KJV Onlyism Revisited: Separating Fact from Fiction, Part 3 - Gail Riplinger “Logic.”

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

James White vs. Nadir Ahmed, March 21, 2008 Part 4

00:01

And welcome to the Dividing Line today. My name is James White and we are live on a beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona.

00:08

I think it's going up to about 75 degrees today here. The warm weather is back here in Phoenix.

00:16

The cold weather finally moving back east for those of you who have been laughing at us because it's been warmer in North Carolina than it's been in Phoenix, but I can guarantee you it won't stay that way.

00:30

It'll be, you know, in the 60s here when it's in the 30s back there. So we will get our last laugh.

00:36

It's been a little cool and we've been enjoying it because, you know, when you're when you're in heat for, you know, just the drenching constant.

00:45

Well, even in August, September, we're not supposed to say this, but humidity and the hot temperatures.

00:51

It's nice when things start cooling off and so on and so forth. Anyways, we are back live today and we are finishing up.

01:01

I'm not sure if we'll finish up today. Maybe we will. I don't know. But we are looking at the

01:06

King James only controversy. But before we go back to that presentation, those of sound file that I had mentioned that I should include in this presentation and I have

01:30

I have actually attached it to a new version of the

01:35

King James only presentation. So in the future, when I present this material in churches and so on and so forth,

01:43

I will be able to utilize this. But this is a clip, a sound clip that we played before.

01:49

We played it sometime last year, a little over maybe 14, 16, 18 months ago, somewhere around in that time frame.

01:59

And it actually comes, as I recall, from January of 1999.

02:08

The Southwest Radio Church did an interview with Gail Ripplinger. It was very obvious that she had sent the questions she wanted to be asked and the person was just asking the questions.

02:21

And it's just really scintillating in the give and take. It's just. And of course, she's challenged at every turn.

02:28

Well, no, of course not. She's not challenged at all. She could say anything and the the folks there would not challenge her on it at all.

02:38

But anyways, we now have this this section. I want to play this for you.

02:43

This was Gail Ripplinger, author of New Age Bible versions and blind guides and all these videotapes and the lady who was given an honorary doctorate by Jack Hiles Church.

02:57

Jack Hiles also gave an honorary doctorate to a horse once, but the real kind of horse, the four legs and the floppy ears.

03:05

It goes meh, that kind of horse. That one got a doctorate too. Anyways, there's some strange things going on in the world.

03:13

Anyways, this is a Gail Ripplinger explaining the relationship between modern translations, the

03:22

NIV, Rupert Murdoch. And by the way, she hasn't mentioned this in this one, so I should make sure everybody understands.

03:28

Rupert Murdoch is the one who owns Fox Television, and they also own

03:34

Zondervan, which owns the copyright to the NIV. And so it's the relationship between the modern versions, the

03:42

NIV, Rupert Murdoch, and the thinking of the Titanic. And when I first when

03:47

I first listened to this, I sat there and I'm not sure if I started to drool or just what it was, because it was a frightening thing just to sit there and realize.

04:01

Really, the thing that was scary was, she's serious. She really believes this stuff.

04:09

And so I had to play this just again. It's five minutes long.

04:15

And he said, well, I take five minutes. Well, this would have fit better when I was talking about how Gale Ripplinger calls me a rude, crude heretic and all the rest of that kind of fun stuff.

04:24

But here's Gale Ripplinger explaining the sinking of the

04:29

Titanic, the NIV, and Satanism in modern Christian books and stuff like that.

04:35

Well, now, one of the things that I guess some of our listeners have been wondering about, Gale, is when did the new versions first appear in America?

04:43

Are these brand new things that just came about in the last 20 or 30 years? Well, you know, the Titanic traveled to America from England in 1912.

04:50

This was the same year as the corrupt American Standard Version. And coincidentally, it was a man named

04:56

Murdoch who threw the famous Titanic into reverse, causing it to sink. Now, scientists have just discovered that, of course, it wasn't a big gash, but as previously thought, that sunk the

05:07

Titanic, but six small slits. And today's NIV has cut out 64 ,000 words and 16 verses.

05:15

Now, back in 1912, the New American Standard Bible had Timothy Dwight of the infamous

05:20

Skull and Bones Society as a committee member. I have an educated guess about why the

05:26

Titanic sunk and why the NIV will eventually sink in the lake of fire. The Titanic was from something called the

05:33

White Star Line, owned by J .P. Morgan. And the term White Star is a codename for Lucifer.

05:39

If someone needs to document this, they could read the book Mastering Witchcraft by Paul Henson. It includes a prayer to Lucifer, which states,

05:48

Thou of the unholy Trinity, help us, whose star is white. Blot out the red star.

05:54

Now, they are praying that Lucifer will take the place of our precious bloodstained Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

06:01

We remember Lucifer himself said in Isaiah 14, I will be like the most high. Now, back at the turn of the century,

06:08

Madame Blavatsky with her newspaper, Lucifer, said on its cover, quote, I, Jesus, am the bright morning star,

06:15

Lucifer. She was saying that Jesus and Lucifer were the same person. Of course, this isn't true. But her followers in the transactions of the first annual

06:23

Congress of the Theosophical Society way back at the turn of the century said, quote, I believe it is through the churches and not through the

06:31

Theosophical Society that theosophy must and should come to large bodies of people in the

06:36

West. The work of destructive criticism has paved the way, sweeping away certain passages which grate on the ears.

06:44

The phrase washed in the blood is one. Now, the phrase washed in the blood had been taken out of the

06:50

American Standard Version, and it's still out in Colossians 1 .14 and out 40 times in the

06:57

NIV and 23 times in the New King James Bible. There's a principle in social psychology called cognitive dissonance, and to change an attitude, they recommend bringing the person into initial exposure to a message which is only slightly different from the receiver's beliefs.

07:16

And this is exactly what they've done with the Bible versions. They get progressively worse. Now, in the

07:21

NIV today, we have exactly what Madame Blavatsky's newspaper said. We have

07:26

Jesus Christ as Lucifer in Isaiah 14 .12. The King James correctly translates

07:32

Isaiah 14 .12 as, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? Lucifer is the fallen angel.

07:40

Jesus Christ is never fallen. He is the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh. However, the NIV says in Isaiah 14 .12,

07:47

How have you fallen from heaven, morning star? So they're saying that the star and Lucifer are the same thing now.

07:54

In 2nd Peter 1 .19, the NIV also calls Jesus Christ the morning star instead of the day star.

08:00

But for centuries, way back at the turn of the century, once again, the Catholic Latin Vulgate said in Latin, Et lucifer oriator, in 2nd

08:09

Peter 1 .19. Now, that would translate as Lucifer rising. And it strikes me as funny that in 1990s, there was an underground movie called

08:18

Lucifer Rising, and the soundtrack was done by that rock group Led Zeppelin. So things seem to really come around that way.

08:26

You know, the word for star in Hebrew is kokab, and it does not appear at all in Isaiah 14 .12.

08:32

God uses the word star in verse 13. If he wanted to use it, he could have used it in verse 12.

08:38

In fact, God uses the word star about 30 -some times in the Old Testament, and he does not use it in Isaiah 14 .12.

