All right, we're going to go ahead and get started with the Q&A portion of this evening.
The first question is coming from Ben Naim at steadfast, of course, your favorite Middle
Easterner.
It's not about Indian food.
It's not about McDonald's.
Oh, man.
All right.
Here's his question.
Do Ruckmanites have a different definition for preservation than we do?
How do they reconcile the doctrine of preservation while also believing the Greek and Hebrew
has been lost?
Well, I would say that they definitely contradict themselves all over the place.
And so no matter how I answer for them, they'll probably say that that's not true.
But in evidence of some of the quotes that I had from my evening sermon, Dr. Ruckman
is teaching that the preservation is God re-inspiring the text through God breathing
and all these these seven different translations, which is really not preservation.
That's not really preserving anything.
It's just simply re-distributing or this kind of like reincarnation of the text over and
over.
So I would say that's definitely fundamentally different from how I view preservation.
And what I believe the Bible teaches about preservation in the sense that God is saying
that the words that were delivered are going to last.
I used an example from Matthew, chapter five, where Jesus Christ is saying that one jot
or one tittle shall know what is passed from the law.
That's in reference to the Hebrew language.
And so I believe that today we still have the jots and tittles from the original writings
of God's word, and we still have the original Hebrew, we still have the original Greek,
we still have the originals from God, albeit it's copies of those originals.
And that's from whence we got the King James Bible.
And so when we talk about preservation, I believe God literally preserved the originals
and then those being translated into other languages and other layer of preservation.
Whereas Ruckmanites typically disagree with this fundamentally, they don't believe in
the preservation of the originals and they wouldn't say that the King James is necessarily
a preservation of a previous text, but rather it is a re-inspiration, that's where you get
the double inspiration.
All right.
The next question is from brother Daniel Kutsar, he says, I had a question about what Bible
to use for the Russian gospel.
Most Russians use the synodal, which has errors, but there are usable gospel verses.
There is a Russian Bible translated directly from the King James version, but Russians
reject that version.
The question is, would you use the synodal or the Russian KJV to preach the gospel to
Russians?
And also, since obviously you don't speak Russian, maybe you could talk about verses
in modern versions that do say the same thing, can people get saved from those?
Yeah, I certainly am not an expert in Russian.
I can only speak one word in Russian.
I'm not going to say it tonight, although June's approaching, so, but here's the thing,
you know, even though I don't speak Russian or any of these foreign languages, I would
say that probably most foreign language translations are not going to necessarily have the same
level of accuracy and perfection of the King James Bible.
But that doesn't mean that it can't be used or isn't still the word of God.
And I like what the translators, the readers say, if you read their actual kind of preface
to the King James Bible, they explain that the meanest translation of the scripture in
a foreign language is still the word of God in their opinion.
And I still believe that as well.
And while there's going to be places in some of these Bibles that maybe need to be refined,
they could still use it where it's good.
And I think that you might as well use it where it's good.
And then God willing, maybe it'll get improved in the future, but it would be no different
than if I lived in 1550 in the world and I spoke English, I couldn't use a King James
Bible.
So I might have to rely on a Tyndale New Testament.
Well, is the Tyndale New Testament have any area that could possibly improve?
Yeah, that's why we have a King James Bible.
But you know, it wasn't that the Tyndale wasn't the Bible or couldn't be used.
Now, as far as the discrepancy between these two versions, I'm not going to really comment
because I don't know.
I think that's for the reader to decide which he finds is the most reliable or the most
accurate to the text.
And of course, use the most accurate version that you have.
But don't be discouraged in using a version, even if it has a few problems or a few issues.
Use the places that are legitimate.
And in fact, I still think the modern Bibles, the problem is not that they are inaccurate
100 percent, it's that they're inaccurate in lots of important places.
And when since we have a more accurate translation, let's of course use that.
Plus modern versions aren't based on preservation.
They don't believe that the originals were preserved and we drove the text from that.
They have to dig it up and recreate it and it's constantly changing and evolving.
So I would reject that for an English speaking person.
OK, next question is King James, the person, do you think he was saved?
It's unknowable.
I would say from the writings that I've read about King James, I think he is saved.
He's actually written a lot of works himself.
And in his life, he wrote a letter to his son where he's kind of just explaining to
his son all the different important tasks to be done as a king because he's anticipating
his son will become the king.
And just in life in general, just advice about how to be a leader.
And a lot of the advice he gives is very sound wisdom.
He is considered a great student of the Bible from the translators themselves.
They talk about him being a great student of the Bible.
And it makes sense to me that he was very likely saved.
