KJV vs Modern Versions

Sovereign Grace Family Church iconSovereign Grace Family Church

1 view

0 comments

00:03
Tonight we're looking at an extension of last week's lesson, so if you were not here, I want to just give a very, very brief overview of what we have been doing in the last few weeks, and particularly last week.
00:20
We've been talking about the subject of how we got the Bible.
00:26
And a few weeks ago I introduced the subject of textual criticism.
00:30
And remember what we said about textual criticism.
00:33
Textual criticism is the study of the manuscripts that have come down to us that are handwritten biblical manuscripts.
00:45
We no longer have the original copy, or we no longer have the original book of Romans.
00:50
We no longer have the original, any of the books of the Bible.
00:54
What we have are copies.
00:55
We have thousands of copies.
00:57
And so textual criticism is the science of studying those manuscripts to determine what the original reading would have been.
01:10
We said there's two types of textual criticism.
01:12
There is lower criticism, which simply seeks to try to reproduce the original.
01:16
That's what we're doing.
01:18
That's what we're talking about, rather.
01:20
And then there's higher criticism.
01:22
Higher criticism are those who come along and say, well, we don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, or we don't believe Jesus walked on water, or we don't believe Moses part of the Red Sea.
01:29
We don't believe that Daniel had an ability to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar.
01:36
So they reinterpret the text based upon a naturalistic worldview.
01:41
That is not what we're doing.
01:43
And that's why it's called higher criticism, because it really is.
01:46
That is a critical, that's being critical of what it's saying.
01:51
That's not what we're doing, and that's not what we're about.
01:55
We don't question whether or not God has the ability to, through Moses, part the sea, or through Daniel, interpret dreams, or Jesus Christ being God himself can do anything he wants.
02:06
So walking on water, not that big a deal, you know.
02:09
So we don't have that as our subject of discussion.
02:13
But what we do have is the subject of certain sections of the Bible, which are in question in regarding whether or not they were the actual writing of the original author.
02:28
And last week we mentioned, ask you to turn in your Bible to John chapter 5 and verse 4.
02:35
And if you don't remember, if you open your Bible to John chapter 5 and verse 4, you'll notice if you have an NIV or an ESV, when you get to John chapter 5 and verse 4, it's not there.
02:51
It'll be at the bottom, and it will note that it's a textual variant, but it's a textual variant with very little manuscript attestation, or very little good manuscript attestation.
03:06
So if you go to John chapter 5, it'll go from verse 3 to verse 5, and it'll skip over verse 4.
03:14
Had fun with this in our, is that what yours did, skip verse 4? Had fun with this in our new members class.
03:22
Because I don't know how many of you remember, some of you of course were grandfathered in, didn't have to come to a new members class, but if you've never been to a new members class, what we do in that class is we go over our statement of faith.
03:32
And I talked about the fact that our statement of faith says that we believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant in its original manuscripts.
03:40
But we no longer have the original manuscripts, what we have is a manuscript tradition which represents thousands of handwritten copies of the original.
03:48
So we have this manuscript tradition that's what we use to determine what was the original reading.
03:54
And I had everybody go to John 5.4, and one of the girls was just so, you remember, Dale, you were here, she was like, wow, I never knew, and like it was a big deal.
04:03
And I always like seeing people, it's a surprise.
04:08
Shouldn't be a surprise though, I mean, I understand it's not something that a lot of people study, but we should know these things, especially when we're facing the world that's attacking the scripture.
04:21
We should know why John 5.4 isn't there.
04:25
And that's what we've been talking about is what we call textual variance.
04:29
Last week I introduced you to the concept of what's called King James, sorry, King James Onlyism.
04:40
King James Onlyism is the idea that there is one perfect, infallible, inerrant English translation and it is the King James Bible.
04:56
And we said there's various types of King James Onlyists, there are those who believe that the King James is the best because that's what they grew up with and that's what they like, and that's fine, that's what we call King James Preferred.
05:08
But then we said there was also those who consider themselves King James Onlyists and they believe that if you use anything else other than the King James then you are using a Bible that is wrong.
05:24
In fact, some of them would even go as far as to say if you use an NIV or something else that it's of Satan, that it's not only wrong, it's a demonic translation.
05:37
And we mentioned that last week and that was our subject for last week.
05:42
Well tonight, I've decided I want to show you some of the differences between the King James Version and modern translations of the Bible.
05:57
Because the common misconception is this, the common misconception is that the only difference between the KJV and the NIV or the NASV or whichever, the ESV, which is the one that we use, the common misconception is the only difference between them is that one uses archaic language and one doesn't.
06:18
So when I read the King James, I get the these and the thous and the whosoevers and all those words, you know.