08:44

So they're really giving us something very, very bad there. As a matter of fact, there's a book on the bestsellers list called

08:50

The Origin of Satan, and right now it's on the bestsellers list, and it reaffirms this heresy.

08:56

It says, quote, the serpent is actually Christ. So the public is being progressively taught this, and the

09:03

Theosophical Society said they're going to do this through the churches. Now, the new versions are already having their effect on the churches,

09:10

Ken. Two so -called Christian books are introducing this lie. The first is called

09:15

The Mighty Warrior by Elizabeth Al, and it tells Christians to rebuke the morning star, since the author thinks the morning star is

09:22

Satan. So can you imagine praying and rebuking Jesus Christ? That would be a sorry thing to do. Now, the second book is absolute blasphemy.

09:30

It's called Satan Who. It's available in Christian bookstores. It's by a gentleman named

09:35

Carl Barton, and it states that Lucifer's not Satan, and that God himself is really the dragon and the shining one, and the creator of all evil.

09:44

And both of these books are available in Christian bookstores. Can you imagine? All right.

09:50

Well, thank you, Gail. I think, you know,

09:55

I've heard it enough times now that, and the scary thing is, you listen to conspiratorialists enough, you start figuring out what they're saying, and maybe that's why you shouldn't listen to them, but I think the 16 verses and the 64 ,000 word bit with the six slits,

10:13

I think it's 666. Get it? See, there's a six in each one, and I think one of the reasons, honestly, that I'm starting to figure out

10:20

Gail Ripplinger is that I've been having to listen to Harold Camping, and you know,

10:27

I do a lot for the kingdom, and that, you know, listening to Gail Ripplinger and Harold Camping in of itself,

10:33

I mean, if I was a Catholic, that would be worth indulgences of thousands of years. Just, yes,

10:39

I've listened to 13 hours of Harold Camping, and his voice never went out of this particular range, actually, and it was fascinating how he can see numbers being attached to other numbers in any verse of scripture, and unbelievable.

10:59

Unbelievable. Anyways, I guess before we get back to the King James Only controversy, that we've already gotten a call, and this isn't actually

11:12

Gail Ripplinger. It's someone talking about Gail Ripplinger, even though, if Gail's listening,

11:17

Gail, please feel free to call in, because I think it'd be fascinating to see, for example, what your thoughts are on the conspiracy behind, say,

11:27

September 11th. I bet the NIV had something to do with that, too.

11:33

So let's go ahead and take our first phone call, then, since it is about Gail Ripplinger, and we're going all across the land here,

11:45

I guess, to Florida, and is this George? This is George. How's it going,

11:51

James? I'm doing well. How are you? I'm doing fantastic. I wanted to give you a...I'm

11:56

trying to find the website. I wasn't able to find it, but there's a listing of Dr. Jack Kyle's sermons. He's got some neat ones in there, like,

12:03

How to Argue with God and When, Get Your Stinking Feet Out of My Drinking Water, talking about the other translations of the

12:09

Bible. Boy, just thinking about that one's enough to make you ill.

12:15

Well, he's a real controversial figure, and he passed away a couple of months ago. Yes, I know, I know.

12:20

But really, the reason I called was...can I give you a website to look at while you're there on the computer? Oh, I suppose, as long as it doesn't take up too much bandwidth.

12:31

It shouldn't. It's www .textmars .com.

12:37

It's forward slash 031997 forward slash mark dot html.

12:47

Okay, I went and hit a return after the textmars .com, and so what was the number again?

12:52

Okay, it was forward slash 031997 forward slash mark dot html.

13:06

Okay, Mark of the Devil Discovered. Yes, there's good old text smiling at us there.

13:11

Yes. You're going to get a kick. Scroll down, and you're going to see what's called a smart card, and he's referencing Gail Riplinger, and she says that the sign on the end of the

13:20

New King James Bible are three sixes bunched together, and supposedly this smart card, when they take your picture, it puts the

13:27

Mark of the Beast on your forehead, which is the symbol of the New King James Bible. I see.

13:33

I see it over there on the right -hand side. Yes, indeed. So that's how the logo's...that's

13:40

going to be the logo. The Mark of the Beast is going to be the tricetra. Well, it's kind of cool the way that she's one -up on the

13:45

Antichrist, and she's kind of got all that figured out and stuff, and she can warn us about it. Yep, even before he shows up.

13:51

My, my, my, look at that. Well, you know, take it, take it. You know,

13:56

Gail Riplinger would notice these things because of her eye for interior design. She'd be able to see patterns like that, stuff that the rest of us wouldn't really see.

14:05

You know, James, you know, really, I first caught on to Gail Riplinger reading, like, the correspondence you had with her on your website.

14:11

Yes. And I go, there's no way in the world anybody could be this bad. And I listen to your debates with her, and I just think she's horrible.

14:19

And she doesn't seem to have a clue about anything. I just think she just kind of comes, she just comes up with these little conspiracies and just rats at them at the mouth.

14:26

Well, there's no question that I've never seen a book with more errors per page than Gail Riplinger's material.

14:35

There's no question about that. And it is amazing that there are so many people who have embraced her and promote her stuff.

14:44

It speaks much, I think, to the level of much of evangelicalism that this conservative, super conservative evangelicalism, fundamentalism, independent

14:55

Baptist fundamentalism, which is her primary audience, that they would let this woman have a pulpit and have a place to speak when she rattles on the way that she does.

15:08

But that's interesting. Yeah. Mark of the devil discovered. Well, you know, we'll see how long that lasts.

15:13

I'll give you one more thing before I go. Okay. At my parents' home church. I mean, unfortunately they're in an independent fundamental

15:19

Baptist church. There's a lot of people that went to Hiles Anderson College there. And you know, when the

15:25

Pope speaks, ex -cathedra, you know, it's coming from on high, it's right. And there's nothing wrong with it. Right. Supposedly they claim that when

15:32

Dr. Hiles would preach, since it was Holy Spirit inspired everything that he would say would be inerrant and infallible.

15:40

You're kidding me. Not at all. I mean, it's, I think it's a cult. I don't even think it's a church. Wow. Well, that's what happens when you enter into man worship.

15:48

And that's exactly what's, what's going on there. That's, that's a shame. That definitely, that, unbelievable.

15:57

Well, I would really hope that anyone who would run into that would flee from it as quickly as they possibly could.

16:03

But thank you for that information. That's very interesting. I will make sure no one tattoos any triceratops on my forehead anytime soon.

16:09

And we'll be, we'll be just fine. Hey, when are you coming to Florida? Supposed to be right now there for a debate.

16:19

I don't even know against who yet, but they're trying to arrange something the first weekend in July. So, and I've got the, another debate then the following weekend in New York.

16:29

So I'm not gonna be able to be there very long. But we're looking at a, at a conference and a debate the first weekend in July in the coming year.

16:39

That sounds good. Keep us posted on that. Okie dokie. We will. Take care. Thanks for calling 866 -854 -6763.

16:48

And the things we can see on the net today, I'm afraid the net has been tremendously good at making sure that all sorts of silliness actually gets promulgated across the world.

