Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 in the Pentecostal Baptist tradition.
I was not raised King James Only. Certainly, that was my first Bibles, and 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. 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.
It was not until 1994 that one of our volunteers with the ministry heard a woman on a local Christian radio station, and 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, but 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 was 700 pages long, and so I said, well, I'll debate her. I'll read the book, and so I went by the station, picked up a copy of the book, and if any of you have heard the result of debate, it was the last time that Gail Ripplinger ever did a debate with anyone.
Ever since then, she has made sure that they're 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? Yeah, neither did I. Neither did anybody else, and 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, S-I-N, 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. 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 NASV everywhere else in your book, except there, why would you do that?
Her answer was, because that's what the Lord calls it. 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 are 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 Rucklinger, 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.
And 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, have anybody threatened 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 a 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, and oh, if we'd just had this information then, etc., etc. 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-Jandoliism 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 do 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.
I don't need it? 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. 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 post it on Facebook, can't 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 have always fascinated me. From the time I was a kid, I wanted those things.
Anyhow, alright. 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 open a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the translation so long in hand.
It did take them seven years to do it. Or rather, perusals of translations made before and asked, 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 lime? 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 to labor in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory 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 the 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 didn't 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 wholten by their labors, do 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 texts of the Bible.
Than King James only has do. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the news. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where through the olive branches emptied themselves into the gold.
St. Augustine called them precedent, or original language of St. Jerome's 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 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 uttereth 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 KGB translators use the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations in 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 that 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 the 1611.
They're reading what's called the 1769 Laney 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 in 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 Onlyists 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's not what the King James translators believed. They believed just the opposite. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear must needs do good, yea, is 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 fact that the King James translators themselves would not be King James Onlyists.
That should cause you to go, why would that be? Well, there are a lot of King James translators. There's different kinds of King James Onlyists today. There is 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 their own 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 are 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 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 if you hate people like that. Shame on you. 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 anyways? But anyways, can you imagine what would happen if I did that today?
And remember, those are the cartoon tracts, you know? 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, being identified by Jack Chick as the Antichrist.
So that's 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 a non-Trinitarian church.
It was an Apostolic Oneness church, which I found very odd. But afterwards, we met him, and he was about the age all. 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? 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 Marr? Tex Marr 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.
Anyway, Tex Marr is called in, and that was a fascinating encounter. I am pretty sure it is on Sermon Audio someplace. I think it is on our website somewhere. Anyway, James White, 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 great 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 is no political correctness here. Gail Ripplinger, author of New Age Bible Verses, 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 are talking about. I have had people very confused. Is that life serial? Is that meaties?
Is it what it means?
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 white 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. White 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 of 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 and 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 from 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 Only Conference. Now, this was news to me.
Because I had not read any of his books.
And so, when I obtained the book 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. I've defended them 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.
Okay, good.
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 and 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 and all this stuff. So, there's no preparation before you 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 a 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 and 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 100 years removed is more great than one that's 1 ,000 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 to give you an evidence, 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 have their conclusions, and there you go. Here's a few other quotes from this 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. 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. I'm 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, 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, I was talking there about a chart that 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 as I mentioned last night. 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 text, Texas Receptus. We'll talk about why they've been used for centuries. In their place he elevates two Roman Catholic texts that have thousands of difference between themselves, sheer lunacy and blatant hypocrisy.
The real problem is anyone who's read the book knows that I do not elevate Roman Catholicism into existence so they can't be Roman Catholics. 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. Anyone who's read my book knows that's just simply completely unfair. It's just a falsehood. I can show you page after page where I criticize Westcott and Hart and criticize Westcott and Hart reading and so on and so forth.
But this is Westcott and Hart.
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. This is a 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,.
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 Gramble-Sharpe rule would have changed the outcome of the translating the word of God and in his judgment pray that he will repent of the error of his ways and not allow his pride to stop him from turning under the truth.
So I'm not a Christian,.
I'm a heretic and I'm a heretic because he says he's refuted the Gramble-Sharpe 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 Gramble-Sharpe 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.
All right, 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. God was manifest in the flesh.
But the NESV says.
By common confession, the greatest 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 versions don't believe in 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.
Here's just,.
It'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. 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.
All right, well, okay, if you were, you don't get to play this game. Because you already know.
What this is about.
But here's a test for all the folks using an NIV or ESV. If you got an NIV or ESV,.
Who has an ESV?
Who was not here last night?
All right, 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. A test for all the folks using NIV or ESV. I don't think there's much,.
Really 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?
All right, ready? You have your mouth wide open.
Why is your mouth wide open?
Uh-oh. Uh-oh?
Uh-oh!
There is no John 5, 4, is there? Is there a 5, 5?
Yes, sir.
Is there a 5, 3?
Yes.
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 stirring the waters and the first person down in the water will be healed of whatever disease they have. This is the description.
Of the pool.
There in John 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 KJV.
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 KJV says, no man has seen God at 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 and 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, they're trying to promote it. I mean, 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.
That you 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 don'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 only.
Has had no concept of that whatsoever. I've not met a single King James only ever in my lifetime that even tried.
To do that.
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?
By prayer.
Look at the KJV.
If you ask anything.
In my name.
Not ask me.
If you ask anything in my name.
No.
So you don't have.
A reference to prayer to Jesus in John 14, 14.
This is one of the.
References.
Of prayer to Christ that demonstrates.
His need.
I've used it many times.
When I've talked.
To Jehovah's Witnesses.
The King James agrees.
That it must be.
The King James translator.
Who doesn't believe.
In the deity of Christ.
Right?
By their standard, yes. By the rational standard that's absolutely absurd. But there you go. Now compare the KJV at Revelation 1A. The KJV says I am Alpha and Omega at the beginning.
And the ending.
Sayeth the Lord which is and which was and which is to come.
The Almighty.
This is Jesus speaking. Now the New American Standard says I am the Alpha and Omega says the Lord 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 NASV.
At first 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.
A King James.
Author.
But in reality.
There's some.
Conspiracy involved on either side.
Simple logical reasons why there are.
Differences in.
Translations. Unfortunately few people take the time to learn the backgrounds.
Of the Bible.
Hence they're 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 and.
See.
Let's start with 1 Timothy.
3 .16.
One of the.
Favorite patches.
Of KJV only 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 only 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 Ellesmere.
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.
And, well.
Here's, the Textus Receptus.
Represents what.
Is called the.
Byzantine family.
Of manuscripts. These manuscripts.
Constitute about four-fifths of the extant 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 1800 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 of over 1800 places in the New Testament.
I showed you.
This last night, but this is now.
A little more relevant.
So you.
Have the Alexandrian.
You've got.
Byzantine.
These are the.
Centuries, you can see in the early period these earlier.
Manuscripts.
Predominate, and.
Then the.
Byzantine starts becoming predominant in the ninth century as.
These decline.
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 ninth, here in the tenth century, these.
Are your.
Manuscripts primarily,.
And they all.
Come in a much 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.
What happens.
Right here.
That is very important in.
History?
In the.
Eighth century,.
So that.
Would be right.
There, what.
Major world event that changes.
History and.
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.
They come from?
Byzantium.
And so.
That's going.
To impact.
Your copying.
Of.
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.
Their.
Transmission.
Over time.
So here's an example of the style of the early manuscripts of.
I mentioned.
To everybody.
Last night.
That for.
The first.
900 years.
You had.
Long lines of capital letters with.
Out spaces 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,.
Space 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.
And the.
Minuscules, you can see they start right.
Here.
Are Byzantine manuscripts as.
Well.
Textus 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.
Today. The.
Humanists,.
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.
Humanism.
Would.
Eventually.
Lead to.
Our.
Today,.
But we.
Need to.
Keep things.
In order.
His name.
Was Desiderius.
Erasmus. Erasmus printed and.
Published the.
First edition.
Of the Greek.
Assessment in 1516.
And notice.
I said printed and.
Published.
There was.
One that was.
Printed before.
His,.
The.
Competentium.
Polygon.
By.
Carter.
Jimenez.
Had been printed before.
But back.
Then,.
If you're going.
To publish.
Something,.
You had to.
Get papal.
Approval.
And you.
Want to.
Talk about bureaucracy.
And red.
Tape and.
Slow?
It was 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.
First edition came out in 1516.
Some of you.
May be well.
Aware that.
Was extremely.
Important.
Why?
Because one.
Of those.
First editions.
Was purchased.
And used.
Because it.
Guideline.
Had the.
Greek on.
One side.
Latin on the other.
And that.
Was used.
By a.
Monk in.
Wittenberg by the name of.
Martin Luther.
And it.
Was by.
Looking at.
That text.
That he.
Recognized.
That the.
Is.
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 widow.
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.
Erasmus.
Then you.
Have.
Stephanus'.
1550.
Edition.
Which I own one.
And it's.
A 1550.
So it's.
400 some.
Odd years.
Old.
Donated.
Don't worry.
We're not.
Rolling that.
Kind of money.
But it is.
Worth about $40 ,000. So I sometimes carry.
It with.
Me.
I've had it.
Rebalanced.
It may.
Not be worth.
As much.
Covered.
Fall amounts.
But I.
Had Jeffrey.
Rice rebind it. And it's.
Beautiful.
I mean it's.
Awesome.
I should.
Have brought it.
With me but anyway.
In this.
Humidity, I'm.
Not sure I.
Would have that.
That probably.
Wouldn't have.
Been a good.
Idea.
I just.
Haven't felt.
Humidity like.
This in a.
Long time.
Anyways,.
1550 and Bayes'.
1611.
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.
Texts except.
But anyway, there you go.
So there.
You have.
The additions.
That came.
From.
Erasmus,.
Stephanus,.
Bayes' and those.
Are the.
Ones that.
Were used.
By the.
King James translators.
In their.
Translating.
Tests.
Between.
1604 and 1611.
So,.
Those, when you.
Take...
Remember.
I told you.
About the.
Little blue.
Case-bound.
Version that they think is the text.
That's.
Receptus.
Today?
Actually.
Scribner's.
Scribner,.
19th.
Century,.
Took all.
Those printed.
Additions.
Stephanus.
Bayes' and then.
He asked.
A question.
What was the final.
Decision of the King James.
Translators?
Because they were broken.
Up into.
Committees.
A committee that worked.
On the.
Gospels,.
On Revelation,.
On and so.
Forth.
And they didn't.
Necessarily communicate.
With each.
Other really.
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.
To how.
They do things.
For example, in Matthew, I think it.
Is,.
They.
Translate the.
Phrase.
As.
Thou.
Shalt not.
Kill.
But in.
Paul and.
Romans, it's you.
Shall not.
Murder.
In most.
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.
Some of.
The things.
And make.
Sure there's.
Consistency.
At the.
End,.
But there.
Wasn't in.
The King.
James,.
Inconsistencies.
In the translation. And so,.
What Scribner.
Does is he.
Goes,.
I want to.
Create a.
That actually reflects the textual choices made by.
James.
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.
Translators chose as.
Reading,.
Sometimes it.
Was from.
Erasmus, sometimes it.
Beza,.
They relied.
Mostly upon Beza.
Created a Greek text.
That represents the textual choices of.
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.
But that's where the.
Textus.
Comes from.
Now modern.
Texts are based.
Collection.
Text that draws from.
A wider.
Variety of.
Sources in.
The TR.
When Erasmus.
Did his.
In 1516,.
He did it.
Very quickly.
He said.
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 in how many.
Greek manuscripts he found.
University of.
Basel.
He moved.
To Basel,.
Switzerland,.
Thinking they.
Had a lot.
Didn't. You know.
How many.
Manuscripts he.
Used?
About six.
Oldest was from.
1 ,000 years after Christ,.
Didn't trust.
That one anyways.
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.
Latin commentary,.
And then.
Found out.
Last few.
Pages of the book were.
Missing.
So he didn't have.
Revelation.
Chapter 22.
And his.
Printer is.
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.
What he.
Does is he says,.
All right,.
I can't.
Find a.
Manuscript.
Back-translates.
Latin vulgate.
Into Greek.
For the.
Last six.
Verses of.
Now he.
Does a pretty.
Decent job,.
But in the.
Process he comes up.
With readings.
That no.
Christian had ever seen.
In the book of Revelation.
Those are.
Still the.
Readings of.
TR today,.
Are still the.
Version of.
The Bible.
To this.
Day.
Interesting,.
Huh? So,.
The modern.
Texts we.
Have today, like the Nestle.
UBS 4.
As I.
Had it here last.
Night,.
Current.
ECM, draw from a wider.
Sources.
Of the TR,.
Including.
Manuscripts unknown.
Days of.
Obviously.
The papyri manuscripts.
Used in.
Nestle.
Allen 27th.
Edition,.
Allen 28th.
Date to.
As early as AD 125.
But these different.
Sources,.
Being more.
Primitive, do not.
Show the.
Effect of.
Long-term transcription.
Seen in.
Text,.
And hence.
Are not as full as the TR.
What I mean.
By full, remember that.
Chart I put.
Up?
The tendency.
Of scribes.
Were to.
Expand titles,.
For example.
He becomes.
Jesus,.
Lord becomes.
Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus becomes Lord Jesus.
Christ.
This was.
An expansion.
Of piety.
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.
And I just.
Think it would be better if you said the Lord Jesus Christ.
See,.
It's the idea.
Of piety,.
Somehow is.
Better,.
That shows more respect.
There are many.
Places in the King James.
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 texts,.
We need to immediately.
Emphasize something that is often lost in this.
Debate.
There is no doctrine.
Christian faith.
That is based upon any.
Single text,.
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.
Now 28th.
The results will be the same, the variations do not change the message.
If you use.
Solid hermeneutical.
Principles of.
Interpretation on the TR.
Nessian text,.
You're going.
To get the.
Same faith.
They don't.
Believe that.
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. This sort of gives you how things.
Are related. You've got.
The Byzantine.
Tradition over.
You've got the.
Alexandrian tradition.
Over here.
Latin Vulgate up.
You can start.
A Byzantine.
Tradition to.
The Texas.
There's a little.
Influence from.
The Latin.
Vulgate,.
King James,.
New King James,.
1611 to.
1984.
Alexandrian.
Tradition,.
Latin Vulgate, and the Byzantine tradition go into Nessie Olin,.
From 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 that's.
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.
In the beginning.
Of the word,.
Where it's.
With God,.
Monogamous theos, the unique 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 of.
Whose are.
The fathers.
And from.
Whom is the.
Christ, who.
Is God.
Over all.
Philippians 2, 5 through 6,.
Carmen Christi, where Christ does not.
Consider.
Equality with God, the.
Father is.
Something to.
Be held on.
To,.
Colossians.
1, 15 through 17, creator of all things, Colossians 2, 9, where you have.
Jesus.
Described.
Dwelling all the.
Fullness of.
Deity.
In bodily.
Form. The.
King James confuses and.
Says.
God.
Above.
Romans.
King.
James confuses and.
Person.
Him.
Confuses.
Lord, Spirit, some name, David. New Testament manuscripts, we don't know why, but they consistently abbreviated the gnomon of sacred. 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 the gnomon of sacred, 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 into that position.
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 on the 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 their thought.
I've already said this, but you need to see it. The King James Bible 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, or 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 and the Antichrist, like Jack Chick said of me, and stuff like that.
That's the way it works. The result of this mindset is seeing 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 would be judged. Some KJV-only folks go so far, as we said, to say the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves must be judged by comparison with the KJV.
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 happens 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 a 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 are sick, and it becomes 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, Now, Vaticanus has, whether there's an article there or something like that, but the point is, 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, which is the normal, in the Gospel of John, what does John 3 .16 say? Das monogenes weos, only begotten son. That's the normal, that's what you'd expect to come after monogenes, 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.
And you'll 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 bragging to 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, monogenes deos, does not appear in the extant Gnostic literature from the time period. So, there's all sorts of these guys who will say, the Gnostics said that.
The Gnostics never used that phrase. But they used monogenes deos all the time. So, if you can make that argument, it actually is an argument against you. 1 John 3 .1, which we mentioned earlier, and we looked at last night.
Sorry for those of you who already saw this once. 1 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 epsilon nu, U epsilon nu.
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 ing or tim. So, to 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 italiaton from multiple languages, all across the New Testament, Old Testament, things like that. Again, it's not a conspiracy theory.
The 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, contain the word mi, so it is the majority Greek.
But a part of the Byzantine tradition does not contain the word, and that part underlies the TR. Because remember, the TR was based upon only about six manuscripts. It did not have a huge number to draw from.
The majority text contains the reading mi at this point, demonstrating the TR is not identical to the majority text. And so this is just a major error in the TR, 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 TR even departs from the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The vast majority of texts, including the later ones, contain the reading that is in the ESV and the ESV, but not in the King James.
The TR in the Book of Revelation is particularly suspect, as I mentioned, this is due to the fact that Erasmus Rushdie's 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 TR, 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 spoke 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, but we're going long here, and if you stop at Starbucks on the way, you might have a problem.
Go ahead and do that, 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 are completely in hiding, because they haven't done it now since October 2019. I was up there. But 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.
And so I was sort of looking at him. He started staying off by himself, you know. But eventually we started talking, and he says, so what Bible are you using? I knew where this was going immediately. And I said, well, I've got an NASV with me.
Oh, 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 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 know 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. And notice what Ephesians 1 .7 says. Well, there it 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.
And if it's only there once, then maybe it's weakened, except 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 had memorized Ephesians 1 .7 probably even inadvertently, when copying it, inserted it in because they knew the text from Ephesians 1 .7.
If KJV-only advocates were consistent with their arguments, they would reject this reading. Since they do not, they prove their 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 KJV, 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 KJV-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 error in translation. Acts 539.
Anyone ever notice this? If you're reading to King James? Look at the KJV.
The God of our fathers 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?
They killed Jesus by hanging his body on a tree.
Crucifixion.
So you notice the ESV. The God of our fathers 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.
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 the earliest, the 12th century, that has koinonia at Ephesians 3. .9. All other manuscripts. All other translations.
The Ethiopic. The Coptic.
Every reference in the early Church Fathers. For over 1 ,200 years has he koinonia too. And it just so happens that the one manuscript where 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 the wrong reading and God didn't seemingly care. Never understood that part of it. Never understood that part of it at all. This is no longer clearly seen 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 O Holy One because you judge these things.
The key phrase is,.
O Holy One. Here in 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 O Holy One, it says, and you shall be.
Every manuscript we've ever found in the Book of Revelation says,.
O Holy One.
Everything wrong. How did we end up with and you shall be?
Well, Theodore of Asa,.
Calvin's successor, Geneva, made a conjectural emendation 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 O 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 it. That is, he felt that these two Greek words were close enough in form to allow him to change the text. So this is O Holy One, Haseas.
This is shall be. You shall be, Esaminos. Well, at least they end with the same two letters. So against all manuscript evidence, this reading persists in the TR today. So if you pick, if you've got that little blue case panel with the 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.
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 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?
As the King James is your standard, 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 on the Controversy because it actually snuck into the new King James too. Somebody is 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 owners.
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.
Now listen to what I'm saying here because this sounds sort of radical, but I need you to hear it. For if such a vitally important theological text can disappear in toto, 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 the New Testament.
