More on the King James Issue

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon evening. Welcome to the dividing line on the 18th of November We are going to continue reviewing the radio program

That's attempted to review my book on the subject of the King James only controversy I did put up a blog article today.

I guess it's blog article. I got a very interesting email in my

YouTube account and By the way, I generally do not respond to YouTube emails

Just just just don't have to have the time to do that If you want to get hold of me, you need to write to the ministry not through the

YouTube account But I do try to clean it out every once in a while and saw this

YouTube Email from someone who basically if you read it was telling me that I am

NOT saved Because I oppose King James only ism And of course the

King James Bible is the truth isn't it ironic that the very first criticism that?

Is made in this program is that this guy's never heard of anybody like that That that's a straw man, and I was just making this up and very easily refuted, but there you have

An email sent within the past 24 hours. I've got to look exactly when that documents someone who very clearly utilizes the

Mindset that I described before and that is the King James Bible alone equals word of God alone

And that's exactly how they function, but before we get back into the program just once again

I have mentioned this on the blog a couple of times. I want to mention it again. I want to Very very sincerely.

Thank everyone who has been of assistance in I I just decided that you know there might be some folks who are what we call a project

Oriented they like to give to a particular thing do a particular thing and so a couple days ago now

I provide a link to my Amazon wish list I put together a wish list of only stuff for the ministry and Initially all

I put on there with books and a lot of them were really Well just books you don't find in a lot of places

You know run by local Barnes & Noble and pick these things up most of them had to do with Arabic or Islam or?

Mithraism or you know the weird stuff I deal with okay, and I thought I might get one or two books ever something

I really didn't give any thought to it On that level I just thought there might be some folks who might want to say hey

You know I'd like to help you build your library. Give you the resources do what you do We appreciate what you do and that you take the time to read all this weird stuff

So the rest of us don't have to something along those lines, and we've just I've just been absolutely blown away by the response to that My postman is not going to be happy in fact.

He had to bring three packages in today, but It's just extremely encouraging and once again a

Reminder that there's some really great folks out there And I really appreciate the fact that you listen you support the ministry

And I will do everything I can to utilize the resources you you are providing Today I put a few items up and a couple have already been purchased for us

That have to do with the ministry as far as for example right now someone is

Another one just arrived As we were speaking One just arrived I'm going to be putting up it.

I can't put this on Amazon wishlist I did put a couple drives on on the

Amazon wishlist the reason I did that is Because it takes a lot of space and a lot of horsepower

To create the mp4 videos and the DVDs do the editing take

Take tapes from for example a debate put them together create the digital media mp3s blah blah blah blah

It takes a lot of work and a lot of space that's that's high -end stuff and the computer

We had been using to do that was rather aged and It's CPU bit the dust and it is it is gone

And so now rich is trying to use another computer that we really didn't design to do that which also does everything else that he has to do so it does all the email and and Finances and all the rest of stuff and generally when you're working on oh cool.

Thank you He's holding up books in the other room for me. Thank you. Thank you very much Make sure to hold on to all the stuff that comes along with that so anyways, we are trying to put together a

A box a computer To do the video rendering and so for example

We are gonna find the time finally. I've just put my foot down. We're gonna do it There is a debate that I want to make available as soon as possible, but again

We need to get computer power to do it but there's a debate that no one's ever seen or heard that I think was one of the most interesting ones we were done and That was the debate that took place at sea only debate

I've ever done at sea come think of it and It was myself and dr. Jim Renahan from the

Institute for Baptist Studies at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido Versus John Dominic Croson and Marcus Borg on the subject of the resurrection and why hasn't anyone ever seen or heard that because we had major problems recording it and basically, my opening statement is just not usable, but thankfully

I Read my opening statement from my palm pilot. I still have it and so we're gonna try to do is

I'm gonna sit down right where I am right now and We record my opening statement, I only had 10 minutes, so it shouldn't be all that difficult to do

I'll try to pace it as closely as I can and that would do is if I if I end up going 9, you know 50

Then we can obviously stretch it out to fit the exact time frame. We've got it's not going to be perfect But it should be close enough certainly good enough for government usage anyways

And obviously when we make the mp3, it's just audio We don't have to worry about that, but I want to the video turned out fine

So I want to make those available as well and so watch

Fairly certain fairly certain that pretty quickly. I'll be putting a blog article up on the kind of system we need to put together to replace the one that croaks so we can generate the

DVDs and We're also making mp4 as I hope you all are catching that in the bookstore We're putting a lot of this material in mp4 now because I don't know what you but I have found one of the fastest way

Ways to Get through a long flight is to hang my iPod on the tray thing in front of me and bring stuff

I want to watch and That that makes flights go a whole lot faster, so mp4 isn't things like that are are great

So anyway, just thought I would mention those things again. Thanks to everyone who has been helping us in that way

So today back to as we announced the subject of King James only ism will only be taking calls on that subject today as we listen to this

Program that aired a week ago Tuesday night on the subject of King James only ism

So we're going to go back to that and listen to the criticisms and provide responses Well, we have many different things well surely

One of the things you have to take a look at when you're talking about the King James version of the

Bible I mean everybody it's been around for 400 years everybody agrees that it was the standard one in usage for the

English speaking people all the way up until The the new versions came out based on the

Westcott and Hort Greek text Yes, no, maybe You mean from the time of 1611?