16:59

It's a, it's a strange thing. No two ways about it. Well, let's go ahead. And since we had said we were going to be whoops, we are going to be finishing up the presentation on the

17:10

King James issue. We are on, I believe we are on slide number 27.

17:19

And last week, the week before, actually, when we had last looked at this particular presentation, we had gone over 2

17:28

Timothy 3, 6, 1 Timothy 3, 16. And we had looked at the variant there between God and he, who we had seen that it does not require any type of conspiracy theory to explain the difference between the readings.

17:49

And that even though many King James only advocates utilize it to present a conspiratorial perspective, that there's no reason to do that.

17:57

Right after that on slide number 27, however, I address how is it that King James only advocates normally respond when you show them the documentation, when you show them what the original language would have looked like, when you show them logical, rational explanations for why variations occur that do not require a conspiracy and hence are not supportive of the

18:21

King James only perspective? Well, I note on slide number 27, the King James only literature abounds the examples of circular argumentation at this point.

18:30

And you need to understand when you talk to a King James only advocate and they respond in a way that leaves you just breathless, you need to keep in mind that for the vast majority of them, this is the starting point in their thought.

18:42

And then I have a little graph, not a graph, just a couple sentences. The King James Bible alone equals the

18:48

Word of God alone. And the two words alone are obviously capitalized and are the central point here.

19:00

The King James Bible alone equals Word of God alone. Anything that isn't the King James Bible is not the

19:06

Word of God. That's the starting point. That's the starting point.

19:13

Hence, any fact that comes after that will be interpreted in light of this. And if that fact is contrary to this starting thesis, then it will be rejected as being a fact.

19:27

And in that rejection will take a couple of different forms. Either it will result in irrational reinterpretation of the facts, or it will involve the person attacking the one who is communicating the facts as if they are somehow evil themselves.

19:43

That's the standard way of doing it. That's what Gil Riplinger does. And that's what Tex Mars does. And you just go into ad hominem, attack the person that's showing you the facts that contradicts your starting point in your thinking.

19:55

But when you realize that this is where they start, then you can understand why they argue the way that they argue.

20:03

When they speak, you will hear not a concern as the next slide indicates, slide number 28, not a concern for what did

20:14

John or Paul or Peter write. It's not a concern for, well, I really want to find out when

20:21

Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, what did he say?

20:27

Great is the mystery of godliness. Was it he who is manifest in the flesh? Was it God who was manifest in the flesh?

20:32

What the manuscripts say? So on and so forth. That's not the issue. Instead, we hear about how modern translations have removed this verse, deleted this word, added this phrase, changed the way this is said.

20:47

All of these loaded words, removed, deleted, added, changed, assume that the

20:52

King James Version is the standard by which all others are to be judged. Some KJV only folks go so far as to say the

21:01

Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves must be judged by comparison with the

21:06

King James Version of the Bible. There are many King James only advocates who believe that the King James itself is inspired, that there was in essence a re -inspiration of the

21:16

Bible between 1604 and 1611. Then there are others like those who would follow after D .A.

21:21

Waite that would say, no, no, no, no, no. See, you're connecting us with the Ripplingerites and the

21:26

Ruckmanites and we aren't connected with them. But the problem is when even you go after those who try to show themselves to be more, shall we say, moderate, if someone like a

21:41

D .A. Waite will not admit that it is possible that any reading in the

21:47

King James Version of the Bible could be made better, if that person such as D .A.

21:54

Waite will say, no, we believe that God has preserved his word in the English language and this is in the

21:59

King James Version of the Bible and we're not saying it's inspired, but then they turn around and say, but there are, it is impossible to translate anything better than the

22:09

King James Version did. What functionally is the difference between that and what

22:15

Ruckman's saying and saying it was just totally re -inspired? If you can't translate anything better, either by text or by translation than what the

22:23

King James did, isn't that inspiration? Isn't that perfection? Wouldn't that require absolute perfection on the part of the

22:30

King James translators? Where would that perfection come from? Really, many of these folks would like to try to avoid the bombastic, strange perspective of a

22:47

Peter Ruckman, but really, as long as you hold to a King James only perspective, it's very difficult to avoid basically being in the same ship with him.

23:00

I look at slide number 29, going back to some of the passages we'd looked at a couple of weeks ago when we first started this.

23:09

For example, we looked at John chapter five, verse four, and I invited those of you who have an NIV to try to read

23:15

John chapter five, verse four, and you can't because it's not there. What about that?

23:21

Well, this particular passage, which is about the angel coming down, stirring the waters and so on and so forth, is not only omitted, it's not found in P66 and P75, the two earliest manuscripts of the

23:37

Gospel of John, papyri manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It is also omitted by Codex Sinaiticus and by Codex Vaticanus and others, but even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text and even some mark the passage with asterisks or bellae.

23:55

Most likely, this was a marginal note, an explanation written in an early manuscript and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text.

24:06

Now let me explain that a little bit. Remember, many of us mark in our Bibles, many of us underline things, many of us write notes in the margins.

24:14

Maybe the pastor, the speaker gave us some information that we were unfamiliar with.

24:22

We hadn't been aware of a background issue. Maybe we had always struggled with this verse and all of a sudden, the person explained something that we had always wished could be explained to us and had never found anybody who could.

24:37

And so we want to make sure we don't forget this. And so we make a note in our

24:44

Bible and we put that in the margin. And obviously, there's not any danger when we do that because that's handwriting over against the printed version.

24:54

But remember, printed text has only been around for the past 550 years or so.

25:01

And up till then, if you were to write a marginal note, it would be in handwriting just as the text was.

25:11

And two things come into play here. First of all, if you were actually copying a manuscript, if you were actually producing a new manuscript yourself, maybe for your own use or for somebody else's use, maybe you're in a scriptorium, whatever the situation is, and you're looking at your original and there is something in the margin of the original.

25:41

How are you going to know whether it's supposed to be in the text route? Because see, when you're copying something yourself, let's say this happens all the time.

25:52

I'll be sitting here at the computer and let's say it's something

25:57

I can't cut and paste, so I'm actually copying out of a book. That's an old -fashioned way of doing things, I know. But I'm copying out of a book and I'm sitting there typing away.

26:07

And let's say it's a full paragraph. And in the process of working on that full paragraph, things can happen.

26:18

The phone can ring, I can remember that I forgot to do something, I can be distracted by all sorts of things.

26:25

And when I come back to my copying, I start reading back through what

26:31

I've copied and lo and behold, I've already skipped something. Maybe I skipped an entire line. I was copying,

26:37

I had to look down at the keyboard for a second, I look back, and instead of going to the line I was supposed to be on, I go to the next line.

26:42

And because my mind isn't really following it very closely, it's very, very easy to accidentally omit things.

26:50

And so, that's easily fixed on a computer. It wasn't easily fixed.

26:58

I was telling all my high school classes recently, back when I was in college, at least in the early years of college,

27:05

I didn't have a computer. Computers, the personal computer hadn't come out yet. And so,

27:10

I used an IBM Selectric. Yes, indeedy. And I would actually use something called carbon paper.

27:19

Yes, remember carbon paper? A little nostalgia here for those of you who are in your late 30s and 40s and 50s and beyond that.

