Bible Translations

There we go, welcome to the laborers podcast. We are thankful that you are watching with us and Tonight we're gonna be talking about Bible translations and I'm excited to have these gentlemen with me

Stay tuned and we will try to figure out which ones are good Which ones are bad and what the

Lord would have for us Welcome to the laborers podcast, which is a part of the truth in love

Network Join us as together we strive to grow up together in all things into Christ subscribe and follow the truth and love network on Facebook YouTube rumble

Spotify and iTunes now, let's join our laborers for tonight's broadcast

Back, I want to let you know that the comment line is open. We would love to hear from you I think if you're watching on rumble, we cannot see the comments, but we'll check them later

Otherwise, I think YouTube Facebook we we can possibly see the comments We hope because we'd love to hear from you have your critique questions, and we'll try to do our best to answer them

I want to give a shout out to my brother some so that I'm so thankful for We'll stop start at the top brother called

Ramsey the here. I stand theology podcast. He has said that he has got some Some good guests lined up for the here

I stand theology podcast and we are looking forward to listening and sharing those podcasts

Big John real talk with big John check him out. His podcast is real talk with big

John and brother I Don't know if you I did not ask your permission to share it

So I'm excited for some news that you may have coming up and I'll let you share it later if you want to Tony the standard

Beard care products go check brother Tony out and and his products for men and it's not just for beard care

You have some other products as well, right? Nice and you have a new podcast as well, correct?

Yes, sir. So we're on the standard studio that you can check out our Weekly just kind of 10 minutes

When they mash up that we call it and then every Thursday and Friday audio or video

Covenant leadership and we've got to have something Nice covenant leadership and last but certainly not least

Our brother Tyler Noe and he is with bread of the word podcast. He is

Going through the book of Job. Yes How's that going, brother? Yeah It's been great on Job is hard, but it's it's a good hard It's been very challenging for me.

Very very edifying for me. I don't think I've done an episode yet where I haven't cried

So it's been good Starting chapter 6 this coming Sunday as we get to Job's initial response to some of his friends trying to Solve his problems.

That's it's gonna be an interesting conversation, but I'm excited to be working through Job And I will be monitoring the comments on rumble if anyone wants to leave a question there

I'll be watching that as closely as I can Fantastic. That sounds great.

Let's jump into Bible translation And we've had We've skimmed by this conversation as we've talked about other things

Because there's there's stereotypes with different denominations and their attitudes towards certain

Translations certain Bible versions, but we want to talk about that tonight What our attitude should be

I know we can we could probably walk into some pretty deep waters in this conversation but And some of you probably can't

I don't think that I have the ability to walk too deep into those waters but I know definitely we want to wade in the waters of Pastoral counseling to where if somebody is asking a question, which

Bible translation do I read which one's good which one's bad? We want to take that path so Here's the first question.

If anybody is ready for this one a little brief history of Bible Translation, where did where did we get the

Bible order to come from? I will defer to brother

Tyler. I figured he was gonna be a walking encyclopedia. You're talking about If I'm gonna assume we're taking broad strokes

Sure. Yeah. All right, Holy Spirit breathed on men and The inspired

Word of God was pinned down some of these some of the earlier books of the

Bible would have been Orally translated Probably for many years before they were physically written down and I believe that they were written down during the

Babylonian exile somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but in that were the with the original five books of Moses and the

Chronicles and the Kings was first published in the Hebrew tradition Brother Tyler, am

I correct in that? I'm sorry. I'm checking a technical issue on I'm not trying to ignore you.

You're good. You're good Understanding is that's where those were first pinned in the in the

Jewish tradition But they were they were spoken and quoted orally

So the Bible was is given to us by way of the Holy Spirit Where it was

Oh gosh inspiring inspiring men to take down his

Holy Word Is that yes direction you wanted me to come from? Oh, yeah

I mean, that's that's absolutely our beginning and I know I said we didn't want to go into the deep waters

So here I am gonna say I listen to James White on the subject He's gonna take you in the deep waters, but but he mentioned something that I wasn't as familiar with Since you brought up the the

Old Testament He was even talking because he talks a lot about textual variance

Differences in the the manuscripts. Yeah, and how we come to to figure out which one's the correct

Copy or which one we should go with looking at the different variants and he was talking about how they were there were variants even in the

The Old Testament the copies of the Old Testament or the copies from the Old Testament to the

Septuagint the Greek translation Of the Old Testament. I found that fascinating that even in Jesus time that they faced those issues that we face

Well, what why do you suppose that might be what it was his answer for that? He didn't really give an answer for that but um,

I would say that even as you were talking about it I was thinking about There's really only one answer we we know it's it's not

God so it's gonna be man Either in the oral tradition

Passing it down from one person to another or copy copy copy copy. You're gonna make mistakes. Yeah, so Does that mean that the the

Bible's Error then or fallible. So let's go back.

We could go back to the kind of to the quick to the original question question of translation and and is the

Bible in Aaron and infallible and so we have to consider and think about Two things two words when we talk about Bible translations and Inerrancy that we we have to talk about autographs and manuscripts so autographs are

When when the term autographs is used it's referring to the to the actual written words, right

And the reality is that there are zero original autographs

What we have is manuscript Traditions, which are like you said

John copies or and you know copies of copies of copies But there were stringent stringent strong strict

Rules for copying the scripture as far as that goes We're both both with the with the old and the

New Testament, right? So we have that so when we go we see autographs

There are no original autographs. What we have are manuscripts and that's referred to as manuscript tradition

And so that's why it's so important as we live in the here and the now

Why it's so good for us that there have been so many more manuscripts discovered that prove the continuity and the veracity of the text even more and And we're able to weed out what should and shouldn't be there so what you're saying is

And obviously I'm being tongue -in -cheek when I say so you're saying it's it's infallible, right? That's for the listener at home that I believe the

Bible is a hundred percent without error If we were to take and Have a hundred men sit down and transcribe the

Bible every day For a year. There's a chance Somebody's gonna misspell the word.

