King James Onlyism

The King James Bible is 400 years old this year and it's sold an estimated 1 billion copies. For some, it's still the only version we should use. For others, modern techniques, modern scholarship has given us more accurate versions.

Who's right? Will you change your mind? Well, let's find out as we present tonight's Live at 9 special debate Should we exclusively use the King James Bible? As you can hear, we've got this wonderful live audience here tonight who are going to be taking part in our debate but especially I want to welcome two very special guests who are going to lead us off tonight as our debate.

First of all, Jack, Jack Norman, thank you for coming. Author of six books including early manuscripts, church fathers and a whole host of others and you are going to be speaking for the King James Bible.

Great, thank you very much for coming. And Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries author of 20 books including the King James only controversy and just had heart surgery, you were telling me.

Thanks for letting everybody know that.

Just in case something happens tonight, we'll let them know what's going on and you are going to put the case of why we shouldn't exclusively use it. Great, thank you very much for both of you being with us.

Let me explain, it's going to be slightly different to our other debates we have. What is going to happen is both Jack and James are going to have 20 minutes to present their case. This will be interspersed with booing and hissing and applause and all sorts of things from our audience.

During that time you will have opportunity to send in your text and your emails to the normal address number that will come up onto your screen. Please get those in even as the debate gets going. At the end of what will be 40 minutes, we'll start taking some comments from the audience, we'll start taking some of your texts and emails and we'll be asking more questions.

I'll be asking some, the audience will be asking some as well. So whether you're at home or here, we want you to be taking part and we want you to be sharing what you think. This debate has caused a tremendous enthusiasm I think I would say.

I think there are many that are watching online from the States, welcome to you and welcome to those that are watching online in Britain or via the satellite. You are very welcome and we want you to take part.

King James Bible as a 400-Year Standard

So without further ado, Jack I want to give you the first 20 minutes to present your case for the King James version.

Well certainly, thank you very much tonight and again as it's been mentioned when an edition of the Bible has become a 400 year standard, that is certainly quite a matter of wonder and a case for reflection and especially so when that Bible is still widely used and especially so when the language of that Bible, though different, is not difficult.

The King James version was always different, it was never current, it was never contemporary, it was never like your morning newspaper, it was always a step up, it was not Elizabethan. The King James version is a 400 year standard that is a matter for great reflection.

With a standard you know where you stand. With a constant flow of modern versions and revisions of these versions, you're not so certain where you stand. The footing is not so secure. It's more tentative, it's more provisional, it's not quite as nailed down.

This evening I want to show that the authorized version prepared during the years 1604 to 1611 is fundamentally superior to the modern versions. And I emphasize the term fundamentally because whilst there are many issues involved here, there is one great mount impassable issue that with respect I do not believe my friends who use the modern versions can adequately address this issue.

If you can see this issue and if you can see the major issues, I do think that the second area issues begin to fall into line. My first main point is I propose that the King James version is a very accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew words which God inspired in the beginning.

Number one, that these words were given by inspiration verbally. The faith once delivered, Jude verse 3, there is no secondary inspiration. That these words were preserved verbally. Christ promised in Matthew 24 verse 35, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Number three, that Christ further promised that the Holy Spirit would guide believers into all truth concerning these words. John 16, 13 compared with verses like John 17 verse 17. And then number four, that these preserved Greek and Hebrew words would not be difficult to find across the centuries.

Deuteronomy 30 verse 14, the word is very nigh thee. These words would not be hidden in a desert. These words like Codex Vaticanus would not be hidden in the Vatican library. These words like Codex Sinaiticus would not be found near a waste paper bin in a Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai.

These words would not be out there somewhere, but we're just not certain where they are. And then number five, that these words during the manuscript period would be found in the multiplication of Scripture rather than in their being hidden away.

2 Corinthians 9 verse 10 says, and multiply the word sown, seed sown. Psalms 147 verse 15, his word runneth very swiftly. Psalm 68 verse 11, the Lord gave the word, and great was the company of those that published it.

And then, and then in time, the 47 translators divided into six companies gathering at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster would accurately translate these preserved, originally inspired Hebrew and Greek words into the English of the authorized version.

My second point, my second major point. I propose, as shown by that most remarkable of documents, the authorized version preface known as the translators to the readers, that this was likely the most unique gathering of godly scholarship ever.

