KJV Onlyism Revisited:Separating Fact from Fiction, Part 1 - - How Translation Works

And good afternoon and welcome to the dividing line for quite some time we have been Advertising that sometime in the future. We were going to go over the presentation of the King James only Controversy separating fact from fiction a PowerPoint presentation that I have offered for as I said a number of months now a number of people have downloaded that PowerPoint presentation, and if you have done, so you would want to fire that up get it ready to go because that's we're going to be doing over the next couple of weeks, but I would like to Have the opportunity for interaction from folks.

There's a lot of strong feelings about Biblical textual issues, and so I'd like to try to Leave the lines open for your comments toward the end of the program Possibly the last half hour if there are folks online Toward the end of the program.

Then we'll go ahead and wrap up the presentation at that point take the calls and then continue from that point in the future. So if you'd like to do that, then keep that in mind. You'd want to be calling in about About 50 minutes from now about 10 minutes till the hour and We'll be able to Put you in the queue and have you ready to go with the questions that you have on the subject of the translation of the Bible the transmission of the scriptures and specifically the King James only controversy if you have the PowerPoint presentation, then you'll want to get it fired up, and I'll be starting with that right now.

The King James Only Controversy and Why It Persists

Now of course we have dealt with the King James only controversy in many forms in the past. We have had the debates on the program. Last wasn't last summer, but the summer before that we went through a lengthy period where we played Comments and statements from the Southwest radio Bible Church, and we had da wait and and Others that were on that program and their comments so Theodore elitist and Responded to them we invited those folks to be on but they were not interested in doing so.

We would like to be able to have debates in this subject, but getting the King James only Advocates to actually defend their position and to do so in a scholarly debate and where there's an even Playing field is extremely difficult to do and so keeping that in mind We are not making this presentation without someone to respond to it some because That would to be to our advantage.

We'd love to have some folks on to discuss these things, but we simply can't find Those folks who are at least a published in a field or at least Somewhat recognized as taking a stand in the area. We can't find them to to do that.

They don't want to come on the program and do that kind of thing so the one-sided presentation Isn't really all that one-sided in fact. We will be presenting some of their favorite points as we go on and sometimes in a stronger way than they themselves do.

So keeping that in mind Looking at the PowerPoint presentation slide number three if you'd like to get started with it there. This has been a subject that has certainly Resulted in a tremendous amount of heat shall we say that has been directed toward?

Myself and in fact toward anyone who would dare to respond to the King James only position. I can honestly say that though in volume I have received more response from other religious groups for example my dealing with Roman Catholicism or things like that.

The volume certainly is understandable in that case. I've written one book on this subject. I don't really address it all that often in comparison to the debates I do on Roman Catholicism and things like that and so it's understandable why I would get more emails on the subject of Roman Catholicism or Mormonism that I do King James only ism however As far as the nastiness of Response and as far as the personal character of the response Nothing has rivaled the King James only controversy and specifically about those individuals Who would present the King James only controversy as their own perspective?

There's simply no group as a whole that has proven itself to be more willing to question your Christianity your faith your love for God and his word. Or your brains than King James only advocates all you have to do is listen to someone like Gail Rippling er or Peter Ruckman and you discover very quickly that there is a tremendous willingness to Attack individuals on a personal level as if that somehow is relevant to the subject at hand.

It is it is a shame text Mars for example has written James white a boastful King James Bible opponent Continues on his baseless crusade to bash King James only believers. It makes for a rather sad spectacle to observe critics of the King James Bible like mr. White humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God.

I am praying he will be given a repentant heart and know the grave damage. He is doing the kingdom of our Savior. Well, of course, I'm not an opponent to the King James version of the Bible. We immediately see and we'll see throughout the presentation that King James only proponents identify the Bible and identify the King James Bible specifically as A right together with King James only ism.

If you oppose King James only ism then you oppose the King James version of the Bible because for them the two are the same and that of course it demonstrates a bit of a of a confusion on their part because you can believe that the King James version of the Bible is A fine version of the Bible that it is a perfectly readable so on so forth without Enshrining it as the only possible English translation the best English translation, etc. Etc.