Plus, he really hated smoking.
And you know what?
I hate smoking, too.
So that just makes me want to believe he was most likely saved.
Here's another great question.
It says, Florida man speaks multiple tongues, multiple languages, it says.
How did he preach in Romania with the idea of Ruckmanism?
Did he make his own translation?
Well, again, I would say this about a lot of people that hold to a Ruckman type position
is they usually are a walking contradiction.
So often they do end up saying things that are right or doing the right things, but they
just have bad ways of explaining them, evidenced by the fact that they use the King James Bible.
They're not wrong on that.
They're not wrong on preferring the King James and not wanting to use the modern versions.
In fact, many things that Peter Ruckman has said about the King James are good.
And he'll point out a lot of the errors.
But he's a walking contradiction when he undermines it, he has bad doctrines for it.
And so, you know, I think that a lot of times these people are coming to the right conclusions,
but in a bad way.
And I want to distance ourselves, you know, intellectually and doctrinally from believing
the right things for the wrong reason.
We want to believe things for the right reason and for truth's sake, so that our children
will follow in our footsteps.
I find that there's a lot of King James churches out there that they're not really teaching
why they're King James only.
And the youth is getting away from the text.
They're getting away from the King James Bible.
They're not understanding why to use it.
And we don't want to turn into that kind of a person where we're not believing the right
doctrines.
We're just, hey, it's King James, believe it and shut up.
Don't ask any questions.
You know, well, what about why there's differences here?
Well, just believe it.
And, you know, we don't want to just gloss over the intellectual gloss over our children
and just tell people to believe things because we said it.
We want them to study to show themselves approved unto God and we want them to be intellectual.
So I think, again, it's just someone being lazy intellectually, but he probably has good
practices.
Next question, this person writes, do you think it is theoretically possible that a
better translation than the King James could be made in English?
No, I don't believe that the King James could ever be improved upon and that I don't believe
we should ever even try.
There's no reason to even try.
There's so many reasons for this in the film itself.
We pretty much catalog why you should never even attempt this again.
The translators themselves said that they wanted to have one more exact translation.
The translators themselves did not even want to make another translation.
If you read what they really said, they said that they felt like what they had was already
good enough and sufficient and was going to do the job, but that they were being compelled
by the superstition of the Puritans and for unity's sake, that King James wanted to give
one more time, one more attempt.
And you know what?
Praise God he did.
I'm so glad that we have a King James Bible.
The idea of getting all the scholars together, having the sources and the resources they
had, is literally impossible.
You're not going to find 54 guys that speak these languages like they did back in the
past.
You're not going to find the documents that they were using.
They were so much closer to that time.
They had seven years set apart, plus they're not even necessarily just re-translating.
They're going off of the work of the bishops.
So if we were going to follow the same model, we would be having to use the King James in
only changing the King James where it differed from the original Greek and the original Hebrew.
But I don't believe the King James does that a single time.
So therefore you would have no reason to update a single verse or a single place of scripture.
And any attempt at doing it, even if you did do it, would be rejected because the King
James crowd would never accept it and no one would buy it.
It would never be printed.
No one would ever use it.
The King James Bible is locked in, folks.
It's never going to get replaced.
It's never going to get outdone.
Now albeit we have a transition where we went from Old English to Middle English into what's
now considered modern or contemporary English that we speak today and what the King James
translation is written in.
What if English evolved to some text language, you know, LMAO or, you know, like LOL or this
this weird hybrid.
You know, you go to some parts of the world where English even got a little weird, Jamaica
or something, right?
If the whole world just devolved to where English just almost transformed into a completely
different language, then sure, you could make the case that another translation into that
form of English could be made.
But you wouldn't be changing the King James Bible or replacing it just like changing it
into Spanish.
You know, Spanish and Portuguese are very similar.
But there's a case to be made that there should be a Spanish Bible and a Portuguese
Bible.
It's not that the Portuguese is replacing the Spanish.
It's that they've devolved into two different tongues at this point.
So now you have a version for each version of that tongue.
So for our current English tongue and anything similar, you're never going to get rid of
the King James.
You never should.
There's no reason.
It's the words of God.
It stood the test of time.
We've celebrated over 400 years of this book's history.
The fruit of the King James Bible is undeniable.
There's no reason, and you're never going to get the majesty of this kind of translation
ever again.
This person asks, what or when are the margin notes useful in the King James Bible?
Is there any value added?
I would say from a spiritual perspective, there's nothing added.
You're not going to serve God better by having the marginal notes.
All you need is the text of Scripture.
You have it.