As to the originals from which they translated, they say, the originals thereof being from heaven, not of earth, the author being God, not man, the inditer the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles or prophets, the scriptures being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect.

Unlike biblical scholarship today, these men were not tainted by rationalism, by unbelief, by uncertainty. As to how they approached their work, the preface says, and in what sort did they, these assemble?

In the trust of their own knowledge, and they had knowledge, they were the greatest grammarians in the land, and in what sort did they assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were, in an arm of flesh, at no hand.

They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man shutting, if you ask what they had before them. Truly, it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes through which the olive branches empty themselves into the gold.

Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.

We have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you now see. As to their result and conclusion, they say, Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one, in the literary sense, a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be accepted against.

That hath been our endeavor, that hath been our mark. Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we have not exceeded the measure of a preface already. Ye are brought unto fountains of living water, which ye dig not.

Do not cast earth into them with the Philistines. Neither prefer broken pits, nor tread under foot so precious things. Neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a mess of pottage. When one disparages a passage in the authorized version, it is correct to ask them, How long did you look at that passage before you were prepared to surrender it?

Manuscript Evidence and the Textus Receptus

My third main point, mount impassable, mount impassable. I propose that there is a huge mount impassable difference between the Greek text that underlies the authorized version and that which underlies the modern versions.

The authorized version text first. I have a copy of it right here. That text first. This text represents the vast majority of the 5 ,500 Greek manuscripts that we now have. Most of these Greek manuscripts are obviously very much used.

This text has 2 ,900 more words. This text is doctrinally fuller. This text is cohesive. And yet amongst the manuscripts that support this text, there is just enough difference to let you know that they are not lateral copies or reproductions of each other, but they are each individual witnesses representing long lines of transmission into the past.

If you were to ask how many are a copy of each other, probably less than 10. Kersop Lake said, regarding those that he looked at, almost all are orphan children. We've got nearly 5 ,500 manuscripts of the type that underlie the authorized version.

They're all independent witnesses, not copies of each other. And this text, and let me also add, Gordon Fee asks, he says, but the question still must be answered. How does one account for its dominance and general uniformity?

How did the Byzantine text, and that is one of the names for this text, how did it become dominant? And this text spread widely. The second text, our modern version text, which underlies most of the modern Bibles.

The modern version text. This text is represented by two very, very old manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, dating from about the year 360. It's also supported by not many more than 40 or 50 other manuscripts.

This text has 2 ,900 fewer words. This text is less doctrinally distinct or full. This text is not cohesive. Klaus Watschel and Barbara Alland of the Munster Institute, the primary architects of this text, say, the papyri and majuscules, i .e. this type of text, are for the most part individual witnesses, despite sharing general tendencies on the form of their text.

They go on. They differ so widely from one another that it is impossible to establish any direct genealogical ties among them. This text did not spread widely. It's mainly an Egyptian text, mainly an Alexandrian type text.

Bruce Mitzker lists 25 heretical groups and documents that came from Alexandria. It was not a good place to get a Bible. This is the fundamental, mount-impassable issue that we face. Almost all manuscripts, cohesive, doctrinally distinct, spread widely against a small number of manuscripts, not cohesive, not so doctrinally distinct, did not spread widely.

This is mount-impassable for our friends and many friends, indeed, who use the modern Bibles. I feel this must be addressed. My fourth point. Truth speaks first. Truth speaks first. Beginning with the inspiration of the autographs, in each of the major epochs of how the Bible came down to us, from inspiration to our having it in our hands today, a number of important epochs, and in each of these, truth spoke first.

Dissent, division, debate, corruption would follow, but in each major epoch, truth would have the first voice. I'll give you three examples. In the 850s, there was a changeover from the large-lettered unsealed text to the small-lettered minuscule text.

Virtually every manuscript that went through that change was of the type that underlies our authorized version. Again, Barbara Alland and Klaus Watschel at the Munster Institute say, they're at a loss to explain this, they say, although transferring other ancient Greek literature into the new script involved a work of criticism, this was not the case for the New Testament, at least in the sense that no attempt was made to base the newer manuscripts on the oldest available text, i .e., this kind of text.

This was not an accident of history. We see the hand of God in this. A second point. In the initial printing of the Greek New Testament during the early 1500s, it does not seem to have occurred to any of those so involved to set type for any other type of text than that which underlies the authorized version.