That's true, but what about before 1611? what about the the issue of the

The Geneva Bible or Bishops Bible or the English -speaking people before 1611 you see it's real easy for people to grab hold

Of the old standard without recognizing there was a time when the King James version was the new guy on the block

The pilgrims didn't like the King James version they viewed it as in essence liberal is newfangled and yet, then it becomes the standard over time and It's not having that kind of Historical viewpoint that I think causes a lot of problems for our

King James only friend I mean we see that many many generations of Christians Not only used it, but loved it and revered the

Bible and and followed its words, and we also see the effect and the Good things that came out of the people using the

King James Bible now This is a common argument that people make well look at all the good That was used came out of King James Bible well

There's been a lot of good that's come out of the NIV there's a lot of good that's come out of the new American Standard there's there was a lot of good that came out of the

Latin Vulgate for for that matter or the Greek Septuagint or Any number of things like that, what does that have to do with the text itself if?

You can find good things that came out of the the Geneva Bible does that mean that the King James shouldn't have been translated

Again, you know just mentioning that well God can use all sorts of things yeah God has actually used a lot of really bad translations of the

Bible He's still brought people to know the Lord through them doesn't mean we excuse them, but you don't do textual criticism

You don't determine the readings of the text the Bible on the basis of well. You know my grandfather

Bill He got saved that their Bible, and he's been he was a great man ever since he was a drunkard now

He's now he's a godly man therefore that Bible is great well If if someone picked up a you know revised standard version or something like that does that make the revised standard version the standard of course not

God can use all sorts of things I think that's one of the one of the better arguments Well, that's one of the arguments anyway for the for the use of the

King James Version over any other version That's out there right now is well. How can that be an argument though because the issue is?

You know obviously God did all certain God did miraculous things with the original Greek New Testament but if you read

English you can't read that unless you learn Greek and so you need it in your own language and And what if languages change massively over time as they have

Shouldn't you provide a translation in the language of the people that day the New Testament was written the language of the people that day

It wasn't written in the language in the in an earlier form of Greek that no one could read anymore

Or that was difficult for them to read anymore These these kind of arguments just I'm sorry

The fact that it has has done so much good You see the fruit that it has produced and I think that that testifies very much to it not only its veracity

But the fact that that God has his stamp of approval on that particular

Translation of the Bible now now again that particular translate you mean no other translation of the Bible's ever been used by God I mean

I have encountered some folks like that there are some folks say no one's ever been saved by the King James original Bible And I just you know,

I shudder. I mean, that's just heretical that that's not even that that that's adding That's what this fellow did who?

Sent me the email today that's adding to the gospel something that is not there in the first place in any way shape or form and so Could could

I would just ask folks take any of the arguments you hear during this program remove King James and put in Geneva Bible and If they still make sense, then that proves that they're not really good arguments

We're not Ruckmanites. Like you said, we're not I don't agree with Rippling her and a lot of things that she has put out

I think that that we're dealing with two different types of People when you talk about Rippling or and and Ruckman and you talk about us the way that we believe on the

King James Bible But how about the other people I dealt with like da wait who sounds almost exactly like these guys why no reference the fact that I dealt with him and his arguments as well because I don't believe that the

People that translated the King James Bible were inspired To come up with a new version that was pretty better than any of the previous ones

No, of course not you just talked about it as you go through the Bible you see that God's promise is to preserve the scriptures and Were those previous translations preserved or were they perversions?

remember Brian has said things that are different are not the same and So since there are differences between the

Geneva Bible and the King James and if the King James is the preserved then was the Geneva a perversion

These are the questions that I wish I could ask because they would expose where the position is consistent or not but when folks don't

You know want to have a dialogue. They don't have monologue then you can't ask these questions But these are the types of questions that people want to have answered if he doesn't preserve the scriptures if there's no

Preservation there then we're left with Something that's flawed and that's not how oh go ahead.