06:26
And that's old archaic language and the newer versions have modern language and that's the only difference.
06:38
That's not true.
06:41
That is not the case.
06:44
There is a difference between the KJV and the newer translations, the modern versions that is worthy of our attention and worthy of our study.
06:57
The KJV is actually based on a different manuscript tradition than the modern versions.
07:06
Now, you remember, hopefully, I've talked about two different manuscript traditions.
07:13
The Byzantine family of manuscripts.
07:19
What was the other one? Does anybody remember? See how good of a teacher I am.
07:25
Nobody? The Alexandrian.
07:31
Thank you.
07:31
Just yell it out when you know.
07:32
Alright, so the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.
07:39
Under the Byzantine family we have the King James and the New King James.
07:52
Under the Alexandrian family we have pretty much everything else that's been translated in the last century, including the most popular being the New International Version and then of course the NASB and the ESV being the most popular one today among Reformed folks.
08:20
As I said, the King James is actually based on a different manuscript tradition than the modern versions.
08:26
As a result, some of the differences are more substantial than just the uses of these and thous.
08:37
Simply stated.
08:40
I want to read you a quote from Underwood.
08:43
This is on this subject.
08:45
He says, The King James Version of the Bible was based on the best Greek and Hebrew texts available.
08:52
This contributed immeasurably to its worth, for most English Bibles had been translated from the Latin translation.
09:00
Thus the King James took English readers a full step closer to the original message.
09:05
But that was over 350 years ago.
09:10
Archeology has contributed much to Biblical study since that time, and textual criticism has made some significant advances since then as well.
09:22
Simply stated, the manuscript evidence available to the King James translators was not as good as the manuscript evidence we have today.
09:31
Honestly, you can't debate that.
09:32
There are people who try, but the reality is the manuscript evidence that was available to the King James translators was not anywhere close to the amount of manuscript evidence that we have available today.
09:49
This is especially true when referencing the Greek text that was used for the New Testament, which we talked about last week, and I used a word last week I hope didn't confuse you.
10:04
It's a Latin word.
10:07
The Textus Receptus.
10:09
Do you guys remember me talking about the Textus Receptus last week? What does that word mean in the Latin? What does it mean? It means the received text.
10:18
It's the received text.
10:21
That is to say, the Textus Receptus was considered at the time to be the Bible.
10:30
It was what was received from God.
10:31
It was what was received from heaven as it were.
10:35
But where did the Textus Receptus come from? Because by the way, the Textus Receptus doesn't count as part of these.
10:42
The Textus Receptus is not a handwritten manuscript.
10:46
It is a printed New Testament.
10:49
So it doesn't count as a manuscript in the same idea of these.
10:53
These are handwritten families, handwritten families.
10:56
The Textus Receptus does not count because it is a printed text.
11:02
And it was printed through the work of a man named Desiderius Erasmus.
11:07
Desiderius Erasmus published a Greek text which came to be known as the Textus Receptus.
11:12
The Textus Receptus served as the basic guide for the translators of the King James Version.
11:17
It is based on the Byzantine family.
11:20
That's why we say the King James Version represents the Byzantine.
11:25
It's based on that, but it's still, this is the text that gives us the King James.
11:32
This is the underlying text that gives us the King James.
11:35
This is why if you ever talk to a King James only-ist and you ask them about the Greek, they're often times going to have with them a Textus Receptus.
11:44
If they're a King James only-ist and they believe in the underlying Greek text, they'll have a Textus Receptus.
11:50
This is the Greek.
11:51
This is the English.
11:51
And they agree.
11:52
The King James Version and the Textus Receptus agree, so they make that argument.
11:56
Here it is.
11:57
This is what we have.
12:01
So this represents the history somewhat of how we have the King James Bible.
12:07
It came from a Greek text, a printed Greek text, which was compiled and edited by a man named Desiderius Erasmus.
12:15
He was an excellent scholar.
12:17
He printed a fine text, but he was only working from about half a dozen Greek manuscripts in his initial work.
12:26
Hear that again.
12:27
When Desiderius Erasmus published the first edition of the Textus Receptus, and by the way, it went through several editions after, but when he published the first edition of the Textus Receptus, he was only working from less than a handful, we say about half a dozen, Greek manuscripts.
12:47
You guys understand why that's an issue? When now we have thousands, he only had a handful.
12:55
And the manuscripts he was using was from this family.
12:58
And by the way, this family represents a thousand year plus after Christ.
13:04
This family represents a much closer within, the papyri can get us within 30 to 50 years of the original writing.
13:14
This family represents an older line.
13:19
Does that make sense? So you've got the older line, you've got the younger line, most of which represents a thousand years plus after Christ.