27:28

And I always made the same mistake, and that is, I'd be typing along. I'm a good typist. I'd be typing along, and I had put a footnote in.

27:39

You got to remember, when you get down to the bottom of the page, you need to leave room for your footnote, right? Well, all of a sudden, you get down to the bottom of your page, and you forgot to leave room for the footnote.

27:50

And if the form of the paper, if what it looked like was a part of the grade, guess what you got to do?

28:01

You got to start all over again, put another piece of paper in there, and retype it. And I don't know how many times

28:08

I had to retype pages. Well, that's one thing in a typewriter, but let's go back to the year 400, and let's think about what happens if you're writing, you're copying a manuscript, you're writing along.

28:26

All of a sudden, you look back and you realize you skipped a phrase, you skipped a line. Now, let's say you're writing on vellum.

28:34

Now, vellum is leather, and it wasn't overly available. Not a lot of Christians were rich people to begin with.

28:42

And so, if you're writing on leather, it's not like you had another person, another donkey or something out in the back you could kill to go get their skin to do another manuscript.

28:54

So, what you did is you wrote what you had missed in the margin in smaller text with a line showing where it went.

29:04

Well, you immediately see what the problem is here. How do you tell the difference between a line that's out there in the margin?

29:12

How do you tell the difference between something that's supposed to be in the text and a note? Well, it'd be very difficult to do, especially if you did not have the opportunity of asking the original writer of the manuscript you're looking at.

29:27

Because remember, you're even reading somebody else's handwriting, which is difficult enough. So, the tendency of scribes was always to be conservative.

29:36

That is, if there was something in the margin, they'd include it rather than risk losing something.

29:42

Now, that's a good thing, but it also resulted in something like John 5, verse 4, where you have what was obviously a marginal note that has been put into the text itself.

29:54

866 -854 -6763, we're going to take our first break and continue on with the presentation right after this.

30:19

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book Chosen But Free? A New Cult?

30:25

Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

30:31

Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.

30:39

In his book, The Potters' Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler, but The Potters' Freedom is much more than just a reply.

30:46

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself.

30:54

In a style both scholars and laymen can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

31:01

Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the gospel preached by the

31:07

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture. The Potters' Freedom, a defense of the

31:13

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free by James White. You'll find it in the

31:18

Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at AOMN .org. The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God.

31:29

The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church. The elders and people of the

31:36

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with us this coming Lord's Day. Our morning

31:42

Bible study begins at 930 a .m. and our worship service is at 1045. Evening services are at 630 p .m.

31:50

on Sunday and Wednesday prayer meeting is at 7. We are located at 3805

31:56

North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 26Grace or look us up on the web at www .prbc

32:06

.org. More than any time in the past, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are working together.

32:14

They are standing shoulder -to -shoulder against social evils. They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements, and many

32:22

Evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the Roman Catholic Church appealing.

32:28

This newfound rapport has caused many Evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age -old disagreements that have divided

32:35

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book,

32:43

The Roman Catholic Controversy, is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in Scripture, the

32:48

Papacy, the Mass, Purgatory and Indulgences, and Marian Doctrine. James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the

32:57

Christian life and the heart of the Gospel itself that cannot be ignored. Order your copy of The Roman Catholic Controversy by going to our website at aomin .org.

33:07

Incorporating the most recent research and solid biblical truth, Letters to a Mormon Elder is a series of personal letters written to a fictional

33:14

Mormon missionary. Examining the teachings and theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, the book brings a relational approach to material usually presented in textbook style.

33:25

James White draws from his extensive apologetics ministry to thousands of Mormons in presenting the truth of Christianity.

33:32

With well -defined arguments, James White provides readers with insight and understanding into the Book of Mormon, the prophecies, visions, and teachings of Joseph Smith, the theological implications of the doctrines of Mormonism, and other major historical issues relevant to the claims of the

33:47

LDS Church. This marvelous study is a valuable text for Christians who talk with Mormons and is an ideal book to be read by Mormons.

33:56

Letters to a Mormon Elder. Be sure to get your copy today in the Mormonism section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