There was no debate, there was no dissent. Other manuscripts were known, they left them where they lay, but nothing approaching an Aleph-B, Vaticanus-Sinaiticus type of text made it within sight of the newly established publishing houses in Europe.

Debate, dissent, opposition would follow, but this text had the first word. A third point. Some accuse Erasmus of haste in getting out his 1516 edition to the printer. He did get in a bit of a hurry. He did make a few mistakes, but I'm glad he got in a hurry.

Just in time for a monk with a piece of paper nailing it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther would take Erasmus' text, translate it into German, the rest is history. Not an accident of history.

We see the hand of God in this. My fifth point. My fifth point. Would it matter, would it matter, if you've got 2 ,900 fewer words in your New Testament? That's about the number of words in 1 and 2 Peter scattered through the New Testament.

Would it matter if you've got a total of 8 ,000 other differences? Some say, oh, you could get all of the differences on one single sheet of paper. Indeed, you could if you write small enough and if the sheet of paper is big enough.

8 ,000 differences. We've got them all listed here. Would it matter if doctrines are not so clearly stated or if key doctrinal verses are missing? We've got here 356 doctrinal passages in the Authorized Version generally missing in the Modern Version.

We have checked these against the entire strata of manuscript evidence, against the Greek, against the Early Version, against the Fathers. There was indeed a battle for the doctrinal heart of Scripture.

When the living Word went to heaven, Satan turned all of his guns upon the written Word, but there was also a winner. And so would it matter if doctrine is missing? Would it matter if the New American Standard Version has the name of Christ 214 fewer times, the New International Version 176 times?

Would it matter if 85 times the name Jesus is disassociated from a term of deity?

Thank you, Jack, very much indeed. I think it's always the case that when one person puts their argument forward, you think, yeah, oh, absolutely. I think it's your turn, James, to begin to share what you would feel and where you would answer, I'm sure, some of those points.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. It is an honor to be with you all here in London this evening. A couple of years ago I had the opportunity of debating Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is considered to be one of the leading critics of New Testament Christianity in the world today.

And Dr. Ehrman has a very odd view. He believes that if there was, in fact, an inspiration of Scripture, that God would make sure that there would be absolutely no textual variance that would ever appear in any manuscript of that written Scripture.

And therefore he rejects the Bible as the Word of God because there are differences between every manuscript. Every single Greek manuscript that we have today varies from every other one because they're handwritten.

If I passed something out to you this evening, had everybody in the front row copy it, then the next row copy theirs, and the third row copy theirs, we would have differences as they went back. Even with the lighting we have today, maybe some of you have glasses and LASIK and everything else, we would still have copyist errors even in a modern situation.

And so Dr. Ehrman takes the idea that, well, God would keep that from happening, and since he didn't, then there can't really be Scripture. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I defend the inerrancy of Scripture.

Next week here in London I'm debating a Muslim on the subject of whether Islam has misrepresented Christianity. I have debated people like John Dominic Crossan, one of the co-founders of the Jesus Seminar on the historical reliability of the Gospels.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but I also believe that King James-only-ism removes the best defense we have of the veracity of the text of the New Testament because it goes backwards. It goes back to a standard that cannot be substantiated, and I need to try to explain to you why that is.

Pastor Mormon showed us the Textus Receptus over there. There is not a Greek text in the entire world that reads like the Textus Receptus. Not a single one. In fact, that blue text right there is actually the work of a man named Scrivener who went back to the King James itself, saw what readings the King James translators used, and created a Greek text that no one had ever seen before Scrivener created that in the 19th century.

There are over 1 ,800 differences between that text and what's called the majority or Byzantine text. Even though Pastor Mormon said that it was the Byzantine text, there are over 1 ,800 differences between them.

In fact, this evening I brought with me, this is, we heard of Erasmus. This is a photocopy of Erasmus' third edition. That was, there are five editions that Erasmus produced between 1516 and 1535. Very, very important.

Luther did use the first edition and discovered that punitentium agitate, du penance, was very different than metanoiate, which means to repent. Very, very important. Yes, God was definitely involved with that.

But then in 1550, Stephanus produced this text. And this isn't a photocopy. This is a 1550. This book is 461 years old. This is the Stephanus 1550 Greek text, which was the textus receptus, the received text of its day.