13:29
He only had a handful of these that he's working from to produce this, and out of that we get this.
13:39
Make sense? I don't mean to be, hopefully I'm not losing anyone, because this is very important as far as historical information is concerned.
13:50
I want to quote from F.F.
13:54
Bruce here, he says, The Byzantine text type represents a revision of the New Testament text made in the 4th century A.D.
13:59
and later.
14:00
It is also farther removed from the text of the 1st century than certain early text types which have been distinguished in more recent times.
14:08
That is the Alexandrian text that represents this.
14:11
Again, that's just backing up what I just said.
14:14
You have later manuscripts, you have earlier manuscripts.
14:17
They're two different families.
14:18
Now they all say essentially the same thing.
14:22
Remember what we talked about with the variants a few weeks ago? We said how many variants are there? 400,000, right? Out of 400,000, how many of them are meaningful? Less than 1%, right? So out of 400,000 variants, only about 1% of those are meaningful.
14:41
That would be about 4,000 of them, right? And out of those 4,000 meaningful variants, most of those are not viable variants.
14:51
Meaning they are variants that are introduced after this point.
14:56
If a variant is introduced this far down the line, it's not a variant that is viable to be the original.
15:05
Does that make sense? If something comes in 1,000 years later, you know it wasn't part of the original.
15:09
If none of these have it and these do, there's a good chance it wasn't part of the original.
15:15
Does that make sense? Okay.
15:26
But there's something else to be considered when we talk about Erasmus and his work.
15:32
Erasmus produced his manuscript, as I said, from only a small portion of Greek manuscripts that were available to him.
15:38
And it is acknowledged that Erasmus did not have a complete manuscript of the book of Revelation.
15:44
When he was compiling the Textus Receptus, he did not have a manuscript of Revelation to work from.
15:53
So what did he do? He translated certain portions of Revelation from the Latin back into the Greek.
16:06
And because of that, there are certain places that the Textus Receptus has readings that no other manuscript in the world has.
16:16
And this is the manuscript that the King James Version and Revelation is based on.
16:21
Well, the whole Bible is based on this.
16:23
And that is why there are readings in Revelation that don't match anything else anywhere.
16:31
Now, I didn't come here to make you feel all uncomfortable, but we've got to know these things.
16:36
I'll read this quote.
16:38
This is from Bruce Metzger.
16:39
He says, quote, The last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript.
16:45
Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek.
16:48
And Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek, wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, and where he simply preferred the Vulgate's reading to the Greek text.
17:00
Remember a few weeks ago how I said I don't like translations that are only done by one individual? There's a reason for that.
17:07
Because when you have a translation that's only translated by one person, his biases become the basis for the decision making.
17:16
Translation should be done in committee, not individually.
17:20
And the Textus Receptus was the work of Erasmus.
17:24
So these decisions were made by him.
17:28
And this is why, as I said, certain portions of the Textus Receptus reads totally different than any other Greek manuscript.
17:37
The revisors of the 1611 KJV used the best textual evidence they had.
17:42
That's the next thing to consider.
17:45
When I say this about the King James Version, I am not saying the King James Version translators did anything nefarious.
17:52
They didn't do anything nefarious.
17:54
They worked with the best of what they had.
17:59
Archaeology has skyrocketed in the last 100 years or better.
18:04
Or the last 150 years, especially.
18:08
Prior to the uptick in modern scientific advancements and travel and the ability to do things like that that were not available 200 years ago.
18:19
You realize we're still riding horses 200 years ago, right? You realize our boats and everything were still going off of wind and rudders or oars, right? We didn't have little, they didn't have motor boats, right? All of these, you realize we went from horses to the moon in less than 100 years? First of all, that's just amazing by itself.
18:38
But the reality is, a lot of what we have today that's available to us just was not available to the King James translators.
18:46
And so we can't say that they did anything wrong in the sense of purposeful error.
18:52
And that's not what we're saying.
18:56
What we are saying is this, and I want to quote Lightfoot on this.
18:59
It is important to remember that four of the most valuable witnesses on the New Testament, that is Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and the Ephraim manuscripts were not available when the King James Translation was made.
19:13
Those are the oldest, best manuscripts that exist today were not available to the King James translators.
19:25
It just is what it is.
19:29
In fact, James White makes an argument that Erasmus wanted to use Vaticanus and that he actually wrote a letter to a friend asking him to compare Vaticanus to what he had.
19:46
And it wasn't done.
19:50
Vaticanus was there and available, but not available to him.
19:57
Because some people have said, well, Vaticanus is just bad.
20:00
It's Alexandrian, and some people argue that because it's Egyptian, it's bad.
20:04
We've talked about that in the past.
