century, that has koinonia at Ephesians 3 .9.

All other manuscripts. All other translations. The Latin.

The Ethiopic. The Coptic. Every reference in the early church fathers. For over 1 ,200 years has he koinonia to which they leave.

And it just so happens that the one manuscript or some guy wasn't paying attention, falls into Erasmus' hands, and he uses it in Ephesians 3 .9.

By any textual critical standard we know what

Ephesians 3 .9 says. And yet every King James only advocate, every TR only advocate, will defend the

King James reading. Which means that every Christian for 1 ,200 years had their own reading.

And God didn't seemingly care. Never understood that part of it. Never understood that part of it at all.

This is nowhere more clearly seen than in the textual emanation found in Revelation 16 .5. I love this one. Even our hymns have been impacted by this textual variant.

All Greek manuscripts of whatever type agree in reading as the

New American Standard Bible, which says, and I heard the angel of the waters saying, righteous are you who are and who were oh, holy one.

Because you judge these things. The key phrase is, oh, holy one. Compare the

King James version. I heard the angel of the waters say, thou art righteous, O Lord, which art and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged us.

So instead of, oh, holy one, it says, and you shall be. Every manuscript we've ever found in the

Book of Revelation says, oh, holy one. Everything wrong. How did we end up with, and you shall be?

Well, Theodore of Asa, Calvin's successor in Geneva, made a conjectural emanation at this point.

That's a change in the text that has no manuscript support. He had no manuscripts in front of him that read differently. He felt that the text made more sense if it read, and shalt be, than oh, holy one, because it was who was, who is, who is to come.

And he thought the Greek words were similar enough in form to explain. That is, he felt that these two Greek words were close enough in form to allow him to change the text.

So this is oh, holy one, Hoseos. This is, shalt be, you shall be, Esaminos.

Well, at least they end with the same two letters. So again, it's all manuscript evidence.

This reading persists in the TR today. So if you picked, if you bought that little blue case bound text of Eusebius, in Revelation 16 .5,

you will have a reading that no one reading any

Greek manuscript in the history of the Church ever saw. But there will not even be a note telling you that.

There are no notes in the TR. No notes in the TR. In Revelation 16 .5.

Which KJV do you have? And which one should be the standard that we are to use? Almost all

KJVs, they are actually the 1769 Blaney revision of the authorized version, not the 1611.

But there are different kinds of KJVs. The two most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can you tell which one you have?

Well, look at Jeremiah 34 .16. And in Jeremiah 34 .16, down there in the middle,

I'm not going to read through all of it, whom he had set at liberty. The Cambridge edition will be whom ye set at liberty.

Now if you know your old pronouns, ye is what?

Plural. Plural. So, which one is it?

Is it a masculine singular? Or is it a plural? If the King James is your standard, and if you can't go back to the

Hebrew to correct the King James, which one is it going to be? You can't know. You can't figure it out.

Because you've changed the standard. If you look back at the Hebrew, you can figure it out. But you'll find differences in published, printed

King Jameses to this day, in regards to that particular text. I have an interesting discussion of it in King James Only Controversy, because it's actually stuck in the new

King James, too. Somebody's using King James to check things out. Alright, last thing.

This is the biggie. This is the one where Alberto Rivera looked me in the eye and said,

I'm going to hell because of this text. And I've had many King James Onlys say the same thing.

King James Version of the Bible, 1 John 5, 7 -8. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the

Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.

Now look at the new American standard. For there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are in agreement.

That's a lot shorter. You can see in the red what is at stake.

There is no text more directly relevant to the integrity of the New Testament's text than this one.

Listen to what I'm saying here. This sounds sort of radical, but I need you to hear it. For if such a vitally important theological text can disappear in total, completely, from the

Greek manuscript tradition, then we have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that we still possess the original readings of these ancient writers.

No Greek text for the first 1 ,300 years of its history contains the text found in the text of Receptus.

Not a one. Not a one. So if you can have an important theological statement disappear completely from all

Greek manuscripts, then we can have no confidence that God has preserved his word. None.

The text first appears in certain Latin texts in the 4th century, most probably as a gloss, an explanation of what spirit, water, and blood was supposed to refer to.

