April 12, 2016 Show with Jeffrey D. Johnson on “Behind The Bible: A Primer in New Testament Textual Criticism” and “The Church: Why Bother? The Nature, Purpose, and Functions of the Local Church”

Live from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister George Norcross in downtown Carlisle, Pennsylvania it's iron sharpens iron a radio platform on which pastors Christian scholars and theologians Address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.

Proverbs 27 verse 17 tells us. Iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. Matthew Henry said that in this passage We are cautioned to take heed whom we converse with and directed to have in view in conversation To make one another wiser and better.

It is our hope that this will be accomplished over the next hour. And we hope to hear from you the listener with your own questions. Now here's our host Chris Arnton.

Good afternoon Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. And the rest of you humanity who are living on the planet earth. Listening via live streaming. This is Chris Arntz and your host of iron sharpens iron wishing you all a happy Tuesday on this twelfth day of April 2016.

I'm very happy to have returning as our guest today who I think he may be washing dishes right now judging from the sound effects. On the other side of the phone, but we have our friend Pastor Jeffrey D. Johnson joining us today again.

He is founder of free grace press and the pastor of grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas. We're going to be addressing two of his books today or the themes of two of his books the first Behind the Bible a primer in New Testament textual criticism and then for the second hour We are going to readdress or return to a book.

We already examined on a past interview. But there's a lot to say on this topic and the issue will be the church. Why bother the nature purpose and functions of the local church? And it's my honor and privilege to welcome you back to iron sharpens iron pastor Jeffrey D. Johnson.

Thank you, Chris. It's good to be back with you and.

Let me introduce you to my co-host today Reverend buzz Taylor. Good to have you back Jeff. Thanks buzz. It's great. Well before we go into the topics at hand, I never Take it for a try not to ever take it for granted that everybody is who is listening is not a new listener and therefore there may have been people who Did not hear your last interview who don't know anything about either Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas or free grace press.

So let let's let our listeners know something more in detail about each of those. Let's start with your church grace Bible Church in Conway.

Yeah, thanks for asking about the church. The church has been Existence for 15 years my living room and another family's and the Lord has richly provided a say also done. We're going to be into the place debt-free, which I think nowadays just out of curiosity.

Where have you been meeting? With the last four years. We've been meeting on a college campus. There's a beautiful Baptist Campus and they've been really in bingo halls. We have met in a noble home. We've kind of traveled around but the Lord's blessed us.

Well, great. Well having met in bingo holes all those years.

Is the dominant makeup of your membership. 80 years old with blue hair.

Well, I was noticing a Something missing from that list he gave us because it seems the popular thing around here when you're starting at churches. You rent the Seventh-day Adventist building.

Yeah, yeah, we did. We've looked at that. We did look at this Day after this building, but that didn't work out. The bingo hall was a weird thing. I was going to the gym one day and I'm gonna walk in there.

And of course.

I.

Went in there and said hey, we're looking for a place to have worship to. Y 'all use this on Sunday. Feel free to come and use it. And I asked him what? We we met in there for a while. I do say it wasn't the ideal place.

It was it's like meeting in a big football stadium into time. We only had about 30. It's like putting 30 people into a Walmart without any show.

The conducive to worship, but you tried.

Well an ideal place to attract Roman Catholic converts. And to tell our listeners something more about the church itself is that a reformed Baptist Church is a confessional.

Except it's a 1689 London Baptist Confessional Church, we're reformed Baptist Church, we elder let the church has been just a lot of salt. Baptist churches are not the largest churches around but. Typically if you find one you found and tell us something about free grace press.

Free grace press started five years ago and my published my dissertation my doctoral dissertation, but. And as I was looking for publishers, yes wrote a dissertation and I think I'll do that and it's turned into a real I'm getting people.

It's really encouraging. See what Lord's doing. Yeah, I mean your.

Covers and the quality of the binding and everything is very professional top top notch. And you're getting endorsements by some of the most prominent Christian thinkers in America today like even John MacArthur and others.

So this is not I don't want to give our listeners the idea that this is some Guy with a staple gun in his basement putting together loose leaf loose leaf. Manuscripts or something. These are these are top-of-the-line books there.

