More on the King James Issue

Introduction to the King James Only Controversy and Listener Support

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 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 I ever some 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 gonna be putting up it. I can't put this on Amazon wish list. I did put a couple drives on on the Amazon wish list 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 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 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've ever done and That was the debate that took place at sea only debate I've ever done at sea come to think of it and It was myself and dr. Jim Renahan from the Institute reform Baptist Studies at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido Versus John Dominic Crossan 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 lot faster.

So mp4 isn't things like that or 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.

The King James Bible, Historical Usage, and the Limits of “God Has Used It”

As we listen to this program that aired a week ago Tuesday night on the subject of King James only ism. So we're gonna go back to that and listen to the criticisms and provide responses.

Well, we on 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 with the new guy on the block. The pilgrims didn't like the King James version they viewed 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 so 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 Version of the 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 argument.

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 a 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 intercept. It's 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 a statement, and I'm going to 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 and 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 Texas 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 need to 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.

Bart Ehrman, Textual Preservation, and the Argument from Inspiration

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 text of 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 we'll 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? 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 or 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 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.

Where 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 in it. 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.

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 and 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.

Ministry Updates, Bookstore Promotions, and the Call-In Segment on the King James Bible

Pilgrims progress is not an easy way. It's a journey.

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 Admit 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 recommended. You can order the Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at a omen org.

Alpha and Omega 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 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 Get some Tim Janice bumper music set up here for you soon, 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 your doctor doing good? Okay? I have a 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.

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.

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 a 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 the Yogi's Theatres us 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 the OS Without the article before the copulative verb is saying that the log oz 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 120 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 really what's that Romans. Romans 120. Yeah Romans 120 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 120 and Yeah, yeah, that's it. Thyatis is the term that is used there. And that's different than they are TATAS 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 there. 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. 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 calcium boy on your. 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 then?

Everyone would have exactly, you know, that would that yeah that that would answer their question. But yeah, whenever everybody says that I'm reaching over here and pulling off of my little in-studio shelf.

What's called the Texas Septus? It's a little blue case bound one hey kind idea fake 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.