Correct, right? There's a chance that a man's gonna make a mistake So whenever you look at the bulk of those those writings the

I'm gonna call them imperfections in the in the transcription transmission transmission, whatever.

Yeah use the word transmissions in truck and the the It gives you a

Little bit of credibility when you look at the whole of them that you can actually find where the error is that one man made because you can use another person's and compare the two and in and in the comparing of the two

You can actually prove that they were their intentions were to transcript or to transmit one copy into more than one copy and It's kind of like I don't know

Try to think of a modern -day example of that But I really can't think of a modern -day

Example of someone actually caring enough to transcribe a book multiple different times not with copy and paste out there and In the interwebs, so we don't really have an example of something in a modern day that we can directly compare apples to apples, too but suffice it to say that if If you're thinking in terms of accuracy, which

I may have misunderstood the question and if I did I apologize, you know brief history of the

Bible translation Okay, I did misunderstand the question brother Rob, I'm sorry, it's okay the the multiple translations and the multiple transmissions

Would would serve to further cement the validity of the one that they were copying from because you would have

So many different copies in so many different places the fact that they would be 99 .9

% similar wouldn't would mean that there was authenticity to it to begin with Correct.

Yep. That's what I was stating earlier. So and when we think about the hiss again history of Translation China translations from one language to another but transmission has to be we have to look at transmission as well

So for example Just just some numbers. These are actual numbers, right?

So within when we talk about Manuscript evidence and things of that nature.

We we think about variance You've heard the term variance used right differences in the text and that happens

Because like what you said because of because of human error Human error is a reality in the transmission and translation of the text however

That's the difference between Oh gosh, I Mean, let me let me back up here

So a variant is any place where there's a difference right any place where there's a difference between the handwritten manuscripts from one manuscript to the other

Right now as we have it because we have such There's such technological advance we know that there are just in the

New Testament manuscripts alone 400 ,000 variants in those manuscripts 400 ,000 but you want to know what percentage of those variants affect the meaning of the text

Big John you said it a minute ago 99 % 400 ,000 variants in 99 % of those don't change anything

They don't change doctrine. They don't change the truth. They don't like spelling value.

Yeah Yeah, yeah, which is awesome It speaks to the brilliance of God exactly, right if he's gonna be working with follow a man like us then it

It will put a halt the intentional error Intentional intentionally trying to lead people astray because you know, if you've got all these other people making copies and mine doesn't match

Well, they're there. No, they will know that mine's a fraud. Sure. Yep. Yeah So I think we actually answered two questions a little bit.

We answered a brief history of Bible translation The Bible was originally written

Originally Aramaic Hebrew and Greek would have been your Three three

English or three three languages that the Bible would have been written in and there's a septuagint Somebody said it a while ago, such as a

Greek translation of the Old Testament but the the bulk of the New Testament as far as I know are in Greek aren't they is there a

Hebrew version of the New Testament that I'm unaware of not confirmed

I think James White will tell you that the book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew and that would make sense

But that's all I've heard about the New Testament having a Hebrew got you counterpart So the three the three original languages would have been

Hebrew Aramaic and Greek. Yes Go ahead Tony and if I can add one thing to that clock,

I'm gonna ask you that just going on here You're talking about manuscripts. Do you see a blessing and I'm gonna go back to the original theme of the

Old Testament You see a blessing in there that we have things like Meseratic text and two different Septuagint traditions

Palestinian in Alexandria because then once you get over into the New Testament does that help verify

Who wrote things what time they would have written them because of how we see them using the Old Testament tradition, so You see a blessing in that does that help us with Absolutely Absolutely, I mean

I would I would say it has about has to because There's the continuity that we see that runs throughout

Which I think that's an important point. I think the majority of textual

Experts out there would would tell everybody to to take comfort in that. Yeah Not to worry about that there's different traditions that might use different words and slight nuances

That's right that actually helps us once we get into the New Testament because if you're wondering if Paul actually wrote this and you see what he's

Quoting from it from a certain Septuagint and you're like, yes Paul is consistently doing that whereas maybe

Peter or another writer would consistently Exactly And here's gonna be one of the arguments and I want to go back to the original question but here's little arguments that they were gonna get from this is that well what

God says in his words that he will he will preserve his word, so So do you see this as?

God preserving his word because the people who ask that question do not They say that there's a line a straighter line than what we're drawing from from us to the

KJV and and then to us They don't they don't see it the way we do but do you guys see that what we're talking about the the multiple manuscripts that We have do you see that as legitimate?

Legitimately God preserving his word Well, if you read the preface to the

King James Version That was written by the translators They gave credence to the

Greek Bible the Latin Bible the Aramaic the Syriac and a couple others They did not see an issue with drawing from these different wells of all the resources that by God's providence they had access to And so they

I think they would have drawn a similar line to what we are that they were grappling with all these different traditions and transmissions

So they use the Septuagint they use the Masoretic text they used everything that had they could get their hands on to try and come to a consensus of what the original said and It's honestly

I think it's part of the the wrestling that Makes the versions we have today as reliable as they are is it's not easy

Translating Greek and English. It's not easy to do this. It is work. Mm -hmm

It is a labor to grapple with these dead languages And I think that adds the level of authenticity to the

English translations. We have is the fact that it's hard So let's let's steer back to the original question just to give

Those who may be interested an idea and and let's trace a little bit of line that if we can

So would you guys say that so we talked about the the Hebrew Aramaic and Greek? Would you say that the next?