Yeah, we're using the same printers. That all it is not. There has been a learning curve. But it's it's in fact, we hired our first one man to handle and one delegating out. Chris Press is growing and I look forward to it to continue to grow.

But we're the main thing we're doing is trying to stay Simple rate of growth and keep a little overhead down and so we can grow in a way that.

It's a stain. I'll give out our email address If anybody listening wants to join us on the air with a question of your own. It's Chris Arnzen at gmail .com. Chris Arnzen at gmail .com. Please give us at least your first name your city and state and your country of residence if you live outside of the USA and The first hour as I mentioned we are going to be addressing Jeff's book behind the Bible a primer in New Testament textual criticism.

I just want to read a couple of endorsements very powerful endorsements that have Been given for this book Richard Belcher who? Jeff mentioned earlier who is well known amongst especially Reformed Baptists in the United States or Calvinistic Baptists in general.

He says about this book one of the most difficult areas of Biblical study is the matter of textual criticism. Which is the analysis of the ancient manuscripts of the Bible in their original? Languages in order that we might be certain of the reading of the biblical text.

Obviously, this is not something which can be done with perfection. But Jeffrey Johnson has in this book titled behind the Bible show Not only how it is done, but also that it can when done properly arrive with a great certainty of the original biblical text in a day and age when many are producing various translations of the Bible and One when one might wonder about the trustworthiness of some of the translations.

Here is a book which covers many of the questions one might have Concerning how the work of textual criticism is to be done in a proper manner in order to find the original reading of the biblical text this book because of its clarity and helpfulness in the area of textual criticism is A must reading for all pastors and students of the Bible of our day and then also a mutual friend of ours The world-renowned apologist and debater and author and New Testament Greek scholar.

Dr James R. White of Alpha Omega Ministries says Jeffrey Johnson has provided a helpful and clear discussion on the key issues behind the whys and wherefores of How we got our New Testament text in light of the frontal assaults upon the integrity of the new of the text of the New? Testament pervasive in our day it is important for believers to have a knowledge of these matters and Johnson's work is a useful addition to the introduction available on the subject and as I said, that was dr James R. White.

Well, that should give us or should give our listeners. An explanation of exactly what we're talking about when we address textual criticism and Doesn't this whole subject usually come to light in the media when those who are either liberals or perhaps have even abandoned the faith like Bart Ehrman a Renowned textual critic who was at one time a professing Christian and was viewed as perhaps a one day hero of of modern evangelicalism and a shining light and rising star in the in the world of evangelical literature, he totally abandoned his faith and became an agnostic and Isn't the textual criticism usually coming up in discussion?

In the media and so on is when someone of that background is trying to get people to doubt the reliability of the Bibles that they have in their hands.

Yeah, that's right. Yeah airmen would say like there's more very all the. You take all of our Manuscripts that we know of and you're a easy answer. So and the goal that we we have what Jeff?

Look, maybe we need to start a little bit simpler here because I'm sure there are people listening. Who? When you say textual criticism, it sounds like we're liberals criticizing a text. Could you give us a definition.

What exactly you are talking about when you are talking about textual criticism.

Yeah, yeah, there's there's two types of criticisms. You have what you call and that's with liberal feel merely a divine author and accept that and their differences. Any. So there's six and that's because they don't accept obviously you can have some and the goat Of the Old and New Testaments with one another to reconstruct the original wording called the autographs.

Now the the autographs are document. Now we do not have copies of those doc copied and they were caught as the Manuscripts were copied and copied in that generation after generation up to 1 ,400 years of copying meaning meaning.

We wouldn't call a mistake even though I've already said there's like we have Every year all that. There's right at around 58. Variance.

When you say variance though, you're not talking about people even deliberately undermining the Word of God, right? You're just talking about human error.

Human error like Word spelling spelling error or adding extra article. I mean, in fact, no variance readable. You cannot translate those into as you translate the way you translate them into the into the English if it just be spelling errors or.

And they really have no great significance as to the outcome or what the passages are teaching. Am I correct?

That's correct. That's one of the goals of the book is to show that. Only two person. Okay, so can we get back then to our definition then of the textual criticism?

Because I just wanted people to know. We're not talking necessarily about Deliberately undermining the text, but we're trying to find out what the original text said.