You do not need to do that. There is no reason for the individuals to believe that there is an attack upon King James only believers when you respond to King James only ism. But that kind of thinking is part and parcel of the King James only movement elsewhere.

Mars had called me a servant of Satan and a devil which is normally not the Indication of an individual who is playing on a fair ground, of course. Gail Ripplinger the author of New Age Bible versions the next slide Calls me a rude crude heretic.

She did that on a radio station in Detroit, Michigan and a Serial soul killer now that one is on a video that I actually haven't seen but I thought that was Gail Ripplinger loves to alliterate she likes to Make up names based upon people's last names and she she likes to for example use my last name of white and So in one of her books James white meets Vanna white whitewashed walls Etc.

A little white lies, etc. Etc. Etc. She likes likes playing little games like that and it is Absolutely positively amazing to me To recognize that so many churches today That would oppose Women Preachers would oppose women in ministry will open their pulpits to Gail Ripplinger.

And let her spew her venomous hatred toward anyone who opposed her whether you're King James only or not. She goes after King James only folks. So just as readily as she does anybody else Right from the pulpit.

It's it's an amazing thing. The the Ripplinger saga is indeed a fascinating thing and I would just to point out to folks that When you If you have the time and in fact what I should have done and maybe next week.

I'll go ahead and do this if you if you have the time go back into the archives of the program back to September of last year September of 2000 and Listen to some of the clips from Gail Ripplinger that I played.

In fact, maybe someone out there in the in the massive control center of this worldwide webcast our huge staff and Would might be able to find lurking in the recesses of our of our network somewhere the clips that we played from the What was that the Southwest Radio Bible Church, that's what it was and especially the utterly fascinating discussion That Gail Ripplinger provided about the sinking of the Titanic Which is still without a doubt one of the one of the most amazing I'd say it was about what four five minutes somewhere along those lines amazing four or five minutes that I have ever listened to in my entire life I I'm not sure why I enjoy listening to it other than every time it leaves me sitting there with my mouth hanging open Absolutely searching for the words to express how utterly inane a Statement and a series of statements could possibly be made.

It's it's something maybe we can track that down. It may be hiding over on my side of the network and people can't get through to that or I don't know. We'll see if they can't track it down and maybe play it next week or maybe this week.

I don't know but anyhow Gail Ripplinger New Age Bible versions rude crude heretic and the serial soul killer and those are the nice things and So anyways, but aside from these folks There are others who are very serious about this and I'm sure that I'm sure that Gail Ripplinger is very serious about about what she says I just Just would invite you to listen to what she says and that leaves you somewhat Amazed, but there are others who are very very serious that don't tie the NIV into the sinking of the Titanic for example and We should recognize that King James only ism can be preached what I mean by that is You can take the King James only position and you can really make it sound good Week you can you can take this position and if you are selective in Your use of Versus if you're selective in your use of information If you are not fair in your presentation and you may not Let's even be fair at this point.

I think there are many people who preach King James only ism because They have that tradition delivered to them and they don't know That it a is a tradition that there is a Perfectly full and and and consistent Response to it so on so forth.

They don't they don't know what the other side is so that they're not consistent. They're use of sources. They're not fair in the use of sources just simply out of ignorance. So I think we should be fair at that point and And and and you know be helpful in that way, but anyways There are those who can really preach this stuff it can sound really really good to to Individuals because you preach it in such a way you have passion.

You can present it in such a way that you touch upon key issues. For example you look at the deity of Christ. And you can you can tie together Passages from the King James Version of the Bible in comparison with Frequently not even the same modern translation, but quote-unquote modern translations.

They're all sort of just thrown into one big group and you can make it sound like modern translations are specifically attempting to deny the deity of Christ and you can touch upon the resurrection and You can do all sorts of different subjects that you can try to make it look as if the King James Version of the Bible is superior on doctrinal issues and That's what that's the main reason that most people hold the King James only ism.

They've only heard one side. They've heard it from someone. They trust it and they've heard it presented in the context of We need to hold firm to God's Word we need to stand against liberalism we need to stand against the the influx of modernism and all the rest that stuff and it appeals to a Portion of our thinking that is a proper portion of our thinking.