34:55

um which really is a goofy piece of literature but anyways that has nothing to do with what we're talking about on the uh king james only topic here on the dividing line and we are now looking at slide number 30 if you would please if you would please forward your presentation to slide number 30 what would happen if harold camping put his stuff on powerpoint all i can tell you is it would be in black and white there'd be no color in it at all because that week we cannot have color color is not taught in the bible anyways uh slide number 30 the radio would explode i think most i think most uh battery powered radios just die listening to a harold camping because you know it's just so boring the battery just gives up life and and dies it's just oh no cds my mind is not a little distracted today i've been right on on the material it just takes me a moment to get into it that's all nothing big uh you know boy people are so picky picky picky picky well then again he's from england and uh that's the way people are over there you know they're writing proper and all that stuff you know of course it wasn't for us they wouldn't be around anymore but anyways um uh slide number 30 uh can you spell tavington slide number 30 how about john chapter 1 verse 18 i remember we had discussed that one uh quite some time ago as a counter example where the phrase uh god or actually be the word god the term god is used of the lord jesus in the modern translations but not in the king james version of the bible well uh the earliest manuscripts of john again p66 and p75 as well as two of the earliest unsealed manuscripts that's oliphant b sinaiticus and vaticanus all read monogamous the os literally the unique god or the only son who is god the bulk of later manuscripts read monogamous the only begotten son the king james version following the tr reads son uh well when you present this kind of information which i did for example in my book the king james only controversy uh the king james only reaction is always the same and i think it should bother us that it is always the same and that is oh the word god can't be there because then that would teach that god had a a point of an origin in time that he came into existence and this this is contradicted by the bible and notice what that means these folks are actually willing to take their understanding of theology and it used that to determine a reading if that reading goes against what they think theology should say but of course my immediate question is where did you get your theology where did i where did you get the conclusions that you came to uh you see the standard assertion that is made is that if you have the phrase monogamous the os the unique god that this somehow has something to do with gnosticism and da wait and others will run around saying oh this is you know the gnostics called him the only begotten god and all the rest of this stuff when in reality they didn't um that's not a gnostic phrase at all they like the phrase that the king james has only begotten son but the the the fact of the matter is that there is a perfectly orthodox understanding of monogamous the os the only son who is god it's a tremendously important passage john 118 is the parallel the book end of john 1 1 and what does john 1 1 say about the word well the word was eternal the word had an eternal relationship with the father and the word is this to his nature deity those concepts are concepts are repeated in 118 in the best manuscripts but not in the king james so if you're going to do meaningful exegesis you're going to see this is the case and you're not going to do this kind of uh well this is some gnostic heresy and so on so forth looking at the uh the next uh slide slide number 31 uh goes through basically what i just said i need to remind myself whenever i do this that i actually talk about this so we'll go to slide number 32 first john 3 1 is an excellent example of a simple scribal error an error of sight that is common to us all and on slide 31 i reproduce the greek text for first john 3 1 and you don't have to be able to read greek to see how an error can be made here i then reproduce the last three words of the phrase clay thoman chi s men and those uh the last phrase is in order that we might be called that's clay thoman techno that you children of god chi s men and we are however if you look at the next slide slide number 33 notice how two of these words end with the same three letters clay thoman and s men you can hear the three english words m e n it's mu epsilon nu in the greek language and just as we often inadvertently skip something when our eyes come back to what we are copying because two words end in a similar ending such as ing or tion so too an ancient scribe upon writing clay thoman then returned to the text and instead of starting there saw s men which was only one word removed and inadvertently skipped the phrase so he writes clay thoman when he goes back to the original he sees s men he thinks that's the men he just got done writing and continues on therefore chi s men is not found there it's not found in the resulting manuscript it was in the one he was copying but it's not in the one that he then creates as a copy if then his manuscript becomes copied then that deletion is copied in all those manuscripts that come afterwards this is a standard error of sight homo teleuton similar endings where again since we know that this is what we all do it is a part of the the standard human sight then we recognize that this could happen as well to the to the ancient scribes in the same way there is no conspiracy at john 1414 which was another passage that i mentioned in regards to a counter citation i demonstrated earlier if you go back to some of the earlier slides that john 1414 reads the same in the james version as it does in the new world translation of jehovah's witnesses there is no conspiracy at john 1414 here the alexandrian text joined with a large portion of the byzantine text and containing the word me but a part of the byzantine tradition does not contain the word and this part underlies the textus receptus the majority text contains the reading me at this point demonstrating that the tr is not identical to the majority text and hence again when king james only advocates utilize majority text arguments they are in essence engaging in greatly self -contradictory argumentation and they do that quite often unfortunately likewise revelation 1 8 and the reference to the lord god is another example where the tr even departs from the entirety of the byzantine manuscript tradition the vast majority of texts including the later ones contain the reading the lord god the tr in the book of revelation is particularly suspect this is due to the fact that erasmus rushed his work on the book and utilized only one manuscript revelation he couldn't find any where he was he was in basel switzerland at the time he had assumed that basel was the library there would be of great help but it wasn't and so he borrowed the one manuscript he had a revelation from his good friend johannes roikland roikland an interesting person in church history he quite literally risked his life to learn hebrew i like to tell the story of johannes roikland to my to my hebrew students who think they're risking their lives to actually survive hebrew but he so much wanted to learn hebrew that he went to a jewish rabbi by night to learn it well why would he do that well because in the late 15th century when he was doing this uh to be caught visiting with a jewish rabbi would be clear demonstration that you're a heretic and what do you do with heretics at the end of the 15th century you burn them that's what uh that's what they did the anhus right and uh so to be able to learn hebrew and then write the first hebrew grammar so that others likewise could learn hebrew uh roikland risked his life uh in in doing that kind of well service really it was service to us all today to be able to utilize the hebrew language we who have such tremendous access uh to so much information today uh really need to recognize that not only the responsibility that comes with that and there is a tremendous responsibility i was uh commenting to one of the folks that's in channel even now last evening he was helping me find some new software that has made my uh handspring visor edge it's like i got a whole new pda last night i i basically now have 72 megs of ram available to me for most of the things that i do anyways bible versions gram cord uh now is fully functional on it and all the rest of stuff it's really cool and then we were talking about the libronics the library system for logos and and having you know all of kittles on your hard drive and all the rest of this kind of stuff and i made the comment it's almost frightening to think of the responsibility that comes with having the ability to have all this knowledge at our fingertips i mean you can do i could do searches right now on my handheld uh while sitting on a plane uh that would have taken hours and hours or sometimes days and weeks of that ability we have those uh things available to us because the sacrifices of people uh who came before us uh quite uh quite literally and uh roy clinton was one of them well anyways back to slide number uh 35 after that rather uh mundane detour down a rabbit trail um erasmus was very rushed john froben was a was a printer he knew john froben knew that cardinal jimenez had already printed an edition of the greek new testament and he knew that if jimenez came out with his before froben could come out with his then his work would become irrelevant uh and he would miss that initial rush of sales and his money would be lost and so on so forth and so he was putting a tremendous amount of pressure on erasmus to finish this work and so as he's working on revelation he only has the one manuscript of roy clinton to use so you need to realize even at that point he's not making comparison between manuscripts all you have in erasmus at that point is just one text just one manuscript whoever copied that if if that becomes your standard then in essence you're saying whatever probably catholic monk copied that one manuscript revelation was somehow inspired to come up with what he came up with uh if you're going to be a king james only advocate but even then that's not completely true because uh there was a lot of problems in the copying of that manuscript the people that were helping erasmus were not overly overly careful shall we say in their uh uh work and so uh as a result of that there are a number of errors even in the copying of the one manuscript that they had and uh so uh that's uh that's something to be taken into consideration as well now he's rushing through it he has only one manuscript of revelation and what happens is i'm sure most of you've heard this story before the last page of the manuscript had fallen off remember these were not exactly you know leather -bound uh books like we have today with modern sewing methods and things like that and pages would fall off and as a result that last section had fallen off and so he's desperate erasmus is desperate he doesn't know what to do uh he's got to get this done this is the last thing he's got to do and so what he does is he takes the latin vulgate and for the last six verses of the last chapter of the book of revelation he translates from the latin vulgate into greek and in the process of course creates uh entire words and phrases that had never appeared in any manuscript before he did a really good job i mean translating from latin into greek would be pretty tough anyone who knows the greek language knows there's various ways you can uh you know word order and forms you could use and all the rest that stuff so to do what he did actually was was was pretty amazing he did a good job but obviously it wasn't the way to do it that's not the scholarly way to do it and he did in essence apologize for it later but the damage was done in fact there are words that appear in what's called the texas receptus today and hence the king james version of the bible and the new king james version that no one had ever seen in the book of revelation before uh 15 16 now again i want to know especially given the book of revelation uh and the warnings about adding or deleting from the words this book uh i want to know what john wrote not what uh erasmus thought john should have written while translating in uh from latin personally uh but those words still do appear in the king james version of the bible let's go to slide number 36 and invite your phone calls before we do at 866 854 -6763 perhaps you've heard uh some things today you'd like to ask some questions about we'll be taking a break in about nine minutes and uh taking your calls after that and if there aren't any calls we'll just finish this all up but uh if you'd like to get on board 866 -854 -6763 slide number 36 uh one of the big ones uh in fact if you were listening to gail ripplinger if you're listening closely i apologize um but if you were listening uh closely you uh heard her mention this verse as one of the uh changes in the niv in the modern translations colossians 114 and when you again if you just look at it without any knowledge of the background without any knowledge the text looks pretty bad the king james version says in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins but the niv only says in whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins sounds like the niv has some problem with uh through his blood sounds like the niv has some problem with the idea of blood and sacrifice and the cross and things like that uh but that actually isn't the case at all because as we go to the next slide we discover this is the the very slide i'm sorry the very text um upon which king james only folks have identified the niv as the bloodless bible i remember a fellow outside the uh the temple in salt lake city uh asking if we use the niv well you can't use the niv because it's a bloodless bible and i i knew what he was talking about but uh does this passage give a warrant for that no obviously it doesn't any person studying the passage might note that ephesians and colossians contain parallel passages the parallel to colossians 114 in ephesians is found at ephesians 1 7 and the next slide number 38 shows a very similar graph but this time it's ephesians 1 7 and the king james version says in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace and the niv says in him we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins in accordance with the riches of god's grace so there the niv has the phrase through his blood now if the niv is trying to hide the blood why include it here why not just take it out well some actually try to argue that one say well you know if you take it out one place and that sort of weakens it and so on so forth uh but that doesn't make any sense at all and in reality the next slide the king james version here contains a reading that goes against not only the ancient manuscripts but against the vast majority of all manuscripts including the byzantine manuscripts the earliest manuscript to contain the added phrases from the 9th century all of four manuscripts all dating long after the original writing contain the reading so this is a vast minority reading it has basically uh almost irrelevant external uh evidence for it and where would it have come from well think about it if a scribe was familiar with ephesians 1 7 maybe had even memorized ephesians 1 7 and they start to copy colossians 1 14 it'd be very easy for them to inadvertently without even knowing it um insert uh the uh the added phrase from ephesians 1 7 into colossians 1 14 again without even knowing that it has been placed there if only king james version advocates were consistent and that's the biggest evidence of their error is that they are not consistent if they were consistent in their arguments they would have to reject this reading if all the times they say well you need to go with the majority and yada yada they'd reject this reading but since they do not they prove that they are in fact arguing in circles this is nowhere more clearly seen than the textual emendation found revelation 16 5 even our hymns have been impacted by this textual variant all greek manuscripts of whatever type agree in reading as the new american standard which reads and i heard the angel of the waters saying righteous are you who are and who were oh holy one because you judged these things the key phrase is oh holy one compare the king james version rendering which says next slide number 41 and i heard the angel of the waters say thou art righteous oh lord which art and was and shalt be because thou hast judged thus now theodore beza calvin's successor in geneva made what's called a conjectural emendation at this point that's a change in the text that has no manuscript support at all he felt that the text made more sense if it read and shalt be rather than oh holy one and he thought the greek words were similar enough in form to explain it you see on the next slide what he meant that is he felt that these two greek words were close enough in form to allow him to change the text all the greek manuscripts that are available to him and to us today read hosias but he changed that to the future participial form of i .e