20:07
But according to James White, who's a historian on this issue, has said he would have used it had he had the opportunity to.
20:14
He did not have access to it.
20:17
So, now we can see that it's not just the these and the thous, right? It's not just the archaic language.
20:25
We've got a completely different family of manuscripts that we're working from.
20:30
So when we talk about the...
20:32
Now, and maybe some of you now can see why King James Version onlyists get so ruffled.
20:39
Because they're holding to a translation that's based on a historical text and line that's different than the one that we're using for the ESV or the NIV or things like that.
20:54
So they can make an argument here.
20:56
They can say, look, it's a different textual family of manuscripts.
21:02
And they wouldn't be wrong.
21:03
They're not wrong at that point.
21:04
The question is, which one should we be using? Or should we just be using it all? Because that's it.
21:11
I don't believe in the Alexandrian or the Byzantine.
21:14
I don't believe either one is automatically right.
21:19
I don't believe the Alexandrian is automatically right just because it's older.
21:24
I believe everywhere there's a variant has to be studied.
21:29
And that we call the eclectic approach or the eclectic text.
21:33
That's the goal.
21:33
Anytime you come to a variant in the manuscripts, you look at the evidence to determine.
21:41
Right? Because there are some people that take what's called the majority approach.
21:48
The majority approach is this.
21:50
Whatever has, like if you've got this variant and it's five times over here and over here.
21:55
There's 50 times that represent this.
21:57
Well, they just count noses as it were.
21:59
They say the one with the 50 wins because it's got more.
22:02
Right? That's the majority text approach.
22:06
Here's the problem with the majority text.
22:08
Out of these, there's a lot more of these than there are of these.
22:13
So the majority text approach almost always will go to the Byzantine side.
22:18
Because there's going to be more of the newer manuscripts.
22:22
Right? So if we're just counting, that's not fair.
22:26
That's not taking a realistic approach.
22:29
But here's the other side of that.
22:30
If they take the majority text approach, there are some King James readings that wouldn't be there anymore.
22:36
Because there's some readings in the King James that aren't found in any other manuscripts.
22:39
I said that earlier.
22:41
So if they took the majority text approach, they couldn't be King James onlyists.
22:47
Can't have it both ways.
22:48
Right? Can't have a cake and eat it too.
22:50
Well, if you're a majority approach person, you're still not going to be King James.
22:56
Especially on the text 1 John 5.7.
22:58
1 John 5.7 is not in the majority of Greek manuscripts.
23:04
It's not in any Greek manuscript that I know of before the 13th, 14th century at all.
23:09
But it's in the King James Bible.
23:12
So, if you're a majority text person, that text can't be in your Bible.
23:20
So you've got the, I take it, as I said, I take the eclectic approach.
23:23
I think the eclectic approach is the safest approach because you deal with each variation rather than saying we're going to take this one way and do it on all.
23:34
Whether it's the always taking the textus receptus reading or always taking the majority reading.
23:40
I think those are not the best way.
23:44
Alright, so, this is how the newer translations came about.
23:49
The newer translations came about because as archaeology and things began to get better and as more and more manuscripts began to be unearthed, they began to realize that there was this older family of manuscripts and a lot of them coming out of Alexandria, thus being called the Alexandrian family of manuscripts.
24:11
And so a newer version, and that's why it's called version by the way, you call the New International Version or the King James Version because it is a version of the text.
24:25
The English Standard Version.
24:29
And so we have these versions that have come out and each one seeking to represent the original text.
24:40
And I mentioned last time, I said the King James Bible has gone through several additions.
24:46
I heard a guy try to defend that this week.
24:48
When I teach on something, I listen to what other people are saying, especially people who disagree, because I want to hear the other side.
24:54
I want to hear what they have to say.
24:55
And I listened to a guy who tried to defend the fact that it's no different.
24:58
He said, the 1611 is the same as the Bible that I'm holding in my hand.
25:03
And I said, no it's not.
25:04
It really isn't.
25:05
And yet he still continues to argue that it is.
25:08
He said, because it's just the shapes of the letters or the changes of word spelling.
25:14
It's not a different Bible.
25:16
I can prove that wrong.
25:18
Because in the Oxford edition of the King James Bible and the Cambridge edition of the King James Bible, that are two available today.
25:30
There is a verse in Jeremiah where one, the word is translated he and the same word is translated ye.
25:42
He is the first person singular, right? Ye is what? Huh? Yeah, it's different.
25:53
It's a different word.
25:56
And so, and it has a different, and what, how would you know which one's right? If you're a King James only-ist.
26:05
Well, the guy said, well we all know the Cambridge is the best.
26:11
Who's we all? And who came up with the we all? You know, or maybe, I don't even remember, I go back, he might have said the Oxford.