Right. It's reconstructing. Seeking it. Look at all the manuscripts we have and seeking to take that and now. Isn't it true?

We were going we were both talking about part airmen before the agnostic who is one of the greatest champions of Bringing doubt in the minds of people regarding the reliability of the scriptures. Didn't he even I'm almost positive that during a debate with dr. White who wrote an endorsement for your book Didn't he concede that?

In the world of books of antiquity that the Bible is actually more Reliable in the Certainty that what we have today is very close to what the originals were. I mean when you compare the variance in text with secular works and so on.

That's right. Yeah, like 59 BC. You can go back to here. Look at all the ancient 3 to 95 ad. And we have some 808. Unimaginable. Yeah.

Now is it true that? Our brethren in Christ Who we would disagree with on a very major issue and who? And the issue is something that they would disagree with us on as well In fact might even tend to vilify us greatly.

But our brethren in Christ who are in the camp known as King James only now, obviously King James only ism is a wide spectrum of Includes a wide spectrum of people because you have sane sound rational even some brilliant people who are blessings to the body of Christ who Believe that the King James Version is a superior translation and their denominations have a view that that is the translation they use exclusively from their pulpits and so on.

But then you have all the way on the other end of the spectrum people who are raving lunatics who Who are really? Heretics in the true sense of the word because they are seeking to cause derision and in the church and and all kinds of Division and slander and And even calling into question the Word of God itself.

But but but isn't that? Movement that would be on the opposite end in many respects to the liberals within the higher textual criticism, aren't they sometimes really Unwittingly playing into their hands and up actually helping their cause.

But they're bringing doubts into the manuscripts that they reject.

Yeah, they are that that's only it's probably in that some of them are just larger sure people understand between the King James and the modern Version. If you really want to debate it from a scholarship standpoint, you have to look at the at the various at the manuscript level.

Not just on the transit. There's there's two things to consider that you have the translation which is which is a better Translation and I think there are some principles of translation. That's one debate.

Another debate is what are the best manuscripts right when you get into that debate? Which manuscript should we trust your two major textual families and you have the the visiting textual family? Which is the King James is based on then you have the Alexandrian textual family.

Which is what the show can say that maybe the Alexandrian is a little more faithful. But but even saying that we're not undermining the I think both families We can we can use all the manuscripts. I know there are some manuscripts that we would want to enter an end visiting.

I think we're looking at agreement. Yes families.

Well now you use the word faithfulness. I might as well bring the names up because they're gonna come up sooner or later in the next couple hours but I have never heard so much vindictive negative press as I have against Westcott and Hort and I started reading their book the New Testament in the original Greek and I you know Confess.

I have not finished the book yet. It's not exactly an armchair book, but it at least gave me an awareness just the enormity of the job before them what they were actually trying to accomplish and the Difficulty that they faced doing it and you know, I think they did a remarkable job considering things and they certainly Were a lot more careful I think with the text than a lot of people gave him credit for being.

Yeah, I think they're just living a criticism the text since then greatly. However, it's not like we should I think it's it's still you think team James only as I imagine it was just a huge stronghold back in that day and and so.

They were happening to fight against even today.

All right, we have to go to a break right now if you'd like to join us on the air with a question. For our guests today on textual criticism our guest pastor Jeff Johnson. Our email address is Chris Ornson at gmail .com.

Chris Ornson at gmail .com. Don't go away. We'll be right back after these messages.

I'm James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in-depth study used by pastors scholars and everyday readers. The NASB is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable Bible translation.

The NASB offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages Which the NASB is known for. The NASB is available in many editions like a topical reference Bible. Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy the new topical reference Bible includes contemporary topics relevant to today's issues.

From compact to giant print Bibles find an NASB that fits your needs very affordably at NAS Bible calm. Trust. Discover and enjoy the NASB for yourself today. Go to NAS Bible calm. That's NAS Bible calm.

Tired of box-store Christianity of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert. Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship? And how about the preaching.

Perhaps you've begun to think that in-depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island. Well, there's good news waiting. River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience Featuring the systematic exposition of God's Word.

And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you. Call them at six three one nine two nine thirty five twelve service times six three one Nine two nine thirty five twelve or check out their website at WRBC .us.

That's WRBC .us.

Paul wrote to the church at Galatia. So am I now saying. Or if God or am I trying to please man if I were still trying to please man I would not be a servant of Christ. Hi, I'm Mark Lukens pastor of Providence Baptist Church.

We are a reformed Baptist Church when we hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. We are in Norfolk, Massachusetts. We strive to reflect Paul's mindset to be much more concerned with how God views what we say and what we do Than how men view these things?

That's not the best recipe for popularity. But since that wasn't the Apostles priority. It must not be ours either. We believe by God's grace that we are called to demonstrate love and compassion to our fellow man.

And to be vessels of Christ's mercy to a lost and hurting community around us and to build up the body of Christ In truth and love. If you live near Norfolk, Massachusetts or plan to visit our area Please come and join us for worship and fellowship.

You can call us at 508 -528 -5750. That's 508 -528 -5750. Or go to our website to email us listen to past sermons worship songs or watch our TV program entitled resting in grace. You can find us at Providence Baptist Church Ma .org that's Providence Baptist Church ma .org or even on sermon audio .com.

Providence Baptist Church is delighted to sponsor iron sharpens iron radio. Welcome back. This is Chris Arnzen.

If you just tuned us in our guest today is Pastor Jeffrey D. Johnson, and we have him on the air for both hours today. We are discussing his book on textual criticism right now. Which is called behind the Bible a primer in New Testament textual criticism.

The second hour we will have a continued discussion on his other book the church Why bother the nature purpose and functions of the local church? If you'd like to join us on the air with a question our email address is Chris Arnzen at gmail .com.

Chris Arnzen at gmail .com. And my co-host again in the studio today is Reverend buzz Taylor. And by the way Pastor Jeff just a little tip for I should have told you this before but during the station breaks You might want to put your phone on mute because it sounds like you're working on a construction site.

It's because of the way the sound is amplified over the phone I guess.

And.

Before I go back into the discussion. Well, I guess this is actually a part of the discussion. Reverend buzz Taylor. Why did you? Beam with glee when you heard that we were discussing textual criticism today.

You seem to be more enthusiastic about that than anything we've ever addressed on this program.

Well, it's because it's a subject that well, first of all, I. What in my first pastorate back in New York State? I I had a couple guys in town with me that would visit my church every once in a while and they Wanted to be a part of what I was doing there, but they couldn't because I wasn't using the King James Version.

One guy his license plate was a v 1611 and the other guy stamped his mail. The King James is the Word of God so, you know. This is a subject that I was concerned about many years ago. In fact, I had done some research and had considered Writing on the subject myself, but then I got to thinking well, there's so many other good books out there though I might be better off, you know choosing other subjects, but it's been an interest of mine ever since then and The reason that you saw the glee a moment ago is because right after we were talking about this our ad for the new American.

Standard Bible came on. Oh, yes, that's one of these sponsors of iron sharpens iron and one of them. That's actually my Translation of preference. I'm going to take a deep breath and ask you Jeff. What is your translation of preference?

Interviews over interviews over.

Well, I'm glad you brought that up though seriously because that that Bible has suddenly become so popular and. Of course, it's most the time I did my research into the whole issue of versions and all that stuff was years ago.

So my information is very old. In fact, there was no ESB at that time. So.

But I've seen it. Yes, there was it was the revised standard, okay?

Yes, but I've seen it grow in Popularity especially in reformed churches, and I know nothing about it. I tried to use it for a little bit and I just found it was not quite as Fluent there. So I say flowing as I had hoped it would be in modern English, but.

Can you tell us something about the ESB?

Yeah, since crossway is not paying for this program. Just keep it keep it short.

I.

Do believe the ESB is still most accurate translation and I never prepare a sermon without. You know, I look at the NASB because it's do I think is especially if you're going to do some major Bible study.

You definitely want the ESB. That is I do think it's it. I don't believe it's a pair. I do think early days. It's a little better than its first edition. So they're constantly going back and there are seeking to make a very accurate translation and but I'm preach from it is.

One is I believe it's a trustworthy version and I think it's very important to preach if you're preaching line-by-line. For the people to be looking at the same text. Yes, and I wouldn't have done it what I said.