It's there.
Is there some just intellectual benefit?
Is there just some prophet that could be used just to talk about the process by which the
Bible came into be?
Or possibly there's sometimes words in the Bible that are only used one time or a handful
of times.
That was the whole purpose of the marginal notes anyways, is to just give you a little
bit more information to maybe have a better understanding.
But that would be no different than a dictionary itself.
I use a dictionary all the time.
There's lots of times where I'm looking at a word in the Bible and I'm saying, you know
what?
I want to see what the English dictionary says about this word, just so I have a better
grasp on that particular word.
So there's going to be tools that help us to understand the Bible.
But you know what?
I don't need the marginal notes.
Most King James Bibles don't print the marginal notes.
I almost seldom ever even use them, except for to show how ruck planets are stupid.
All right.
So there you go.
But that was very useful, OK?
This question is, would you recommend learning Greek and reading the Textus Receptus to further
your Bible study?
I think that if you're a predominantly English speaker, if that's your primary language,
there is no need or necessity to ever learn a foreign language.
You already have the Word of God.
And I don't think from a spiritual perspective, you're going to be held back from anything
by having the English Bible.
Like you're not going to be like, well, I learned soul winning from the Greek or I learned
this doctrine from the Greek.
Every doctrine, every practice can be discerned and learned from the English Bible.
Now, I think that there could be benefit in learning Greek if you want to give the gospel
to someone in Greek.
If you just want to learn Greek to be able to defend the fact that the Greek and the
King James are saying the same thing, I think that there's benefit there.
I think there's in all labor, there's profit is what the Bible says.
But there's an opportunity cost.
If I lived in an area where a lot of people speak Spanish, which I personally do, I live
in Texas, I would argue that it's probably more profitable to learn Spanish because I
have more opportunity to give people the gospel than it would be for me to learn Greek
where I'm going to have less opportunity to preach the gospel in Greek or to be using
my Greek.
So sometimes it may be better to learn a different language if you're going to put that much
effort and energy because you might get more profit out of it.
I could probably learn some exotic tribal language in Africa just for an intellectual
benefit, but I wouldn't have much practical use.
And so you kind of have to ask yourself, why am I learning this language?
If you're learning Greek to just show that you're smarter than other people or that you
know more Bible, you shouldn't learn Greek.
But if you're learning Greek because you just have a curiosity, you have an interest in
it, or you want to get people saved, or maybe you even have some kind of a Greek part of
your past, I think that's great.
But you're not going to learn anything that you can't learn from the King James Bible.
Next question, it's unrelated, but they want to know when the next season of the Baptist
Bias is.
Oh man.
That's a good question.
I don't know.
God willing, the fall.
All right.
So if you're interested in a podcast, me and Brother Ben do, the Baptist Bias, I don't
know.
We'll have to see.
Yeah.
Which one it is.
But hopefully God willing, the fall.
This person asks, in 1 John 2 23, why is the last half of the verse in italics?
Why did the translators decide to put it that way?
Maybe you could just talk about italics in general in the King James as well.
Give me the verse reference again.
1 John chapter 2 23.
Okay.
So the Bible says, whosoever denied the son, the same hath not the father, but he that
acknowledged the son hath the father also.
The italics in the King James Bible kind of have a couple of different uses.
In some cases, it's because it doesn't have necessarily a direct word for word translation.
So there's not necessarily a corresponding Greek or Hebrew word that you can point to
that specific word and say, that's the word that it's coming from, but it's implied in
the text and it's beneficial to understand text.
That's one reason why italics are put in the scripture.
But you know, to really understand every single reason why they chose the italics, you would
have to kind of study the underlying text.
In some cases, you'll find that they didn't even do the italics always that right.
And sometimes publishers and editors didn't even necessarily have the italics in a very
orthodox manner.
I personally, when it comes to the italicized words, don't read them any differently.
I don't like look at them and say, this is more authoritative or less authoritative.
I know some people do, and I can see their logic, but I believe the words in the Bible
are needed.
The italicized words are needed to get the right understanding of the text and that they're
just as justified as the other.
So for me personally, it doesn't matter to me why it's italicized.
And I just believe every single one of these words.
And in order for me to fully understand it, I'd have to go back to the Greek, back to
that committee, talk to them and ask them why, why are the publishers...
I don't need to do that.
I just trust all of the italicized words and I see no problem with accepting them the same.
Many King James Bibles don't even have italics.
Some do, but you know what, I wouldn't put shade on the italicized words.
And to me, explaining why it's there is kind of, it's a vain jangling at that point.
Okay.
Next question.
How do Ruckmanites explain the inspiration of Luther's translation when he used one of
several of Erasmus's coalitions of the Texas Receptus, a document that still exists if
the originals don't exist?
Let's read that one more time just so I understand what they're trying to ask me.
How do Ruckmanites explain the inspiration of Luther's translation when he used one of
several of Erasmus's coalitions of the Texas Receptus, a document that still exists if
the originals don't exist?
Maybe that person wants to elaborate on their question.
I understand the question.
It's a good question because it's basically just disproving their entire notion, but it's
similar to what Ruckman even says.
He's like, well, the King James didn't differ from the Greek, the underlying Greek.
Well, why is that important if God just had to re-speak it again?
And then how could you say that the English is better than the Greek if it's saying the
exact same thing?
It's just a walking contradiction.
So of course, what this questioner is alluding to is the fact that when Martin Luther made
a translation, he didn't go from the Latin.
He actually went from the Greek text that Erasmus had written because Erasmus had identified
that the Latin was all over the place and wasn't necessarily lining up with the Greek
and that the Greek is actually more authoritative.
So when Martin Luther wanted the Germans to understand what the Bible said, he's like,
hey, let's go ahead and change and get a translation that's based on the Greek.
This was important for certain words.
You know, there's a word that was kind of translated as penance in the Latin, and then
it's kind of changed back into metanoia of the Greek, which is like a change of mind
or a repent.
And so Luther's coming up with the idea, hey, this isn't talking about me going and paying
indulgences and going to the Catholic Church and asking for forgiveness, but rather it's
talking about a change of mind.
And so obviously Martin Luther's kind of famous for coming up with the idea of salvation by
faith alone, albeit it doesn't seem like he believed that, but he at least coined a lot
of those phrases and a lot of those ideas.
But it was coming from the correct interpretation of these words.
And he's getting that from the Greek.
He's getting that from what we would say is the preserved originals in Greek, where he's
not saying God just breathed on me and I figured out what the Bible really means and I just
wrote a new translation based on God breathing on me.
No, he actually went to the source of Erasmus' Greek and translated from that into German,
and that's where they get the German Bible.
Is the German Bible perfect?
No, it has problems.
But of course that is the right philosophy, it's the right viewpoint, and we also agree
with at least that viewpoint of I don't need God to breathe on me to get the words of God,
I can go to the original sources and we can go to the King James and we can trust that.
Pastor Thompson, I am out of questions.
We got eight minutes though.
You want me to open it up for eight minutes or should we close it out?
Does anybody else have a question?
What do you think some of the reasons are that people often are skeptical of King James
onlyism and maybe just don't want to accept it, like maybe if it's pride or coming from
religious tradition or whatever?
Obviously, there's going to be different reasons for why everybody has a problem with the King
James Bible.
And of course I think that the film itself is trying to come at a lot of different angles
of why the King James Bible is the text to try and appease a broad audience.
But in my estimation, it seems like it's just a hard issue because if you accept that
the King James Bible is the very words of God, that it's perfectly accurate, that there's
no error in it, well now all of a sudden the authority has shifted from you to it.
And so it's important that you realize the King James Bible being the word of God without
error is an authority issue.
Because if this has errors and all of them have errors, then I get to decide what's right.
And this is what seminaries and professors and the gurus want is they want you to say,
hey, all of these have problems, but I'll tell you what's the right one.
But notice none of these gurus end up just getting a translation that's dialed into perfect.
Why wouldn't you just do that?
If you already know all the places that are wrong, why don't you just dial it in and hand
us the one that's right?
Because then I'd put them out of business because then that would become the authority.
So it's always just an authority issue.
And when you think about verses in like Proverbs chapter three, which says that we're not supposed
to lean on our own understanding that we're supposed to trust in the Lord, that's only
possible if we have an authority source that we can look to that's not us.
And that is the King James Bible.
When you believe something and the Bible is saying something different for you to say,
you know what?
I'm wrong.
The Bible's right.
And to put your faith in this.
That's the heart of the argument.
But you know why that's the heart of the argument is because they say, well, that says that
women would have to wear dresses and skirts.
And I would have to change my life.
So therefore, this isn't actually the words of God.
So they look at it, well, if this is the actual words of God, then I have to go soul winning.
Well, if those are the actual words of God, then I have to go to Sure Foundation Baptist
Church.
If those are the actual words of God, then I would actually have to hate people that
hate God.
Well, if those are actually so that they see the practicality of what the Bible is saying,
and they want to reject it as being the final authority because they know then they have
no more arguments.