55:46

asaminos so against all manuscript evidence this reading persists in the tr today and we even sing the song who were to nart and evermore shalt be without knowing our debt to theodore beza and his conjectural emendation again i want to know what john wrote not what theodore beza thought he should have written now one thing that the people in the channel will know that i have have often raised to king james only advocates who come into channel is which king james version do you have and which one should be the standard that we are to use almost all kjvs are actually the 1769 blaney revision of the authorized authorized version not the 1611 there are very few people who actually have a 1611 king james version of the bible but there are different kinds even of the printings of the 1769 blaney revision the two most prevalent are the oxford and the cambridge types and how can you tell which one you have well look at jeremiah chapter 34 verse 16 jeremiah 34 16 in fact i'm bringing it up in channel right now to see which version the bot has it has the oxford edition the bot the bible bot that we have in the in the channel i just demonstrated has the bible the oxford edition of the 1769 blaney revision and when we look at slide number 44 we will see the difference between the two editions i have outlined in red the different words and every man his handmaid whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure oxford edition versus and every man is handmade whom ye had set liberty at their pleasure is the cambridge edition now don't be surprised if you have multiple king james versions of the bible which of course i do i know for example thomas nelson one of the largest bible publishers publishes both oxford and cambridge editions so you may reach over there and grab two thomas nelson printings of the king james version of the bible and have one read one way and the other read the other way uh there it's obviously a small enough difference at least as far as printing goes that many people do not even notice the difference but you may notice contextually it's not a small difference he is a singular pronoun and ye is a plural pronoun and so actually who's even being referred to here is different between these two editions well how do we find out which one's right i mean try if you're not a king james only advocate to put yourself in the position of the king james only advocate if you're saying the king james is the standard then stuff like this is bothersome how do you determine whether jeremiah used a masculine singular pronoun or a plural pronoun well if you're king james only you don't have any way of finding out you can't tell because as soon as you go back to the original as soon as you go back to the hebrew what are you doing you're demonstrating the king james text must be able to be corrected by reference to the original languages and that's the one thing that uh that's the uh advocates of the king james only version uh controversy simply cannot allow which one's right well of course you go the next very next slide and find out but why don't you hold on until we take our break and we'll explain it we come back right here on the dividing line 866 -854 -6763 is the mormon my brother bethany house publishers presents james white's book is the mormon my brother in television campaigns para church events and clergy fellowships all across the united states mormons are presenting themselves as mainstream christians is it unloving or backward to say they aren't real christians in contrast to christian monotheism the belief in one god mormonism teaches that god was once a man who lived on another planet and was exalted to the status of god and that mormon men can also become gods upon death and resurrection in his book is the mormon my brother james white demonstrates how this fact alone means mormons and christians are irreconcilably at odds at faith's most basic level is the mormon my brother is now available from alpha and omega ministries book ministry you can order is the mormon my brother from our website at www .aomin

01:01:01

.org answering those who claim that only the king james version is the word of god james white in his book the king james only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true christian faith in a readable and responsible style author james white traces the development of bible translations old and new and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611 you can order your copy of james white's book the king james only controversy by going to our website at www .aomin

01:01:38

.org and welcome back to the dividing line i just want to uh to announce the fact that i have been joined in studio now by silly mutt uh hi silly mutt that's ziki down there uh some of you may have seen some pictures of of ezekiel is his formal name and ziki's his regular name and uh then uh just simply to uh in essence mock someone in channel we came up with another name for him which is silly mutt and what would oh ezekiel obadiah is his ezekiel obadiah pierce is his full name but if you ever say that he'll probably piddle because he only hears that when he's in a lot of trouble which he tends to get into a lot actually he he likes to eat um he likes to eat out of he's a purebred lab okay thank you very much but he's a purebred lab that piddles um he likes to eat out of garbage cans get himself sick and i think there's probably more of zeke's hair inside my computer than there is on his body so which is a bad thing i think you know whenever i hear that poor computer fire up and that fan in there is uh spitting out uh spitting out bad stuff anyways okay okay good grief uh buzz and the channel's going so which one's correct uh i'm gonna get to it i'm gonna get to it just just just give me a second good grief okay uh well which one is correct oh you know what you can't go to the next screen to find out i just went to the next screen and lo and behold the answer isn't there so i guess i could leave you hanging but i'm not going to obviously uh which one is correct well when you go to the hebrew it is a plural pronoun and hence the cambridge edition is the correct rendering of jeremiah 34 16.