I don't think that we should Be embracing liberalism and everything else. I don't think we should move the ancient the ancient landmarks as Scripture says. Just because it's new doesn't necessarily mean it's better we understand all of those things and so Do they have a point?

Let's look at some passages where if you were to present them in a certain way I'm getting messages here that are completely confusing me. I don't know what what CD you're all talking about and it's not on a CD.

So that that wouldn't help much anyways. Let's get some passages such as 1st Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 in the King James version of the Bible 1st Timothy 316 without controversy. Great is the mystery of godliness.

God was manifest in the flesh. Now notice that the word God is used here without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh. This of course is a reference to the deity of Christ because we are talking about the revelation of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

But it's very easy to then say now those of you who have any of the dreaded modern translations. Especially such as the New American Standard Bible look at 1st Timothy 316 and what does it say? It says by common confession great is the mystery of godliness.

He who was revealed in the flesh now. It sounds to the vast majority of people That he who and God Could not possibly be a quote-unquote honest mistake it is a huge difference and when you then a Sort of roll this into all sorts of other examples that are going to be given it certainly looks like there is a a change that has been made and please notice the words that I that I'm using here a Change the King James only presenter might say look how this text has been altered.

Changed look what has been deleted each one of those passages assumes What it assumes a particular standard and what is the standard that is always used the King James Version of the Bible? Well immediately if we're going to be talking about issues like that then We need to recognize the King James Version of the Bible came into existence between 1604 and 1611.

What was the standard before that and could not someone have compared the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 was say the Bishops Bible or With the Geneva Bible which were English translations that preceded the King James Version say look the King James has Changed this or altered this or added this or deleted that.

Why does the King James get to be set up as the standard to which everything else then becomes an alteration addition or subtraction. Very frequently the presentation is so heavily loaded with that kind of Information that that kind of thinking that it's simply impossible For people to get a fair sense of what's going on.

But going back to first Timothy three that does look like a major difference between the renderings. Why is there a difference? Well, that's one of the major portions of the presentation that we'll be covering over time.

Slide number six has a comparison chart and this is a very small chart. You generally when when doing PowerPoint presentations need to keep your fonts large enough for people to see. There are books many books that are published from the King James only perspective that would have lists like this that are many pages in length.

Where you take the King James Version of the Bible and you compare it to quote-unquote modern versions now this generally would not work for example in Comparing the King James Version of the Bible with the New King James Version of the Bible.

Because the New King James Version uses the same New Testament text especially Called the Texas Receptus as we will see later on that the King James does and so it would join the King James Version In the readings that it has.

But what you really have here is a comparison between the two text types that people utilize the Texas Receptus with the King James Version and the modern texts under the modern versions. But again most folks who see a list like this are not aware of that when I first saw it.

When I first saw things like this and in high school I certainly did not have the background to know what I was really looking at. You would think that those that produce it Would take the time to have the background to to fairly use this kind of information, but they do not.

The bit as it may notice Matthew 4 18 in the modern versions. It says he in the King James Version. It says Jesus Acts 19 10 in the modern versions the Lord but in the King James Version the Lord Jesus in First Corinthians 9 1 we have the word Jesus in the modern versions, but Jesus Christ in the King James Version.

In 2nd Corinthians 5 18 we have Christ in the modern versions. But Jesus Christ in the King James Version in Acts 16 31 We have Lord Jesus, but in the King James Version. It's Lord Jesus Christ and and in 2nd John 3 in the modern translations Jesus Christ but in the King James Version Lord Jesus Christ in each one of these in each one of these you have one of two things it's always presented as a diminishment of what was originally there that is the original full material is found in the King James Version of the Bible and then the modern translations cut this down.

Somehow the modern translations for some reason have some purpose in diminishing from the person of Jesus Christ by somehow using shorter names for him now that's how it's always presented. Of course the other possibility would be that the King James Version represents a text type that is expanded that is a text type where the titles especially of deity in the Lord Jesus have been expanded on the basis of piety over time.

Now that possibility is never mentioned in King James only materials but that is the other possibility. Slide number 7 this one's one you might want to use. I've used this many times. I remember once I was at a very large church in the valley and a student of mine from a university class I was teaching invited me to come over and play a Mormon and so I came over and I had my white shirt and dark dark tie and dark pants.