Very clearly, and I know at least one guy who's sort of a Byzantine text advocate who has strongly argued that plainly this arose in the

Latin and only over time eventually snuck into the Greek from the

Latin. It is not found in the Greek manuscripts of 1 John at all. While it is found in a few 10th and 11th century

Greek manuscripts, it is only written in the margins in a 16th or 17th century hand, so it wasn't originally a part of that manuscript.

The following manuscripts are the only ones that contain the verse in the actual Greek text of a Greek manuscript. Here they are.

And you'll notice 14th, 15th, 15, 20, 16th, 16th, and 18th centuries.

Well after the printing press, as Benjamin mentioned. Now you may notice one of those is weird. 15, 20, have you ever seen a date, an actual date on the manuscript that we know?

That's Codex Monfortianus. And we know when it was copied. Codex Monfortianus number 61 is in Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland.

It was presented to Erasmus as evidence that the reading appeared in the Greek text because in the first two editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament there is no 1

John 5, 7. It's not there. And so people who had it in their Latin manuscripts started attacking him as if he was undercutting the

Trinity. And so he said, I found it in no Greek manuscripts. And so he was shown

Codex Monfortianus number 61 as evidence that the text appeared in Greek text.

Erasmus even asked his friend Bombastius in Rome to consult Vaticanus, Codex V, to see if it was there.

It's not. Bombastius confirmed that Codex V does not contain the Kama Yohanni.

But since he was shown Monfortianus in the 3rd edition, he inserted it into his text, the long note in the annotation saying why he did not believe it was original.

But that was an extremely important text that continued in editions 4 and 5. That's why it ends up in Stephanus.

That's why it ends up in Vesa. And that's why it's in the King James Version of the Bible. Here is a picture of me and my friend

Doug McMasters at the Trinity Library in Dublin, Ireland.

All you can see is my hand unfortunately. Doug's a big boy. And what are we examining? Codex Monfortianus.

Looked it up for ourselves. Just to make sure. And here you'll notice it doesn't even read like the

TR. The TR is different. There is a picture of what I looked at with my own two eyes.

There in Dublin, Ireland. And what Codex Monfortianus reads at that particular point.

So here is the point with 1 John 5 -7. When you defend that as original, you are fundamentally destroying the only solid basis upon which we have to defend the

New Testament. And that's its tenacity. I know they don't intend to be doing that.

But I've never seen these people debating Bart Ehrman. I've never seen these people debating

Muslims. They primarily just keep all this stuff within the church. And so they don't know that this is what they're doing.

But that's what they're doing. If you can say that an entire theologically important phrase can simply disappear from all the manuscripts and have to be reinserted from a translation, then you're saying that the

Greek manuscripts do not contain all the original readings of the New Testament. You're saying the same thing that the Muslims are saying.

You don't mean to, but you are. And that's the fact. And that's why they won't debate this subject.

Well then, has God preserved His Word or not? That's the question KJV -only folks always come back to. Unfortunately, they all seem to assume that unless you have a perfect English translation, you don't have a perfect Bible.

Of course, English did not become in existence until more than a thousand years after the last words of Scripture were written.

Hence, making a perfect English translation of the Standard is obviously an error, and it should be obvious especially to anybody who speaks more than one language.

A lot of these folks do not speak more than one language. Think of it this way. Let's say the

Constitution of the United States was translated in the language of a small island in the Pacific. How much sense would it make for someone on that island to take one particular translation of the

Constitution, insist that this one translation is the Standard, and then proclaim that unless this translation is perfect, then no perfect Constitution exists anywhere?

Yet, that's exactly what KJV -only is going to say. That's exactly what they've done. See, it doesn't matter if there is a perfect translation of the

Constitution in Swahili for there to be a perfect rendition of the Constitution in its original language.

How then has God preserved His Word? He has done so by making sure, as we saw last night, the

New Testament was so quickly distributed all over the known world that there never was a time when any one man, one group, one church could gather up all the copies and make wholesale changes.

By the 3rd century, entire manuscripts were already buried. If major changes were made after that time, they would be easily detectable by comparison with those earlier manuscripts that we've discovered only in the past hundred years.

This means I'll wait until you get that picture, Jason. There you go. This means we can disprove the claims of those who say the

Bible has undergone wholesale editing and changes such as Mormons, Muslims, atheists, New Agers, the

Jesus Seminar, etc. KJV -onlyism undercuts the most foundational elements of our defense of the veracity and accuracy of the

Scriptures, all in an attempt to establish a final authority in English translation. So what do we conclude?