Okay, something that's flawed. So It was the Geneva Preserved it's different than the

King James. They're very similar very very similar, but there are differences So which is the preserved one if they have to be identical?

there was no identical English translation before that and so those others couldn't be preserved could they and In fact one of the questions

I would ask any of my King James only advocates. Can you show me a single Greek manuscript? In the world that reads identically to the

King James version of the New Testament just one There isn't one I can tell you that right now

But I would think that if you call this the preserved text that that's you'd be able to show me that now

It's interesting Brian here I think is going to argue that that he thinks the preserved text is found in the

Old Latin But the Old Latin differs in the text is for septus all over the place all over the place so Was it preserved in a different form?

But different things that are different are not the same are they so that can't work

So how does any of this work out again? Don't know those are the questions you have to ask those folks and They're not they're not here to answer even though they've been invited to participate and you know and and we look at Bart Ehrman's book and in Bart Ehrman makes this statement, and I'm gonna read it for you real quick page 211 misquoting

Jesus Bart Ehrman says I Now this is very important page 211 is the exact page that we're supposed to be debating about in Florida Okay, so he's about To quote the key issue and that is

Bart Ehrman's assertion that if the New Testament demonstrates textual variation

Then he can't believe that the originals were inspired either if God isn't going to protect the copies from textual variation

Then he has no reason to believe in the original inspiration of the text in the first place

Now I believe Bart Ehrman is very wrong about that he is assuming a certain kind of textual preservation that history does not demonstrate and that he was wrong to abandon his professed belief in the inspiration of Scripture based upon something like that But the irony is here

Brian's going to agree with Bart Ehrman Brian would have to be on Bart Ehrman's side of the debate in January Because he believes in the same kind of preservation he just enshrines a 17th century

Anglican translation as the word by faith to fulfill the necessity of this

He's not really going to give us a whole lot of specific historical argumentation

And I I don't believe that he could defend his choice against Bart Ehrman But realize he would not be arguing against Bart Ehrman's primary thesis

Only his conclusion based on the thesis they agree with one another and all three of them agree with the

Muslims All three of them agree with the Muslims that you have to have this kind of textual transmission over time

Where God basically just gives you one text and there's no questions.

You don't have to textual criticism But and here comes the problem With the

Quran you have to believe that Uthman and Zayed bin Thabit and all those that were involved with the compilation of the recension done by Uthman in the two stages were somehow providentially guided and You just have to believe that by faith

You can't you can't demonstrate it. You just have to you just have to insert and an unprovable historical concept into the equation to make it work

The same thing is true for the King James only advocate even though they'll admit at least most of them will admit That the

King James only the King James translators did not claim some kind of providential guidance in their production of their text and Most well some some recognize they're not reading the 1611

King James version some of them recognize That They're actually reading the 1769

Blaney revision and even then they're reading out of the Cambridge the Oxford edition of the 1769

Blaney revision but they still in some way shape or form have to have some kind of supernatural guidance going on that guides first Erasmus and then

Stephanus and especially Beza because Beza the Successor of Calvin at Geneva, which a lot of them are not

Calvinist so they sort of chafe at that but Beza's textual choices are the primary driving force in the text used by the

King James translators, which eventually becomes what's called the textus receptus and so Somehow in all of that and then in the textual choices where the

King James translators have the five editions of Erasmus They have Stephanus. They have Beza and they make choices between them somehow they are providentially guided without being inspired and and somehow that becomes the preserved text that wasn't the preserved text the 1611 becomes the preserved text and 1610 becomes the preserved text 1611

See how that works well, I don't either but that's the idea and That's one of the fundamental issues we deal with here.

They're all wrong Bart Ehrman the Muslims and the King James only advocates have all got it wrong and they you simply cannot defend the

New Testament text Utilizing the concepts that the King James only folks are utilizing.

They're just defenseless against the Muslims and against Bart Ehrman I'm just gonna pick a line and start but I think we'll get just over it says moreover

I came to think of that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant

They were probably wrong for the only reason I came to think for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would

Have his actual words, but if you really wanted people to have his actually words surely He would have miraculously preserved those words just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place

Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them

That's the debate right there It seemed inescapable to me and I say it shouldn't have been

Because textual variation is an artifact It is the byproduct of the mechanism whereby

God did preserve the New Testament text and that was through its explosive Copying and transmission throughout the known world in the very lifetime of the authors themselves multi focality multiple authors multiple times

Time periods multiple audiences multiple streams of transmission that is what guarantees that there could never have been one person or group of people that come along and Change the text of New Testament inserting doctrines and exporting doctrines couldn't have happened could have happened to the

Quran It could have happened if the King James only guys are right and there's this you know

You have to have just one text, but the way that it actually happened in history is the way

God used to preserve the New Testament and I've been preaching this for a long time now, but I think we're starting to see especially with how popular attacks upon the

New Testament are that we really need to come to understand this and Be prepared to explain it to others as well

And I think I think the problem with the King James only controversy Jason. Thanks for picking up there