This, along with all the editions of Erasmus and Beza's work, were the texts that were used by the King James translators. This very one may have been used by the King James translators, for all we know.

They did not use manuscripts. They used printed editions. They knew there were other manuscripts. No one at that time knew anything about Byzantine text types or Alexandrian text types. They did not make a decision to reject anything.

In fact, Erasmus himself wrote to his friend Bombasius in Rome when he was in the controversy about 1 John 5 -7. He asked his friend whether the Vatican manuscript contained the Kamiohonium. Erasmus would have loved to have used that manuscript.

The idea that they somehow chose not to, because they knew about the text types, there's just no way of substantiating that from historical sources at all. These are the sources that the King James translators used.

Now, the other text over there, the Nessiolan text, now has far earlier manuscripts. Erasmus only had about half dozen to a dozen manuscripts to work with. The earliest from was around 1000 AD. Folks, remember something about church history.

Something happened between 632 and 732 that changed the face of the globe. It was called Islam. When Islam arose between 632 and 732, all the Christian churches in North Africa, up into Portugal and Spain, up into the Holy Lands, all the way up to the gates of Constantinople, well, let's just say Islam is not good for the production of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

Things changed. The language of Christianity in the West was no longer Greek. It was Latin. The Latin Vulgate was the language of the people. That was the Bible of people, and it was used for 1 ,100 years.

Erasmus came under a tremendous amount of pressure for coming up with a new translation. There's a Latin translation in this text right here. He came under a great deal of pressure because he dared to question the book that obviously God had used for 1 ,100 years to guide his church, and that was the Latin Vulgate.

Every time something new comes out, someone opposes it, just as the King James was opposed when it first came out. Remember, it's not the first English translation. Remember, the pilgrims detested the King James.

They thought it was the liberal translation. They preferred the Geneva Bible, and God greatly used the Geneva Bible that came out before the King James. You have to keep these things in mind. But why is it that I would believe that that text right there is far more defensible and that we need to be very careful about the King James-only movement?

Well, it's because I debate people like Barterman, and I debate Muslim scholars like Shabir Ali all around the world, because, you see, there is this drive on the part of every religious group to have a single religious text and have no questions about it, and I understand that.

I understand wanting to have it black and white, no questions. Here's the problem. That's not how God gave us the Bible. No two Greek manuscripts read identical to one another. Erasmus had to examine manuscripts, and he made choices.

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. He was not infallible. He wrote in defense of transubstantiation in the mass. I would have debated Erasmus had I lived in his day. So we have to examine the scholarship that was used then.

If they used textual critical scholarship to choose between manuscripts, and even the King James translators, these two texts do not read identical to one another. The King James translators had to make choices even between the printed texts that they used.

And so if we did it from 1604 to 1611, why do we stop there? The King James translator never said that we were to stop there. They never even suggested that this was the final word in all things. And so we have to continue on.

If the King James translators were here today, they would not be King James onlyists because they believed in the necessity of revision, the examination of manuscripts, and if they had available to them what we have available to us, they certainly would not take the position that is taken by King James only representatives today.

And in fact, I did want to correct just one misapprehension. Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trash can. That is a common myth, but it's untrue. All you have to do is read Konstantin von Tischendorf's own first-hand account of his discovery of the manuscript.

A monk brought it out of the closet of a cell wrapped in red cloth. Folks, people in monasteries do not wrap garbage in red cloths. This was a text that had been in use for 1 ,500 years at that time. But that text right there is not based simply upon Oliph and B, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Since the 1930s, we have discovered a number of papyri manuscripts that go far closer to the original than any work of antiquity. When I debated Bart Ehrman, he admitted in our cross-examination section, he said the New Testament is the earliest attested document from all antiquity.

He could have said also the most widely attested document of all of antiquity. We can get much closer to the originals than any other work of antiquity in those papyri manuscripts. And what do those papyri manuscripts tell us?

That Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represent the text from the 2nd century. There is no Byzantine manuscript, a manuscript that contains specifically and only Byzantine readings until the 4th or 5th century.

And so we're talking about the earliest, most primitive manuscripts. And they didn't all come from Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria, the library there, had people coming and going from all over the world.