I didn't like the the flow of the language as much. I was trying to use it primarily For radio for recording texts for radio and and. It was just a lot of things where I was because it was so fluent so fluid.

So I say I was expecting certain things and it didn't go, you know. The grammar and everything wasn't exactly what I was expecting. So I had to really concentrate to get it right as opposed to others.

You know, of course, I have the same trouble with the NIV which I wouldn't even want to touch anymore, but.

Well might it might be the fluidness or lack thereof is because it just wasn't a translation you were used to. That's that's entirely possible.

But I was curious about its sudden acceptance and but you are telling me of course you use it. So You're saying it is a very reliable translation then as far as I mean.

I I'm not. I know a little bit of Hebrew enough to get me in trouble. But right but when it comes to the Greek, you know, I'll look at look at. There's some times. You know, there's some times I don't agree with the times that I'm like like they're interpreting it and we have to remember all.

Translation has a degree of interpretation. Oh, yes. We'd love to say that's not true. Sometimes I feel like they may be taking a little bit. Yeah, and I may even agree with the way they do it that you leave the ink allow the interpreter, right?

Well, you know even the original translators to the King James Version said that they that are wise would rather have their conscience at Liberty Between you know to rather than to be stuck to one when it might be the other, you know.

But right so, you know. They they understood this and of course what people don't realize also is that even the King James Version took a lot of liberties? Because they wanted certain, you know prose they wanted certain Cadences at the ends of their sentences and you know for that structure.

Sometimes they would choose a word that might not have been the best Translating word, but the right number of syllables. And did they not did they not leave in?

Transliterations rather than provide English translations because they wanted to preserve peace within Anglican.

Well, we're not going to go into that subject because I'm a presbyterian.

Yes, I know obviously you're gonna lose every time with that that subject, but it's true, isn't it?

He'll make that case with the word and he thinks that should be translated. I mean, it's not just that I mean.

Even using the word Bishop and there were other things in this in the in the King James translation that they were the words were carefully picked to align more with Anglican polity and and Theology. Were they not.

I mean, isn't that why they didn't. They didn't provide clearer English translations for some certain words.

That would be a question that I may I may not have the scholarship to answer for some, okay.

That's okay, but going back to our King James only friends I find it interesting that I'm gonna try to parse my words carefully. There seems to be a great similarity between the way that they defend the King James translation and how Muslims defend the Quran in that.

We know from history that that all of the earlier versions of the Quran were destroyed and Therefore you you don't have the diversity of manuscript evidence that you do with the New Testament and You have King James only advocates who seem to be Putting forth the notion that any time that you have any question mark Where where where you have to dig and study and compare? you you are denying the inerrancy and the reliability of the scriptures and therefore It's obvious that many of them if they had the ability and power they would destroy every other Translation and every other Manuscripts that that existed.

And why don't you share with our listeners? First of all, what are the manuscripts that the King James Version is based on?

They're based on the visiting textual family and Which is the majority of the text that we have our business team. But but with that said they're not as where the visiting textual family. Early as you can go is to the fourth and many of those are maybe most most of those even though you're looking at 12 13 14 century manuscripts.

Would you agree though with my assessment that there seems to be a similarity not only not only with the King James only us and the Muslims in the way that they defend the Quran, but even in a weird way, they're all in agreement with the liberals.

Because the liberals say that we can't trust the New Testament because of these differences and so on.

Yeah, it's a naive understanding of the preservation of scriptures and it's if this that if there's not this I had copy machines. Back in the day. Yeah. And you know, I had a hard drive you can save this on it.

We would expect greater from different variants. Course I've already admitted that they're spelling admitted that you know, I think 75 and then the other 25 of which are still not major issues. However, the King James only advocates have this kind of almost naive assumption.

Usually what. King James only King James very with the King James. You know, it's wrong. So they're making the King James as the kind of a standard and. And and well. Maybe I should look at the King James and go back to the original language and see how well.

I made a mistake of doing that once when I saw a I'll tell you what it was. It was comparing the King James Version to the Living Bible of all things. I mean Please understand. I never called the Living Bible a Bible.

Okay, it's a Bible paraphrase, you know and I certainly do not recommend it before use as a Bible, but In the particular passages that this guy picked out the Living Bible I believe actually had a lot more accurate than the King James Version.