I was looking at some notes and It is the problem. It's not that it's

Introduces any false doctrines Necessarily, I didn't find anything that you know Nobody is denying the deity of Christ or the blood atonement or so on and so forth

But it's a comfort now I think that I think that fellow who wrote today would say I am denying the atonement because of Colossians 114

He doesn't realize that's a parallel corruption from Ephesians 1 7 prize and read my book, but notice he just said it's a compromise

He's saying it's a compromise because I don't put forward one standard of an

English Translation That's what makes it a compromise And that's how they think that somehow

I'm helping somebody like Bart Ehrman When they don't seem to realize they're actually arguing

Bart Ehrman's point and that's where they're in error to begin with my eyes the King James only

Controversy book is a contra compromise. It puts the Word of God on the chopping block and it

Re -examines the Word of God it re -examines the Word of God now realize something

Erasmus Made textual choices based upon about half a dozen late

Greek manuscripts Was he right to do that or wrong to do that? How could he have produced the

Texas Receptus if he didn't do that? And so what you're saying is well, it was right for Erasmus and will accept his results, but it's wrong for you why

Erasmus that later on the funny thing is this is again where I really wish Brian would come on the program because here's

He later on is is going to use the well this text has been used

Argument and he's already used at once, but he knows in the King James only controversy I point out the Latin Vulgate was used for 1 ,100 years not just 400 years 1 ,100 years

And he says well that doesn't matter because they're all Roman Catholics anyways So he just dismisses saying well, there's all

Roman Catholics Brian Desiderius Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest who wrote in defense of transubstantiation in the mass and your

Greek text Was originally put together by him

So Brian, are you being consistent? I Don't think so I Don't think so at all and it is

When you do that when you put the Word of God on the chopping block and and let's and we re -examine the quote -unquote standard

Then where does it end? We're okay. Could this argument have been used against when in 1604?

back in 2004 when the American Bible Society celebrated to be the beginning of the translation process of the

King James 1604 to 1611 I Was asked to be one of the speakers to speak on this subject in New York City And they flew me and my wife there and I spoke on the subject

King James only ism for the American Bible Society there in New York City and One of the things that came out of all that was a discussion of the politics at the

Hampton Court meeting in 1604 where the King James process translation process was begun.

Here's my question Could Brian's arguments have been used? It's in 1604 at Hampton Court To stop the translation of the

King James You see the Geneva had already been around for decades

The Geneva was a fine translation The king didn't like it because it had notes that he didn't like But it wasn't so much translation as it was the notes went along with it and So the standard was already established there was a standard in English at this time so did not the

King James translators put the Standard quote -unquote on the chopping block quote -unquote and if you're not supposed to do that then why did the

King James translators do it and Erasmus was attacked for his new

Latin translation Which was an improvement on the Latin Vulgate he put the standard on the chopping block

You see if all that's been done the production of the King James version. How can you then turn around say okay?

We've got it no more Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument or does the revision end where does this where do the scissors stop?

We know where the scissors stop with Bart Ehrman. They don't They just go on and on and on and he edits an edit where did the scissors stop they stop when an individual brings unbelief into the picture and rejects the worldview of the authors and attacks their work on that basis

I Mean again it is obvious that you can be a believing

Bible scholar You can believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the inspiration of Scripture that is they are new stops

It is God breathed you can breathe you can believe as Christian scholars have believed for millennia without Embracing King James only ism you can do it, and we need to do it

It's an edit we can't afford to have what God has preserved for us to put on the chopping block

We believe that God has preserved us a word and that things that are different are not the same

That's what we believe and and I hold to that and I hold to the belief that the King James Bible is the

Word of God based upon the fact that God has used it now. There's your argument I believe the

King James because God's used it well. God has used all sorts of translations So to pick out one and say well, this is the only one is used is

I'm sorry It's it's indefensible. It absolutely makes no sense and you can't just fall back and say well.

I believe that by faith That's not a rational response if we're talking to a Mormon and the

Mormon says I believe the Book of Mormon by faith Are you not going to challenge the foundation of that? but if your own belief is

Equally irrational upon what basis can you do so is the question that I would love to ask but unfortunately

Can't ask because these folks aren't aren't there. I hope they're listening though, and I hope they'll think about it Anyway, we're gonna take our break and then come back with the one caller

We've got and got to keep pressing through on this. So we're gonna be doing this for weeks Because I'm talking too much, but we're gonna take our break and be right back

How the pilgrims progress it's not an easy way it's a journey to Following Jesus The Trinity is a basic teaching of the

Christian faith it defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us James White's book

The Forgotten Trinity is a concise understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters It refutes cultic distortions of God as well as showing how a grasp of the significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian and Amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity Dr. John MacArthur senior pastor of Grace Community Church says James White's lucid presentation will help lay person and pastor alike highly recommend it