And the idea that, well, Alexandria is full of heretics. Folks, the Byzantine manuscripts come from around the area of Byzantium. Arianism was very strong in that area. And the person who defended the deity of Christ against the Arians after the Council of Nicaea was a man named Athanasius.

And he became bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. So anybody can make an argument in regards to church history. I would just simply challenge Pastor Mormon this evening, show us any evidence that any of these manuscripts were touched by, influenced by, tinged by any heretic that you can name.

And we can then deal with that kind of assertion that is made. But just simply making a general assertion doesn't work. Now, I believe in the deity of Christ. I wrote a book called The Forgotten Trinity.

I debate Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, all the time the subject of the deity of Christ. The modern translations based upon the Nessie Island 27th edition are in much better shape to defend the deity of Christ than if you're utilizing the Byzantine text.

Now, I realize that there are texts where the King James testifies the deity of Christ that modern translations do not. One of the most famous is 1 Timothy 3 .16. In 1 Timothy 3 .16, in the King James Bible, it says, God was manifest in the flesh.

In modern translations, it simply says, He who was manifest in the flesh. And that sounds, you can build a real conspiracy on that. That sounds like those rascally modern translators. And I've worked as a critical consultant on the New American Standard Bible for the Lockman Foundation.

We are conservative men in the work that we do. We believe in the deity of Christ. We defend the deity of Christ. So why is there such a difference? Well, let me see, let me explain to you the fact that in the earliest manuscripts, in what's called the unsealed text, the majuscule, the large, the original manuscripts of New Testament were written in all capital letters, no punctuation, no space between words.

Lots of fun to read. Now, in those capital letter forms, the early Christians developed something called the Nomena Sacra, the sacred names. They would actually use abbreviations to try to get more onto a page.

Most of the early Christians were poor people. And in fact, remember, the church was under persecution for the first 300 years of its existence. You couldn't go to the rich people to have nice manuscript copies made at that particular point in time.

And so they would use these abbreviations for like God, Jesus, Spirit, common words. They would abbreviate them as one or two letters and put a line over top of them. God was one of the words that they did this with.

Now, when we hear the difference between God and he who, that sounds like a big difference. But I'd like to show you something on the screen that shows you what the difference between these two words is.

If we could bring that up, you'll be able to see that in the original language, the term God is two letters and the word he who is two letters.

There you can see it.

I'm not sure if the audience can see it. But you can see the term God, theta sigma with a line on top, and then omicron sigma is Haas. The only difference between these two words are two little lines.

And remember what you're originally writing on. Papyrus, which is made up of leaves that are pressed together, crossed like this, or leather manuscripts, vellum, all of which have what in them? Lines.

And you're reading somebody else's handwriting. It's very easy to understand. No reason for conspiracies here. It's very easy to understand why someone would misunderstand or misread someone else's handwriting.

And at the bottom of that screen was a shot from Codex Sinaiticus. And you can see that its original reading was Haas. And then about 700 years later, someone had written Thaos in above it. You can see it in the second line toward the end where someone has made an emendation about 700 years after the original writing.

So every time there is a text where there is a difference in regards to the deity of Christ or anything else, I've examined every single one of them. In John 118, for example, the King James does not contain a reference to the deity of Christ that is found in the modern translations where Jesus is described as monogamous Thaos, the unique God, the one who has exegeted or revealed the Father.

So in every single one of these instances, there is no reason to think that there is some type of conspiracy. There is no reason to think that modern translators... And by the way, please, I hope you hear me here.

I am a conservative. I do not defend all modern translations. There are garbage modern translations. There are cultic modern translations like the New World Translation. We all recognize that doesn't even really deserve the name translation at all.

That's just a perversion of the Bible. And unfortunately, it's Europe that produces most of the liberal stuff. But there are fine, excellent, conservative translations of the New Testament that will give a much more consistent and full testimony to the deity of Christ, not only because of the text they use, but also because we have grown in our understanding of the Greek language.

At the beginning of the 19th century, there was a man by the name of Granville Sharp. And Granville Sharp recognized something about the Greek language. There is a set of rules named after him called the Granville Sharp Construction.

And in Titus 2 .13 and 2 Peter 1 .1, we have references where Jesus is identified as God. And in fact, in Titus 2 .13, it says, Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. In 2 Peter 1 .1, Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

That rule was discovered after the translation of the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of the King James were much more familiar with Latin. And so they do not translate the Granville Sharp Constructions at those places as clearly as we do today.

