What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 5

All the modern...

The NIV?

Oh, yeah.

New International Version comes right out of Alexander E.

When I was like 12 years old, my grandma gave me a New International Version. In fact, she would read it to me and I still carry it with me today. You know, actually, my dad got saved by reading out of a New International Version.

Are you saying that maybe he's not saved?

No.

No, I wouldn't say that at all. Let me ask you this. Did your dad trust Jesus Christ as a personal Savior?

Yeah.

The Bible says the gospel is that Jesus Christ died according to Scripture, was buried, and rose again the third day according to Scripture. That is the gospel story. That gospel story can be found clearly in the King James Bible in 1 Corinthians 15.

But you can find that gospel truth in many modern translations, so a person can come to the knowledge of their lost state and their need to trust Christ as their personal Savior through a modern translation.

But if you can get saved out of a modern translation like the New International Version, why does.

It matter?

Aren't they all kind of the same then?

Well, they're both coffee, right?

Yeah.

You gonna drink this one?

No. No.

Why not?

It's been tainted.

The NIV, Alexandria, and the Trinity

Okay, I'm a little confused. We just heard Sam Gipps say that the NIV comes straight out of Alexandria. We also heard Sam Gipps say that the Alexandrians changed the Bible, they weren't Trinitarians, and so they took the Trinity out of the Bible at 1 John 5 -7?

So you can be saved by a gospel that doesn't have a triune God? Now, I'm glad to hear Sam Gipps say what other King James Only advocates won't say. There are King James Only advocates who have said that unless you heard the gospel from the King James Version of the Bible, you cannot be saved.

But I'm just trying to find where the consistency is in all of this. Because it isn't true that the NIV is straight out of Alexandria. I mean, however you want to put that. I mean, whatever you think that means, I can guarantee you it's not true.

There are places where modern translations based upon the critical text, NASV, ESV, NIV, etc., take Byzantine readings over Alexandrian readings for either reasons of internal probability or because the Byzantine and the Western texts come together with internal probability and therefore they reject Alexandria, whatever.

There are places where that's the case, and again, Gipps' simplistic presentation does not allow for even the recognition of that fact. Secondly, on the deity of Christ, the NIV, ESV are clearer on the deity of Christ than the King James is.

That's just a fact. Not just because of places like John 1 -18, because that's counterbalanced by 1 Timothy 3 -16 where there are textual variants, but in actual translation, the modern translations, for example, recognize the validity of the Granville-Sharps construction, which was recognized after the translation of the King James.

So it would seem, as someone who has debated many non-Trinitarians from the Oneness perspective, subordinationists, Mormons, etc., I can tell you that conservative modern Bible translations are clearer than the King James on the deity of Christ.

Not because the King James translators didn't believe in the deity of Christ. See, it's the other side that always says, well, you know, there was these conspiracies and they didn't believe in the Trinity.

That's just rhetoric. It's just meant to get your emotions going and not your brain going. That's the problem with that kind of thing. Now, again, part of me wants to go, I'm glad that Sam Gipp isn't as radical as some of these other folks.

But I'm not sure how he's consistent at that point. Because, you know, he's been pouring the salt and the sugar and stuff into the coffee, making it undrinkable. What if you put arsenic in there? I mean, if you start, if you actually start taking out the Trinity, which didn't happen, but if you, if that's what he's saying, and that is what he's saying, how about pouring some paint thinner in there, a little arsenic, a little cyanide, maybe.

Now is it just coffee? And drinking it, you might not like it, but is that the only reason you wouldn't drink? Because it wouldn't taste good? No, it would kill you. So I'm not sure what the consistency is here.

Now, of course, the amazing thing is that we would even be discussing whether you can or cannot be saved by what English translation, given that the English language didn't exist when the Bible was written.

That is what's truly amazing. But the reality is, I don't see where the consistency is here. Either the NIV is straight out of Alexandria and it's been poisoned, been completely altered, but you can't prove that, and in fact, it's simply untrue.