01:03:38

now i'll tell you an interesting story however uh if you look at the new king james verge where are you going zeke man fairweather friend he just uh he just he just left you know just gone not keeping my feet warm anymore anything it's terrible anyways um if you look at the new king james version it will have he now i ran across this while i was doing my research for the for the book and so i called up uh the editor of the old testament and uh talked with it about him we looked at the hebrew over the phone he said no you're right he looked into it and what had happened is they had originally translated as you and as a result during the the uh process of editing a copy editor using an oxford edition of the king james version of the bible changed it back to he and it will be fixed in future editions it may already be fixed actually in the newest editions of the uh new king james version of the bible uh in fact let me uh see jeremiah 34 16 oops that's not gonna find that it's i need to put it to this one right here jeremiah 34 16 ah display this verse oh oh sigh um all right choose display versions i want the sometimes you have too many available to you new king james version of the bible okay and then we want to go to jeremiah 34 16 there it is nope still says whom he at least in this electronic version whom he had said at liberty so that electronic version has not been changed i was told the change had been put into the queue in essence to be made at a future time well let's press on to uh slide number 45 well then has god preserved his word or not that's the question king james version only folks always come back to when they don't have an answer for the factual evidence they don't have an answer for history then they think that they can simply uh escape the uh the problem they're in by saying well then you're saying god didn't preserve his word they always seem to assume that unless you have a perfect english translation you don't have a perfect bible of course english did not come into existence until more than 1 000 years after the last words of scripture were written hence making a perfect english translation the standard is obviously an error i mean think about it put yourself the time of of the writing of the scriptures and say well the actual standard for the accuracy of the scriptures will be in a language it does not even yet exist that in essence is what happens when you are dealing with king james only ism but what about this issue of preservation think of it this way slide number 46 let's say the constitution of the united states was translated in the language of a small island in the pacific how much sense would it make for someone on that island to take one particular translation of the constitution insist that this one translation is the standard and then proclaim that unless this translation is perfect then no perfect constitution exists anywhere yet this is exactly what kjv only ism is saying they are saying well a a edition of the scriptures that came into existence a millennia and a half later in a language that was not even in existence at the time the writing of the original if you can't find a perfect rendering of that in english then the original doesn't exist anymore that simply makes no sense whatsoever but how then has god preserved his word he has done so by making sure the new testament was so quickly distributed all over the known world that there was never a time when any one man one group or one church could gather up all copies and make wholesale changes by the third century entire manuscripts were already buried if major changes are made after that time they would be easily detectable by comparison with those earlier manuscripts in other words when you think about it when people like uh shirley mclean run around preaching her her new age strangeness and they say well reincarnation used to be in the bible but it's not there anymore and it was taken out at a particular point in time and at the fifth ecumenical council or whatever it is that they claim if there had been wholesale changes in the text of the new testament if there had been wholesale changes in the scriptures then we would be able to directly see this because of the way that god has preserved his word since the new testament writings were distributed very quickly all across the known world since the christians did not say oh well you have to be a professional scribe for example to make a copy of philippians or whatever else since that was not the case since instead they just said hey uh you're from another uh fellowship you're from another church go ahead and copy the letter that paul sent to us and and do you have any that we could copy and hence there was a distribution quickly because people wanted the word to go out into the entire world since that's the case then any wholesale changes made in later manuscripts will be easily detected there was never a time when the church could go hey let's gather up all the manuscripts and let's insert the deity of christ or let's insert the resurrection or let's take out reincarnation or things like that that could never have happened never was there a situation where anyone could do that now that's not the same interestingly enough for the quran those who studied its history you know about the othmanian revision with mon did gather up all the extant manuscripts of the quran or at least all that he knew of and made a standard version and while the muslims like to argue that hey the quran's perfect and you've got textual variations that shows that we're right and you're wrong in reality all that shows is that you can only trace their text back to uthman not back to muhammad we on the other hand can take our text all the way back because there isn't a situation where there is some editing of the text as took place in their own and interestingly enough the king james only advocate finds himself in the same boat with the muslims at that point in time because the king james only advocate if he's consistent and if he holds the idea like uh like sam gip that the there was in fact a re -inspiration the bible between 1604 and 1611 that's as far back as you can go you can't go earlier than that the muslims can't go earlier than uthman the king james only advocates can't go earlier than the king james itself and christians can allow the study of the text to go all the way back to the apostles themselves without any fear so you see god has preserved his scriptures if there is only one copy if there is only one uh you know some church someplace has one copy of the scriptures and no one else can ever appeal to it and i can't make copies of it then the argument could obviously be made well how do we know that you haven't changed that one copy but since there were thousands 53 5400 by the count that we have today of greek manuscripts anyways not including latin manuscripts and other foreign language translations since there were thousands then any changes that someone would make will stand out in comparison with the rest of the manuscript tradition and so god did preserve it now the the byproduct of that is textual variation due to scribal error but we can recognize that we can deal with that you can't deal with not knowing whether the entire deity of christ was inserted in the text or not that doesn't provide you with a solid foundation for discussion but the way god has preserved his word does allow for that solid foundation slide number 48 says this means we can disprove the claims of those who say the bible has undergone wholesale editing and changes such as mormons muslims atheists new agers the jesus seminar etc kjv only ism undercuts the most foundational elements of our defense of the veracity and accuracy of the scriptures all in an attempt to establish a final authority in an english translation king james only ism needs to be opposed because it truly undercuts the defense of the scriptures so what are we to conclude first and foremost that we don't need conspiracy theories complicating our lives there is no reason to embrace kjv only ism for it is a system a tradition that must assume its conclusion to prove its own conclusion as such it is not something that christians who love the truth should wish to embrace and next we recognize that the lord has indeed preserved his word but he has done so in a way other than that assumed by king james only advocates they like to say that unless you hold their theory you don't believe in divine preservation of the text that is not true you can believe in divine preservation of the text without then leaping to the idea that you must assume one particular text one particular manuscript one particular family or one particular translation to be the definition of god's work of preservation and finally the last uh uh last uh slide in the presentation slide number 50 finally that while there are modern translations that we could never recommend and i'll stop here and say i i think there is a glut of english there are too many english translations now i i don't know why i guess well i do know why it actually it's pretty pretty straightforward uh the reason we have this glut of translations coming out is because each major publishing house wants its own translation you know why so they can use it without paying royalties to somebody else that's why uh i mean that may not sound like the best motivation but uh let's let's let's look at the geneva study bible was written in niv but then the publisher that was going to publish it went out of business and sold it to thomas nelson now anybody sitting out there with the geneva study bible uh what version is it in it's in new king james why because thomas nelson owns the new king james the macarthur study bible it's in new king james john macarthur never preaches out of the new king james he preaches out of the new american standard but his publisher is also owned by thomas nelson who owns the new king james and they will only put it out in the new king james because they don't have to pay royalties to lockman foundation to do that who owns the nasb and so it really does seem that the major publishing houses are coming up with their own translations so that when they do books or commentaries or their own study bibles you know i mean there's study bibles for everything anymore too i think there's the the left -handed iron workers study bible you know i mean it's it's just it's silly anymore there's the there's the green -eyed person to study bible and the blue -eyed person study bible and i just i don't even use study bibles personally i just ignore the whole thing anymore but um when they publish a study bible as long as it's published in their version that doesn't cost them anything and therefore the profit