Language where a translation would would need to take place would be Latin. Is that where we would go next?

Well first you would have the translation of the Septuagint of the Old Testament into Greek right and straight from there into the

Latin Vulgate about 500 or so okay, and Explain that who authorized that.

I know of the Vulgate. Mm -hmm That was spearheaded by a gentleman by the name of Jerome.

I Believe And then This will be part of the

Catholic Church tradition or see before the Catholic Church Depends on what you mean by Catholic Catholic and the

Pope and some of this right that hasn't quite emerged as we would understand it today

Correct, but the term Catholic you had people using that like the first century just in reference to Universal Church one church.

So Jerome Well, he's definitely a part of the

Roman Catholic tradition I wouldn't put him in the category necessarily of saying he was a papist or anything

But generally the Latin Vulgate is more familiar with Roman Catholic tradition than say

Protestant tradition So here's a question and you may not

May you guys may not have looked into this or know the answer to but I know throughout that dark period where it was

The Catholic Church Transition to the Roman Catholic Church and then you had the papal idea and then you have the two different popes battling out you know, you had this long

Catholic tradition and Only the the church knew

Latins the the average person did not know Latin They had to hear it in Latin didn't know

Latin just Had to go on what the priest was telling him but I know that there were

They wouldn't call themselves Protestants, I don't know if we would call them Protestants, but there were churches that were non -catholic

Like you had the wall you had the Waldensians and and other What would it be

Huguenots? I mean you have different different branches. Yeah. Yeah did they

Have a translation. Did they have a Bible that they could read or what was available to them? Does anybody know that question?

I Had like the the Greek Orthodox churches in the east and say 1045 They tended to lean more towards going back to the

Septuagint It's in this day actually a lot of the Greek Orthodox churches read the

Septuagint in English There's interesting enough there's actually a and what they call it an

Orthodox Study Bible that goes along with that Septuagint text, but then the

New Testament is the New King James Hmm which is interesting I've got a handful of followers on Twitter that are

Eastern Orthodox. So I get some of this mingled in here But you did have some of the

Septuagint kind of persist with some of those different factions. I can't speak to all of them

When was the Ethiopian Bible written? I know it was prior to the King James That's probably when

Solomon's son Brought the Ark of the Covenant Is that right? I think

I was watching this. I don't know. I Was just I was going with it. It's okay the

I was watching this guy debate on the college campus and there was a lady who's who made a statement to to the preacher that it was

Christian nationalists that brought They brought the gospel to Africa where this young man had first heard to the

Bible and he stopped her mid -sentence and said The Christians were in Africa before they were in Europe.

I've seen that video I know exactly what you're talking about. He said the Ethiopian Bible is older than the King James Bible and she was like Smiling because she didn't want to seem like she was being a bigot because she just called everybody else racist in the whole crowd

You know, then she just disappeared in between cuts. It was like she just evaporated Yeah, he schooled

What one of the colleges I was at a couple years ago actually had an

Ethiopian Bible on campus Did you look at the copyright date? I?

was not able to because I was stopped by the glass and the librarian, but Ethiopian Bible had the the satchel and everything with it still intact.

It was like 1300 years old. Does it start in Isaiah? If you know, you know, if you know, you know, you know, does anybody get it

Nobody gets it Clever clever church of God boy got him

I was just I was just gonna ask what come after the Latin I know we I guess we want to steer towards what we're familiar with and Was it

Tindale? I was gonna jump into it. Yeah, that's exactly what

I was gonna talk about. So reckless around 1300 something like that. Well, maybe late 1374 1374 there we go.

Tyler's got it. So 1374 Wycliffe translated Directly from the

Vulgate the Latin Vulgate to English now About a hundred years later

Tindale Translated But he translated into the

English From the Greek and the Hebrew So that's an important distinction right, so Wycliffe translated

Latin to English Tindale translated to English from the

Greek in the Hebrew Which give it a fuller which gave the fuller a fuller sense of the word

Correct me on that. I may been wrong John But he didn't translate the Bible. I was just I was pretty sure he did but he was just a reformer before reformers were cool

But this was prior to the Texas receptus wasn't it As Erasmus, yeah, so yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead Tony Well Erasmus put out his

Texas receptus two years before Luther nailed his theses to the church door. So it was about 1515,

I think So somebody's to tell them those that don't know they're listening after all these podcasts are designed for people

Who may not be familiar with the Texas receptus and where it come from That's right.

Somebody somebody's gonna throw the gauntlet now. I'm gonna start meeting moderating So Erasmus was a theologian around the 1500s who he took the

Latin Vulgate That Latin Bible that had been in play for about 1 ,400 years

Give or take and he translated it into Greek To in an endeavor to go as he said ad fontes to the fountain which is part of the motto of bread of the word to the fountain to the

Word of God to be nourished and sustained by Allah God is as he's revealed himself to us And so that what we call that the

Texas receptus was a translation of that Latin into Greek So that people could study the

New Testament in the original language. It was written That is actually one of the things that started this thing

We call the Reformation when people could read the New Testament in Greek and found there's nothing in here about a

Pope what? Reparations don't exist So The Texas receptus is a kind of a fancy term for that first Greek New Testament that the people could study at that time

There were others before them, but this was much more accessible What was done with it?

after that so the Texas receptus then came became the Baseline for producing the

New Testament portion of the King James Bible. There you go. That's what I was fishing 1611 So is the is the 1611 authorized

Bible the King James Bible is known today No, I would say there was a major revision of the

King James Bible in 1769 so you're telling When they did the 1611

The English language was still very much emerging that they were still transitioning from the old anglo -saxon to English and so they didn't have 26 letters and Spelling and grammar weren't weren't really standardized yet.