I even had a little name tag on and I will play the Mormon and we got to the issue of the Bible and this is this is what I used to to throw a curve at everybody in the class and I'll guarantee one thing it will always get their attention.

It really well about to kick somebody out of the chat channel for a grousing about my beautiful fractal backgrounds that are part of this PowerPoint presentation. They are very very pretty. And if that person does not say that they are he's going to find himself a wobbling through the the uprights here in a second.

Anyways what you might want to do is what I did I said hey how many of you have for example the new international version the NIV. And of course at this particular place I knew that was going to be the popular these are young people I knew is going to be the popular translation.

And of course as a Mormon I was saying well you know what about all these different versions the Bible is but all these changes that you know the King James is better etc etc etc and so so what I did is and and I would it one thing I would say don't do this if you're not going to have time to explain what you're doing here if you only have a few minutes don't do this.

Not a not a good idea. Ask the folks in who have the NIV in the audience. Did you don't think there's really much of a difference. Think your translation is just easier to read. Okay let's let's say you were sitting in your front room with the more missionary and he takes out his Bible and he asks you to read with him from John chapter 5 verse 4.

John chapter 5 verse 4 go ahead look it up in an NIV what will you do if you were sitting there and you had the NIV and you're trying to explain to a Mormon missionary there really aren't any differences.

And he asked you to read John 5 for well those of you who have the NIV and look it up and I always pick up on a person to do so and and they start looking at it and they get this strange look on their face and normally the room becomes very quiet because there is no John 5 for any NIV.

I think maybe twice over the years grand total of had someone who recognized this fact before I raised it. But most of the time people are unaware of the fact that there's a textual variant there. You will find it at the bottom of the page in little teeny tiny micro print.

It is down there. But look at John chapter 5 and you'll see it goes from verse 3 to verse 5 in the rendering of the new international version. And you will also discover that for example in the NASB it'll be in brackets and so on and so forth.

But it works best the NIV because the text isn't even there it's just down at the bottom of the page. Now there's a reason for this. We will explain what the reason is. But again what I'm doing here at the beginning is explaining how it is that people can preach this perspective and make it sound so convincing.

Make it sound so good. They have arguments that they can present. But of course the next slide number eight the defenders the modern translations are not without their arguments as well. There are many issues one can raise and looking at the King James Version of the Bible.

For example when we looked at first Timothy 316 in the King James Version of the Bible we saw the word God was not there. It's in the King James but it's not in the modern translations. Well look at this.

Look at number nine in the presentation John 118 the King James Version says no man has seen God any time the only begotten son which is in the bosom of the father he hath declared him. But the New Revised Standard Version reads no one has ever seen God.

It is God the only son who is close to the father's heart who has made him known. Now notice the difference between the only begotten son King James Version and God the only son in the NRSV. In one you have the only begotten son which I would argue can properly be understood as a reference to deity given the entirety of the Bible's teaching on it.

But just in of itself is not a reference to deity. But in the NRSV we have God the only son a Trinitarian phrase. To say the least modern translations use the word God of the Lord Jesus at John 118. Now if there's a conspiracy involved at first Timothy 316 does there not need to be a conspiracy involved here the problem is it would be a reverse conspiracy now I am aware there are those that argue that John 118 if you put God there it's Gnosticism and all the rest of that stuff.

Jay Green does that for example will address that later and demonstrate that is certainly not the case and that is a very poor argument. But if you've got a conspiracy on the one part then you'd have to have a conspiracy on the other.

Next slide number 10 in the same way the King James Version agrees with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World translation in not having a reference of prayer to Christ. At John 1414 modern translations agree that here the Lord speaks of prayer to himself while the King James Version lacks the word me in the phrase if you ask me anything in my name.

So for example Jesus when he is talking about prayer to Christ he's talking I'm sorry he's talking about the future after he's gone back to the presence of the Father. And in the New American Standard says if you ask me anything in my name I will do it.

But the King James says if you ask anything in my name. The New American Standard the only way you can ask Jesus anything in his name after he's gone back in the presence of the Father is through prayer.