You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org The ministries is pleased to introduce the

Christmas morning CD by Todd Lindstrom Passion and peace are what sets Todd's music apart from others

These 12 instrumental favorites will bless and inspire you as you entertain guests and spend a

Christmas morning with your family You can find this beautiful music that celebrates the birth of our Lord in the bookstore at a omen org

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior We are to come before the

Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you Under the guise of tolerance modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality

Even more disturbing some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior in Their book the same -sex controversy

James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the Bible's teaching on the subject

Explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including

Genesis Leviticus and Romans Expanding on these scriptures they refute the revisionist arguments including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law in a straightforward and loving manner

They appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for his people the same -sex controversy defending and clarifying the

Bible's message about Homosexuality get your copy in the bookstore at al min org

We always like this Why take us in the weekend

I got so much to do this week I guess I'm Tim Janice bumper music set up here for you, too.

So All right. So welcome back to the buying live. I've actually got two callers online. We're gonna have to be quick however callers,

I hope you don't mind that because we've got to make a little progress in getting through some of the

Material here in the program. So let's start with mark. I mark Hello mark.

How's going doctor doing good. Okay. I have a An acquaintance. I don't want to say he's a friend, but who's the

King James only advocate? But he's kind of different because he's a King James only modalist He believes that Jesus is the father.

Oh, yeah. Does he do YouTube stuff, too? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I've seen him. I'll be

I'll be debating him This spring about on the doctrine of limited atonement, but yeah, the thing is is that You know if it's in the

King James Bible, you know He believes that it's somehow inspired even the very quotations the question the question marks the punctuation that they're all inspired

Okay, I've got an immediate question, which King James does he use? Oh that I don't know

So, oh, yeah, you're gonna have to ask him because there's all sorts of differences between the various revisions

He's probably got 1769 Blaney But even then there's differences between the Cambridge and the

Oxford editions so if they're all inspired that I would really like to find out which one specifically because I think

Peter Ruckman once said that the Oxford Schofield reference edition was the final purified

Word of God So at least he gave us one that we could you know work with there you bet Well, I know you know hurry.

Let me just quickly get to my question in Colossians 2 9 The the word Godhead in Colossians 2 9 he asked me is

Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus But from what I understand that what's the Greek word is the

Yogi's? They are tata's right of that. It really doesn't have an English equivalent

Well, yeah that which makes God God is how BB Warfield rendered it

And if you really want to respond to the fellow on that, there's two things All the fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form, that's what made that that which makes

God God I think that's Paul's way of saying the same thing that you see in John 1 1 C when

John by placing theos Without the article before the copulative verb is saying that the logos is as to his nature deity

I think they're they're very parallel concepts there, but the irony is that the King James renders two different Greek words both with the same word

Godhead They render the adidas the Colossians 2 9 if you go to Romans 1 20, they render

Thyatis, which is a very different It's a much weaker term And they render it

Godhead there as well. And that's Romans 1 20. Yeah Romans 1 20

See his eternal power and Godhead I believe is what the King James says they're

Rolling down here in my screen. I don't have the King James up on this but it's

Romans 1 20 and Yeah, yeah, that's it

Thyatis is the term that is used there and that's different than they ate toss at Colossians 2 9 and it's rendered by the same

Greek word, but they're different underlying Greek words that have different different meanings so Part of the reason for that is that you had different groups translating at different places during between 1604 and 1611 and there was not a

Smooth editing process that brought things in the in the harmony that's why atheists for example like to attack the

King James because they can go to Matthew and They're the very same Greek phrase from the

Greek septuagint. You shall not kill is Rendered one way but then over in Romans, it's you shall not murder or vice versa

I didn't look to a month a a good translation committee, you know with enough time and and modern technology

Would have caught those two it's exact same Greek There's no reason to translate differently But it's translated differently in the

King James and I remember when atheists were attacking that as if it was a contradiction in the Bible But it really wasn't so there are a number of issues like that and the

Colossians 2 9 is one of them Okay. Well, thanks a lot. You have my main my main question to these

King James only advocates I asked I'm going to to dirty your airways in the name calcium boy on your show, but You know, he's he claims that the

King James Bible is the only Bible and that the Texas Receptive is what is inspired and then he goes on to say don't you believe that God has inspired has

Preserved his word down through the centuries. Well, why didn't God just preserve the autographer and everyone would have exactly, you know

That would that yeah that that would answer their question But when everybody says that I'm reaching over here and pulling off of my little in -studio shelf what's called the text of septus

It's a little blue case bound one. Hey kind idea. Thank a on the front from the Trinitarian Bible Society and Most people feel like yes in front of the camera.