You kind of guessed and so when if you read like the the 1611 King James Bible, you'll know because there's a lot of Words in there that aren't spelled like we would today

You know, they spell Jesus with an eye Yeah, Genesis is spelled with an

F to read it phonetically would be Genefis And so the sick the 1611 was went over a massive revision in 1769 to clean it up because now we had

No, Webster now. We have Webster's Dictionary. We had some of these ideas we had a more

Standard approach to the English language. And so they took the King James and made it more applicable to more modern

English Well, even the text is receptus itself it had like what five revisions five or six, yeah

You'll have to repeat that question Tony, I'm sorry I was gonna say where where did uh, where did basis

Texas were set this fit in there? Well, to be honest I was not aware base

I did it Greek New Testament Yeah, I wasn't till maybe five six months ago

Somebody say that so I didn't I wasn't sure where his fit in and what future I guess we'll all have to look better.

Yeah, cuz make a note of that. Yeah So they were there were seven major translations though To the

English Bible, right? So to trace the timeline Coverdale. What is it?

Oh the Matthew Bible the Tavner the Geneva Tavner Then there was the

Great Bible then the Geneva Bible gotcha The bishops Bible and I can't never say this y 'all you need to help me on this

Reims is it right? Is it pronounced? I'm it sounds country when I say it the

Reims do way I'm honestly not sure.

I've never heard anyone actually know that one I'm with you fellers

The reason I push for that The reason

I push on that is because everybody Everybody knows a guy or more than one guy who is

Is living and dying that the King James Bible is the only Bible that is worth worth its salt and one of the questions we're getting to So I think we might as well start on if you're okay with it brother

Robert. Absolutely is Why should we not be King James only and I'd like to preface that was saying that I don't think there's a thing wrong with the

King James Version myself I've got so I would agree with you. I love the King James Bible I love several different translations of the

Bible and I don't really hold one in any higher esteem than I hold another with the exception that I'm I'm country's cornbread wedding cake and I don't know

How to pronounce some of the words that come out of the King James Bible and I want to put on a preface something

Hang on a second. I only had a King James Bible when I got saved

I didn't know there's any other translations because I never really read the Bible I was told to stay away from things like the

NIV and I had to buy one of these And the first time

I read the first time I read the Bible through Took me years just I Didn't know what half the words meant and I had to look every one of them up that I got to that I didn't know because whenever the

Bible said That they would not once Moses had came or gone and when he was coming back, you know what

Whitman? So I had to look it up. I didn't know it meant no and then I thought

Why didn't they just say I don't know where he went Then I found a translation that said

They didn't know where he went. I said man, you really saved me a lot of looking up since I mean I can read this a lot faster now that it's just in one book

I don't have to consult the dictionary to understand what I'm reading. I say it that way because I Think that we need to be humble enough to admit and be honest enough to admit

If something's outside of your reading level Read what you can read? Right.

Yeah, and I it was outside of my reading level. I had to really up my game to read the King James Bible Well, you just talked about one of the reasons for Giving us

New versions new new translations. It's because our even our English language changes and you have to You have to update and form to the new words the new meanings

I mean, there's there's English words today that that mean totally different things over in England. Yeah and and so and I understand the argument to that Of you should you should be willing to study the the

King James because they're there's good There's words that they use that help explain the the

Greek better than any modern English words that we have so it's good to take the time to study, but there's also yeah

I mean you explain it exactly right. There's reasons to update so we can understand what's going on Honestly, why you can't read both, right?

Here's a word there there's some Theologians that some of us have a lot of respect for like Charles Spurgeon Martin Lloyd -Jones

Felt very strongly. You could not improve upon the King James that actually might be counterintuitive to do so To make the

Bible more accessible Quote unquote with the changes in language and stuff

Martin Lloyd -Jones Pretty much Stated in one of his sermons on Romans that the reason people can't understand the

Bible has more to do with them being spiritually dead then they're reading comprehension and so he saw a potential caveat to Translation upon translation upon translation that it would actually be almost a hurt to get so far out there

Then maybe we just come back to the idea of being taught by God what the scriptures mean

But I'm also coming from a different culture I'm not up in the mountains, but I grew up in public school where we couldn't read

Shakespeare Where they had to dumb down Shakespeare because we don't know how to read well, and so I think you've got to weigh both of those side -by -side that We didn't know we didn't have a strong Concordance in my public high school

But we had we had a cliff notes we had no fear Shakespeare and that's what a lot of us were acquainted to When it got to reading hard books that we just didn't we found we found that the kids

Shakespeare and so there's I think I Think you can make a case either way

But that's that's all I'm saying is I don't think you can make like a hard stance either for or against it like a lot of people have attempted to do that either you're sinning by not reading the

King James or vice versa Take it away.

Well, yeah, I was just gonna interject another word for John Be some yeah.

Yes. That's that's whenever you got to be some Kick out of the raising of Lazarus when they tell

Jesus lo he stinketh Yes, surely Surely he stinketh.