But the King James Version like the New World Translation says only if you ask anything. There's no reference of prayer to Christ in the King James Version of the Bible. And it's a very very very common thing for King James only advocates to argue on the basis of similarity and say look modern translations look like the New World Translation.

We know the NWT is wrong. Therefore modern translations must be wrong as well. However in reality we will discover that that is a two-edged sword. But we're gonna take a break right now and we'll continue on with slide number 11 in the presentation right here on the dividing line we'll be right back and welcome back to the dividing line.

How Textual Variants Are Used to Argue for or Against the KJV

My name is James white. We are looking at a PowerPoint presentation on the subject of the King James only controversy and pointing out their passages that can be urged against the King James Version of the Bible in the very same way that others are urged in favor of it.

The next slide slide number 11 provides a comparison the King James Version of the Bible and New American Standard Bible. At Revelation 1 8 the King James Version says I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending sayeth the Lord which is which was and which is to come the Almighty.

However the New American Standard says I am the Alpha and the Omega says the Lord God who is and who was and who is to come the Almighty. Now especially if we understand these words to be spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ then obviously having Lord God would be another reference the deity of Christ that is not found the King James Version of the Bible.

So could we not if these were the only passages that we cited. Start making a an assertion a case that there is a conspiracy involved in the King James Version of the Bible to hide the deity of Christ.

Well that would certainly be an unfair thing to do. But that's exactly of course what is done by King James only advocates in the presentation presentations that they make on slide number 12 we have another example of a possible conspiracy.

At first John 3 1 in the New American Standard Bible we read. See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us that we would be called children of God and such we are. But look at the King James Version of the Bible.

Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God. The entire phrase and such we are an affirmation of our sonship. Our adoption as sons of God is not found in the King James Version of the Bible.

Why would it be deleted. Why would it be left off again. Notice deleted and left off. If you make the King James a standard why would it be added. For example what happened to adoption of sons. Well we'll take a look at that a little later on.

In reality of course there is no conspiracy involved on either side. And I'm not. I'm not talking here about bad translations. I'm not talking about liberal translations. I'm not talking about groups that have a clear and purposeful reason for altering the text of Scripture or that be the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons in a cultic sense or whether that be liberal opponents of the Christian faith in the sense of the Jesus seminar people like that.

I'm not referring to any of those types of translations but what we're talking about here has to do with the good translations of the Bible in comparison to the King James Version of the Bible that are conservative translations that are translations done by those who believe in the Word of God and who do not carry along with them some anti-super naturalistic bias etc etc.

There is no conspiracy in explaining why there are differences in any of the passages that we just looked at. There are simple logical reasons why there are differences in translations. Most of the time those differences are based either upon textual reasons that is the modern translations are translating a different text than the King James did or they are translational reasons that is the underlying Greek or Hebrew text is the same but the way of rendering it is taken in a different way and anyone who is bilingual knows more than one language with some level of fluency is fully cognizant of why there would be differences translationally.

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

Quite simply King James only ism thrives on the ignorance of the Christian people concerning the history of their own sacred scriptures. That's what it thrives on. If people were aware of the history if people were aware of how the Bible came to them then King James only ism simply would not exist the form that it does today.

You would not have dozens and dozens of books out there basically beating the same drum making the same errors and using the same of bad argumentation. Does that mean that every King James only person is ignorant.

No that not in not in the sense of of incapable of understanding but yes ignorant of many facts or willfully ignorant of many facts. I've had many people I've had many King James only advocates who were absolutely positively unwilling to listen to any kind of response their position.

They automatically identified anyone who would respond to King James only position as an opponent of God's Word and they had no interest whatsoever in hearing what that person had to say basically on the level of saying I don't want to listen to a heretic.

That was the kind of response that's that we get. If people simply knew the background of the biblical text how it came to us the process of translation the process of transmission then the vast majority of arguments put forward by King James only advocates would simply disappear would simply be seen for what they are misunderstandings.

Let's look at some of the passages that were cited above and see how there really is no conspiracy involved. Number 14. Slide. Number 14. First Timothy 316 one of the very favorite passages of King James only advocates to understand why modern translations different the King James Version and in this case the new King James Version we need to know something about the text from which these translations came.