margin is considerably larger when you publish a bible and publishing a bible is very expensive it is it costs a lot of money uh just the publishing and the typesetting and the paper and the the binding and shipping and all the rest of that stuff very very expensive and so if you want to make any money then you keep your profit margin uh big and so you use the translation that your own publishing house has so i will say there is a glut of translations today you can't even keep up with all of them anymore some of them have their use um you know i like uh looking at the new english translation i like the the fact they have all those uh translators notes there for example i think the old testament of the net is horrific but the new testament's really uh you know a lot better uh but uh you know they have their uses and uh yes someone just some of the channel just said how about a jbez study bible i bet there will be i i would imagine you will see a jbez study bible but it'll only have two verses in it because that's all you need right you just those two little verses someplace often chronicles some places all they're really uh all they're the politically correct non -offensive gender -neutral third grade reading level rodney king can't we all get a long study bible that uh came from the peanut gallery next door actually uh yes that's that's definitely going to be coming along as well so um certainly i would say that um while there are modern translations we could never recommend i i honestly do not know of a european translation uh that i could recommend the european translations tend to be exceptionally liberal there are a number of good conservative english translations the new esv seems to be pretty good but like i said as far as i can tell the new esv is nothing more than the nasv without semicolons it's you know pretty much same thing uh it does not follow that we must go back to a venerable translation the king james version that exists in a language no one has spoken for hundreds of years it it truly makes me chuckle at times to see some advocates of the king james uh that literally will defend trying to make kids speak in king james english uh paul and peter and john did not write in a form of greek that was 400 years old just to sound more uh religious they wrote in the language of the day i think that becomes the apostolic example uh that we should utilize if we follow the apostolic example we will give the word of god to people in a language that they can understand not one that leaves them utterly bewildered and unlike what king james only advocates like to say the new american standard the new king james the even the dreaded niv and there are some people who really don't like the niv either uh all are translations that allow us to teach and preach the word of god with clarity with force and we can engage in apologetics when we utilize these fine english translations that god has provided to us now obviously uh i would highly recommend as one who teaches the language but also as an apologist that if you have the opportunity do what even the king james translators themselves recommended and that is learn the languages learn the languages at least learn new testament greek there there is so much that is available uh to individuals today to learn koine greek and given you know the the pursuits that many of us engage in during our lives there are many things that we learn to do that are not would not be nearly as useful my greek professor that i had for seven years uh had a a saying which is very very very true uh and that is the best commentary on the greek new testament is the new testament in greek the best commentary the greek new testament is the greek new testament uh reading the language as it was written uh it's it's truly a thrill to to read ephesians and galatians and see the tremendous difference in the uh the style of the two books you say why would that be so exciting well think about it ephesians is this this thought -out calm letter that paul writes to the churches in the lycus river valley he wants it passed around he's he's he's not really dealing with false doctrines so much as he's presenting truth but galatians galatians is filled with emotion and passion about the gospel and he's dealing with false teachers and false gospels and and you can just you can just feel the uh the the passion flowing through his fingers as he writes this letter and he skips verbs and he he it's it's not nearly the flowing style of ephesians and you can hear me talking about that but until you actually are able to sit down with the text and read it for yourself then it's just me telling you that it's that way it's not uh you're actually dealing uh with the text and and seeing it yourself and so if you have the opportunity uh take the language uh you can uh you can probably audit a class uh if you don't want to take it for credit you can probably audit a class uh very inexpensively in comparison to other things that we do you know for the cost of four new tires for your car you can audit a class and you can learn it and uh there's all sorts of uh of uh ways you can utilize computer now uh the parsons greek tutor and hebrew tutor are good are good programs now there are very few people that can teach themselves greek uh there's a fellow in the channel actually i think he uh he he pinged out a little while ago but but he uh he learned basic greek on his own knowing he was going to be going to seminary and he invited in college he hadn't been in bible college he had a secular degree and he was going into a seminary and so he wanted to have a head start he didn't want to have to be learning it there he wanted to know it and then go from there and he did but it took a lot of self -discipline and a lot of work uh bill mounces uh basics of biblical greek the manuscript the tapes to go with it uh would a great place to start great place to start and i would highly recommend that because honestly the looking at this whole presentation the greatest antidote to the king james only position is simply the truth about where the scriptures came from knowledge is the antidote to king james only ism king james only thrives upon ignorance the fact that we can't get the leading king james only advocates to engage us in meaningful debate shows this they don't that's that's that does not help their side it does not help their side to see the knowledge come out and uh yeah i've had a number of people who have uh you know i've i've dabbled with uh the idea of teaching greek over the internet uh but it just the the time just isn't possible uh and then other people have dabbled with the idea of a video series of learning new testament greek uh but you know there are dreamers everywhere who just uh you know uh just don't seem to realize the realities of time and and things like that but anyways um uh who knows maybe those things are down the road someplace uh it it's hard to say but i would strongly encourage you if you have the opportunity um if you have the opportunity to uh to take a class and to learn that language do so it will help you uh very very much uh in dealing with this well there's the presentation i hope for those of you who took the time to download it and i've by the way i've been getting i need to notice make note of this we've put the presentation on the website please don't send me uh av1611 emails anymore i'm just i've turned off that filter uh my isp really did not like the fact that i was sending those things out and it's caused all sorts of problems and so i've turned off that filter sending me av1611 is uh not going to get you anywhere so uh don't send that you can get this presentation but if you took the time to do that uh very much appreciate it i hope that this presentation has helped you to understand it better and if you see folks in your congregations who are starting to promote this stuff and they may do it out of a out of zeal i mean i've seen some really zealous folks who think man i'm defending the word of god and i'm i'm doing god's work here take them aside in love try to share with them try to explain to them what's really going on because my files are filled with letters from folks from churches that were split ministries that were damaged feelings that were hurt relationships destroyed by this this controversy and you really really really need to take the time to head this thing off of the past if you can talk to somebody before they become so convinced that their mind becomes closed and the first thing they see when you challenge them is oh you must have that alexandrian spirit in you you know if you can get them before there before they get that kind of thinking then you can explain to them you can increase their confidence in the word of god because king james onlyism shows a fundamental lack of confidence in god's preservation of the text as he actually did it if you have to come up with a fake way of doing it and basically re -inspire the bible than what happened up until 1604 uh you can strengthen their trust in the word of god and you can strengthen the fellowship you're in and keep it from experiencing the difficulties that are always attendant uh to the uh the king james holy movement take them aside in love and slap them around with a big trout well thank you very much jason we appreciate that that pastoral pastoral exhortation especially since jason is an elder in a church so i would just like to uh tell everybody uh if you visit jason's church he may take you aside and slap you around with a big trout and if you don't know what being slapped around the big trout is you have not been in a chat room using mirc because that's one of the standard insults that is uh provided by mirc is to slap some around with a trout i'm not sure where in the world that came from but it is now world famous and in fact many people who speak nothing but uh thai also slap people around the big trout and they don't know what they're doing anyways that's gonna do it for today thank you for joining us on the dividing line i hope it's been a useful series for you what's coming up in the future as normal i have not a foggiest clue what's coming up in the future but it'll be similar to the past that's all i can say it'll be a religious topic and it'll be worth your while to tune in thanks a lot for being with us god bless the dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries if you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -0318 or write us at p .o

01:29:47

box 37106 phoenix arizona 85069 you can also find us on the worldwide web at aomin .org

01:29:56

that's aomin .org where you'll find a complete listing of james white's books tapes debates and tracks join us again next saturday afternoon at 2 p .m