26:17
But he just said, he says, we all know which one's right.
26:22
Huh? Yeah, why do we keep the other ones around? So, this is why I say this is an issue that we have to at least be able to speak with some education on.
26:42
And I know that there are a lot of folks, like I said last week, who would claim me particularly, because I'm the one teaching this, as a heretic.
26:52
And then you all would be, you know, lost because you're listening to a heretic.
26:56
So, but again, the process of using modern scholarship and the best manuscripts available is what was used to try to produce the newer versions.
27:09
Not in opposition of the King James, that's another thing too.
27:12
The newer versions were not produced to destroy the King James Bible.
27:20
Had nothing to do with that.
27:22
It had everything to do with dealing with the rise in modern scholarship and the rise of these newer, well, older manuscripts and the opportunity to study them.
27:34
Don't we want to know what Paul really wrote? Don't we want to know that we know what Paul really wrote? It seems so simple, it seems so logical, right? You want to talk about logic.
27:43
The writer of New Age Bible versions, Gail Ripplinger, she said God gave her something called acrostic algebra.
27:50
And in acrostic algebra, she creates an acrostic with the NASV, the NIV, and one other version.
28:03
And if you line them all up, it spells the word sin.
28:07
And so that's proof that these versions are demonic.
28:16
Here's the problem though.
28:17
That's the only place in her Bible, because the NASB is almost always referred to as the NASB, New American Standard Bible.
28:25
It's the only place in her book that she says NASV, because that's the only way to make the acrostic work.
28:34
It's the only place that she uses NASV.
28:39
And when asked about it on the radio, she says, well, that's what God calls it.
28:45
At that point, the conversation's over.
28:49
At that point, you have ceased to be logical and to deal in the realm of logic.
28:57
Most people, even in the King James only movement, don't listen to her, because she's illogical.
29:06
So, we've spent a lot of time on the introduction.
29:09
I want to finally get to the differences.
29:10
I'll give you a list of them.
29:12
So let me go through these with you.
29:14
Some of the differences.
29:16
And there are more, obviously, but these are some of the more important ones.
29:20
I would say important in the sense that these create...
29:24
If you have a conversation with a King James onlyist, these are some of the ones that will create the most fodder for their attacks.
29:30
First one, 1 Timothy 3.16.
29:32
1 Timothy 3.16.
29:34
Let's see if you can catch the difference.
29:35
The King James Version says, Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness.
29:39
God was manifest in the flesh.
29:41
The New American Standard Bible.
29:44
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness.
29:47
He who was manifest, or rather revealed in the flesh.
29:52
What's the difference? What's the biggest difference? Thank you.
30:03
Thank you.
30:04
Yes.
30:04
The biggest difference is that the King James Version says, God was manifest in the flesh.
30:11
And the New American Standard Bible says, He who was manifest...
30:16
Is that a big difference? I will give you that.
30:22
That's a huge difference.
30:24
That is a theological difference.
30:29
Significant theological difference.
30:32
Because if we take the King James reading at this point, we have the proof that all the stuff we've been saying about the Trinity is actually correct.
30:46
Which we have that proof anyway, because it's in other verses.
30:48
But this is, this God was manifested in the flesh.
30:52
Right? But the New American Standard Bible says, He who was manifest in the flesh.
30:58
And oh boy, has this one ever been attacked.
31:00
Because they say, see they're removing the deity of Christ from the Bible.
31:06
And you see how that would sound very nefarious, right? Oh, it's a removal of the deity of Christ.
31:13
But let me remind you about something.
31:16
This is important.
31:17
When the Bible was written in the original Greek language, it was written in what's called uncial or majuscule text.
31:23
Uncial, remember, was all capital letters.
31:27
No spaces, very little punctuation.
31:29
Remember we talked about that? You know what the difference between God and He who is in the Greek? That.
31:43
That is the difference.
31:51
That is a theta sigma.
31:53
And this is what's called a nomena sacra.
31:54
Nomena sacra simply means a sacred name.
31:57
The name of God in old manuscripts was often shortened or abbreviated.
32:05
The name of God is actually Theos.
32:10
Right? And actually in the Greek it would be, yeah, Theos.
32:19
Okay? So we have Theos.
32:21
But in uncial text they had something called the nomena sacra.
32:25
And this is an interesting bit of history, too, on top of what we're already learning.
32:29
The name of God was brought down to only two letters.
32:33
It was called the nomena sacra or the abbreviated name of God.
32:36
They also did that with Jesus' name.
32:39
So there are times in the manuscripts where we only have the two letters for the name of Jesus.
32:45
Which is interesting because they don't do that with any other name.
32:48
They don't do that with Moses.