Yes So, but John a be some be some is a broom. Ah so in Isaiah 14 23

The scripture says the Lord said I'm and I will sweep I will sweep it with the be some of Destruction sayeth the

Lord of hosts in the King James So, yeah You you really have to focus on context clues in the

King James and that's not to say that that's a bad thing But it's been official yeah,

I think it's slow down sometimes yeah, you know, that's there's nothing wrong

There's nothing wrong with saying well I read the Bible once or twice or three times every year from cover to cover and on with that But if you're reading just to cover ground, right, you know

What's your what's your objective? So when I read the King James Version, I will say when

I read through it, it's slow Yep, because I I just can't help it.

I just ain't got the I Can't got it to do, you know, you can't do what you got. Yes Going off what you were saying

Tyler about you were talking about some of our the theologians that we look up to passion we look up to and their view that There potentially could be some problems with multiple versions and translations,

I don't know if this particular one is causes a problem or makes it a problem for multiple translations, but it's something that we should be wary of and that it could be a pitfall for the person or or us as people and it's the fact that there another reason why there's multiple versions today is because of the copyrights and and Money Not wanting to pay somebody else royalty to use their version in your study

Bible or your products your devotions Whatever you're making and that's

That doesn't mean it's a bad that doesn't make it a bad thing to have multiple versions It just means it's a pitfall for fallen man that we make it about money

And that's that's true, too There's a lot of while we're on the subject of different translations that if I could make a shameless plug

I actually did a video a couple months ago on the bread of the word podcast called

What's in a translation and I walked through section by section a study?

That a doctor dr. Andy Wu from the global Bible initiative found a way to measure

Different translations found a way to take what was good about each of them and Communicated in numbers.

Is there a way we could measure translations because they all say they're the best and so I Just want to put that out there that that is a resource we have available if anyone wants to take a look at that Absolutely.

Oh Yeah, and if you guys don't mind I'll take a quick break here and say that You guys were talking about being country and Going to the fount and eating cornbread wedding cake big

John At your wedding at your wedding with that cornbread wedding cake One of our brothers shared this earlier.

Would you have this? You know, it's funny I'm gonna tell my daughter so not only

Not only as I'm a country's defense post But I've raised daughters and some of them have not fallen too far from the proverbial tree

My youngest one You daughters are planning their weddings at like 10. You may have got girls

So I don't know if you know that fellas you just need to understand. This is the thing. I've heard it I've been in the room and they talk about it.

So she doesn't know when she's getting married who she's marrying where they're getting married But she's having a gravy fountain is what she says

And I'm not gonna lie. I cried a little bit. I mean I get to thank you That's that's kind of beautiful.

You know, she says she's Could you dip a nacho in Gravy I mean,

I'm thinking if you were to take liver mush nachos and dip them in gravy

You might start a revolution in Cleveland All right back on Why'd you

We talked about all the different Roads and side roads that the scriptures taken

To get us to where we are today and that kind of leads us to our second question Can we still can we still trust the

Bible that we have today After all these side roads and main roads and curvy roads that it's taken.

Can we still trust it and and why? It was quote buddy.

Balcom. Why trust? Why do you trust scripture? I'll mess it up.

I was listening to him talked Brin Shapiro today and he quoted something from one of his sermons.

I thought was great I trust the Bible because it's a collection of books written over a period of 1500 years by some 40 different authors translated by Gosh I can't remember now how many people who were living within the lifespan of other people who translated the

Bible none of which contradicted one another and All of which were willing to die and some did die for their own for their own testimony about The things in which they wrote about it's a reliable document

And we can prove it to be reliable because of those reasons Somebody look at buddy Balcom on the interwebs and you'll see what

I'm talking about. It's fantastic Anybody else on the trustworthiness of Scripture?

I Think Tony it kind of touched on that earlier on to you know, just the fact of how the word has been transmitted throughout history and proven itself through the many manuscripts in the in the ever -evolving discovery of new manuscripts

Right, I think a lot of the disagreement Sometimes it's presuppositional as well We'll stick with a tradition of a certain translation or transmission and Then all of a sudden you you're gonna also have to deal with those people who

Want to be antagonistic to the Bible anyway, so they're going to find a reason not to trust himself

Presupposition also is And that's honestly something that you can follow through church history, too

I mean when Jerome first put out that Latin Bible people flipped out because they were so used to the

Greek Septuagint and It's it. There's there's nothing new under the sun.

We still have that same Nudge towards tradition, don't we? So let's let's touch on Some of those objections or some of the questions that we get what about what about those verses that are absent in the modern text

I Get that question so many times Actually have the the

King James only ism discussion a good bit with people I work at a bookstore in in a more rural part of my area

So there's a lot of King James only people in the that I get to interact with That's a question.

I get a lot Simply put there are verses that are absent in the modern versions because they've been moved to the footnotes

Why they haven't they haven't just flat -out taken them out of the Bible that I just want to start there because a lot of people kind of Misunderstand that that the the

NIV is taking things out or this person is doing that Really? They've just moved it to a footnote that says the older manuscripts omits this verse and then they give you the text of the verse so what they're saying is is that the

King James version is translated from a later

Manuscript and the newer versions of the Bible are actually harking back to an older An older manuscript than a text shifted.