Most people feel that This is quote -unquote the TR and I noticed that this edition has no notes

No variant readings in it whatsoever This text did not exist until 1611

Most people don't realize that if you go to a King James only Bible College, they're gonna be running around with this this this particular

Trinitarian Bible Society production. This is actually a Greek text based on an

English translation Most people do not know this. Yes. What happened was this is Scrivener's work

And what Scrivener did is he looked at the textual decisions the King James translators made?

Remember the King James translators had the five editions of Erasmus they had Stephanus and they had basis they had they had those printed editions of the

Greek New Testament available to every one of those differed from other the others and So they had to make textual decisions most the time that was

Beza. Sometimes they didn't but in the process They create a New Testament that had readings that had that do not exist in any single

Greek Manuscript up until the publication of the King James of 1611 and then many many years later

Scrivener then took all those various editions of Greek texts

So most of which were called the textus receptus basically the Byzantine text He then created a text based on the

King James decisions and that's what people are walking around it with is a Greek text that was actually determined by a

English translation committee and there is no manuscript in the world that reads identical to the

Trinitarian Bible Society's Texas receptus edition, but many people graduate from college and go through their ministries and think that they're actually holding what's called the texas receptus

They don't anything about its history at all Now now by the way There are many godly men

Who have preached their entire lives using just the texas receptus and the texas receptus does not preach a different gospel

Then the Nessie Island of the UBS for people need to hear that But at the same time if we're going to be defending the

Word of God today, especially in our context. We need to know these things Gotcha, gotcha. I know you have another phone call.

Thanks a lot doctor. Thanks a lot Have a good afternoon. God bless. Well, that's quick run up to Pierre in the socialist state of Canada.

Hi Pierre Yeah, doctor. How's it going doing good? Okay. Um, yeah, I think Ruckman Pierre Ruckman solves the problem of differences in the

King James version It did different additions by saying well as long as the the wording doesn't contradict it, you know, they're all okay anyway

Which is yeah anyway Another inconsistency. Anyway, I was referring

I was interested in the appeal to the Latin Vulgate use by King James only if on the one hand they're forced to Attack the

Vulgate as a as a corrupt Catholic Bible on the other hand, they're they're also forced to sort of accept its reading some of its readings as a because some of those readings are actually in the

Texas Receptive exactly and I See this argument being used especially by someone like David cloud and his book

He actually makes these assertions and he just contradicts himself by saying that well, you know

We reject the Vulgate and but we depend on what dissident

Latin text either sort of pre Vulgate or Vulgate text that excuse me Latin text that were written not not by the

Catholic Church, but by translators that were separated from that church

Yeah, the Waldensians and Albigensians and things like yeah, they yeah, they produce quite an interesting

Theory about the the history of the text and The problem is the old

Latin and Latin Vulgate are not the same thing There are a number of differences between them and the readings that have come into the text

Especially via Erasmus into Acts 8 for example Where he does depend upon the

Vulgate text that he was not using the old old Latin He was using the standard Latin Vulgate.

In fact, he came up with his own translation of the Latin and Yeah, it's inconsistent to on the one hand reject it

And then the other hand you have to admit that they're peculiar readings that are found in it In fact, the the people who were arguing for the insertion of the

Kami Ohanian first John 5 7 We're not doing so on the basis of old Latin manuscripts They're doing on the basis of the

Latin Vulgate and that's where it came from. It didn't come from these other sources So the the inconsistency is is pretty amazing and but unfortunately a lot of folks just are not

Familiar with the issues enough to be able to see it Okay. Hey Pierre, you're lying. There sounds like you're actually in Bolivia someplace

All right. Thanks for coming. Bye -bye. Yeah, you're that or it's really raining hard up there. Well, that's That was hard to hear myself thinking there, but we appreciate the calls

Let's get back Immediately to what we're doing get as much in the day as we possibly can the book it points out the fact well people said that the

Vulgate Gave the same argument for the Vulgate. I didn't want the King James didn't want

Erasmus to Produce his text because the Vulgate was God's standard.

Well, I think that's kind of Not exactly does not exactly apply to my argument here because the

Vulgate was the Roman Catholic Church edition So they didn't have the Word of God. They didn't have the truth of the

Word of God anyways, and and Jesus God can use whoever he wants to preserve his word and Is not necessarily limited to Scholarship or non scholarship and so, you know,

I think it's very important to examine You know, okay I'm sorry, that wasn't an answer

That's that's just simply dismissing. Well, this is the Roman Catholic. Well, there wasn't

First of all, there wasn't a Roman Catholic Church when it's translated In the modern sense of Roman Catholicism to begin with that's the first problem.