That was a shock to me. That's that and that was a lot of what really led me into the whole issue was the fact that I I read that one. Work, it's like wait a minute. What's what's really going on here, you know.

I think I think what we need to do on our side is because I mean this would undermine our argument as well. But what they'll say one of the chief argument the King James only Advocates make is like well for many years in English The King James was the and therefore has to be a reliable trustworthy.

We can be certain that it is a trustworthy the only one we have. I think that's a legitimate argument in this. In this sense I do think the King James is the Word of God, but I think the ESV and the NASB and other.

Translations. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, neither is it the same King James Version? Right, it's not the 1611. It's primarily 1769 or something like that that we have today.

And this is what's encouraging for the average person in the pew that doesn't know the original language and it's like man. Can I even trust the Bible that I have. I'm hearing all this. How do I sort all this out?

We have. The encouraging thing we need to remember for the layman is that the Lord Jesus used a translation himself the Septuagint. The Hebrew by a lot of that and when we compare the Septuagint to the Hebrew to liberties.

But look the Lord used which I think it's still yeah.

We have the work even as you mentioned the variance and the thousands and thousands of variance. There's not an assumption with what you're saying there that those variants can't be figured out by textual criticism.

That's right. That's the very easy to correct and some of them I think matter like the existence of Jesus Christ. We do want to know every words inspired. We would like to know the order of that but in the end of the day I'm not too concerned if it's Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ, right?

It's the truth is still Billy.

Yes, the thing that's bizarre and I don't even know how they explain the inconsistency that they have. But in regard again to the King James only is the more militant ones They tend to be although I'm sure there are Pentecostal King James only is They tend to be Very often vehemently opposed to Pentecostal ism and the charismatic movement.

They tend to be very much in defense of the idea that the sign gifts and revelation Cease with the Apostles the passing of the Apostles. And therefore it seems bizarre that they Would hold to a view that would force them if they're going to be logical and consistent To teach that the Anglican Church in the 17th century was somehow miraculously Guided by God in a revelatory way where there would no Errors in translation made and so on.

Do you follow what I'm saying?

Have to see that that look at that. That's really easy to undermine when you look at all the different Multiple revision and then isn't just that I mean what people don't realize is there never was.

One King James Version. Even since it's it's very first publishing you had it. One from Oxford one from Cambridge, wasn't it?

And you had the he and she Bible and the the biggest irony of it all. In regard to the more hardcore fundamentalist Baptist who embraced the trail of blood theory as to.

The.

Purity of the Baptist line going back to John the Baptist and their denial of any connection with the Reformation and their hatred of the Anglican Church As well as other branches of the Reformation. It makes no sense to me that a King James only as fundamentalist Baptist Would have such a high regard of the Anglican Church when it was executing Baptists in the same century when the King James Version came out.

In fact in the same year in 1611 there was a Baptist executed in London for being a Baptist. So so this is just this is bizarre. I mean have you ever heard any attempts at defending that or explaining that?

No, I haven't and honestly, I know there are. They're not actually or they're more of a Byzantine or Texas receptive Advocate and so they're not. They're not really saying hey that is the other the more there's more.

Is it really you meet those people standing. Yeah, and I do. I do want to be quick to say that some of my.

Dearest friends and men that I also even uphold as Modern-day heroes of mine whose writings I love and so on some of them would be in some shape or form King James only ist or at the very least King James supremacist for lack of a better term, but the folks like dr. Joel Beakey of the heritage reforms nomination they only use the King James version.

And David Murray who is a professor at Puritan Reform Theological Seminary? Which is a part of that denomination that seminary isn't anyway.

They.

Use the King James only and I've come to know and love a number of the brethren within the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and the Free Presbyterian Church of North America Who only use the King James version and some of these men have preached from the pulpit at my former church in? New York.

And although we did not hold to a King James only position by any stretch of the imagination We didn't even have the King James in our pews. But that that just I wanted to make it clear that I'm not just sitting here mocking everybody that right.

Because we have dr. Beakey scheduled to come to our church in 2018 we're looking forward to that and I've been asked to preach in different churches. And they've made it clear that the King James was the owner of that and I Think the King James is little.