So if we were going by simple age What you're telling me is that the older document the older documents are reflected more accurately in the newer translations and not the

King James version correct, I Always like to flip the script on it So when they say when when they say so the newer the newer version newer translations they take out

Verses from the Bible. I was like no, I think it was the King James that added to Because you know that verse that says don't add to or take away, you know, they say well it took away

I was like no the King James added to Just as a possibility so When we say that we still want to make sure now while ago

We just said the King James version was still a good translation About eight verses in the

New Testament like in more that 16 like in Mark 16 I think it comes out to exactly eight verses and then there are a couple a dozen verses that they've like you have

Jesus Christ instead of just Christ or something like that. But as far as entire verses that are absent we have eight and None of them are really things that are err on the side of heresy or anything blasphemous like that You have a mark 16

Go ahead pull up pull up mark 16 in the King James version I'll pull it up and what I've been reading lately, which is still the

I'm still stuck on in 1995 on NASB All right, mark 16

Well, this goes back to our not not to bring up Sore subjects, but this goes back to our cessationist and continuationist argument the continuationist want to use this particular passage

Okay I Don't know how that mark 16 verse 17 says in these signs will accompany those who believe in my name

They will drive out demons. They will speak in new tongues. They will pick up snakes. That's out of the CSV. Mm -hmm

But it's also got a footnote that that's not included in the earliest manuscript So that's part of the longer ending of mark, which

I think is what you're getting at, right? Sure. Sure Which is the eight verses you were talking about? Yes, so I say eight verses but There's eight verses in this particular there's eight verses eight verses in that particular spot and then there's a

Handful of verses outside of this as well. So context clues right one thing that I Would hope that we would agree on is that we want to do two things.

We want to remain consistent We want our Bible to interpret the Bible We want our translation or our interpretation of Scripture and everything about Scripture to be

God edifying lit of the Holy Spirit and and Seeking to save that which is lost, right?

Absolutely So when I read these eight verses if we were to stop in verse eight the last verse of Mark would read like this and they went out and fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had gripped him and They said nothing to anyone if they were faith kind of a very bleak ending to Mark, right?

Yes, remembering that Mark being the first Or what a credit is to being the first gospel translation by most scholars

At least most scholars in my circle say that Mark was probably the first of the Gospels to be written

Everybody everybody okay with that statement. I think we're all on board there. Okay Then it says in nine

After now after this now now that even sounds like a PS right

Yeah after this. Yeah after that After he had risen Resistance with the language of Mark throughout the book of Mark, right?

Sure. Sure All right He appeared to Mary Magdalene to me cast out seven demons and she went reported to those who'd been with him while they were mourning

And weeping and when they heard that he was alive and he had been seen by her They refused to believe it and after that he appeared a different form to them while they were walking along the way to the country

And they went and reported it to the others and they did not believe him either and afterward he appeared to eleven disciple or he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table and approached him for their

Unbelief and heart of heart because they not believed him who had seen him after he had risen He said to them go into all the world and preach the gospel

He would believe to been baptized shall be saved but he who could disbelieve shall be condemned Condemned these signs will accompany those who believe in my name.

They'll cast out demons speaking new tones. They'll pick up serpents No drink any deadly poison that will not hurt them and they will lay hands on the sea.

They'll recover. So then the Lord Jesus Had spoken to them he received up into heaven and sat down to right hand

God And when I preached everywhere while the Lord worked with him and confirmed word and signed it follows

And promptly they reported these things to Peter his companions and after that Jesus himself sent out Sent out through the east and west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

So When you read that where is there those eight verses contradict any other portion of Scripture to start there

Nowhere What do you see? Do you see anything that would contradict any of the other gospel accounts out of those eight verses?

I Don't know what that is.

That's like an echo Anyway like an echo from the beginning The one part that I could think of is

I mean I don't know where anywhere else in Scripture that says They will pick up serpents and if they drink deadly poison that will not hurt them

I'm not familiar with that anywhere Well in terms of that being words that Jesus said I don't remember reading that anywhere in text

I can point to a place where we see Well, we see that Paul's bitten by serpents when he tries to stoke the fire when the barbarians pull him from the from the sea whenever he's been out

There for causal you're awkward on right they pull him up to the to the beach

He tries to start the fire and what what lurches out of the sticks and bites him. He shakes off in the fire All right

Viper bites or shakes him off in the fire Then they say this man must have done something terrible Because he got bit by a snake after he almost drowned then he didn't die didn't get sick or nothing

Then they want to worship him, right? So to some degree Even though we don't see another kind of Jesus saying that we see that happening to one of Jesus's disciples one of Jesus's Apostles Right, so it's very least

And also ask this not to be Unnecessarily contrary, but just generally asking

Is there anywhere else in Scripture that? States verse 7 like verse 17 says these signs will accompany those who believe that is there anywhere else that?

Says that or suggests that These signs will accompany those that believe

I want to say from memory I can't think of any

Surely somebody in the comment section who's had more time tomorrow will have found it by now or I hear clicking

Somebody's clicking in my ear So I can't think of I can't think of anything unless you want to go back to Mark 6 7 & 8

I think Mark 6 Chapter 6 verse 7 and I sent him out two by two. Now. This would be prior to obviously prior to his

Crucifixion and Ascension. So this is prior to and doom it with power in Acts chapter 2 However, he says that he sent him up two by two and he give them power to cast out demons

I don't recall anything about drinking any deadly thing or taking up snakes in those moments, but I do See that he give them authority in that moment.

Is that right brother? I'm mark 6 7 & 8 or my speaking that turn. Yeah, I've got it right here Okay, and that would be his disciples no, yeah, that wasn't a broad stroke

It wasn't and it wasn't all his disciples just for context sake. It was the 12, right? He called the 12 to him.

I sent them out two at a time. So Again, you know

Those what we're talking about right here is something that people with more PhDs and all of us put together

Has spent their entire careers discussing that might be true. I don't have a PhD. I've got a

BA though Claude's got one of those out in the garage. I do I Was I was thinking about get taking a picture of it and framing it and putting it right here

What's your BA look like? What's a BA born again? So I was figured out

We're talking about post hole diggers PhDs and I've also seen it piled higher and deeper.