But even beyond that how is that an answer? Erasmus had this thrown at him and his response would be directly contradictory

To the responses that Brian himself were giving So if you if you have to use the arguments of the people who opposed the people who gave you your text

Well, what's the mantra we have around here? Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument this straw man and the fact that that we're not

I Cannot be encapsulated with Gail Rippling or Peter Ruckman, but you can't be with the deal

I as a matter of fact, I've never read anything from Peter Ruckman never heard anything from him I did read a book by Gail Rippling or one time and I'd say

You know is called in all thy word and it was interesting I wouldn't put anything against it or for it

Basically because what Gail Rippling or has written is irrelevant to the case that God can

Perfectly preserve his word and of course it is irrelevant to argue that I only argued against Rippling or and Ruckman When I didn't and in fact directly argued against the position being enunciated by the gentleman on this program

Now You look in the Bible, you know Psalms 12 6 and 7

Psalm for the Lord's Lord are pure words of silver tried in the furnace of earth purified seven times Thou shalt keep them.

Oh Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever And I know the old argument against that saying well that is referred

Referring to the word of them is referring to the poor and needy in the prior verses and nobody has ever thought that the word them has ever

Referred to the words that the Lord has preserved which is first of all, I don't know who he's quoting here.

He's not quoting me The idea that no one has ever thought the point is that people quote this text and They do not deal with its context.

They do not recognize that there are other ways of interpreting this They simply quote as if oh see

God's could preserve his word. Therefore the King James Version of the Bible is the standard Even if you take psalm 12 to not be referring to the promise to deliver to poor

But to a general overarching promise of providential preservation the words of Scripture you still have miles to go logically and truthfully before you connect those words written by the psalmist long long before English even developed as a language and The Anglican translation the

King James Version 1611 got a long way to go to connect to and in 99 % of the times that I hear people saying they verse they don't even try to make a connection

They just simply say well It must be a preserved Bible out there psalm 12 says so therefore gotta be the

King James because I grew up with it Well, I'm sorry But what are you gonna do?

When you run into someone who's growing up with nothing, but the NIV and That's all they know

That's all they've ever read. That's all they've ever studied and They can't even make heads or tails out of your translation and they start using the same arguments with you

Well God's used this God spoken me through it. God. God led me to Jesus through this Isn't that just as equal invalid an argument well it hasn't been around as long well

Then I guess you believe in Geneva Bible only ism because Geneva Bible is older than the

King James, right? What if you had somebody come along and start Geneva Bible only ism? I bet you there's somebody out there

I'll bet you if we looked I'm not sure if Google would pull it up, but they probably wouldn't even use the computer But I bet you there's somebody out there and if you can use the same arguments for multiple translations

Well, then there's something wrong with the argument entirely not true. I mean Ivan Ezra a thousand years ago in his commentary one of the greatest

Hebrews that would be even even means dollars of all time

Came to the same conclusions that it says what it appears to say You know so we see attacks on the

Word of God, but but did you catch that so we see attacks on the Word of God So if you if you point out the that grammatically this can be interpreted in in another way that does not necessitate

The application to some overarching providential interpretation you're attacking the Word of God, and I'm like What?

What what do you what do you mean attacking the Word of God if you're how word that quickly you know?

We have to we have to believe that God has preserved something for us

James White in his book Points out the fact that the

King James translators were not inerrant and and that they they produced a work that was not inerrant and And that was fallible and and that had mistakes in it

And and it would probably really good if if you're going to try to say that I'm wrong about that to actually address

The various errors in the King James Version of the Bible that I documented you know places Where Erasmus made a mistake you know the last six verses the book of Revelation where he translated from the

Latin Vulgate into Greek Created words in the Greek language no one ever seen before There's still translated there in the

King James Version Bezos conjectural amendation at Revelation 16 5 Etc etc actually expanded the selection of said problems in the second edition

Which will be coming out in just a matter of months and that was not inspired well What is inerrant and what is infallible and what is inspired do we have anything today that the church

Can hang on to that we can pick up and say this is an errant. This is infallible

This is the Word of God or much. There is and isn't it those of you who read my book did

I not? Exactly represent what this man is saying almost word -for -word

Any of you've heard my my King James only presentation that I do in PowerPoint I'm gonna have to completely redo the thing now that I have keynote but It's man.

I look at I look at some of the stuff. I created back then as you go. Oh wow I wasn't doing a real good job of stuff back then, but if you've listened to my presentations

I almost quote exactly what this man is saying he is not differentiating between the inerrancy of the original text and an

English trans and a Translation in a language that did not exist at the time of the inspiration of the scriptures

Obviously if we're talking about inerrancy, we can't be talking about something in English. Can we if Inerrancy speaks of the very inspiration of the scripture now that guy that I saw on YouTube He seems to think that inspirations an ongoing thing that He misunderstands.