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 the Greek manuscript. Here they are. And you'll notice.
14th, 15th.
1520 16th, 16th, and 18th centuries. Well after the printing press as Benjamin. Now you may notice one of those.
Is weird.
1520? 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've found it in no Greek manuscripts. And so he was shown Codex Monfortianus number 61 as evidence that the text.
Appeared in the Greek text.
Erasmus even asked his friend Bombastius in Rome to consult Vaticanus, Codex B to see if it was there. It's not. Bombastius confirmed that Codex B does not contain the Kaaba Yohani. But since he was shown Monfortianus in the third 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. It continued in editions 4 and 5. That's why it ends up in Stephanus. That's why it ends up in Basa. 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 Tiara. The Tiara is different. There is a picture of what I looked at with my own two eyes there in Dublin, Ireland.
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 with. 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 come into 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 King James only has been saying. 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 100 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, but.
New World Translation,.
Where did it go?
Well, I guess I should just do it this way, huh? Put it on the end. Sorry, I should have had this. I thought I had this 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 about Joe's. 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 Sharpshoal,.
Titus 3 .13, 2 Peter 1 .1. NASB in Titus 3 .13 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, 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 described the same person. Now, I did a huge paper on this in Bible College. This is actually one of six rules that Granville Sharpshoal, who by the way was an English abolitionist, one of the leading people who led to 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. They 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 are 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 the 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.
Now, 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 probably could 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. ... ...
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.
So, what's.
The difference between 1 .1 and 1 .11?
One word.
Means Lord.
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 identical. ...
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.
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 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 five minutes? Real quick. I'm going to have a limit to five. Five 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.
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 Gibson's answer was, if you want to have the Word of God that's been given to us in one language at one time, right now it's King James Version of the Bible in English, you need learning English.
It was straightforward. Yes, sir?
Do you have an opinion on the.
Robinson Pierpont.
Byzantine text?
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, the King James only and 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. So, 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? How long did it take me to learn Greek? I took seven years, four years in college, three years in seminary with the same professor who had hair when he started but not when I finished.
That was probably my fault. Dr. Mike Baird, who's a good friend and colleague of mine. And then probably after about two years I started actually teaching it as well.
Which really, really helped.
And then I've taught it on and off for decades now. So, yeah.
Did you ever, any of the 5 ,700,.
Did you ever find any intentional.
Of somebody.
Trying to corrupt? Has there ever been one out there.
That's... Well, it depends what you mean by corrupt. Certainly, I mentioned last night Coda Expesiae, Canterbury Genesis, Codas 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 in the way of theology.
But he did.
It's a weird, weird Beza. It's called Codas Expesiae, Canterbury Genesis 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.
So...
Sir? How do you preach and handle... Good question.
Good question. There's actually two texts. We mentioned them last night. The two 12-verse sections. John 7 -15 through 8 -11. It's called the Percipate Adultery. The woman taking adultery. Mark 16, 9 -20.
The long branding of Mark. So everybody always asks me 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 H .L .B.
I wasn't in leadership at the first one, so 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 sexual 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 sexual variance and how to evaluate them. And so, I'm in a different situation. So I'm not going to preach John 7 through 3 to 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 long into 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 752 to 812 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 in textual criticism in Ukraine and one of the students came up to me and through the translator said I could never tell my people.
This 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 did the King James.
Only people say the word Easter but how did they find that the word Easter.
Only rendered as Passover?
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 there?
Why do you think that?
That's a good question. I haven't looked too deeply.
Into that but it.
Probably was.
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.
Thank you sir.
Is it true or false.
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.
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. Again, fire hose type thing. Real fast.
I realize that. Sorry. There is actually a recording of pretty much this.
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.
I 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 can guarantee you that. Not dragging my physical behind me. But pray for my traveling 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 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 the 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. Thank you for these folks who've been here this evening. 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. Amen. Good evening. Thank you.