First and foremost, that we don't need conspiracy theories complicating our lives. There is no reason to embrace

King James -onlyism. It is a system, a tradition, that must assume its conclusions to prove its conclusions.

As such, it is not something that Christians who love the truth should wish to embrace. And next, we recognize that the

Lord has indeed preserved His Word, but He has done so in a way other than that assumed by KJV advocates.

Finally, that while there are modern translations that we can never recommend, it does not follow that we must go back to a venerable translation that exists in a language no one has spoken for hundreds of years.

If we follow the apostolic example, we will give the Word of God to people in a language they can understand, not one that leaves them absolutely, totally bewildered.

Now, very quickly, because I wanted to be done here, but I forgot to cue this up beforehand, and I have a lot of presentations here.

Let me see if I can find it for you real quick. This would be,

I think it's in the New World one. Have you noticed, for me anyways, they're making the font smaller and smaller.

I'm not sure what I can do about that, New World translation, where did it go?

Well, I guess I should just do it this way, huh? Sorry, I should have it all set up.

Oops. Okay. How about this one? Yeah, this will work.

Yes, I know, I know, I know. Don't worry, I'm not going to tell you much about those.

Alright, real quickly, I said that I would do this, and I need to in light of the claims of Dr.

Stauffer here locally. Granville Sharpshield, Titus 3 .15, 2 Peter 1 .1, NASB in Titus 3 .15 says, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior, Christ Jesus. The New World translation says, we wait for the happy hope and the glorious manifestation of the great

God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus. They're trying to separate God and Savior. Here's the basic rule.

When you have two singular nouns that are not names connected by the word chi, which means and.

The first having the Greek article, the second not having the Greek article. So, arthuris and anarthuris, if you're following along.

Both nouns are describing the same person. Now, I did a huge paper on this in Bible college.

This is actually one of six rules of Granville Sharpshield. By the way, it was an English abolitionist, one of the leading people who led the abolition of slavery in England.

But was also a Greek scholar. He identified six rules. One thing you need to understand, the word the in English is really boring in comparison to the

Greek article. The Greek article is very rich. It can be used in many different ways. It can become a pronoun. It can do all sorts of fun stuff.

Most of us who even teach it have never really fully mastered the article because it's that complicated.

But this is about the use of the article. Now, in Titus 2 .13,

if you go back and look at the language that is used there, I don't have time to do it right now, but if you go back to Psalm 130 verses 7 -8,

Ezekiel 37 .23, Exodus 19 .5, the whole discussion in Titus is about how

Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is redeeming a people unto himself.

That's the background language from which Paul is drawn when identifying Jesus in Titus 2 .13.

And so it makes perfect sense that when you're drawing from passages about Yahweh that you would then say that we are looking for the appearing of our great

God and Savior, Jesus Christ. We've just been saying that the work he has done is the work of Yahweh, and of course

Paul identifies Jesus as Yahweh in places like Philippians chapter 2. We went over some of these things last night in regards to the identification of Jesus as Yahweh.

So the context of Titus 2 is very strong in pointing to the propriety of that translation.

Stauffer never tries to argue against the Grammyshark construction because you'd have to actually know Greek to do that.

He does not make any argument against it. He says, well, Jesus has to become your Savior.

That's not the point. What did Paul write, and what did it mean to his first audience?

Not, what do you do something with it 2 ,000 years later. There's all sorts of places where the term Savior is used and God is used interchangeably, and it has nothing to do with, well, he has to become your

Savior, and this has to do with multiple... It is the most convoluted argument I've ever tried to even figure out that he produced, and it never touched the simple fact of what the context is and what the grammar actually says.

It doesn't even try to. But 2 Peter is even clearer, and this is cool, because if I've lost you, stay with me for just a second.

I'm almost done, and this is so plain, so clear. Oh, great, the font's messed up, but that's all right.

2 Peter 1 .1 By the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. New World Translation By the righteousness of our

God and the Savior, Jesus Christ. That's very close to the King James rendering as well. I'm bummed because I do not know why this happened, but the top here is supposed to be in Greek, but it got messed up there.