It's I didn't listen to much of what he had to say, but I listened to enough of it while I was Looking at his home page that he takes the it is written and He takes the present tense there and says see it is continually being inspired

And he doesn't realize it's gag rep tie Which is the perfect tense which is a completed action in the past with abiding results the present

But it's the completed action the past part that he seems to be missing somehow But anyway, that's a rather rather odd thing but here

You know, I had a conversation with my daughter about this She was looking up stuff on online about the upcoming debate and So we had a great conversation.

He were driving home from church I recall and I went through the whole issue a whole discussion of the difference between the categories of inerrancy and the copying of the text of scripture over time and how the two are related and how they are not related and Many individuals like this individual are confused

Thinking that you have to have an inerrant English translation or you do not have an inerrant

Bible and This is mainly and this is you know, he'd probably consider this ad hominem

It's not ad hominem in any way shape or form In fact, none of the things he identified as ad hominem later on actually qualify as ad hominem

He's not I don't get the feeling he really understands what that word that phrase means as a as a logical or illogical argument goes but a

Lot of this type of argumentation exists only amongst people who only speak one language people who are multilingual don't tend to fall for this kind of thinking because they have to do translation all the time and they have to recognize that there's more than one accurate way to render something in another language and So they don't really seem to have as much problem of this as a lot of the

King James only folks and I'm just making an observation But the vast majority of King James only folks have encountered are monolingual.

They don't know other languages They don't speak in the languages. They don't translate in languages I'm not saying that every one of them is that way there are

Obviously King James only advocates who can read Greek and Hebrew and so on and so forth there is a wide range, but those who especially push it with the

Vim and vigor of a lot of the King James only advocates today, especially on YouTube Generally do not have that that background.

We always be reduced to picking up a book and saying well It could have been better here and it could have been better there and I like this

Translation here and I like that translation there. Is there not something we can pick up and say this is the words of God Duff see here's the wishful thinking

King James only argument Wouldn't it just be wonderful if we had a perfect translation In English we need to have a perfect translation in English Well, I guess you need to have a perfect translation in Russian and you need to have a perfect translation in Spanish You need to have a perfect translation in French, and I guess

God just needs to be inspiring all these perfect translations, right? is There the whole

I the idea that they're missing here. Is that inspiration took place in one context and we have

Tremendous excellent wonderful English translations, but every single one of the

King James translators these Great men of erudition that these men are dependent upon would have looked at them and gone

My friend you don't understand the process of translation. Do you? They would have been embarrassed at this kind of utilization of their information.

They never intended To fulfill the wishful thinking idea They want to produce the best translation they could but they recognized that it would not be perfect and that with the discovery of more manuscripts and an advance and understanding of the language and Excuse me, but shouldn't we want the translations to improve?

Shouldn't we want to incorporate new discoveries? We found for example Modern Old Testament texts are

Significantly more accurate in rendering words concerning flora and fauna than they were only 150 years ago why because we have had a an explosion in discovery of cognate languages that have helped us to Understand better what the original

Hebrew was referring to in regards to flora and fauna and wildlife and all that kind of stuff There are still things we're not certain about and if we find information tomorrow that will clarify a

Certain rock or mineral in the Old Testament shouldn't we include that this kind of thinking says no

We should not we should stick with the level of knowledge. We had over 400 years ago Mmm.

I Again, don't think that's a really good argument. Sayeth the Lord we have with the word what

God has spoken right here and there is no mistakes in it because Bart Ehrman is right by George if There are mistakes in the

Bible to hear that there. There you go. I told you he was gonna say that Bart Ehrman is right

No, Bart Ehrman is wrong. And isn't it odd I Stand against Bart Ehrman and I have to stand against the

King James only folks Now we'd we'd probably get more invitations and more support if I didn't do this, but how can

I do other? There are a lot of folks who go. Well, you know, I just be more comfortable if you didn't talk about you know

Problems in the King James and and stuff like that, you know, I have to I have to be consistent

If you're gonna defend the truthfulness the text of New Testament, then you have to do so consistently I can't use one argument in one arena and a different argue another arena that Again inconsistency the sign of a failed argument and I just don't believe that we should do that kind of a thing so we got 18 minutes and 45 seconds in and That's where we'll pick up.

Maybe next week or I don't know next week is gonna be the the week We like just a couple days for Christmas, isn't it?

So maybe we'll do something different next week and Even though that's what they're supposed to be talking about on their program is continuing to talk about me

Maybe I should call in. I sure would like to be invited to call in. I was gentlemen I would be happy to be your guest

Next Tuesday evening. If you'd like to have me on drop me a line. I'll be on I'll even send you an email I'll offer my services

It'd be great to do it. Thanks for listening to the buying line. We'll see you next week. God bless We The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks