Disagreeing about the KJV... the RIGHT way!

You cannot dumb down the language enough for an ever dumbing down language.

Listen, listen to English today.

It was like bet and slay and which, by the way, slay is an old old English word that's used completely differently

today and not to be too crass.

But the most popular English words at this present time are huck to it.

Like this, there is the degradation of our language is

is remarkable.

It is of all of all the things I thought were going to be part of this conversation, I did not think that

that would that that would make it in.

Sometimes I feel I'll fall

down on Swiss.

I'm going to hit the

YouTube link.

Don't say hit.

That sounds violent.

And I feel my

trouble

most.

Your Calvinist podcast is filmed before a live studio audience.

And welcome back to your Calvinist podcast.

My name is Keith Foskey, and I am your Calvinist.

One of the most divisive subjects in modern Christianity is the subject of what Bible should

we be using?

And typically that division comes over one translation of the Bible, and that's the

King James version of the Bible.

And we see this division come up sometimes as the most important and prominent thing

that people want to talk about before we talk about the or before we talk about the deity of Christ or before we

talk about any doctrinal or theological subject.

This becomes somewhat more foundational for some folks that if we if you want to have a conversation about any of those

things, you have to begin at least with the starting point of, well, what is the Bible?

And I understand the heart behind that, because to be able to address those questions, you have to be able to

address the question, what makes the scripture?

What is the scripture?

And you have to deal with four core subjects, the subject of inspiration, how God gives the Bible to

man, canonization, how men recognize what God has given, transmission,

how what God has given has come down through the ages, and then translation, how what God has

given goes from one language into another.

And each of those steps is important.

And at every point of each of those steps, there comes a question of, well, how did this work

and how should we understand it?

And again, it creates some important divisions.

Well, today I am blessed to welcome a guest, first time on the show, a person

that I met about a year ago on a family vacation, and he's a young man who

is a singer and he is a student of biblical history,

particularly the history of the translations of the Bible.

Josh Allen travels full -time with the gospel music group, The Allens.

As one who has grown up on the road in ministry, he has a wider perspective than most, and he is also

the content creator for the King James Bible Research Council.

Additionally, he runs the YouTube channel, Bible Central, dedicated to promoting the truth

of God's word in fun and energetic ways.

So this is Josh, and I want to bring him onto the program now.

Hi, Josh.

Thank you for being a part of your Calvinist podcast.

Thank you so much for having me.

It is an absolute honor.

It really is.

Well, I appreciate you coming.

And I do want to kind of tell the story of how we met, because I think it is an interesting, at least for

me, it's kind of interesting.

Since starting this show, there have been a few times where I've been out doing things and somebody would walk up to me and

say, Hey, you're on the internet.

I've seen you.

You have a YouTube channel.

And that's always encouraging to me because that means it's actually reaching people and I'm thankful.

But you were one of the first people to do that.

We were sitting adjacent to one another at a restaurant when my family and I were visiting

Tennessee.

Where were we?

We were up near the birthplace of David Crockett.

Yeah, that was Greenville, Tennessee.

We were in Greenville, Tennessee.

And I noticed you guys sitting near us and you looked over at me and you seemed like you recognized me.

And at some point you finally said, Hey, you're on the internet, right?

And I said, yes.

And we shook hands and I think we even took a picture together.

It was very nice.

And I was thankful and come to find out you are also a person who has

an internet presence that I hadn't seen before then, but primarily deals with music.

Now you grew up as a singer, right?

Yeah, that's correct.

I've been traveling with my family for the last 28 years of my 29

year life.

And I was a founding member of our group back in 1997.

So at one year old, I'm one of the OG Allens.

A lot of my brothers and sisters were born along the way.

But yeah, music and being on the stage, being in churches, that has been my life

in multiple ministry settings.

So it is very, very normal for me.

It's a, it's an interesting thing.

Now I've heard the name, the Allens, uh, just through the years, just hearing, you know, you guys performing or

hearing about that.

What's something that people may know you from.

What's, what's a particular song that maybe you guys are most known for, or a particular performance that you guys have had, uh,

that, that really impacted.

And you said, here's, here's kind of what put us on the map.

Well, you know, song songs, which obviously are the backbone of what we do.

Um, they, you know, people might know us from different ones, different things, but there's actually a few

things that even if you don't listen to Southern gospel music, you might know us from, um,

back in 2014, I think it was, uh, the learning channel actually did an episode about our family.

Uh, it was supposed to be a show.

It was later kind of downgraded just to a special, uh, because of, uh, well, there was some other rather

prominent, uh, families, uh, that were going through some court things at a TLC at the

time.

And they, uh, that were on shows and they, I guess they didn't want to take a chance, uh, with another conservative family.

And so, uh, our show turned into an episode, but that was still, I think

4 .5 million people, um, at one time, uh,

watching our little family, uh, how we live on the bus, some of our music, where we're saying, and so our

website blew up overnight, our, our Facebook blew up and like some of it very positive, some of it

very negative, but it was, it was something that we were trying to prepare ourselves for.

We knew, we knew something was about to happen.

Um, but yeah, whenever that really started, we weren't quite prepared.

Um, just for the entire internet, all of its nice niceties, all of its, uh,

less than niceties showed up, uh, at our doorstep, so to speak, but yeah, most people, uh,

might know us from that.

Nice.

Okay.

And, and you, you, so you grow up on the road, but do you guys have a home church?

Like a S like missionaries might have a sending church or a church that they're responsible to?

What, what church is your home church that you would say you're, you know, you're under their banner or

authority or however you, however you would say it.

Right now we are under, uh, the river fellowship church in Hammond, Louisiana.

They're a Southern Baptist church.

Um, my, uh, pastor right now is, um, he's a longtime friend of my dad.

My dad is from Louisiana.

Uh, our ministry started out of different places around the country.

Uh, but Louisiana is where I have a lot of family.

And so, uh, we've been out of there for about eight years and that's been very important to us everywhere.

Our ministry has been, um, we're not just a Southern gospel group that kind of does their own thing.

Uh, we're also a traveling evangelist family.

We also do mission work.

And because of that, we've, we feel it very important to be not just out of a church,

but approved by that church.

If we're ever a part of a church and they don't approve of what we're doing, well, then either we need to see if we're doing something

wrong or we need to be a part of a congregation where they do approve, you know, it's so we've

been, we've considered ourselves and have been considered by the church that we've been a part of as staff evangelists.

It's a, it's an extension of their ministry, uh, essentially.

Um, and so, uh, we, we really thank God for our church now.

Great people.

Uh, they love us and we love them.

Well, this is, I mean, I, I, I I'm interested in that part of your life and, and, and maybe one

day we'll come back and talk more about it.

Cause I could ask you a thousand questions, but I do want to move to to the topic of discussion today,

which is the, the subject of the King James Bible, because when I saw your YouTube channel and I

saw your collection of.

Uh, antique Bibles and, and, uh, old manuscripts that you had, um, that were, uh, some of them

in glass and things like that, that you talked about on your channel and I was intrigued.

I said, okay, here's a young man who not only grew up in Christianity, but also has a desire to know more

about his faith and a desire to, uh, promote an education, which I think sometimes is downplayed

in, in, in some groups.

Uh, some people just say, don't worry about the history.

Just take, take it for granted.

This is what we have.

But I appreciated that you wanted to look at the history and particularly

that there was a post that you put on Facebook and that post said, if I remember correctly, something

to the effect of you, you are a, an advocate of the King James Bible,

but you don't demonize those who might disagree with you in some areas.

And there are some areas where you think King James advocates go too far in

their demonization of those who disagree.

And even though you might disagree with people who might be on my side, which, uh, you know, tip my hand already that I would be more on the

critical texts side, um, that, that, that there, even though you might disagree with me on some things,

you wouldn't discount me being a brother.

You would just consider me being an error on, on some things.

And, and I'm perfectly fine with someone thinking that I'm wrong.

I think a lot of people are wrong and yet they're still brothers in Christ.

And, and so I thought there was a lot of grace in that post.

And I said, okay, this is the type of person that I want on my show.

And if anybody knows anything about my show, if you've listened to my show before, I have people on, I disagree with a lot,

but the one thing that I try to do is I try to have conversations that are gracious and loving and

are willing to not necessarily nuance things to the hilt, but where we disagree, not end up in a shouting

match or calling each other a heretic or shutting off the computer and saying, I can't have anything to do with this guy.

And, and I felt like you were, you were that guy, but, but, but for the, for the sake of anyone

who might do this, and there are some who might, some might say, well, Hey, why'd you have

Josh on?

Why didn't you have a Jeff Riddle?

Or why didn't you have, you know, this doctor here or this guy here?

My reason for having you on is because one, I think you're a great guy.

I wanted to introduce you to my audience.

I love your music and I love the things that you're doing.

And two, I think we can have a conversation that's brotherly versus a, um,

something that might become more contentious.

And, and also, like I said, I just like you, I think you're a nice guy.

So that's my reason for having you on it.

And I know you, you told me in our, in our previous conversation that this was sort of your introduction to a public

conversation about this.

Am I right about saying that?

Yeah, that's right.

And that's one reason.

Yeah, you're right.

You definitely could have reached out to anybody else more qualified than me, um, with more

degrees, uh, next to their name.

I've, I've got at this point in time, precisely zero degrees, um, and precisely zero

hours, uh, towards a degree.

Uh, I've never been to college.

I've took, I've taken a lot of college courses.

Uh, but yeah, I'm not educated as far as the, the sense of something that you can show.

In fact, whenever you sent me that message initially, um, I contemplated just saying, you know,

thank you.

Uh, but yeah, I've never really been open or public about it.

You know, it's more of a private thing between friends and, you know, I'm not ashamed of it, but I, you know, I

I've, I've been kind of apprehensive because.

I sensed that eventually I'd have to step out into the space and basically just say

where I stand on certain issues.

Um, but this particular one, as you know, and as you said, from the beginning is controversial, it's

polarizing.

And there's a lot of people that would agree with a lot of what I say that I actually don't

want anything to do with.

Um, I mean, they're, they're more than welcome to agree with me if they want to.

Um, but you know, they can send me Facebook friend requests.

Uh, they can want to, you know, collaborate and stuff, but I actually don't want anything to do with them.

Uh, just, we have other disagreements, uh, either in belief or methodology.

And yeah, but then there's people on probably the opposite side of me

that maybe for some reason or another, I do want to have, you know, some fellowship with, if you want to call it that

some people even listening now, uh, that will finally be all that that's compromised, you know, no,

because I have, you know, that, that, that that's motive is

a, is a strange thing to get into, but yeah, it was ultimately, I just felt,

um, that maybe, maybe this is the right time, uh, and if we can start it in a, in a civil

way, like you said, uh, we've just kind of watched each other for the last 12 months, you know, and gotten to

know each other a little bit just through Facebook.

To me, that's much more beneficial than a debate, nothing, not knocking debate.

Sometimes it's needed, but to get to know the other person, uh, and

respect them for other things, and then, then that makes our disagreement more valuable,

um, because I don't care if somebody I don't like disagrees with me or somebody I don't know

disagrees with me who cares there's 7 billion people in this world and precious little of them

agree with me, but I don't know them, so I don't have to care, but it's, if it's my family, if it's my

close friends, well now I do care because those people are important to me.

So as you become more and more important to me as a brother in Christ, as a friend, uh, then our disagreements

are also going to be more important.

I'm not arguing against past advocates or past critics.

I'm arguing if you will want to use that word against you.

So, you know, and against is a strong word as well, if that makes any sense.

No, I think what you just said is, is, is really, uh, insightful.

It, when I'm arguing with somebody and this is how we, I think often have the biggest problem online

is we forget the person on the other side of the keyboard is a person.

We're not arguing with a bot.

We're not arguing with an algorithm.

We're arguing with a human being.

And I have people say things to me sometimes that I do wonder, I say, do they realize they're talking to a

human being?

Do they realize they're talking to a husband, a father, a pastor, a man, you know,

I'm not just a talking head.

I actually do have a life and I have feelings and I know people, oh, no facts, don't care about your feelings.

Yeah.

But feelings, you know, it, it, it, you know, I've had people say things are really hurtful and they, it's like, they

don't even know me.

They don't care how I feel.

And they don't care that what they're saying is, is, is terribly, uh, hurtful.

And, and again, I don't have to care about them because I don't know them, but if you and I talk and we've gotten to know each other and

we, you know, we've had interactions and now even after this, we'll have had a much more, you know, meaningful and

getting to know each other conversation, I can say, you know, I care more about what Josh thinks

because I know Josh, I know his heart.

I know where he's coming from.

I know what he, what, that he wants to serve the same savior I do.

And he wants to serve Christ in a way that glorifies him.

And he's not just a troll.

He's not just a jerk.

He's not, not just, he's not a jerk.

I'll say not just a jerk, just so much more than a jerk.

See, that's the kind of thing, you know, having this, this, this fun conversation.

I'm not a jerk. I'm the jerk.

Well, it was like saying you're Calvinist, right?

I'm not just any Calvinist.

I'm your Calvinist.

I'm not just, that is, that is why I recognized you quote unquote, because I didn't

actually, at the time I didn't know your, your handle was your Calvinist.

And by the way, it's X now.

So you gotta have to, you know, you gotta take the bird off.

I still can't call it, it's going to take a long time.

Um, but, um, I noticed that and I was like, you're Calvinist, man.

That's well, that's I've never seen anybody that bold about it.

You know, was I wearing this shirt?

Was that what it was?

You were, you were okay.

And as I was staring at it, it's like, I haven't said, I'm like, I just got a shirt that says you're Calvinist.

Wow.

Well, they're, they're getting, they're getting really out there, you know, now, you know, they're, they're proselytizing, you know, just in, in

public.

But, um, then as I, as I was thinking about it, I was looking at your face, like, man, I know that guy from,

from somewhere, I even pulled up the denominations at the shooting range.

Like, yeah, that, that is him.

That, that is him.

So, yeah,.

That's funny on that same trip.

Just not that it matters, but just a quick story.

I, you know, Smoky mountain knife works.

Have you ever been there?

Oh yeah.

That's my, that's like my, you know, every time I go, I got to go to Smoky mountain knife works where I went there that time and there was a

youth group van in the parking lot.

I don't remember the name of the church, but there was a van and I'm walking around inside and this whole youth group stops and looks at me and

I look at them and the, and the youth pastor walks over and he goes, you're that guy, you're the, you're the, you're the

funny denomination guy.

And man, that made my day.

I thought that was so funny that all these kids knew who I was.

I guess they'd watch the videos or whatever.

So, so that was, that was a fun trip though.

That was pretty cool.

That's awesome.

And yeah, Hey, in fact, and I'll, as we get into the topic down there in the basement of Smoky mountain knife works, I

almost added to my collection because there was a Luther's German Bible down there.

It wasn't necessarily the addition that I wanted.

Um, but I was, I was going to add it, you know, to my collection.

A lot of people don't realize that at knife works, they have basically a museum where you can buy things down

below, um, with all the old, you know, ancient history stuff, and then, so it was that, that was

actually my favorite part.

I can only afford so many, you know, $80 knives, but you know, whatever.

But Hey, right here now, this, this might be like holding up a crucifix to a demon possessed person.

Um, I'm joking.

This is, this is a piece from my collection that has not been exhibited yet.

Um, but it is, it's probably my favorite, um, because it is a, a genuine 1611.

Uh, I believe it's the first printing in which case it would be, um,

very rare, but I need to look into it a little bit more.

It's a big boy.

It is, I think, 22 inches by 15 inches.

Uh, and yeah, this it's, um, I'm, I'm going to be doing this video sometime in the

future, uh, as far as the museum is concerned, but yeah, I really like this one cause you can

clearly see, um, just everything that went into it.

The kinds of paper, the striations in the paper, because it was made out of rags that were repurposed.

Uh, the, the very large Gothic type.

Uh, I just, I've, that's one of my favorite pieces because everything else, um, not just because it's the Bible I use,

not the 1611, mind you, but, um, because, um, a lot of the ones that I have are

later additions.

That's my first, you know, first edition page.

I was going to buy a full volume, uh, but I was short about $79 ,000.

So yeah.

Find that in the mattress, find that that's just in the corner of the couch.

Somebody left $79 ,000, but yeah, I met James White the other day and I, and I, and I brought this stuff

back, back you, back you, you know, did you really meet him?

I actually did.

Yeah.

And people can find that picture online as well.

Uh, he came to, uh, like 30 minutes from my church, uh, in Livingston, Louisiana.

He was debating Jimmy Akin from, uh, Catholic answers.

You might've seen that debate.

Did that was the strangest looking like the cowboy hat.

Did you see the debate pictures?

It was so weird.

I was there and I was there for both nights and, um, I, I didn't know Jimmy Akin, I mean, it seems a nice enough

guy, you know, as far as his demeanor.

Uh, but it was kind of strange because in that church, there were some, you know, guys walking around with the full, uh, collar and

everything, but then you get the president of Catholic answers on stage and, you know, and he looks

like most of the guys, you know, in back backwoods of Louisiana that, you know, have a ranch or something.

So yeah, that was, that was an interesting debate.

I did get to talk to Dr. White a little bit.

Uh, some people even in my circles would think, oh my goodness.

You know, I can't believe you talked to him.

I don't talk to anybody.

I talked to Steven Anderson a little while ago.

I don't agree with him.

Uh, and I don't agree with Dr.

White.

I, in fact, um, it's up for debate who I agree slash disagree with more.

Uh, but I found Dr. White to be, um, very kind, uh, very smart.

And even though I don't consider myself a Protestant, um, him debating for Protestantism

and Sola Scriptura and things like that, I was happy he was on my side, quote unquote, of that debate.

Uh, he's yeah, I, I didn't doubt his sincerity, his love for the Lord, even his love for the

Bible.

So yeah, that, that's just a, it's just a fascinating thing.

I like, I like new experiences.

Amen.

Amen.

Well, I know that people listening are wanting us to get into the meat of the conversation.

Before we begin that side of the conversation, I do have a few things to say, and I want to throw them in real quick for those

who are listening.

One, if you're new to the show, just keep in mind, this is a ministry of Sovereign Grace Family Church.

And so if you're in the Jacksonville area, we would love to have you come visit us and you can learn more about us at

sgfcjacks .org.

Also, we're a member of the Truth and Love Network.

And since we're going to be talking about the King James Bible, I want to also mention that we're sponsored by tinybibles .com,

which sells the smallest Bible on the market.

It can be hidden anywhere.

It can be taken anywhere.

It's got uses that can be many fold.

If you think about it, you can read it, but yet it's still very small.

I don't, I don't have it in my hand right now.

I normally have it to show, but it's very small Bible.

It's right over there.

And it is something that I do encourage you to go check out at tinybibles .com and something else they're coming out with.

They have a very special offer coming out this month, and that is they're going to be creating a very

small version of just the Gospel of John to be used for various purposes, missionary work and things like that,

use more like a tract.

And they're doing a Kickstarter for that campaign.

So if you want to support that, you can go to tinybibles .com, learn more about that.

And again, if you're a King James advocate, they come in King James.

And if you want a different version, they do have a new King James translation as well.

So go check them out at tinybibles .com.

Also, don't forget also that if you want to support the show, you can support our show by going to buymeacoffee .com slash your Calvinist.

There's the name at your Calvinist.

And you can also go get yourself some cool shirts and stuff.

You can see those in the links below.

And if you liked this episode, hit the thumbs up button.

And if you don't like what I'm doing, always remember you can hit that thumbs down button twice.

All right.

All right.

Is there a thumbs down button?

There is a thumbs down button, but if you hit it twice, it's magical.

Oh, yeah, it does something great.

And people find out if they'll do that.

So Josh, let's, let's begin getting into some of the meat and potatoes of this conversation.

Now that we've had a great introduction and our folks may feel like they know us a little bit better, know you a little bit better.

First of all, when, when we talk about King James advocacy, there, there are normally at least three different

categories, sometimes maybe even four different categories.

And the first is what is known as King James preferred.

These are people who wouldn't say that other translations are necessarily wrong, but they would say, we believe this translation is the one we

like the best.

And we should be using this one because it is the best.

And there's various arguments within that, but it's a preference argument over a absolutist argument.

The second group is the group that would say that the King James Bible is based on the

better Greek manuscripts, that the manuscripts that underlie the King James Bible are

better than the ones that are being used to underlie the newer translations.

And so this usually comes up in the question of things like the Western manuscript and the

Byzantine manuscripts and the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.

And typically that tends to be a textual critical conversation.

And then, and then the third one is, is it's like that.

And that's what we call TR priority.

And that's what would say that the Textus Receptus or the, the Greek translation or the Greek

published edition of the let me say that again, the published edition of the Greek,

the Greek manuscripts that were available at the time during the Reformation, which were published by first by Desiderius Erasmus

were, is the basis for what we should be using.

And there are even some in my camp, which would be the Calvinism camp who would hold to TR priority.

And they would say that things like the, the Westminster confession and other confessions, when they talk about the scriptures,

that's what they're talking.

About.

They're talking about that particular Greek manuscript.

And therefore when we uphold it, we should uphold that one.

And, and so that's not really a King James argument.

That's more of a TR argument, but the King James is based on the TR.

So they would say that's what makes it better.

And then finally, there's what might be known as a King James double inspirationism.

The idea that the King James Bible itself is inspired that, that it's, it

doesn't matter where it came from.

It doesn't matter about the underlying manuscripts.

What matters is this is the Bible given to the English speaking world today.

And therefore this is the Bible that should be used by all English speakers.

And some would even go as far, and I've heard people say this, I know it's a wild and I know you would in no

way advocate for this, but I've even heard some say that if you want to know what God has said today, you have to

learn English because it's found in the English translation, the King James.

And I've heard that out of the mouths of some people that argue for English being basically the universal language.

Even heard one person say, well, all air traffic controllers have to learn English.

So if you want to, there is a universal language.

English is the universal language.

And therefore, if you want to know what God hath said, then you must learn English to be able to,

to do that.

So in that spectrum, I imagine I know where you fall, but I'd like for you to hear it in your own

words, where, where do you find yourself in that particular argument

or, and, and, and, and do you think I'm being honest and fair about how I'm describing this?

Well, um, everything, everything is a little more complex than we like to make it out to be.

Um, and so not everybody always falls perfectly into any camp, uh, if you want to call them

camps or schools of thought.

And I think that where there's one, two and three, there's also 1 .1,

1 .2, 1.

Hey, you're a Calvinist, you like points.

So, you know, there's, there's a lot, there's a spectrum, you know, in between each individual notch, there's a lot of little

notches, but I actually would grab from a lot of those positions and, and kind of mix and match.

Um, so the, uh, preference argument, uh, I

would hold to, uh, to a certain extent, but it begs the question.

If one is better than something else must be inferior.

And why is it inferior?

And that leads you into the manuscript argument because it could be inferior for choice of word.

Um, but it could also be inferior because of not, and choice of word as in

like synonyms, you know, which, which word we're using to describe the same thing.

Or it could be saying something entirely different.

That's when you get to the manuscript argument.

And so then you have to talk about, you know, Texas receptus versus everything else, or more

properly, the received text or the traditional text would probably be an even more

accurate term.

I know that there's multiple terms and people don't know which one to believe.

They more or less mean the same thing, but not always, you know, sometimes there's a little bit of difference in

what those terms actually mean.

As far as the double inspiration crowd.

Uh, I don't agree with them.

Um, but, um, I sort of understand it.

Um, the idea that if it's perfect, it must be inspired.

So, you know, but it seems like a way to get away from learning, um, and understanding

the nuance.

Uh, nuance is not romantic.

You know, nuance is not dramatic.

Nobody likes to talk about little issues that may or may not come down to.

What do you believe at the end of the day, it may be one side presenting some evidence on the other side, presenting some evidence, and then

you just have to trust the spirit to give you, you know, what you should understand, what you should agree with.

Um, and not everybody likes that.

Everybody wants to say, no, it's this way or it's, or, you know, or you can, you can, you know, go, you know, where

essentially, uh, but you have to be able to reason come, let us reason together, say at the

Lord.

Uh, so the, the double inspiration crowd, it seems in my mind, uh, wants to

get away from learning and just say, Hey, it doesn't matter what happened.

Um, or some people say stuff did happen, but ultimately any kind of questions it's like the Trump card you

can play.

Well, what about this variant?

Double inspiration.

You know, it was re -inspired in 1611.

So it really doesn't matter.

You know, it's, it's basically your get out of jail free, you know, no matter what people ask you, you can always say it was inspired, but

even that crowd has their problems because there is something called the 1769 Blaney revision.

You know, there's, there's, there's a lot of other things that you have to bring into that.

I've seen people defend typos in the first edition of

the 1611 King James Bible, uh, which is so monumentally stupid.

Um, it's, and, and that's, and that's one reason that there's been so many,

um, revisions, um, from 1611 up to 1769 and

beyond, uh, part of it, uh, you have to appreciate just a difficult task that Robert

Barker and his team in London had to do, uh, when all of these letters were individual had to be put in

backwards, you know, all the way down.

So if you miss one letter as you're typing it backwards, well, you've just.

Created, you know, a faulty, if you want to call it that book, and that's happened over and over and over again.

And then of course, things like the Gothic font, the fact that there's no, um, uniform

spelling, uh, there was no Webster's dictionary yet.

And so even though English had basically reached its Zenith of precision yet

understandability, um, you can see things like, you know, the two E's, um, and, and also words that will

have an E at the end, but then the same word of little while later that doesn't have any at the end, well, there were no uniform

spelling rules yet, and so it makes sense that as those come into fashion, that you take the

ironing, you know, ironing tool and say, okay, we're getting, this is all the same thing.

So let's drop the extra E let's make it more readable, uh, for people of today.

And so that doesn't change the text in any way.

If it says here with two E's at the end, that's the same as here with one E at the end.

It's exactly the same.

Um, and that can be transferred over.

I know that's not a direct answer to what you were asking.

Uh, but I'm trying to say that it's a spectrum, essentially.

Um, the, the things that people believe, the camps that people are in, I'd actually pull and pick and choose,

uh, from a lot of different ones.

I, I take what I want and I throw back what I don't want.

Um, and create my own camp, which is what everybody does.

Everybody is in their own camp.

There's not anybody that I agree with 100 % on anything.

Um, but yes, I would.

To answer directly.

I believe that the King James Bible is superior to

every other English translation, and I have yet to find

any major issues that I could not answer.

Um, that's not to say that there aren't any, um, are there some rough spots that I have trouble with?

Absolutely.

Um, but there's also, that's, that's the things I don't understand.

There's also things I do understand that I have trouble with.

Some of it's doctrinal trouble.

It's just, I want to do something and the word says I can't, you know?

So that's, you know, that's that right there.

Um, I do think the manuscripts that the King James Bible are based on are better.

I think that there is, um, I, I think the traditional text is superior to the critical

text, and I think if it is perfectly transmitted, it doesn't have to be re -inspired.

That's, that's one thing that kind of grates on me about the double inspiration crowd, like, oh, it was re -inspired.

If it was transmitted correctly and perfectly, it does not need to be re

-inspired.

Um, so people say, is the King James Bible inspired?

Um, it is a preserved method of the inspired word, and if it lacks

nothing, then in that sense, it's inspired, uh, because God's inspiration did not,

as soon as the first copy of John was, you know, being made, it's not like

inspiration stopped at, I mean, inspiration properly stopped, but it's not like the inspiration

power stopped at the first autograph, and then when the autographs came in, you know, the

inspiration was entirely retained in those original copies.

Um, if, if it is transmitted correctly, then it is, it can, it has the same

promises to it, it has the same authority to it, uh, as the originals did.

Yeah.

And, and, and I'm glad you clarified and, and I understand not wanting to put yourself into one

group.

I understand there's a spectrum and even I, you know, if you asked me, where are I would say that I am,

uh, I, I, I accept the critical text as an apparatus to be

used for researching things like textual variation and, and, and I

actually believe something maybe a little different, uh, than, than some of my, my colleagues and

friends, um, uh, and that is that I think that where, where

most of us get our biggest arguments are things like textual variants

and there are some major textual variants that have to be considered things like 1 John 5, 7, the

Kamiohaniom and the longer ending of Mark and the Pericopa Adultery, John 7, 53 through 8,

11, those are passages that are classic textual variants that typically, if you're King

James advocate, whether you're King James only, or that's how you identify yourself, we would say King James advocacy or King James

supremacy.

As you said, you think it's superior.

I think we could fairly call that King James supremacy.

If that's the case, then you're going to accept those passages.

You're going to say these passages are part of God's word.

And someone like me would say, well, I think each one of those passages should be considered on its own merits

based upon the history of the text and not be accepted out of hand simply because it's in the

traditional text and not be rejected out of hand simply because a few scholars come along and question that passage,

but I think we have to examine the evidence of each one.

And this leads to some problems for some people because they say, oh, well, that makes the word of God subjective because you might accept it and

Josh might not accept it, or Josh might accept it and you might not accept it, and it becomes very subjective.

And now you're saying, well, what is the word of God?

How can we know?

If Keith doesn't believe it is, and Josh believes that it is, there comes this issue, and I'm sympathetic

to that.

But one of the things that I try to point out when I'm teaching on the subject is while textual

variation is important, it makes up a very small part of the.

Argument.

Another thing that makes up a part of the argument is the question of translational methodology.

For instance, the question of, is the King James Bible, taking out the issue of textual

variation, is the King James Bible rendering the original language

into English in the best way possible for today?

Is it rendering these versions or these verses in a way that is most understandable?

And this is where it raises questions of things like understandability,

comprehensibility.

Can we really comprehend what the text is saying if it's written this way?

Because nobody talks this way, nobody reads this way, and there are words that were used

in the 1600s in a way that they're not used today.

You're familiar with the term false friends, right?

Or maybe you're not.

I am familiar with the term false friends.

And I would say that it is telling that you have to

ask essentially, and it's not against you.

And I know who has made the term popular, but isn't it amazing that the term

false friends trying to tell you that there's words that maybe mean something that you

didn't think they mean.

And yet, if you ask somebody what false friends means, most of them, if not all of them, are going

to have no idea what you're talking about.

So false friends is almost a false friend whenever you talk about it.

So if you're trying to say that explaining what a word means

is important, well, let's start with the term false friends.

Because if I go and ask, you know, if I go poll a church right now, say, what's a false friend?

You know, a few people might know what a false friend argument is.

So even just even from the get go, even to bring up the subject is

kind of, you know, when you point a finger, you got fingers pointing back at you.

And I don't have any problem, by the way, with Mark Ward going around and explaining what some of the harder

words in the King James Bible, like that's a valuable thing.

And you know what?

Whenever I was, you know, seven years old, first starting to read it, I didn't understand every word.

And even today, I mean, I'm 29 years old, I can pick up books and I don't understand every word.

Some of it I use context clues like that, that will always happen.

And I do understand and I hear the argument for people that come

from, you know, I don't want to look down on anybody.

I really don't.

But it is undeniable the decline in education in our country, just undeniable.

And when you hear people speaking today, there is one most of them like

the idea that people that speak that way could even read what you're giving them is is beyond me.

You cannot dumb down the language enough for an ever dumbing down language.

Listen, listen to English today was like bet and slay.

And which, by the way, slay is an old, old English word that's used completely differently today.

And not to be too crass, but the most popular English words at this present time are huck to a like this.

There is the degradation of our language is is

remarkable.

It is of all of all the things I thought were going to be part of this conversation.

I did not think that that would make it in.

And I can't I can't riff on it too much because then we'll we'll get to.

I mean, even bringing it up was too much.

But my point is this.

I always cut a section of the of the video to make that like the intro, like the first 30 seconds.

And let me tell you something, brother.

You just made the first 30 seconds.

Here we go.

But see, you can't.

And by the way, hashtag it with that and you'll get people that have no idea what we're talking about finding the video.

Who are these two crazy guys talking about 400 year old English text?

But put that JPEG of that of that girl as the as the thumbnail of the.

But yes, do I understand things need to be explained at times?

Yes, but that's at times by and large, there's nothing wrong with the translation just

reading it as it is for just about anybody.

And the idea that things need to be explained so we can't we can't use it anymore.

Like, well, that's that's true for literally every honest translation.

That's true for the ESP.

You can read stuff like, man, what does that mean?

In fact, sometimes it's even harder because they don't even attempt to translate.

They just throw a Hebrew word out there.

And you're like, what does that mean?

If you're an English speaker, you're like, huh?

Like what?

Shale.

You know, Elahab, like what is what is that supposed to be, you know, so without any

context and I'm not I'm not opposed to mingling the original language, but if you already know what it means, that's great.

If you don't know what it means, that's woefully unhelpful.

So that argument that, you know, there's some things that you don't understand on your first reading.

And so, you know, go to something else.

Well, there's other places in those texts as well.

So let's I don't I don't know anybody that can't comprehend.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth like.

You could read and read and keep reading before you finally find a place like, I don't really know, I don't know

what that means.

Well, that we all have the Internet now, like that's that's not that big of a deal.

And if we want to keep translating as far as I am, I'm adamantly against paraphrase translations.

I don't think you would support them either.

But I despise that thought that you, with your infinite wisdom,

could.

Try to, you know, say what God is saying.

And, you know, real quick before we go much further, because I mentioned false friends, you you you you talked

about them, but some people may not even know what that term means.

And we didn't really define it.

It's funny because you said, hey, you even have to define what false friends mean, which false friends means that there's there might be a word

in the King James, which we think we know what it means.

Therefore, it's like a friendly word because we think we know.

But it's not what it means.

It actually means something else 400 years ago, and therefore it's a false friend and can lead us to a false

understanding.

And so you're saying you think that's not good enough of an argument for any type of updating of

the King James?

Not not not in a compelling way, because whenever you list out any so -called

false friends and explain what they mean, well, congratulations was you've explained what they mean, then what's

the point?

You know, like we need to update this.

Well, if we understand what they mean and they're so minute, they're so very few and you have to do the argument

for the other side as well for all the other translations.

But that's not a problem for them because they update frequently.

But I think there's even false friends in a way in the ESV, in the way it's

translated, things like to them that are being saved, where the KJV would

say to them that are saved now properly in the Greek, there's a continuation.

You know, the idea is that you're saved and you're and you're sealed, essentially, and that the sanctification work is

never complete and that's reflected in the Greek.

But whenever it's rendered into English, it becomes squishier.

So as an English reader, if you read that are being saved, that kind of infers that

salvation is this ongoing process that's not quite complete yet and properly as far as

sanctification, glorification, it's not, but that doesn't really come across in the English, whereas

to us that are saved and its finality renders that to

an English speaker in a way that accurately reflects what God is talking about.

So does that mean we need to burn every ESV?

No, but there are false friend arguments that could be applied in other translations as

well.

Well, staying on that for a second, that's a good time to actually take a

step back and say, but which one actually conveys

the Greek underlying word?

As you said, it has the continuing idea in the Greek underlying word.

Therefore, are we not saying that, well, the King James agrees with my theology

more, so therefore it's right, rather than it actually agrees with what the word is.

If the word has the idea of a continuing going on, then it seems to me that that's what we should go with

is what that word actually means, not be bound to a text for one, because it's

the text we like, but two, because it agrees with us.

Yeah, and that's a fair argument.

And ultimately, one, it's not up to me, I'm not a Greek scholar, but

whenever you're looking at a host of Greek scholars on one side and a host of

Greek scholars on the other side coming to disagreement about a certain topic, you basically have to say, which Greek scholars are you going

to believe?

And it's not even a critical versus majority text argument.

It's arguing over the same words.

And I don't want to cut you off too quickly.

I know you have a thought, but just so I don't forget, that's the point I'm making is sometimes it's not even about the variance.

Sometimes it's about how we translate a particular phrase or how we translate a particular word.

Is this supposed to be in the subjunctive?

Is this, if it is the subjunctive, is it being translated in that?

You know, these are questions that for many of us, it's

above even our level of education or what some might say it's above our pay grade.

And to be able to say, well, I know for certain that this is how it is.

Yeah, and there's some things that, you know, with my limited understanding of Greek, I mean, I'm just barely into

Greek 101 essentially and get to Greek declension and then realize I don't know English well

enough.

You know, I have to go and learn some of these terms because I was never good at English.

So I go and learn those so I can come back and learn Greek.

There are some things that you can look at and they're self -evident.

Yeah, I understand that.

But there are also some things like I'd have to study this, I'd have to study Greek for years and

years and years to understand what this is getting at.

Now, whenever people that could speak conversational Greek to each other, just

as Bart Ehrman would say about the King James translators, that they could speak Hebrew and Greek,

you know, conversationally.

And he would say, and I have a quote somewhere, but in his own words that they were on a level far above

anybody alive today would look at something and all of them come to a consensus.

Yeah, that's that's what that means.

And by the way, that's reflected in other translations of people that were not them and not attached to them.

That also, I think, is an argument for using a particular rendering,

whereas the muddying of it, I mean, I think there's too much

faulty doctrine based on and ultimately the scripture does not disagree with itself.

So it's not some of it is how they think the word should be used, how it falls grammatically in

Greek.

And it's also informed by not coming into conflict with what the scripture says about itself and

about salvation.

But yeah, that's that is one of those issues where you have to look at it and ultimately hear the argument to say,

I think it's this one, I think it's this one.

And, you know, some people are ready right now in the comment section with a knife.

So you you should have come down on that.

So, no, it's wrong.

Like, look, I do think it's wrong.

But if you don't think it's wrong, you know, you do you.

You know, this is I can only answer for me and I and for what I'm going to stand before God.

And do I think he's going to, you know, throw you into hell because you came down a different way on this verse?

Probably not.

But will it and could it lead?

Probably not.

Can't speak for him, but could it lead to some difficult

conversations with people that believe differently about salvation?

You better believe it.

There's a lot of variance.

There's a lot of ways words are translated that if you're arguing with somebody or debating with somebody or doing

apologetics with somebody who believes different from a different schism of Christianity or even farther away than

that, sometimes these things really do come back up to bite you and you have to have an answer,

you know, say, well, look, some people don't believe that salvation is done whenever, you know,

the spirit comes in and, you know, upon the moment of confession and repentance and that it continues

and that it can be lost.

And so some of this becomes fodder for the other side of that argument.

So it and and I can use this to launch into I don't want to misdirect or anything.

But, you know, sometimes if the answer is gray, the answer is gray.

But.

There are some very important things that I think need to be there,

because a logical path will lead you to something like the long ending of Mark.

I know that's a different argument, but I think the evidence for it is is nigh on

draconian, if that's the right word to use.

That might be a false friend right there.

And it's not just it's not just the reason that I think it belongs, but whenever you remove it.

So higher criticism, which is in my mind different than textual criticism, says that

Mark did not keep writing after verse eight, I believe, you know, it's nine to twenty one, twenty two.

And so you leave without properly seeing the resurrection take place.

You see angels tell, you know, that Jesus rose, the woman fled, they didn't tell anybody because they were afraid.

That's how the book of Mark ends, according to higher criticism, which is born out of the eighteen hundreds.

People knew about these manuscripts long before then.

They knew about them.

You know, Tyndale probably knew about them.

But when you say then after that, that Mark is the first gospel written and that everybody

gets their material from Mark, if Mark doesn't have the resurrection, you are led down a logical path.

Now, there's fallacies at every last one of those.

I don't think you could say with certainty that Mark was the first one written.

I don't think you could say with certainty that everybody gets their material from Mark.

I think that's an assumption.

But if you want to believe all those steps, Mark doesn't

have the resurrection, according to how they would say it.

Then Mark is the first one written.

Then everybody gets what they have from Mark and just adds to it later in time.

And then even a more liberal perspective, it was written after the apostles died.

You know, like you can be led down this train of logic that, yeah, the

resurrection that was just invented, you know, over a period of time.

And we can see that in the text.

So I think for the believer that knows where they stand and

stands on the risen Christ and is not as swayed by some of these arguments,

yes, it's not as important to them, you know, unfortunately.

But I have heard it used.

I've heard it from people's mouths that want to discredit the resurrection, the scripture, the New Testament,

the gospel writers.

They will say that argument.

Mark doesn't have the resurrection.

He was the first one written.

Everybody got it from him.

And they made up stuff after that, you know, because theirs are longer and whatever.

So I do think it is an important argument where it may not cause your church to crumble, you know, right

as soon as you take it out.

But unknowingly, you've removed some of the supports, you know, and it's a

it's almost devious.

I'm not saying it's done.

I'm not saying it's done by knowing humans.

I'm saying we wrestle not against flesh and blood.

And there is a there is a plan to undermine the authority of God's word.

And, you know, if you remove something and then you present an argument for why it was removed and then there are consequences

for that argument, you could lead yourself down a logical path that is not so pleasant.

OK, and I want to at this point, I'm going to push back a little bit, and maybe this will get more into the meat of our

of our of our distinction.

You use a couple of phrases like just now you said, if these have been removed, when you

say removed now, I understand with a longer ending of Mark, that certainly would probably be the

right word to say if it's not there and it once was, then it's been removed.

But oftentimes I will see like TikTok videos where people will say, see, the King James has

this verse and then here it's been removed.

That is an accusation not only of of an action, but it's an

accusation of an intention on the part of the translation committee or of the of the

committee that put that particular translation together to say that there's some form of nefarious

cover up, that there's some form of attempting to do something bad.

They took this out and we know there's times where the NIV or the ESV will go like from verse

21 to verse 23.

There's no verse 22.

Why?

They didn't just renumber it.

Well, they can't renumber it because it has to match up other translations so that when you're in the church and you tell them to

turn to verse 21, they're not looking at verse 23 or something like that.

So there has to be some agreement.

So sometimes it just doesn't have verse 22.

Sometimes verse 22 will be in the margin.

Sometimes that will be in a bracket because that particular verse is in question.

But I would argue it's never the issue of, well, this was this was

taking it out.

The question is, was this ever part of the original?

And do we have ample evidence to say that it was part of the original?

And this is a place where I would agree with James White.

A lot of people don't like when he says this.

I remember one particular person that he debated did not like this phrase at all.

But I think it's worth repeating.

And that is, I don't care what one translation has in it.

I want to know what Mark wrote.

I don't care what one translation has said.

I want to know what Paul wrote.

That's my goal.

My goal is to know what Paul wrote.

And I cannot intellectually accept an a priori

commitment to a 17th century Anglican translation.

I can't do that.

It does.

I don't have.

I interviewed Matt Whitman a few months ago, and I really like a phrase that he came up with.

He said, I can't think what I don't think.

Right.

Like, I can't I can't be made to think something I don't think.

That's just not, I can't.

You can tell me to think it.

You can tell me I should think it.

You can even encourage me to think it.

But unless you persuade me to think it, I can't think it.

Just, I can't make myself think it.

I can't make myself come to that conclusion.

And I still, this is where I really have difficulty with someone on your side,

is I have difficulty saying the standard is the King James.

Because I want to, this is where I think the issue between us would be, if the

question of Mark's longer ending was the question, it really doesn't matter what the evidence is.

It doesn't matter what I present.

It doesn't matter how much we can argue the earliest manuscripts didn't have it, whether or not

later manuscripts have it marked with asterisks or have it separated from the rest of the text.

It doesn't matter if it has a shorter version or a longer version.

It doesn't matter that even in later Greek text, it shows that there was question marks surrounding verses nine to 20.

What matters is it's in the King James, so I have to accept it because that's the position.

And again, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing.

That's the position that seems to be being advocated, and that's something I can't just accept it

out of hand that way.

In my looking at the subject, I think every variant has to be considered

on its own merits.

And I'll tell you, I just finished preaching through the gospel of Mark, just so it's interesting that you and I,

we didn't say we were going to talk about the longer ending of Mark, but I said when I was preaching those

last 11 verses, I do see the issue of not having it.

I do see if we say this is not part of God's word, then it does leave the gospel of Mark very

unsatisfactorily ending with the word afraid, because that would be the last Greek word in verse

nine, which is the word afraid.

I understand the problem with that, and I understand how that would lend to a

question mark as to whether or not Mark even presents to us a risen Christ, or it presents to us a

question mark, did he or did he not raise?

And yet, then I go into verses nine to 20, and I have to consider some of the issues

such as the inclusion of hapex legomena, which are words that are not used anywhere else

in the Bible, or used nowhere else in the Markan literature, but they're

used 16 times in this section.

They're words that he doesn't use anywhere else that don't seem to fit the rest of the way that he wrote.

I have to consider that within these verses, there seemed to be an inconsistency

in the way the story is told.

It mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb, which we know happens in the gospel of John, but doesn't fit the other synoptic

versions of what happened on the day of the resurrection, and the question of the

drinking of poison, or the being bitten by vipers, and those things, which certainly lends to

an entire movement of errant Christianity called the snake handling movement.

And you know, these are all things that have to be considered.

And so when I'm looking at this, I tend to think, yeah, I

can see, based on evidence, a reason to argue for its inclusion.

In fact, Jeff Riddle, I've mentioned him to you before, he debated James White for the inclusion of the longer ending of

Mark, and I think he did a fine job making an argument from history, from the text, not just based on

tradition, but from the text for the longer ending of Mark.

I don't agree with everything he said.

I don't agree with all of his conclusions.

But if I were going to make an argument for the longer ending of Mark, if I'm going to go and

have that conversation, that's the way I want to do it.

I don't want to do it based upon an a priori acceptance of a text simply because this is

the one that has been agreed upon, that this is the standard.

Does that make sense where I'm coming from?

Where our starting point is?

Yeah, and I didn't mean simply because I led with one of the problems or the consequences of leaving

it out.

I didn't mean to infer that that was where I was starting from.

I was just trying to kind of launch off of, you know, from the last thing.

So, yeah, typically you would say you say the evidence is first and then you would follow up with the consequences of the evidence.

But I flip flopped it.

But yeah, I do think that needs to be considered.

Now, is that is that the priority?

No.

Like what you say, the text and what it says, you know, it's not, you know, not to be, you know, have blind

allegiance to any particular translation.

They're either right or they're wrong, you know.

And so but yeah, there are unintended consequences, I think, of

doing that.

And the idea of, you know, when again, when I say nefarious, when I say that there's a plan, I don't

necessarily mean the people.

I think there's some of those concepts that are separated and you can't you can't have a hand over them.

You know, when people over here, you know, will say that it's the first one written.

When people over here say the ending doesn't belong.

And then when people over here, you know, want to add another thing to that or that, you know, that the gospels were

written later.

And like all those individual thoughts come together to create a logical

train that will lead you to unbelief if you're on the fence about certain things.

And I think that that is nefarious.

And I think that comes from below, you know, if you want to if you want to be spiritual about it.

So I don't think I think we give the devil too much credit about some things.

But in other things, I don't think we give them enough.

Now, as far as the again, not a Greek expert, but there are the words at the

long ending that are unique.

Well, there are unique words all throughout Mark that are used sometimes once and never again.

I mean, that's that's true throughout all of the scripture.

Now, is that a compelling argument?

Not necessarily.

But hey, it's an argument.

So, you know, that that's that is something to be of note.

People say, oh, look, there's a unique word.

There's unique words over here, too, and that they just show up in there and they never appear again.

If I said the word.

Right now, um, lava lamp, I mean,

I don't need that word very often.

Sometimes I need it.

When do I need it?

When I say there's a lava lamp over there.

And after that, I don't need that word again, because there's very there's precious little uses for the word lava lamp, you

know, so it's just when you need it, you need it.

When you don't, you don't.

And I've seen that in higher criticism to an extent that I think is is

downright irresponsible.

The kinds of people and I know you don't agree with this, but the kinds of people that would look at Paul's letters and from a higher critical

standpoint say he's writing different here than he did a few words ago.

So that means this must have been added later by somebody else or somebody else is writing here.

It's not Paul like that is such an irresponsible way of looking at the text to

to assume that we know this is the only way that Paul wrote or this is the only way that Mark wrote.

And so we're going to say, since it looks a little bit different, somebody else must like it's in the same letter, like it's

like an Ephesians or something like as you're reading through, it's not a different chapter.

It's a few words earlier saying, OK, Paul clearly wrote this because this is how Paul writes.

But this right here, Paul wouldn't have said that, you know, so this must mean this this crept in later.

Like I've heard that from people that teach it like Yale, which

I know they're not the bastion of great conservative thought, but you know, people that teach on the New Testament at places like

Yale and other colleges will put forth those ideas and higher criticism like

that goes beyond trying to find out what the original words are.

And to me, that's that's just a bridge too far as far as the evidence for the long ending of Mark.

I mean, you've I could say it all for the for the viewers.

And it's probably.

It's probably helpful, I could read it off real quick, but I mean, the long and short of it is massive

manuscript evidence, massive quotation by the church

fathers going back some cases like 170 A .D., maybe even earlier than that

to to where it's very close to when the gospel was was originally written.

And you have the references that appear in other parts of Scripture.

The only the only one that I'm not that, you know, that doesn't appear to my knowledge is the drinking of deadly things, handling

of snakes.

I mean, Paul did that in Acts as a brief mention of speaking in tongues that would happen also in Acts.

So, I mean, there are even though those things give me pause and they're kind of weird.

I'm like, read early church history.

Some of those things happen with great frequency.

Read about missionaries now that, you know, that I'm not I'm not one of those people that thinks that, you know, everybody has a gift, you know, of

the of the spirit.

They can just speak in tongues when they want and all that kind of stuff.

But those things, I think, undeniably happen, not necessarily when

people think they're going to happen, usually in hours of great need to people that have given their lives to God

on the on the mission field and served a calling.

But those things do still happen.

And I don't think anybody can really dispute that if they're honest.

So that's the content argument, you know, about the weird words as far as

the message is concerned.

And there's a kind of a minor argument about the unique words and then a general

nonspecific argument about the majority.

Now, you can also argue from its exclusion.

I think you can't dispute that has been excluded in some of the manuscripts, like the book of the Vatican, like the book of the Sinai.

The fact that, you know, the only places I think it's either one or both where it is the

only place that there is a gap between the text from the start, you know, the end of a book and the start of another

beyond the Old Testament and the New Testament.

But for some reason, Mark has this long, you know, section, also the stigmata, the two little

dots, the umlauts there that somebody just did a conference on the umlauts

of the Vaticanus, like, I cannot imagine a more

boring conference than that.

And this is not this is not by, you know, King James only.

This is like papyrologists and they're studying the kinds of ink used in the Vatican manuscript because it's been

rewritten many times.

It's been overwritten.

You know, I think maybe it was Bergen or Bombasius or Erasmus, you know, 400, not 400,

the 9th century, the 10th century, the 11th century, you know, the 14th century, the book of the Vatican has been

systematically overwritten every single time.

So but there are umlauts that denote textual variation and

the ones that appear, the ink has been examined that it is from either

the early rewrites or the original putting down of the text.

So those umlauts, those two little dots that show up all over the manuscript to denote textual variation,

their conclusion is that at the very least, they're very early, not later editions.

And at the most, they're the original putting down of the manuscript whenever that may be.

And so that would say whenever you put those next to the long ending of Mark, which is a big gaping hole in those

manuscripts, whenever you put them next to the Comma Johannium and other places,

that would say that the people at the time knew about those variants.

That doesn't necessarily mean they took them out for nefarious purposes, but that does mean that they at least existed

or that they were aware that some manuscripts had them, even if those manuscripts are no longer extant, that

those readings did exist.

And I don't think you could say that they didn't because I mean, the church fathers quote the scripture and they quote

those variants.

So, yes, you can create a mountain of evidence on one side.

And as you've said, you can create a mountain of evidence for the other argument.

And this is one of those that say, look, you have to decide what you think it means or if it should belong.

I've decided, you know, and it's not just me.

I'm not standing here on a hill by myself.

I'm standing with, you know, reformers and theologians and church fathers going back

thousands and thousands of years.

So I don't want people to think like, oh, I just made a decision and here I am.

Like, no, I think it belongs.

And not just because it's in the King James Bible.

It's in tons of other Bibles.

I think it is what was originally written.

I've heard some people say it's inspired, but Mark didn't write it.

It was shortly after, like, you know, within a few years or a few months, somebody else other than Mark

wrote it onto the gospel, but it's also inspired.

Well, if it's also inspired, then what difference does it make?

To me, that's a non -argument and I don't actually have a problem with it.

Like, I think Mark wrote it, but if he didn't and it was added by, you know, Mark's best friend, Jimmy, you know,

and God also inspired Jimmy, you know, to write that ending in there.

Like to me, it's like, well, if it's inspired, then what's the difference?

So that's that minor argument that some people bring up to me that that is

inconsequential.

I know that was a lot of information.

I'm sure you'll take issue with some of it and you're welcome to.

Well, I think the bigger issue I have, I guess, at this point is the starting point.

And that is the issue of, is there any place

where you would say the King James translators either got it wrong or

could be improved upon?

And this is probably the most important question that I could ever ask,

because this is where I think the big fundamental dividing line is going to be, whether we disagree or agree with the

inclusion of the longer ending of Mark or the Kamiohaniam or the Pirkepeia del Torre, or even if we

got into some of the weeds, you know, 1 John 118 or John 118, you know, places like that where, you

know, the choices of the word son or only begotten son or only begotten God, things like that, which are important

and foundational for theology, because it's an important variant.

Or hey, my favorite, nobody talks about it.

John 5, 3b and beyond.

Nobody talks about the pool of Bethesda.

That makes me mad.

Like nobody, Hey, that variant never did anything wrong to anybody.

And nobody ever writes papers about it.

I had to do an entire research video on it and go to the pool of Bethesda twice, like to put

it all together.

Did you, you went to the pool of Bethesda?

Yeah.

Was the angel there?

Did he meet you?

Did you, did you get a chance to shake his hand?

You know, the water still flows and that is, it actually is true.

Yeah.

And underground spring still feeds it to this day that I wouldn't, I wouldn't touch.

It.

The water is nasty, but, uh, that, that, that was pretty cool to stand there.

It's got a lot of leftover sins.

You know, that people have come to be washed away.

A lot of, a lot of leftover infirmities are there.

Absolutely.

So, but, but on that, uh, and I, I forgot how I worded the question.

So I'll try to maybe reword it.

No, no, no.

It's fine.

Is the issue of, is there any place in the King James where you would say this

could be improved upon or maybe they're the translators

made a mistake?

Okay.

So yeah, it's kind of two questions and there's always two ways of looking at it, unfortunately, because

there's the texts underneath and then there's the way the words are translated into English.

And I'll, I'll give you this one.

Synonyms exist.

There are words that mean the exact same thing as another word and you can swap them out

and it is not diminishing the text.

I know people get all up in arms about that, but look, behold,

see, observe.

Now some of those means some slightly different things, but you know, the synonyms exist and so it's the popular

phrase is things that are different are not the same, but things that are similar might be the same, you.

There is something called Euclid's principle.

It's things that are the principle of equidistance, things that are equal to the same thing are equal to

each other.

And so as far as modern English versions are concerned, I don't think you open them and they light on

fire full of, you know, brimstone.

And, and, you know, I think there are things in them in many places that are not defensible.

I think there are patterns that are troubling, you know, about, you know, how the names of Christ are diminished and all that

kind of thing.

The, the, the separation of certain things, that's all, you know, those are all old arguments that people have

made.

However, the places where they agree, some of them, exactly.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Now which translation did I just quote?

Well, I was quoting the NIV.

Yeah.

Cause it's the same in the NIV, the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV, the MEV, and probably a host of

others to the word, to the exact word, there's not, not italicized stuff or anything like

everything in its exact position.

So if I'm being consistent, I have to say that in the NIV, whenever John one, one is put down in front

of me, that is God's word.

That is what God said.

If I think it's in the KJV, I have to believe it's in the NIV.

Now, every other place, you know, sometimes that standard of purity changes as, as

you read through some things like, okay, that's a synonym.

They said, they said something different, but it still means the same thing.

And like, if you train, if you change the word, ask the word donkey,

same animal.

I don't care if you change it.

I legitimately don't care because synonyms exist.

And I, I may have somebody, maybe I told you English was not my best subject.

So maybe synonym is not even the right word, but yeah, things that are equal to the same thing are equal

to each other.

So as far as an update of the King James, some people want to ask about that, it seemed like part of the question

might've been directed towards that.

Look, if you can find a word that means the exact same thing, and it's a little bit easier to understand for the most part, I

don't care because whenever we're talking about those, we're talking about like 50, if that

in a, in a book with 800 ,000 words, like if you want to change 50 words and if

they do mean exactly the same thing and there's, you're not diminishing that, you know, if you want to

upgrade that a little bit, you know, get your experts together, seek the Lord,

you know, put your thing out there.

Don't put a copyright on it so it can go all over the world.

You know, that, that, that's essentially, some people would bristle up at that.

I don't care.

I don't really see the need for it because I can just learn what those words mean.

And whenever I learn what they mean, I know what they mean.

You know, once I learned something, I didn't have to learn it again.

For the most part, you know, I mean, God may be, may be saying something different about that, you know,

taught you something and you needed to learn that again, but yeah, that's probably true.