Or it's not just straight out of Alexandria. And the reality is, well, something completely different than what Sam Gipp has been telling us it is. So I'm not sure where the consistency is at this point.

Corruption, Salvation, and Growth

Corrupted.

Corrupted.

You can lead somebody to Christ, showing them 15, 20 verses, right? When I lead them to Christ and I go, I've shown you a dozen verses and you end up saved. So what do you think is in the rest of this book for you?

Growth.

You can grow because this one isn't corrupted and this one is. Two Bibles, two coffees, pure, corrupted.

Could you show me in here where this one's been corrupted?

Oh, yeah.

In fact, there's 16 whole verses taken out of this and I really can't. I don't want you to accept the King James Bible as the perfect Word of God because I.

Say so.

I just don't want you to say it's got mistakes in it because somebody else says so, all right? Because you're making a man your final authority.

The History of the King James and Its Sources

Now it looks like there's another part to come, which undoubtedly will include a discussion of verses allegedly removed or, of course, hopefully, well, I'd like to hope, but I'm not going to put out much hope that this actually happened.

Maybe Dr. Gipp will actually be fair and say the question is, were these added or were these deleted? We can't make the King James the standard and we have to hold the King James the same standards as, yeah, that's not going to happen.

Anyway, that's obviously coming up and I'm not sure what he means by 16 verses. You've got the long ending of Mark, that's 12. You've got the Prick of Adultery in John 7, 53, 8, 11. Not really sure how it all adds up, but however it is, we'll respond to it when it's put out.

But I do want to finish up our response to this first video, it's the only one that's come out so far anyways, with looking at that last phrase. I don't want you to believe that the King James has errors in it just because somebody told you, because that's making a man your authority.

You know, it's really attractive to a person who believes the Bible is the Word of God to put things in the categories that King James only advocates put them in, at least in the words. You push a little farther, you discover there's no substance there, but in the sense that I certainly don't want my Bible to be just the Word of a man.

And so you set up the King James as if it just has floated down from heaven somehow over against all these modern translations just done by mere man. The only way you can do that is to do what Sam Gipp has done in this video, and that's completely change history.

Completely misrepresent history. Don't actually teach people where even the King James came from, or the translations that came before the King James. The Geneva Bible, which the pilgrims preferred to the King James itself.

The King James has the same history as all other translations, in the sense that there were men, fallible men, men who would not have agreed with Sam Gipp on the large portion of theology, ecclesiology, and things like that, Anglicans primarily, who studied manuscripts and they applied what was to them the best critical thought of their day to produce the King James version of the Bible.

And there were revisions done of that translation of the Bible over the years as well. Almost no one watching this video reads the 1611 King James version of the Bible. You're reading the 1769 Blaney revision.

But be that as it may, the fact is that they applied their best human understanding to produce that translation. It's a human translation. The Bible was not re-inspired between 1604 and 1611, though that's pretty much what Sam Gipps said in 1995 on the John Ankerberg Show.

But not only that, they then had to use sources. And they used secondary sources. They relied upon Theodore Beza, Robert Estienne, and especially Desiderius Erasmus, the prince of the humanists. And of course, humanists didn't mean back then what it means today.

But he was still a Roman Catholic priest, and he was very good for his day, but by our standards today had a lot of holes in his understanding of textual critical methodology. But he still used a textual critical methodology.

The King James is based upon a particular textual critical methodology. It may be inconsistent, but it's still got one. And to pretend that it doesn't, to pretend that you're not depending upon, well, the means God has used, men, and setting the King James up like it exists out here someplace, different from all the others, is again to mislead those who believe you and put them in a position of being rife for refutation when they take these statements into the marketplace of ideas.

And that is our real motivation in responding to this material. And so, when part number two comes out, as the Lord gives us time and ability, health and strength, we will continue to demonstrate that King James only-ism, at its very foundation, is incoherent, inconsistent, illogical, contrary to the Bible, history, common sense.

It is not something that commends itself to the Christian who follows Him who is the truth. Thanks for watching. Hope it's been helpful to you.