32:49
They don't do that with any other person in Scripture other than Jesus.
32:54
Which tells us something about the copyists.
32:57
Because their sacred names are abbreviated.
33:01
Jesus' name was sacred.
33:02
That's what it tells us.
33:03
It tells us that Jesus' name was sacred.
33:05
So this is the difference.
33:08
Alright? We've got theta sigma, omicron sigma.
33:13
The difference is that small line.
33:15
And remember how papyri was made.
33:17
It was made with pieces of papyri plant that were laid on top of each other and pressed together.
33:22
So there was a natural line going both ways.
33:26
And so can't we see how a line could either be missed or added as a result of time and deterioration? Okay.
33:40
So now does it become less nefarious when we actually see what the difference really is? Okay.
33:49
This is a place, again, where King James only advocates argue that...
33:56
See, they've stolen something from the Bible.
33:58
They've stolen the deity of Christ.
34:00
Not true.
34:04
Because many other places in the NIV, ESV, or other can be used to argue for the deity of Christ.
34:09
This is one place where there is a legitimate textual variant that has to be dealt with.
34:15
I personally, and I'm going to say this and I hope this doesn't bother you, I personally really like the King James translation at this point.
34:24
I want it to say God was manifest in the flesh.
34:27
I do.
34:29
Huh? Who wouldn't want it to say that, right? The Jehovah Witnesses.
34:32
They would not want it to say that.
34:35
But legitimately, I want it to be the King James translation.
34:39
But reality is that it's most likely not.
34:44
Based on the manuscript tradition, it's most likely He who is manifest in the flesh.
34:49
But, boy, wouldn't it be great to find out I'm wrong, or find out that the manuscript at this point, the greater representation is not on that one, but on the lesser one.
35:04
But, like I said, I have to deal with what is, not with what I wish.
35:07
This is sort of going back to that whole idea of the one-person translator, right? Because if I'm the one-person translator, I might say, I really like the idea of God manifest in the flesh, so I'm going to do it that way.
35:15
Yeah, it harasses us.
35:17
If I have to choose, I'm going to go, yeah.
35:22
You're kind of filling in what, you know, like you're coloring it, you know, what you think it should be.
35:27
Exactly.
35:28
Exactly.
35:31
So, that's one, 1 Timothy 3.16.
35:32
How many of your Bibles say God was manifest in the flesh? How many of you say He who is manifest in the flesh? How many of you even went there? I gave it to you printed out, so you might not even have went there.
35:43
If you have the ESV, it says He who.
35:44
If you have the NAS, it says He who.
35:46
If you have the NIV, it says He who.
35:48
The only ones that's going to say God was manifest in the flesh is the King James and the New King James.
35:52
That's the only ones.
35:53
Because they're the only ones that are based on the later manuscripts, and this doesn't come in until the later manuscripts.
36:00
Alright? Moving on to the next one.
36:03
We're getting close here.
36:06
Time.
36:07
John 1.18.
36:08
Listen again.
36:09
No man hath seen God at any time.
36:13
The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
36:18
That's the King James.
36:20
ESV.
36:21
No one has seen God.
36:23
No one has ever seen God.
36:24
The only God who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known.
36:28
What's the difference there? Right? One says begotten Son.
36:37
The other says begotten.
36:40
Or only God, right? One says only Son.
36:44
The other says only God.
36:46
Here is an example of how we could make the same argument back to the King James onlyists.
36:53
Because the King James onlyists says, See, they took out God at 1 Timothy 3 and 16.
36:58
Well, here we could say they take out God at John 1.18.
37:04
Because it's the other way around now.
37:07
Now Jesus is called the only God who is at the Father's side.
37:10
Which goes with John 1.1.
37:12
Because John 1.1 says, In the beginning was the Word.
37:14
The Word was with God.
37:15
And the Word was God.
37:16
Indicating that Jesus is God and He was with God at the beginning.
37:20
Right? So John 1.18 saying the only God who is at the Father's side actually agrees with John 1.1.
37:25
There is no disagreement in theology there.
37:28
And Jesus is called God in John 1.18.
37:31
He is called the monogynistos.
37:32
Or the only begotten God or the only unique God.
37:35
Right? He is called the unique God.
37:38
Here.
37:40
Right? Couldn't we say to the King James onlyists, See, you took out the deity of Christ.
37:46
But we'd be just as wrong as them.
37:48
But this is a point to show you that it works both ways.
37:53
Because it's not an issue of somebody taking something out or somebody adding something in.
37:56
The question is, which one is correct? And here's the answer.
38:02
The earliest manuscripts which include P66 and P75.
38:08
Which are papyri manuscripts dating before 200 A.D.
38:12
or thereabout.
38:14
As well as the two earliest unsealed manuscripts.
38:17
That's Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
38:20
All read the only unique God.
38:24
Or the unique God here at John 1.18.
38:28
The bulk of later manuscripts say only begotten Son.
38:33
But the bulk of later manuscripts represent the Byzantine line.
38:36
So again, if we were doing majority only, it'd be only begotten Son.
38:40
But the best earliest manuscripts say monogynistos.
38:43
They say God.
38:44
Not Son.
38:45
And by the way, what's the difference? Word wise.
38:50
Huyos and Theos are the two words.
38:53
And they even sound similar.
38:55
But Huyos is Son.
38:57
Theos is God.
39:00
See if I can spell these.
39:02
Huyos would be.
39:05
No.
39:07
That.
39:09
Theos would be.
39:11
So even looking at them, they're very similar.
39:17
So John 1.18.
39:19
I personally take the ESV rendering.
39:23
Or what we would call the eclectic text rendering.
39:25
I take the older manuscript rendering.
39:27
Because I think only begotten God or unique God is, one, I think it's more in line with John 1.1.
39:34
I think theologically it's in line.
39:37
But also, it's got the older, better attestation at that point.
39:41
And I can see someone changing the manuscript from only begotten God to only begotten Son on accident.
39:49
Because only begotten Son is a normal phrase that is used in the New Testament by John in John 3.16.
39:55
Only begotten Son.
39:56
We see monogamized Huyos in other places.
39:58
So it would make sense that someone would change it one way to the other.
40:02
It does not make any sense that someone would change it the other way.
40:06
Unless they were doing something on purpose.
40:09
But a mistake could be made one direction.
40:10
A mistake would probably not be made the other direction.
40:13
This is what's known as the concept of the more difficult reading.
40:17
When you have two readings that are both potentially viable, the harder reading is more likely to be the original.
40:25
Because it's more likely that someone would take something hard and make it easy, than it is to take something easy and make it hard.
40:32
Does that make sense? It's much more likely that something would go the other direction.
40:40
From the hard to the easy, not the easy to the hard.
40:44
Alright.
40:45
Moving on.
40:46
We only got a few more.
40:47
I want to do these.
40:49
Because this is our last lesson and then we're out next week.
40:56
Revelation 1.8.
40:58
Revelation 1.8.
41:00
King James Version.
41:01
I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty.
41:10
New American Standard Bible.
41:12
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
41:18
What's the difference? It says God, right? One says the Lord, one says the Lord God.
41:25
The word Theos is included in the New American Standard Bible.
41:29
The reference the Lord God is an example where the TR, the Textus Receptus, even departs from the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition.
41:39
This is one of the examples where, remember I told you about the TR, sometimes it reads different than the majority.
41:43
The majority of the manuscripts say the Lord God.
41:48
But the TR doesn't.
41:50
So as a result, the King James doesn't.
41:54
There is no question that this should be Lord God.
41:58
Absolutely no question that this should be Lord God.
42:01
But, it's not in the TR.
42:05
It's not in the King James.
42:07
Right? Okay.
42:14
1 John 3, 1.
42:17
Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.
42:23
ESV rendering, same verse.
42:25
See what manner or what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God.
42:31
And so we are.
42:32
What was the difference? And so we are.
42:37
There's an entire line.
42:40
And so we are is not in the King James, it is in the ESV.
42:44
The phrase is chiasmen.
42:46
Chiasmen and so we are is omitted in certain manuscripts.
42:50
And there seems to be no theological reason why someone would omit those words.
42:55
And this has all the earmarks of what's known as homoeteluton.
43:00
Homoeteluton means similar endings.
43:02
The words clathomen and clateomen.
43:12
So clathomen and clateomen both have the same ending.
43:16
Where it would be that we should be called the sons of God.
43:20
And then where it says and so we are.
43:23
The most likely reason for it not being in the King James, is that particular section was simply left out as a scribal error or a scribal mistake.
43:35
The words are so similar that it's likely that they were simply omitted and that became part of a specific manuscript tradition.
43:43
That's one variant introduced at one point in time, which would later be copied by others because the copy is coming later.
43:49
Don't know where the variants are that were made by those who came before them.
43:52
But we can look back now and we see that line of variation.
43:59
And so we are, should be there, I believe.
44:03
And I don't always agree with the ESV on everything, but it just so happens that tonight most of the time I am.
44:08
But for the most part, like I said, I want the God with manifest in the flesh.
44:13
I want the King James to be right.
44:15
I don't think it is, but I want it to.
44:17
Colossians 1.14.
44:19
This one's huge.
44:21
Oh boy, is this one huge.
44:23
Colossians 1.14.
44:24
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
44:28
That's the King James Version.
44:29
ESV Version.
44:30
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
44:33
What's missing? Through His blood.
44:36
And so the NIV and the ESV and the New American Standard have been called by King James only as the bloodless Bible.
44:45
They say the NIV takes the blood of Jesus out.
44:49
I've heard that.
44:51
It's the bloodless Bible.
44:52
Here's the problem with that.
44:55
If you say that the ESV takes out the blood of Jesus, then what about Colossians 1.14, which is basically the parallel verse to this, which in the ESV does say through His blood.
45:09
It's in the ESV in another passage.
45:12
If they were taking the blood out completely, why would they leave it in one place and take it out in another place? It doesn't make sense.
45:23
Ultimately, if you study the history of this particular variant, you will note that this phrase, through His blood, is found in Ephesians, but not found in Colossians.
45:42
Most likely, it was added at some point as a harmonization.
45:49
Because they are so close.
45:56
There's an entire line here.
45:58
I'll forego reading, but basically it says that, well, I'll just read this line.
46:06
If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here, but not in Ephesians 1.7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming.
46:17
The testimony of not using the phrase by His blood or through His blood is in all of the major codexes don't have the phrase through His blood at Colossians 1.17, but they have it at Ephesians 1.14.
46:34
So, it's not as if somebody's trying to take something out and remove it.
46:38
It just wasn't part of the Colossians as it was written.
46:43
Alright, final thought, final thought.
46:45
And then we'll be done.
46:46
That was the last one on your sheet, right? One more? Give me my notes.
46:57
Mark 929, what's that? Oh, yeah.
46:59
I'm sorry.
47:00
I added it here.
47:00
I didn't add it here.
47:01
That's my mistake.
47:02
Mark 929.
47:06
Why is this not in my notes? I know why.
47:12
This is an example of...
47:14
No, I have it.
47:15
I have it.
47:15
I have it.
47:15
I have it here.
47:16
I don't have it in my notes.
47:24
It's buried in my notes.
47:27
Good, good, good.
47:28
Miss Rosanna got me.
47:33
Mark 929, King James Version.
47:34
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing but prayer and fasting.
47:42
New American Standard Bible.
47:43
And he said to them, This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.
47:51
So, I've heard also, Well, the newer versions don't like fasting.
47:57
Anytime you hear an argument like that, that's just...
48:01
That's not even the point.
48:04
The point is whether or not it was part of the original.
48:07
Unfortunately, I don't have my notes.
48:08
So, I...
48:09
Because what I have is I have notes on all the other ones saying what manuscripts are in and what they're not.
48:14
And that's how I would study it.
48:15
If I wanted to know whether Mark 929 should be one or the other, I wouldn't automatically say, Well, the ESV has it, so I want to keep it.
48:21
Or the NIV has it, so I want to keep it.
48:23
Or the King James has it, so I don't want to keep it.
48:25
I would go and study the history of that particular variant.
48:30
So, that's your homework.
48:32
Go see what you come up with on 9 and 29.
48:35
I'm fairly certain I remember correctly that it has lesser attestation and the phrase fasting was a later addition.
48:42
But I encourage you to look that up for yourself.
48:45
Mark 9 and 29.
48:48
So, now for my final thought that I...
48:51
A little embarrassing.
48:52
When we discuss the King James Version versus modern translations, we need to realize this.
49:01
Not all modern translations are created equal.
49:06
So, when you hear me say the King James Version versus modern translations, that's really kind of a misnomer.
49:13
I just didn't have a better way to title tonight.
49:15
Because really what it is, is you have the King James Version, which is based on the Byzantine family of manuscripts, primarily the Textus Receptus.
49:25
And then you have the newer versions, which are based on the eclectic texts, primarily the older manuscripts.
49:31
So, that's your two families.
49:34
That's the two issues.
49:35
But, there are many, many, many, many modern translations that I would not recommend.
49:42
And in a couple of weeks, I'm actually going to give a lesson on translational methodology.
49:49
Why is it I would tell you it's great to use the ESV? I think it's wonderful.
49:54
But I would say I probably wouldn't use the NRSV, the New Revised Standard Version.
50:01
Why? That's what we're going to talk about in a lesson.
50:08
Because there are some translations that have had, whether it be influence from negative sources, or they're translated by one person.
50:18
We talked about that with the Message Bible, being translated only by one person.
50:21
Or, they weren't translated as translations, they're translated as paraphrases, and that's not a translation.
50:28
So, we're going to talk about that in the weeks to come.
50:30
Okay? Alright, let's pray.
50:33
Thank you, Father, for tonight, for this lesson.
50:35
I pray it's been useful for your people, that you've laid us home safely.
50:38
In Jesus' name, Amen.