So To the longer ending and mark, I think though all those questions are good questions however,

I think the Relevant thing is to compare it with the other synoptic accounts.

So we have we have you know, because Matthew Mark in Luke are referred to as the synoptic

Gospels. So mark You you mentioned earlier the if it if it the the ending was actually in verse 8, right?

right, it's What the idea is and saying that is well, there was no closure brought there.

However, Mark was very Succinct. He was very lit.

He was not as verbose Normally as Mark or Matthew was in Luke Matthew's gospel may have been largely taken from Mark Sure, you know come from that So we can we can see that and say those things and say well

The language itself when you like you said when you get down and you look at it the language itself

Sounds a little different Right. It literally sounds different from the other gospel accounts

So now now we're not the ones that that you know say oh, you know

I catch that but what has happened is that throughout history as manuscripts have come to view come to light

It's kind of it's recognized that Literally, it's not an assumption that literally in many of the texts that passage is not there

So that's why as far as textual Let's call it textual confidence like Mark Ward calls it

That's why we can have textual confidence in the manuscripts that even though like particularly because a lot of a lot of translations leading up You know after they are up to the

King James and the King James being Somehow set forth as the standard that they those were in those but as the newer manuscripts come to light we see that Probably that wasn't there now again, that doesn't change anything as far as the the truth of the

Doctrine of Salvation However, what that can and has done is has affected application of the

Christian life So explain explain and I don't want to get on my turn brother

Rob, but I want to play your game for a second Explain how How you can remove these eight verses and not deteriorate gospel in any capacity whatsoever and Brother Robert explain how you can apply those eight verses and Make a dangerous move out of them

In a way that almost uses eight verses and outweighs the rest of the book well

You you ask the question that my mom wants to answer and I've been waiting to answer it.

So I Really? I really appreciate that big job. So the reason why

I pushed a little bit there and using Jonathan Foster's terminology at the reason why

I pushed a little bit there and and asked the things that I asked was because I'm totally on board with what

Claude was saying that you The way things have turned out and even though we're looking at these these variants you can

Still be confident in the Word of God but what you can't do is be

Use this passage and be dogmatic So we've we've got folks that that we all know that use these verses and they're dogmatic

About they're a certain doctrine based particularly on these verses When you you can be confident in Scripture despite these variants

But you can't be dogmatic about a certain doctrine based on these passages because of the variance and I even have footnotes in my

Bible that say a few late manuscripts You're talking about the abruptness of the ending of verse 8

It says that there are few late manuscripts that have Verse 8 ending a little bit differently and and if you allow me to read it

It kind of wraps it up and it's not as abrupt so it verse 8 in these

Few older manuscripts say and they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions and after that Jesus himself

Sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation

So that's a little more wrapped up that is the last verse I read If you look that is the alternate ending.

I may not have said that That that I read right? That's a verse 8 an alternate verse 8 in in a few later manuscripts, so we can take verses 9 through 20 out and and still

As you the kind of the question that you were asking we can take that out and and still have a

Cessationist doctrine or a continuationist doctrine either one. It is not going to affect either one How yeah because this part

Well, because if you're a continuationist, you're still going to interpret 1st Corinthians 12 13 14 the same if you're a cessationist you're still going to interpret 2nd 1st

Corinthians 12 13 14 the same and And all the other proof takes that we both use when we bring come to the table

You still have all those other verses that you can use to prove cessation or prove continuation

So what you're saying is in the full context of Scripture and the full context of Scripture, correct?

It doesn't change anything Is that what you're saying? Well, we have we have an example.

Yes of Paul being bit by a viper, but you also have you also have an example of Jonah in the middle of a storm sure

And so he says well, I'm the cause of it. So let me jump all We don't you know, that's not necessarily a pattern that we follow either.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying I'm saying is those eight verses missing or added

Don't change the whole context of Scripture. They don't change the whole picture of Scripture So you take so you take them out, right?

What are you left with a Gospel that saves that's right. You're left with you're left with a gospel that is completely full

Rice you're left with all of Corinthians still this doesn't affect the book of Acts whatsoever

This doesn't affect Luke John or Matthew in any capacity. You put them back in there

Does it affect Corinthians acts Luke John or Matthew? No. Yeah, it doesn't affect them

It's it's it's not like it's an island but it's

It's a no -lose scenario Remove them. What have you lost? Nothing, but add them.

What have you gained and a whole nothing? Here's the danger. I think if you choose to create a doctrine out of eight verses of Scripture Listen to both sides of this because I know this is not a continuationist versus a cessationist this isn't a

Calvinist versus an Armenian if you'll take eight verses of Scripture and You'll harvest from eight verses of Scripture your doctrine

You'll fall flat on your face in every area of your life. Whether it's your eschatology or whether it's your gospel message

I try every area of your life because you're ignoring the bulk of Scripture You may ignore the bulk of Scripture you're doomed to fail it because you're

At best you're Isaac Eaton at worst you plum ignorant. That's right

That's that's what you just said there. That is exactly I agree 100 % and that is the analogy of Scripture and Scripture interprets

Scripture that the the clearer passages Interpret the unclear passages like that That the majority is to be taken over the minority

Yeah and you said it better than you said better than what I was trying to say when

I was talking about not being dogmatic on this particular passage to prove a certain doctrine and The reason was exactly what you said and how you explained it.