They would have to admit that they're rejecting the Bible.
And people don't want to admit that they're wrong or backslidden or don't want to do what
God said.
So they hide it under the idea of, well, that's not what my version says, or the Spirit didn't
lead me to say that or whatever.
And that's why I also say this.
I don't argue with people about doctrine unless they're King James only.
Because they don't have a heart willing to accept the truth yet.
I think you should first get them saved, then convince them the King James Bible is the
word of God.
Now we're both on the same playing field and we have the same foundation to build doctrine
upon.
But when you argue with people that aren't King James only, what you'll find is that
they're just not going to really change their mind because they don't have an authority
to point to.
They're their own authority and they're not willing to change that.
Good question.
We got one more question.
You got time?
Yeah.
What time we got Dylan?
Five minutes.
All right.
Make this a five minute explanation.
All right.
Who is this Florida man?
All right.
Florida man is anybody that says those dumb things.
But you know, it's not just one person.
You know, she asked me another really important question before this.
And I think I should answer.
She said, why should beans not be in Chile?
And you know, what I gracefully told her was, you know, I don't put chocolate in my chili.
I don't put screwdrivers in my chili.
You know, I don't have anything against chocolate or screwdrivers, but you just don't put everything
in chili.
And you know, when I get a burger, I like to get a double patty of meat.
I don't say give me one patty of meat and put some beans on it.
And you know what?
When it comes to chili, instead of putting beans in, you just put more meat, folks.
All right.
This is the right doctrine.
OK.
All right.
Good.
OK.
We got one more question.
Something I've found really interesting soul wanting is that I've run into people that
are King James only, but are totally unsaved and go to church like a Pentecostal King James
only church.
It's just it was weird to me, but they're completely unsaved.
What do you think about that?
Well, that's not hard to believe, because, frankly speaking, before the nineteen hundreds,
everyone was King James only.
So every single person on the planet was King James only, whether you liked it or not.
I mean, before the critical text of the 1880s, I mean, virtually every person was King James
only.
That's why it basically just said in the Bible, just Holy Bible, it didn't even say King James
version.
In fact, it gets the colloquialism Dr. Phil Stringer talks about this.
He's like, it's just called the book for a long time.
It's just called the book.
And an education was just based on the Bible.
But we know that in the eighteen hundreds, not every single person was saved.
So here's another thing.
The Jews, they didn't it's not like they didn't have the Bible, but they didn't believe in
Jesus when he showed up, did they?
So it's not identifying the right text that makes you saved.
Look, Catholics are right on lots of things.
They believe in the Trinity, not saved.
There's plenty of people that use the King James Bible.
I mean, frankly speaking, the Mormons, if you ask the Mormons which version of the Bible
they use a King James Bible.
Now, of course, they add their garbage translation with that.
But I think it's just because evil people are going to recognize what's true.
You know, I think it's like Marilyn Manson in one of his concerts.
They were ripping pages out of the Bible and destroying them.
You know what version they were using?
The King James Bible, because even the devils believe in Trimble.
All right.
Even the devils know which one's the real Bible.
And so just like people that blaspheme, they don't use Allah and they don't use Buddha.
They use Jesus Christ's name because that's the only one that has real power.
And so it doesn't surprise me that people that aren't saved would would recognize this
as having the power.
And that's one thing I love about just black people in general is they pretty much only
like the King James Bible.
And so they're they're really receptive to the King James Bible.
Hey, you can go to the Bahamas and I'll tell you something.
They all use a King James Bible virtually.
And yet almost none of them are saved.
And so you go to Jamaica.
It's the same way.
But I'll tell you what, if you're going to fix a nation, we need to get them on the King
James.
And there's a reason why, though, the Bahamas is very receptive because they have respect
for this book.
They have respect for this book.
And the reason why it's hard in a lot of other places of the world is because they have no
respect for this book.
That's what makes it very difficult to get them saved.
So it's why it's important to have a conference like this and to get people to put faith in
it.
And if you want to change America, don't vote Trump.
Vote King James Bible.
All right.
So.
All right.
Thank you so much, Pastor Shelley, for the great sermon and for the great Q&A.
Thank you, Brother Dylan.
And I'm going to release everybody.
You all are need to get your beauty sleep.
Some of you look really tired.
So anyway, tomorrow, it's only three o'clock.
Try to be a little bit early so we can get everybody out on time.
You're free to do whatever you want.
Dylan, do you want to tell anybody about the hike is what?
So everyone at this conference is welcome to come to a hike we're doing tomorrow morning
at eight a.m.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.