I could probably fix it right now, but I'm not going to. Ignore the top that's supposed to be in Greek. Look at the transliteration down here.

Look at the transliteration. To Theou, Hamon, Caius, Soteros, Jesu Christu. Look at 1 .11,

because remember I told you there are five constructions in 2 Peter. I'm just giving you one of the parallel ones, which is 1 .11.

1 .11 is To Curiou, Hamon, Caius, Soteros, Jesu Christu. So, what's the difference between 1 .1

and 1 .11? One word. Curiou means Lord. Theou means

God. But you'll notice that they both end with O -U in English. That's the gender singular in Greek.

So, in the exact same grammatical form. Every other word is an adjective. To, Hamon, Caius, Soteros, Jesu Christu.

These are in the same form. Every translation renders 1 .11,

Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And no one has any problem with that. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Even the

New World translation renders it that way, because that doesn't mess with the theology. But if you could translate this as Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, what do you have to translate this as?

Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. You have to. Simple consistency demands it.

And so, you can sit there and go, Yeah, but Jesus has to become your personal Savior. What about down here? There's Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

They're put together there. When you have an ultimate authority, which is the

King James must be the final word. Then you will do whatever you have to do with what the manuscripts say, what the grammar says, with theology, whatever, to substantiate that assertion.

And that's what you have in King James. And that's why a Christian who loves the truth should not be a person who embraces

King James. Alright. How about 5 minutes? Real quick.

I'm going to have a limit to 5. 5 minutes. Questions. Sir. Most of them will say that if you're going to have foreign language translations, they need to be based on the

TR. But in the Ankerberg debate, that question came up and the answer that was given

Ankerberg specifically asked Sam to give. What if I speak Russian? And Sam Giff's answer was, if you want to have the word of God, it's been given to us in one language at one time.

Right now it's King James Version of the Bible in English. Need to learn English. Do it straight forward.

Yes, sir. Do you have an opinion on the Robinson Pierpont?

Robinson Pierpont Byzantine text? Yeah. Dr. Robinson has snuck into my presentation

I did last night when I was back in Virginia somewhere once. He's a really nice guy and that's a scholarly work, but even he will admit that he starts with the presupposition that the

Byzantine text has to be the origin of the other readings. And so he starts with the presupposition that determines all the readings that he makes.

He is not King James only. He really loved my book on the King James only -ism stuff. He even gave me some information for it.

But he starts with the presupposition that it has to be the origin of the other readings.

It's a good resource to have in the library if you want to look at the Byzantine text. Yes, sir.

How long did it take you to learn Greek? It took seven years. Four years in college.

Three years in seminary with the same professor who had hair when he started but not when he finished.

That was probably my fault. Dr. Mike Baird who is a good friend and colleague of mine. And then probably after about two years

I started actually teaching it as well. It really, really helped. And then I've taught it on and off for decades now.

Yes, sir. Did you ever, any of the 5 ,700 ever find any intentional...

Well, it depends what you mean by corrupt. Certainly, I mentioned last night Codex Speziae Cantabrigensis, Codex D, called the living bible of the early church.

It's a mess. I mean, whoever did it was trying to comment on the text.

And hence not just trying to copy it. But no, actually, as far as someone specifically trying to sneak something in or something like that, that would stand out like a sore thumb.

And there just really isn't anything like that outside of D. And I don't know if putting in the number of steps that Peter walked down after he got delivered by the angel was really trying to change much of the way of theology, but he did.

It's a weird year. Beza, it's called Codex Speziae Cantabrigensis because it was given to Theodore Beza.

Theodore Beza then gave it to Cambridge University, which is why it has its name. And the letter that he sent when he gave it to them was, this manuscript is so strange that it is better to be stored than read.

Sir? How do you preach and handle it?

Good question, good question. There's actually two texts we mentioned last night, the two 12 verse sections. John 7 -8 through 8 -11 is called the

Percipate Adultery, the Woman Taking Adultery, Mark 16 -9 -20 The Long Branding of Mark. So everybody,

I always ask you the question, if you were preaching through John, if you were preaching through Mark, how would you handle these things?

You need to understand I've only been I've been in three churches remember, three churches in my adult life.

Large Southern Baptist Church Reformed Baptist Church for 29 and a half years and for the past two and a half, three years now at Apology Church.