So your eschatology is different than my eschatology I know you don't pull all your eschatology out of Matthew chapter 24

You don't you can't because there's not enough in Matthew chapter 24 to devise an entire postmillennial partial preface to eschatology that eschatological view may be supported from sections of Matthew chapter 24 in comparison with a

Young version of Revelation or something like that and and various other aspects it's

Even though I disagree with you. I Think that you're at least being diligent and looking at the whole scheme of text and viewing that right

Yeah, if you come to me with Matthew 24 and said this is why Based off of the Josephus or some of some extra biblical article in conjunction with your assessment of Matthew 24

I would say that you've ignored the bulk of Scripture and You saw what you wanted to see in it

And you would have to say the same thing to me a pre -meal guy If I wasn't if I was completely ignoring a section of Scripture for Revelation 1 through 3

Praise the Lord So I mixed my lemonade in my coffee

So what I've got now is I never put sugar in my coffee But my daughter poured me some lemonade and I think it was sugar with lemon squeezed into it to melt the sugar

I Won't sleep tonight well, I I have been blessed by Everything that you guys have said you've encouraged me and taught me tonight.

I appreciate it and I Can I feel pretty? Well, could

I ask a question before we go into the closing? Yeah, let me let me do this

And then you ask your question because I want Tony You haven't got a chance to talk very much and it may have been by choice but Brother John he was he was correctly pointing us to the main point of Scripture Which we want to end with the gospel and when when we finish with Tyler's question

I would love for you to share the gospel if you don't mind If not, you can pass it on to somebody else so you can be think about that Tyler.

What was your question? Well, since we have some diversity in the ranks and we have some differing perspectives and that's one of the beautiful things about the network

What translation do you guys use tell us why

I mean that brings up a good point. Which ones would you not recommend as well? Because people need to know that So I preached from the

ESV. I studied from all of them that I can minus the message and the passion

Yeah, I made the switch over to the LSB, but I was already in And that would be the legacy right

So I'm in ASB 95 yes be I Like I like all those versions.

I've got a couple different. I like along with the 95 NASB the

ESV and the King James version. I also like the HCS be

I think that they messed up and Thankfully the legacy standard

Bible has picked up some of the things that I like so much about the HCS be

The word doulos. That's a big deal, man I I Can't speak to that as I'm a

Pentecostal man I don't know whether it's a Southern Baptist Bible or not But I can say just like it is a very good a very good translation in my opinion

I like That there's absolutely zero apology for using the word slave or the word slave was used in the

Greek Because I am a slave to Christ by that. I mean, I'm no longer my own.

I don't get to make decisions on when I listen or how I Listen, I either get to be a slave of his or I get to be a slave of the world's

But I can't be a man. I can't be a slave to two masters What about you

Tom well, um, so I actually

Sit down with the CSB and the King James side -by -side when I study I teach and preach and such out of the

CSB Which you have translations that are more Directive a word -for -word translation and you have ones that are more of a thought for thought without being quite a paraphrase

The CSB kind of meets in the middle So it's tight where it needs to be tight and it's loose where it might be helpful to be a little bit looser and So I I find the

CSB to be the ideal middle ground between those two approaches But I also

Really like the King James and I'm not willing to completely dispense with something just because it's old and So what

I try to do on say bread of the word, for example is I will teach out of the CSB I'll go line by line out of the

CSB But more often than not when I quote scripture is out of the King James Yeah, it's beautifully written

Brother Tony Would you mind share the gospel? Really do

No, I didn't talk as much tonight because I wasn't sure if I was still having mic issues or not I know I get new equipment. So But no, we will end this on the best note possible

Some would look at the gospel and start with the fall and say that it's bad news But I like to start with the good news

In fact and God and all of his glory to his glory created man and put him in a perfect state

But that man being not identical with God himself Fell and we fell away from God's perfect holy perfection, but God in his infinite wisdom in his covenant knew that We would not be able to reconcile ourselves and he showed us that through years of law covenant

So the only thing that was going to rectify That disconnect between God and man

Was a perfect the perfect divine substitute and that divine substitute came in In his son the second person of our triune

God Was gone one one says in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God the

Word was God So this infinitely divine substitute was God in the flesh

He lived a perfect sinless life As God would and we could not and that all that would call upon his name

Would be imputed with that righteousness would be imputed with that righteousness Would be indwelled by the

Holy Spirit Would live a life of progressing sanctification Knowing that you will never be perfect that you will always fall short.

But as we read the very words literally Reading Christ embodied in the word himself

And we will grow into that sanctification and one day live in the eternal glory with him

Amen All right brothers if you if you would

I'll pray for us Father we thank you so much for this evening. We give you all glory and praise and honor

We want to lift high the name of Jesus and we want to thank you. Thank you for your spirit who teaches us who?

Reveals to us Christ who reveals to us our sin who helps us to enjoy what we just heard from Tony the good news of the gospel because apart from Christ apart from the work of the

Holy Spirit apart from you and your You're amazing grace Your kindness what you've done for us

We would be we wouldn't exist. We would be hopeless. We will be helpless and we are

Apart from you. So we thank you and we give you praise and we worship you

We give you glory and father we thank you for our Brothers that we have here on This little network.

Thank you for bringing them Allowing them to be my friend and my brother that I can learn from them that I can lock arms with them father

I'm so grateful Thank you for what you're doing here. I Do what we do

And father we pray all these things in Jesus name. Amen All right.

Thank you. Thank you guys so much for all of your input. Thank you everybody for watching and We'll see you next

Thank you for joining the laborers podcast Remember Jesus is