And in fact, many people can look at the King James rendering and they say, Well, it says Our God and Our Savior, those two different people. Well, the rule says they're one person. That's why it should be translated Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

So one of my questions this evening, for you in the audience, and especially for Pastor Mormon, is this. Is there any place in the King James where we've come up with a better translation than what appeared in 1611?

I would expect that you would have to believe that, because no one here uses the 1611 KJV. If you're reading a standard King James Version today, you're using the 1769 Blaney Revision. That's what's normally printed.

But there's two editions of that, the Oxford and the Cambridge edition, and they're not identical to one another. Almost nobody reads the 1611. But even if you did, then you would know that there were changes made after the 1611.

And so, which one's the final authority? Even as the King James translators were producing their text, the different committees did not translate things in the same way. In Matthew, they translate the commandment, ufan usais, you shall not murder, one way.

And then in Romans, they translate, you shall not kill. It might be kill and murder, depending on Matthew or Romans. Two different committees translating the very same Old Testament commandment in two different ways.

I've even had atheists use that as an example of contradiction in the Bible. Now, the question is, will Pastor Mormon admit that it would be better to translate ufan usais as thou shalt not murder in both places, smooth that out?

Would it not be best to fix the translation of Romans 9 .5 so that it is as clear in its testimony of the deity of Christ as the New King James Version is? And what about those places where the Textus Receptus is absolutely alone in its reading?

No Greek manuscript in the world ever has what it has in its reading. For example, in Revelation chapter 16, verse 5, both of these texts, and I can show you right where they are, both of these texts, used by the King James translators, in Revelation 16 .5, speak of God as the one who is and who was the Holy One.

Hoseos is the Greek term. Both of them say the same thing. In 1598, Beza made what's called a conjectural emendation. That is, he conjectured. He looked at the form of the word and he said, you know, I bet that was originally esamenos, which means and shall be.

And so that's what he put in his Greek text. And that's what the King James translators translated. No one before 1598, reading a Greek New Testament, had ever seen that before. It's in the King James version to this day.

Why?

Because, folks, fundamentally, what all this boils down to is this. What I want in a Bible translation is what John wrote in the book of Revelation. I want what he wrote in the Gospel of John. I want what Paul wrote in Romans.

I don't want what a scribe wrote or thought should have been written a thousand years later, even if that becomes the most popular text. There's a reason why the Byzantine text is the most popular. Again, Latin vulgate in the West.

All the other places where Greek was being spoken, taken over by Islam. Guess what place is left over producing Greek manuscripts? The area around Byzantium. And so the text type that was predominant there becomes the vast majority.

But the vast majority of those come from after a thousand years after Christ. If you just look at the first thousand years of church history, the majority text is not the Byzantine text, it's the Alexandrian text.

And so if your arguments produces a different text, depending on where you are in church history, that might be a bit of a problem. I want to know what the original writers wrote. And God has given us the means to know that.

We have such a tremendous wealth. Nobody has what we have when it comes to the New Testament. People ask, well, why couldn't God have avoided textual variation? Folks, you need to realize that the way God did this is as soon as the gospel goes out into the world, the Christians want everybody to hear it, and so they let everyone copy their manuscripts.

Thousands of those manuscripts were destroyed by Roman soldiers and the people who possessed them killed. Many survive to our day, thankfully. But they wanted that out there. They didn't say, are you a professional scribe?

We want to make sure that you don't make any mistakes here. They didn't do that. What that results in is a manuscript tradition that goes all over the world. You know why that's so important? You know what you hear my Muslim friends say?

Oh, you all put the deity of Christ in the New Testament. You all put the resurrection in the New Testament. Folks, that's absolutely impossible. There was never a time when anyone had control over all the manuscripts in the New Testament.

Constantine, remember the Da Vinci Code? Oh, Constantine collected all the gospels and destroyed them and wrote these for... That is absurd and easily demonstrated to be completely bogus. We can demonstrate that what we have in the New Testament is what the apostles communicated.

The cost of that was having to compare manuscript with manuscript in regards to spellings of words and orders of words and whether a phrase is there or whether a phrase is not. But the other cost would have been far greater for if we only had one manuscript, then we'd have to trust that whoever controlled that one manuscript never tampered with it.