I wasn't in leadership at the first ones, we can leave that out. So for over 30, about 32 years everybody in those churches knows that I'm a weirdo.

So, they know that I work in the languages, they know that when I preach, I'm going to talk about textual variance and that means

I've done this kind of presentation for them in Sunday schools over and over and over again. So they all know about the existence of textual variance and how to evaluate them.

And so I'm in a different situation so I'm not going to preach John 7 -8 through 8 -11 in Scripture because I don't believe it's original, it doesn't appear until the 5th century.

I'm not going to preach along with the ending of Mark for different reasons. It's not that it doesn't have good early evidence to it, it's that there are so many other endings that if it was original there's no reason to explain why the other endings exist.

And it also has a lot of weird stuff in it. But I'm either going to do a study in the

Sunday school or something along those lines and then make reference to that in the sermon when we go from 7 -52 to 8 -12 or when we stop at Mark 16 -8 or I'm going to refer them to stuff that I've recorded.

I'm not just going to jump over it and not say anything about it. So if you're in a church where people don't have that background, then you need to be significantly more careful as to how you handle those things.

I taught a class on textual criticism in Ukraine and one of the students came up to me through the translator and said,

I could never tell my people to stuff. They would never accept it.

He said, I'm glad to know it, but I can never tell them. That's an interesting situation.

One more. Yes, sir. So how do King James only people say the word Easter? How do they find the word

Easter? Right. Believe it or not, almost every

King James onlyist I know that has written a book on that subject has developed their own rather unique, interesting mechanism for defending

Easter and basically saying, yes, that's true, it was rendered Passover, but God knew what was going to happen in the future with it and so he guided the

King James translators to render it in such a way that makes it superior to what it used to say.

Once you start there, you can defend anything. Why do you think the translators put it that way?

Um, well, that's a good question. I haven't looked too deeply into that, but it probably was just to connect it to the current liturgical calendar or something like that,

I would assume maybe. I'm not 100 % certain. Real quick. Your age earns you an extra question, sir.

Is it true or false that all the basic translations, whether we're talking about ESV or NIV, any of the basic translations are not going to lead us astray from the basic doctrines of Christianity?

Right. That was one of the main things I wanted to emphasize was that if you apply the same standards of interpretation and hermeneutics to the

ESV, NIV, NASV, King James, New King James, I've always said the New King James is one of the best translations of an inferior text ever.

It's really, really, really well done. They just used the TR and an older Hebrew text.

But you apply the same standards to all of them, you're going to come up with the exact same message. It's not different religions.

It's not going to change any of those things. What it might change is the lists of verses in support of a particular doctrine.

So in regards to the deity of Christ, you'll have 1 Timothy 3 .16 with the

King James, New King James. But then with the modern translations, you would have John 1 .18 as supporting the deity of Christ.

But those are relatively few of those, and no doctrine of the faith is based upon just one verse.

Okay. Alright. Again, fire hose type thing. Real fast, I realize that.

Sorry. There is actually a recording of pretty much this, well, last night, pretty much last night from Trinity Law School from about 10 years ago on YouTube someplace.

So if you wanted to sort of go back over things like that. But I cover a lot of this stuff on The Dividing Line all the time, do a webcast.

One of the reasons I want to hurry tonight is I'm going to try to do one once I get to Louisiana tomorrow. The weather,

I think, is going to slow me down. I am not going fast through that rain. I guarantee you that. Not dragging my physical behind me, but pray for my travel tomorrow.

But we do address these things a lot on the program, so if you're interested in that kind of stuff, you might want to check us out while we're still available before we get kicked off the social media for being politically incorrect and end up in the gulags.

And then we can have studies in the gulags together, so that's probably coming our direction. So, let's close our time with a word of prayer.

Father, once again, we do thank you for the freedom we've had to gather together in this place and consider your word. We thank you for your word.

We ask that you would help us to help others to come to understand the mechanism by which you have preserved your word, that we can trust that word, and that we do not have to take a 17th century

Anglican translation and make it the standard. That you have provided your word to your church throughout all of church history.

We thank you for it. I thank you for these folks who've been here this evening. I pray your blessing upon them, the churches that have come together to allow this to happen, the host church here that has allowed us to use this facility, your blessing upon them all, we pray in Christ's name.