Uh, as far as rendering words and correctly that,

um, if it's the same word, you know, Greek word, was it rendered incorrectly?

I gotta tell you, it's a hard, it's a hard sell because again, you're talking about not just them, but

people that came before them, people that were around them, um, people that were on a academic

level that I can't even hope to touch.

And, uh, Bart Ehrman himself has said that.

And people like Dan Wallace would probably agree.

Um, that these guys, um, were on a different level as far as Greek, Cal

D and Hebrew are concerned.

And so, um, to say that they translated something incorrectly.

Um, so my question would be if they did something wrong,

why were they not qualified or did they do something intentionally?

Okay.

That's, that's a, I, I, I get where you're coming from, but I, I, and

again, allow me to push back a little bit.

Cause I, cause I do think, and I want to say this very nicely.

I don't think you answered my question.

Cause you, you're, you're, this is where, and this is where I really think the rubber meets the road.

And that's the question of, is there any place where if you could be that there was an error, like for

instance, in Revelation 16, five, that's a big one that comes up because it's based on, um, a textual

inundation.

Most people agree.

Theodore Beza was a reason for its inclusion.

And there's a wording in the King James that doesn't appear in the Greek manuscript prior to that.

And so that's one place where most people would at least be able to accept, Hey, here's, here's, here's

something that we could ask the question.

Why accept the King James reading of Revelation 16, five?

Why accept that?

Is it just because it's what we're most familiar with?

Or is it because it's what we have a tradition that we want to hold to?

And I, and I, and I know I didn't tell you, Hey, come ready to defend Revelation 16, five.

So I'm not, I'm not asking you to do that necessarily.

I am however, asking if you could be shown that this particular reading in the King

James does not agree with the overwhelming evidence

of Greek manuscripts, that this is not what is even present in, in, in other lines of,

of transmission, because we know we have the Latin, we know we have other languages that the text was translated in,

if we could show that, would that be enough for you to say, okay, here's a place, or is your commitment to the

King James so firm that you would say, I think they got it right, regardless, because

that's my starting point?

Well, the, the question shows up in other ways, um, like just for

the Bible in general, when people say, you know, if, if there was something that you didn't understand or something that, you know, something

that you could be shown like, well, the overwhelming majority of things that I can understand and I've

seen and I've heard and I've understood, um, helps me with the things that I don't fully understand.

So sometimes it's a contextual argument.

You can context or put into context how true something is, um, based on

the overwhelming majority.

I know that math works, even though I don't understand all of it, but I understand enough of it to know that it's going to work, you know, same thing for the

Bible.

Like there's some things you asked me about some of the miracles, some of the, some of the places, some things that, you know, people say, Hey,

there's, there's some problem here.

I've seen too much hard evidence to, to accept that there's something wrong with it as

far as the Bible is concerned.

And I can apply something similar to the argument for the KJV.

Now, some would say that that would be faulty.

Um, but for the most part, there are some difficult places that

nobody should dispute that first John five, seven, that has a, that has a hard road.

It's not a majority reading.

My people like to say majority text.

It's not a majority reading.

I think there's evidence for it.

I think there's good evidence for it.

But if you think that first John five, seven has a hard road to authenticity, as far as, you know, the public is

concerned, revelation 16, five, that's got a mountain to

climb over, but there are answers to it.

You know, I've heard people say, Oh, you know, Beza made it up.

Basically didn't just make it up.

It was in the notations of every edition of Erasmus before him, because even Erasmus thought there's something about this,

you know, there's, there's something here and even Erasmus used different words than are

commonly found in like the Nestle Elan today.

I think the word is also, also Seminos Erasmus use

Erhominos, which is a derivative of the same word.

So he wasn't too far off from Beza or Beza, however you want to say it.

But, well, let me real quick.

I have my notes on this.

I just, while you were talking, I pulled them up because I've taught on this before, and I just want to read what I have here just for people who don't know.

The King James reading is, at Revelation 16, five is the question of

whether it should be, and shall be, or the Holy one, who was, and is, and shall be,

or who was, and is the Holy one.

And the King James rendering renders it and shall be.

The King James reading is based on Beza's 1598 edition of the Textus Receptus.

The reading, and shall be, Caihas Esaminas, which is what, Caihas Esaminas, which is what you just mentioned,

does not appear in any existing manuscript.

Existing manuscripts read the Holy one, Caihas Esaminas, that Holy one, Caihas Esaminas,

and Holy one, Caihas Esaminas.

Some argue that Beza's reading is in keeping with what was likely original, but there is no evidence of it in the

manuscript tradition.

No other manuscript we possess reads this way prior to his emendation.

Beza even admits to making the emendation, stating, quote, And so without doubting the genuine writing in

the ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, Caihas

Esaminas.

So he even says, I restored it, but restored it based upon what?

Based upon what evidence?

And you said there was some things in previous manuscripts where there were notations, but were they notations of this word,

or is this a word that came to him as the best word?

And this is where I say, I have to find, I have to research.

I have to go where the evidence takes me.

I can't just out of hand say the King James version.

So, yeah.

So the, the, the pushback is, is not necessarily that it's, it's in notations of manuscripts, but specifically in

Erasmus.

So not that basically, so it's a pushback against the idea that Beza just made it up,

you know, like Beza didn't just make it up, Beza was a brilliant man.

And, but it wasn't just his, it wasn't original to him.

It came from, you know, people before him, even before Erasmus, that, that has to

be the original reading.

Did Erasmus use.

Haham.

Esaminas?

He used, he used, I believe I had it somewhere that it was,

it was the, he used Holy One in his, in his text and in his notations to the text,

suppose that erhaminas would be the original reading.

And the thing is, why would that be the, what a weird thing, you know, because like you've heard from

our conversation, I'm not real big into higher criticism and this really

approaches higher criticism.

But if I'm going to give it to anybody, I'm going to give it to these guys at the present because

Beza and Erasmus knew Greek on a level that I don't, and there is something

to this, the, hold on, where is it?

16 .5.

Let me, let me read this with you.

Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art and wust and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

So art of wust and shalt be, is according to them,

a variation of the nominus sacra, the sacred name of God, the Lord,

Yehovah, some people would say Yahweh, there might be Spurius, you know, who, who

really knows about that one.

But it's very common.

So I'll, I'll use that one as well.

And so, because John everywhere

else fulfills it as one of the sacred names of God, it seems that

in this place, it should as well.

And the reason, so people say, well, why, why does it say most holy?

Well, because, whenever you start with something and then you shorten it to

nominus sacra form, which I actually have a nominus sacra over here, which is, I can show sometime in the future.

It's, it's fantastic.

Basically, you know, shortening theos to two letters, you know, with a line over them, same thing for

Jesus, same thing for a lot of, some of them that I didn't even know, like that,

some that you wouldn't even expect to be nominus sacra, but they're, they're long, then they're shortened, then they're stretched out again,

well, the, it's been supported by looking at ancient witnesses, the way things are

referred to that, the holy one or most holy, as it appears in some places

is a valid finisher for that.

So if it starts long, it gets shortened for nominus sacra purposes and then gets

stretched back out.

It's like having a zip file.

Like you take it, you compress it into a zip file, you send it, and then you expand it again.

The only problem here is that with the expansion, people put something in that they say is

valid because that's what it means in a certain way, but it's not necessarily what the original

word is.

And some of that is supported in some of the manuscripts, not the original word.

Again, os, hem, whatever it was, os hem on an os, os hem on os, what?

Thank you very much.

Um, whatever, whatever that word is, is it, is it, is it found?

No, it's not found yet.

Um, but in the papyri, there are additional words.

There's only like four manuscripts before the 10th century that even have a revelation

in it and its entirety, uh, like this and, or this portion of revelations, revelation 16,

and all of them differ, all of them differ, and they're not quite sure what it is.

The oldest manuscript, I think it's P46, um, has an extra word, which would

support what Buzay is getting at.

Uh, it's, it's an extra chi and, uh, which makes the rendering not make any sense all of a sudden.

Um, so, uh, but let me, let me, okay.

And I, and I'm going to give you an opportunity.

I know we're getting way long and I, but I do want to give you an opportunity to ask me a few questions if you have any, but, but, cause I feel like I've been,

it's all, you've been all on the receiving end throughout this.

And I want you to feel like you've, you've had an opportunity as well.

But in this, when you say, okay, well, you know, what we found yet, the sort of the

assumption, and that sounds like, well, there could be others that are found and as soon as we find one, we're going to say, this is it

because this proves our point, which again, takes me back to the a priori, uh, assumption that you're,

you're assuming this is correct and you're going to point whatever evidence you have toward the correct nature

of it, rather than, rather than saying, this is the evidence we have and we got to adjust for it.

You're, you're, you're going to, and again, I love you to death.

I think you're a great guy.

This is, this is my problem with the whole, the whole.

I would push back on, I would push back on it.

I'm, I'm not a lovely guy.

No, I mean, I would push back on this.

Um, because, um, the idea that, you know, you, you have a theory, then you wait

around for it to be proven true is not look, if they find a manuscript, look, I'll be happy because then this

like, okay, this argument's done.

We don't have to argue about it, but it is an argument.

Um, is it a particularly compelling argument?

Not for the, not for the casual, uh, because again, you have to really get into the minutia of the

history of Greek and nominal sacra and the variants.

This is, this is a really difficult one to get into.

And like I said before, if you think 1 John 5, 7 is a hard road to authenticity, this one has a harder road.

Um, but, um, ultimately you have to look at it and make a judgment call.

And, um, there's been too many people that think that this should have been

even through history that look at this and say that this, this should have been the original reading and that something has

happened to it, people that are solid and grounded and scholarly, um, that I, that I, you

know, that all modern translations are based on.

So that, that's, that's part of it.

But there is, um, there's too many people that

have said there's no evidence for it.

And I'm not saying that this is one of those arguments.

So there's no evidence for it.

And so we don't believe it.

They thought that about the pool of Bethesda.

It literally did.

So John made that up five porches of the pool of Bethesda.

How could there be five porches to a square structure?

That doesn't make any sense.

So he, this was made up.

John didn't actually write it.

Uh, it had to be written by somebody who didn't know.

And they just threw that detail in there.

Well, it wasn't until like the twenties, the 1920s that we found the pool of Bethesda and found all five porches

like that, that it actually made sense.

And there was actually physical evidence for what John said.

And, but what, what should our position have been?

Should we have doubted it until science found it?

You know, I agree that there are a lot of issues that textual criticism

versus higher criticism have to have to address, and I'm not a higher critic.

And this is where I think that sometimes I think the King James onlyists are somewhat unfair to people on

my side because they, they lump us in with the higher critics.

And we, we, we try to explain, no, we're not, we're not asking the question of, are these things

possible?

Are these things true?

Obviously, if God's word says it, then we believe it.

If God's word says that Moses is part of the Red Sea, I'm not concerned about whether or not there's physical

evidence or whether or not there really are wagon wheels on the bottom of the, of the Red Sea, because this is, you know, things that, things

that people bring up.

What I'm concerned with, if this is what God's word says, I believe it.

But then it comes to the question, is this what was written?

And that, that is where my question lies.

And I think it's a fair question because we're dealing with a handwritten text.

We're dealing with a text that has a transmission.

And when I teach this, I teach four, four steps in the process of how we got our Bible.

I mentioned this at the opening.

The four steps are inspiration, God giving it to man, canonization, man recognizing what God has given,

and then thirdly, transmission, and then fourthly, translation.

And this brings me to my last, my last question for you.

And I'm gonna let you ask me a few questions if you have, if you have any.

And that's the question of this.

If you have a translation like the New King James, which seems to have at least

tried to adopt the same manuscripts that the King James did, at least tried to be faithful to

the same text.

So you're still going to have 1 John 5, 7.

You're still going to have the longer ending of Mark.

You're still going to have the pericope adultery.

You're still going to have the, essentially the same readings as the King James, but it's updated for a

modern reader and I've, and I've seen Arthur Farsad talk about this, the, the, the, the, the chief

editor of the, of the New King James version.

He seems like a godly man to me.

I don't see a reason to think that he was nefariously used by, you know, the devil himself to bring about a

change.

What are your thoughts?

Cause I know a lot of guys who are King James only, former King James only advocates, who made their way out of that

through recognizing that the New King James is superior.

And I know you believe the King James is superior.

So what are your thoughts about that?

Is there, this is why my, is there any way that the King James could be better?

So the, uh, the NKJV, I would have less issues with probably than just about any other translation.

But like I've said, you know, it's, it's a, it's a kind of a contains the word of God argument, um, which one

contains more of it.

Um, I think the word of God is something specific.

I don't think it's general as a, as Jimmy Akin says, you know, the Theopneustos is just kind of a general term for God's

message.

Like, I don't think that's what that means.

I think God said something, you know, I think when he said, let there be light, he actually said it

and let there be light.

If that's the way it should be, you know, rendered, you know, then light there should be is not the correct rendering.

So, you know, not that you can argue about if, if the method message is transmitted, you know, through

that.

But ultimately I want to know what he said.

I don't want to know what Abraham Lincoln sort of said or what he meant.

I want to know what he said when I read the Gettysburg address.

I want to know what he said.

So, you know, that that's that argument.

The NKJV, there's a few places that I would still have some issue with.

But like I said before, with other ones, like you can read it, you can get saved by it, you can, you can learn and grow in

Christ and love God and love his word because there is a lot of his word in it.

There are some things in there that I don't think he said, you know, as far as some of the translation, do I have, I don't have those,

I could look at that up and get back to you sometime in the future, but there's far less than there are in others.

So yeah, I, I, do I have problems with the NKJV?

I wouldn't use it, but I don't, you know, it doesn't chat my hide if somebody else does.

Same thing for a lot of other ones for the ESV probably got more problems with that one, but it doesn't offend me if somebody does.

This is what I do.

This is what I choose.

This is what I think is the most accurate one based on everything that I've looked at, read and studied.

So, um, and a lot of people don't like it, but eventually you're going to have to search your own heart

and, and find out where you come down on the issue.

Everybody wants to be told what to believe.

I'm not going to tell anybody.

I'm going to tell you what I think.

I'll tell you what I've learned and studied and read and present arguments where I can.

And if that, if the Holy Spirit is not telling you what to do, I can't tell the Holy Spirit what to do.

And maybe the Holy Spirit needs to tell me something, you know, so, you know, we

act like we know so much more than he does.

And we act like the preservation and the promulgation of the Bible really comes

down to us.

That's full of great hubris.

You know, if God is going to preserve it, and if he is going to, uh, give it to all

generations and everyone, you know, everywhere, uh, that's up to him.

If I die tomorrow, you know, if you die tomorrow, people will still be reading the Bible.

The Bible will go on because God is the author of it.

And God is the one that's going to put it where it needs to go.

And ultimately God's going to touch the hearts of people over what they should or shouldn't read or what should or shouldn't be his word.

And I think he's done that.

I think he has.

So I'm going to give you an opportunity where we're, I mean, we're well past the one hour and a half mark, which is normally pretty long for my shows,

but I think this will keep people's interest.

At least I hope it will.

Do you, what would be your questions to me?

If, if, if I came to your church and I was carrying an ESV Bible and, uh, you, you

wanted to, and you may not want to address me on it, but let's just say we did, let's say we had a good enough relationship where you

felt like you could do that, what would be your questions?

And maybe I'll give you a couple that way we can close this out within two hours, but give me a couple of questions that you would have

and let's see what my answers would be since you've been so gracious in answering so many of my questions.

Okay.

Wow.

So, um, first, if you came into my church, you'd be, you'd be welcomed.

Um, and I don't go to a King James only church.

I really don't.

Uh, I, and some people would get upset with that.

I go to a church that we primarily use the NKJV.

Uh, I know I have some friends that go to that church, use the NIV.

You know, so, and by the way, it's not on me to go up there and say, Hey, you're not really reading the Bible.

You know, like I know they do.

I know they, I know they love God and I know they love their community and they love me and they love their families.

Like, so at times we'll have conversations like this in a friendly way.

But you know, if, like I said before, if, if God doesn't convict them over it, then maybe

what I thought was a conviction, you know, as far as what they should be convicted with, what they should be doing, uh, maybe I

was incorrect.

And that doesn't mean I'm incorrect about what I believe, but just maybe, you know, God knows what he should say to people and

when, and who needs to hear it and who needs to respond.

So, uh, and what's wrong and what isn't.

But what I would ask you, see, that's an interesting question

because, you know, for me, I defend the history and the authority

of the text that I read, but really, I

don't mind that much what other people read.

I have my recommendation, you know, now for me, it's settled.

It really is.

And for others, I want it to be settled.

But I would ask, do you believe that the specific

words matter now?

Cause I want to know where you fall on it.

Um, cause we got paraphrase, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalent.

Um, so do you think that the NIV has as

much authority as the ESV?

Oh, that's a great question.

Thank you for, for asking that.

This is one of the things that I think is an interesting, uh, place where I may vary from some

of my Reformed counterparts is I actually think there can be value in dynamic

equivalence, and I think that there are times where dynamic equivalence has its place.

Um, but if I want to know where, if I want to know what God hath said,

then I'm not really going to look to an English translation.

I'm going to look to what the original words are, and then I'm going to see what translation most accurately

explains what those words are.

So for instance, um, you mentioned John 1 .1 in RK Einhalagas, you know, in the

beginning was the word, uh, well, the new English translation says in the beginning, the word already

was.

So it's one of the few that does change that slightly, but it changes it because of the idea of the word

was indicating that it wasn't as if in the beginning, the word became, like he

was in the beginning, but it was that he already was when the beginning took place.

And so it seeks to bear, bore down further into the meaning that

it's not just that he came into being, which we would, we both would disagree because we believe in the full deity and,

and, uh, preeminence and preexistence of, of, of the son.

But, but if we say in the beginning was the word, if the, if the new English translation says in the beginning, the word

already was, I do think it's attempting to bore down further into the meaning

of, um, uh, in RK Einhalagas, Einhalagas was the word, uh,

that's what it means.

If I could, if I could jump in though, does the word already infer that something had to have a beginning?

Uh, well, it's saying that the, that the very thing that's an object is the beginning because in RK

is the beginning, well, the beginning of what?

The beginning of creation.

And in the beginning of creation, the word already was.

And so, yes, I think, I think there is a, there is a, doesn't it infer that there.

Might've been a time when the word was not?

I don't think so.

I don't, I don't think that's, I just think that any more than we, when we say in the beginning was the word.

Well, see, when Jesus said before Abraham was, I am, which is a callback to, you

know, God saying, I am that I am sure.

It's state, it's a, it's a constant timeless state of being.

It's like, you know, you know, uh, was God, was, was God in

1812?

No, no, no.

God is an 1812.

Will God be in 2028?

No, no, no, no.

God is, and he, he not, he is not.

Is the form of the verb was, is it, is it Stan? Does it stand alone?

And do we diminish the divine mystery and that idea of, of God

standing alone apart from all created things by adding to it to kind of

interpret it?

I don't, well, again, this is where I don't think so.

I think this is where the question of what, what is the reason for dynamic

equivalence?

And, and, and I know you know this, so I, I, but, but our audience may not a dynamic equivalent is when it

seeks to translate, not just the words, but rather what the words mean or the what's known as

sometimes a thought for thought translation.

And so, um, a good example and James White uses this is, um, morning, uh, Morgan

student hop golden moon, which is a German phrase, which means morning hours have gold in their mouths.

Okay.

Morning hours have gold in their mouths means nothing to me, but it means something to German speakers.

If you were to translate that into English, you could translate it as morning hours have gold in their mouths.

And I would say, okay, I don't know what that means.

But if you said the early bird gets the worm, I know exactly what that means.

And it does mean dynamically what Morgan suit Morgan student hop golden moon

means.

And therefore I can understand it where I did not understand it before.

And so I see the, I see where a dynamic equivalent and the King James does this at

least at one point.

And this is the part that I think some people say, well, it's not really dynamic equivalent.

It really is.

And that's in Romans chapter six, because in Romans chapter six, the question is, shall we

continue in sin so that grace can abound?

The King James says, God forbid.

Well, the word God forbid is not in the Greek, right?

The word, uh, uh, Megan Oita means may it never be, or, uh, may it never exist.

Ghanai is the, is the root Ghanai means to exist.

And, and so the use of it is may this never, ever come into existence or may this thought never cross your mind.

The King James translators say, God forbid the word, God is not there.

And the word forbid is not there, but they translate it as God forbid.

Because in the vernacular, that's exactly what Paul meant.

And I have no problem saying, that's what we should say.

God forbid.

If, if a person has that thought, heaven forbid, you should have that thought.

But see, even I just changed it.

I changed it from God forbid to heaven forbid.

And I didn't change the meaning.

I simply changed the colloquial use of the term.

And so I do see where even in the King James version, and you would, because of your uh,

position have to defend that dynamic equivalent because you, you, you hold

that as your standard.

Absolutely.

And yeah, there, there are definitely places in the KJV where dynamic equivalency is

employed.

I would count that differently than an entire translation built upon that principle.

Um, and that actually.

I would as well.

When I teach on this, I teach the spectrum.

We've talked about spectrums today.

I teach the spectrum from the essentially literal to the paraphrase.

And I typically tell people to stay away from paraphrases as well.

Things like the message Bible and even wildly errant translations, like the passion translation.

I say there are translations that need to be avoided, but they're, uh, within the middle.

NIV, New Living Translation.

The CSB sort of tries to be, be a middle way between essentially literal and

dynamic equivalent.

Um, but the, the, the, the, the literal translations of the King James,

the new King James, the ESV and the new American standard, I think are all

faithful.

This is where it becomes an issue more of variation textual variant than it is of translation, because I think they're

faithful to the original.

And my, my recommendation people, just in case people don't know my, my recommendation is when you are studying a text

study for more than one translation.

And then you can see where the committees.

And you mentioned the committees being very, um, the, the, the King James committee sort of being the highest standard in your mind.

They were great, but I think there are other committees that have done a great job.

I have, I have listened to Arthur Farstad talk about the new King James and the work that was done on that.

I've, I've listened to those who have put together the NIV.

I've listened to those who put together the new American standard Bible, James White being one of the, uh, uh, people who

was, um, I think a consultant on the new American standard Bible.

These are, these are godly men.

There's a lot of negatives have been said about the NIV translators or this or that.

I think that if we can look at the different translations, we can come to a conclusion about, if you don't

know the original, if you can't go to the Greek and actually work alongside that and see how it's being translated, I

think the next best thing is to be able to look at various translations and see how different committees of godly people have

come to their translation.

So what do you do whenever they say, uh, completely different things?

And, and let's say remove the KJV and the NKJV.

What if you're reading the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, uh, the MEV, any of

them, and they're all saying something different?

Um, you'd have to give me an example, but in general, my answer is the, the only thing that really matters when there's a

difference is what matters is what the original language says.

I'm not even moved to say that the Latin would, would, um, would affect me much.

It would be what did the original, uh, underlying text say.

So if I have the Greek of the New Testament and the Hebrew of the Old Testament, my goal would be to go and,

um, and compare to that.

And sometimes, sometimes those answers are still hard.

I just taught a hermeneutics class and sometimes it's still difficult to figure that out, but I'm going to try to

figure out what the, what the underlying text is saying rather than rely

completely on any one English text.

So, um, just as an example, uh, Psalm

138, that's going to, I'm going to have to scroll with my

finger pretty hard, get to 138.

This is just one, if you, if you'd like an example and we can, we don't have to, we don't have to go on this long, but this is a genuine

question.

This one kind of propped up just a little while ago.

I believe it's 138 and verse.

No.

Oh, I am in the wrong book of the Bible.

I was like, why am I looking at Revelation?

Uh, three, uh, three, the day I called, you answered me my strength of soul.

You increased.

I believe that is what I'm looking at in the day when I cry, thou answers me and strength is me and strength in

my soul.

So if I'm looking at the same verse, yep.

Psalm 138, three.

So, uh, we add NKJV in here and I'll just read a few of them.

So NKJV says where, you know, uh, and strength in me and strength in my

soul says, um, or I'm sorry,

the verses I cried concerning this, their strength is to sit still.

I'm looking, I'm looking for that verse that I mentioned.

Where is that verse?

What verse says that?

Hmm.

This is a photo on my phone and so it's, I'm having, or maybe it's Isaiah, Isaiah three,.

Five.

No, that's not it.

Okay.

So I'm looking at a bunch of different, I'm looking at a bunch of different references and I don't understand which one I'm looking at.

Let me type that in real quick and I will, I'll be quick because I'm, I'm a millennial so I can type in things.

No worries.

I'm, I'm, I actually have my accordance pulled up here and, uh, and I'm, I'm ready

whenever you are to tell me where to go.

Okay.

Okay.

Isaiah, there we go.

Isaiah 30 verse seven.

Okay.

That's why Isaiah 30 and verse seven, or as Ken Ham would

say, Isaiah.

Isaiah.

Yes.

Well, there's a book and it's, and it's, this is what it is.

Isaiah 30 and verse seven.

The Egyptians shall help in vain and to no purpose.

Therefore, have I cried concerning this, their strength is to sit still.

So that's the phrase we're looking at.

Their strength is to sit still.

Now you can remove the KJV entirely from this argument.

Let's just talk about the other ones in KJV.

Again, the phrase I'm thinking of is that their strength is to sit still in K, in KJV.

I have called her Rahab Mshebeth.

That's just lifting it out of the Hebrew.

The NIV, I call her Rahab, the do nothing.

The NASB, I have called her Rahab who has been exterminated.

And the ESV, I've called her Rahab who sits still, which is closer to what the KJV says, but then

it goes even, I mean, all of them start going off the rail.

Arrogant, arrogance that does nothing.

That's Darby.

Then, yeah, that's the Greek Septuagint says to tell them this, your

consolation is vain.

Are all of these saying the same thing?

And how, again, without even the KJV in that argument, they're all taking some

of those Hebrew words and attributing, some of them attributing feminine, some of them

giving titles, some of them saying something that seemingly is completely different.

So if you're looking at multiple translations, how will you know what God

actually said?

Well, you would, I think you would have to go to the original to begin your discussion.

And this is what I mean by that.

The word Rahab translated in the ESV and the New English

translation and in the NIV is, you know, Rahab.

It is the word Rahab.

But as I just pulled up in my notes in the New English translation, Rahab also appears as

a name for Egypt in Psalm 87 .4.

The epithet is also used in the Old Testament for a mystical sea monster, symbolic of chaos.

See the note at 51 .9.

A number of English versions use the name Rahab, while others attempt some sort of translation as a helpless

monster or a harmless dragon.

And it gives the versions.

So I'm not saying that we don't have to research certain verses, which is what I just did.

And I was able to do it in a very short amount of time.

You gave me the verse and I pulled it up.

And here, at least I can see why some are translating it Rahab and some are translating it differently

because the word itself is used with a variety of meanings.

And this is where we come to something called the semantic domain of a word.

A word doesn't just have a meaning or a collection of meanings, but a word has a meaning used

within the context.

And so you look at the domain of that word, the semantic domain of that word and how it's being used within the context.

And that's where you begin to draw your conclusion.

And you can see why the different committees of these translations have come to different conclusions, because it's

not an easy answer.

It's used in different ways in different other parts of the Bible.

And so they're all trying to be faithful, but they're all having a difficulty being.

Faithful.

And so my answer is you don't just say, OK, well, this one says it this way, and that makes it correct.

Because that to me is saying, well, I'm giving this one

translation a particular authority that I don't think it necessarily should have.

And that's to be able to say to all other translations, you guys got it wrong.

I think research has to be done.

This is what I do every Sunday.

I'm an exegete.

My job is to preach the word of God.

And I read whatever translation I'm in.

Normally, I hand write whatever text I'm preaching.

I hand write the text.

And I hand write it from the ESV.

And then I'll go back and I'll hand write other translations, because I want to see where the differences are.

And for some reason, what makes the connection for me is when I actually hand write the differences.

I hand write those differences and say, oh, man, this is a place where this reads differently.

Why?

What's the underlying issue?

And I want to know why.

And I do think in the church today, because of the—we have one of two sides, right?

We have the side that would say, I don't want to know why.

I don't care.

I'm just going to trust that the translation I'm holding is correct.

And that's fine.

If that's where someone wants to be, that's their choice.

Well, if you're trusting in the right thing, then there's nothing necessarily wrong with.

That.

I don't have to—and I'm not advocating that you don't learn.

But I don't have to learn about the principles of architecture to trust in a skyscraper.

You know, I just trust it.

I was, oh, well, that's ignorant.

You should learn about that to know why that's supporting—no, no, it supports me.

I'm supportive.

I trust the scholarship of the engineers that put together the skyscraper.

And whenever I read the King James Bible, I am standing on the shoulders of people,

even before the translators, well before the translators, that have stood by these

texts and these readings.

And so that's what I would say.

And then you asked me about the NKJV, and I'll just tell you, that word Rehab,

you know, you're right.

Names have meaning.

Just like the name Hunter, like you might find a guy named Hunter.

Well, Hunter is also sort of an occupation or an activity or, you know, something like that.

So you have to decide when to use that word if you were, you know, telling somebody something.

You know what Rehab also means?

Strength.

That's why it's equated to a monster sometimes.

Or Egypt, you know, because Egypt was strong.

So what should you say here?

I mean, well, mine says, and, you know, their strength is to sit still.

So I will read, their strength is to sit still.

And my friends who read the NKJV, they can say, I have called her Rehab Mshebet.

And I think I'll know what it means, and I think they won't.

All right.

I think that's a false friend, you know, in a way.

Like, just you're trying to read it like, but here, here's Hebrew for you.

Well, I don't know Hebrew.

I had to go learn it up, you know, learn all that stuff just there in the spur of the moment.

So, you know, it's just, if you're going to translate it, translate it.

That'd be my critique of the NKJV.

If you're going to translate it, translate it.

If you're not going to translate it, well, don't translate it.

Because Rehab Mshebet, that doesn't help anybody.

Like, that's not even a translation.

You might as well just leave the entire verse in Hebrew, because that's just going to confuse people.

And again, that's, you're taking issue with one point of one translation, which is the same thing I've done a few times with the

King James.

And that's, this is where I think this conversation is good.

I think the conversation becomes bad when a person says, I don't need to have this conversation.

We absolutely should have this conversation.

We should talk.

We should converse.

I'm glad that podcasting has become a bigger thing now.

We need to hear what each other has to say.

Look, there's nothing lost between us.

We've just started our friendship.

And I mean, if you were here right now, I'd be looking forward to going out and having lunch.

In fact, that's my biggest regret about not being there in person, that we could just spend some time and hang out.

There's nothing lost here.

I think you love God, you love your people.

And look, this is one issue amongst probably four or five others that we would disagree on

and have more disagreement on.

But that's okay.

That's all right.

You're not even a Calvinist.

We're going to the same heaven.

Am I right to say that?

You're not a Calvinist?

Not a Calvinist.

And I'm not a reformer.

I don't cuss either.

You said hot to a sign.

Yeah, but that's a false friend.

Well, I do think this is a good place.

What you just said is a great place to bring us to a close because we could go into 1 ,500 other variations and conversations.

And we've gone two hours now.

And I hope people have stayed with us because my goal of this show was to ask the question, can you have a

positive conversation about King James -only -ism?

And I think we have.

I think we've had a positive conversation.

I think we've been brotherly.

I think we've been fair, but at the same time, pushed one another and asked each other difficult questions.

And I hope to do this again.

We talked about maybe having some other folks join us and having a bigger conversation.

And if the Lord allows, we're going to try to do that.

So Josh, I just want to end by saying thank you.

And I want to give you a moment to tell everyone how to find your YouTube channel and The Allens, the

music and everything.

Give you a second to promote yourself before we close out.

Absolutely.

So yeah, you can find The Allens just by going to Facebook, type in The Allens, have the blue check mark.

You can look up our website, theallensmusic .com.

Check out if we're going to be near you.

We do a wide variety of Southern gospel music, even some contemporary stuff, a lot of acapella.

We feel like if God can bless people through it, if He can bless us while we sing it, then

certainly He can bless other people as we sing it.

And so we have a great time with that.

So check that out.

My channel, Bible Central, I update it rather infrequently because I work for

multiple organizations.

And so I do want to get back to it because I have some great videos in the works right now

that they're not even just about translation.

They're not about any of that.

That anybody can just watch and have their faith made stronger by

the evidence, the archeology, the science, just to appreciate God's word.

And that's for everybody.

I don't want just one kind of Christian following.

And I want anybody who wants to be strengthened in their faith.

So be sure to do that.

And I would close, I'd say just one more thing.

It's that, look, every single day, there's people that are not on the

internet, that are not in this space.

They open up their NIV and they pray for their lost relatives.

They pray for their families.

They weep before God.

And God bless those people, really.

God bless them.

And there's people that open up their King James Bible, that same as they've been doing for the last

413 years, the fact that we're even still talking about it.

It's been over a thousand translations of the English Bible since then.

The fact that we still talk about this is an incredible thing.

And the fact that even today, it's either number three, number two, number one, depending on who

you ask and who's polled, that Americans still reach for this 413 -year -old

translation and have their heart blessed and get alone with God.

And they don't, you know, all these other arguments, you know, the stuff, it's important to some people, it's important to me.

But if it's not important to them, and all they want to do is read their Bible, love the Lord, and go out and win souls,

you know, God bless those people, really, really and truly.

And, you know, I'll keep advocating for it.

I'll keep arguing for it.

But ultimately, I don't want to lose the heart that there are real people on the other side.

And, you know, God's Word will not return void.

It will accomplish the thing where to He sent it.

And whatever that means, I want to keep sending it.

So, amen.

Well, Josh, thank you for being on the show today.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you so much, sir.

I love you in Christ.

I really do.

I love you too, brother.

And I want to say to the audience, thank you for being with us for this longer than usual show.

I hope it was a blessing to you.

And hopefully you had an opportunity to learn some more things about what we think about the question of King James

only ism.

And I hope this inspired you at least to one thing.

The next time you have a conversation that's difficult with someone with whom you might disagree, go to them as you

would a brother and not as an enemy and try to have a conversation that edifies you both.

And I encourage you to do that.

And I pray that you would.

So again, thank you for listening to your Calvinist podcast.

My name is Keith Foskey.

And as always, I've been your Calvinist.

May God bless you.