The KJV and the new King James Version their New Testaments are based upon a 16th century Greek text known today as the Textus Receptus or as you will normally hear me refer to it the TR Textus Receptus the received text modern translations are based upon generally are based upon the Nestle all in Greek text.

The most recent version of that is the Nestle all in 27th edition of the Greek New Testament the na 27 next slide. The Textus Receptus represents what is called the Byzantine family of manuscripts. These manuscripts constitute at least four-fifths of the extant Greek text in our position our possession now.

Of course what I'm referring to here are handwritten manuscripts those written up to 1453 and then of course thereafter I mean 1453 is that particular period of time is when printing is invented. But in reality it's another 60 almost 70 years before the Greek New Testament as a as a whole is actually printed and published that being done by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 and so basically up through the time of Erasmus the beginning of the 16th century Greek manuscripts were handwritten.

Four-fifths of all of those that are extant that continue to exist this day. Obviously there were those that were written and that were destroyed that we don't have available to us today but four-fifths of those that still exist that have come down to us through history make up the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

The vast majority however of the Byzantine texts come from the 10th through the 15th centuries. Now think about that for a moment the vast majority of the Byzantine manuscripts that we have come from the 10th through the 15th centuries so they are removed by a millennium to a millennium and a half from the the originals they represent what is called the later ecclesiastical text rather than the more primitive text of the first centuries this is called the majority text though the TR differs in over 1 ,800 places in majority text type and I would like to expand on that a little bit.

You may find in your local Christian bookstore especially in the used book section the majority text by Hodges and far stat. There is another Robinson Pierpont version as well that is out there. I have it I have it in Bible works 5 .0 which is available on the Alpha Omega Ministries website.

The majority text and the TR are not the same thing. The majority text in the TR would agree in a majority of instances against the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament when there is a difference they are very similar to one another but they are not identical.

One of the problems that you encounter in reading King James only literature is that King James only advocates when it is convenient to do so will utilize arguments that are actually arguments for the majority text.

If however there to be consistent than that would mean that they would have to at times correct the TR and therefore the King James version of the Bible when the majority text goes against them and agrees with modern translations that they are not willing to do.

And so when you find a person who is pushing the King James only as the only translation you should use utilizing arguments that actually are arguments for the majority text you're finding a person who's being inconsistent.

Now how many of them know they're being inconsistent. I don't know not very many of them but they are being inconsistent the majority text basically with a few exceptions and they have arguments amongst themselves as to how to do these things.

Because there are places especially the text the Book of Revelation where the text is very basically by counting noses. If for example you have a variation in one of the synoptic Gospels and let's say there are well there's 5300 some-odd manuscripts the Greek New Testament.

Not all of them contain all the New Testament. Of course some of those are small fragments but a large portion of the Byzantine manuscripts would contain the entire New Testament. Let's say in one of the Gospels you have 2 ,000 manuscripts that contain the disputed passage.

Basically if you look at them and 1 ,500 manuscripts read one way and 500 read the other way. The one that has the 1 ,500 wins and that's what you put into your text. It's a counting of noses. Now if you get down to where it's you know 983 read one way and 1017 read the other way.

Then you get all sorts of arguments about how things are supposed to work and I suppose do things. But generally whoever it's it's sort of like an election whoever has the largest number of votes wins.

That's how you determine the majority text. And a lot of folks like that idea they say well look you know this is this is the best way to go. The problem again I would point out is that the vast majority of these texts come from the 10th of the 15th centuries and you would have to establish and much work has gone into attempting to establish this that if the majority text at the end of the process at the end of the handwritten process reads a certain way that that necessarily represents what the primitive text was that is the readings found in the earliest manuscripts will produce the majority of readings in the later manuscripts after the process has gone through.

And there's a book by Pickering out there that utilized is tremendously complex mathematical formula I to attempt to substantiate this very concept I think attempting to I think attempting to apply the statistical calculus to the very human process of the transmission of the text over time just doesn't work.

I don't think you can apply mathematical formula I to for example the the monk who makes transcriptional errors based upon numerous issues such as it is stinking cold in his cell he has no central heating he has no fluorescent lamps he has 20 2080 vision his quill is freezing in the ink and he's just having a bad day.