Obviously there are major differences between the different versions in English, between
the different underlying Greek texts of the New Testament, but what you'll often hear
from the other side that's not King James only is, well sure there are differences,
but no major doctrine is affected.
You can still get all the right doctrine from any of these versions, but I'm going to show
you tonight that differences in the text of scripture do affect doctrine, and I'm going
to start out first of all with the most obvious doctrine that is of course affected.
How about the doctrine that we actually have the Bible?
I mean that's a pretty important doctrine.
How could that doctrine not be affected when you have people giving all this doubt and
confusion and they're not sure which text is right or what the Bible actually says?
That's going to affect the doctrine of preservation, the doctrine that we actually can be sure
that what we're reading is even the Word of God, and what doctrine could be more important
than that?
The Bible says in Matthew chapter 5, you don't have to turn there, verse 17, "Think not that
I'm come to destroy the law or the prophets, I'm not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Every jot, every tittle would be preserved, that's what Christ promised.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Ecclesiastes 3, 14, "I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.
Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it, and God doeth it that men should
fear before Him."
And then if you look down in your Bible where we are in Isaiah 59, we have this wonderful
promise in the final verse there, verse 21, "As for me, this is my covenant with them,
saith the Lord, my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever."
This is a promise that the exact words that Isaiah was preaching and prophesying, it would
be in the mouths of his children and children's children.
And you know, we shouldn't get too hung up on thinking about his physical children.
How about his spiritual children, spiritual grandchildren?
You know, we today, as Bible-believing Christians, are the spiritual great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren
of Isaiah, and just as God's Word was in Isaiah's mouth, it's in our mouth.
Same Holy Spirit, same Word of God, heaven and earth will pass away before God's Words
pass away.
Now, let's see what the other side has to say.
Here's a famous scholar, Daniel Wallace, and this is a big-name guy amongst those that
would be proponents of the critical text, the modern versions.
This is kind of one of their Greek gurus or textual criticism gurus.
Here's what Daniel Wallace said.
Pay attention.
We do not have now in our critical Greek texts or in any translations exactly what the authors
of the New Testament wrote.
Even if we did, we wouldn't know it.
So he says we don't have exactly what the authors wrote in the New Testament in any
Greek manuscript or any printed edition or in any translation, and if we happened to,
we wouldn't even know it if we did.
It's total confusion, total uncertainty, total doubt, we don't have what the New Testament
authors wrote.
Yes, we do.
We have exactly what they wrote because God's Word has been providentially preserved and
kept pure in all ages.
It's supernaturally been superintended by God and we have the Word of God today.
I think that's a pretty important doctrine.
You know, I don't want to go through life wondering what the New Testament authors wrote.
I want to just have the Bible in my hand and know this is what Christ said.
This is what the apostles wrote.
But number two, the doctrine of salvation is effected.
Go to Matthew chapter 7, Matthew chapter 7, and obviously outside of just the fact that
God's Word has been preserved, if we wanted to think about a really important doctrine,
we think about the doctrine of salvation.
And of course we strongly believe that salvation is by faith alone, not of works lest any man
should boast.
And the Bible says in Matthew chapter 7 verse 14, it says because straight is the gate,
and notice that the spelling of straight there, there's no GH in it, right?
This is straight as in narrow, a narrow passage, and this is a word that you'll see on maps
or something about like a narrow passage of water.
And so it says straight is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few
there be that find it, right?
Unfortunately most people are not saved, most people are in darkness and don't know the
truth.
Listen to the New King James Version, okay?
It says because narrow is the gate, and difficult is the way which leads to life, right?
Now that's not the same thing as being narrow because the narrowness or the straightness
is referring to the quantity of people that are going in, right?
Few there be that find it.
Whereas if you say, "Well, you know, difficult is the way that leads to salvation."
Difficult is the way that leads to salvation.
Yeah, when you believe in works based salvation.
That is difficult.
In fact, it's so difficult, it's impossible.
No one could ever be that perfect.
No one could ever do enough good deeds.
No one could ever get enough sin out of their life.
It would be impossible, but with God all things are possible.
If we believe on Jesus, we'll simply be saved by putting our faith and trust in the finished
work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Listen to the ESV.
For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it
are few.
How about the message?
And listen, I'm frequently going to refer to the message tonight, kind of just for fun.
You know what I mean?
Because I don't know if anybody's really taking it seriously as the Bible.
Here's what the message says.
Don't look for shortcuts to God.
The market is flooded with surefire, easygoing formulas for a successful life that can be
practiced in your spare time.
Don't fall for that stuff, even though crowds of people do.
The way to life, to God, is vigorous and requires total attention.
So again, look, what are they saying?
Hey, it's going to be vigorous?
I think they mean like rigorous.
This is going to take like total attention.
Why, does it sound like a free gift?
I've never had a free gift that was that rigorous and vigorous and requiring that much attention.
Go to Mark chapter 10 verse 24, and what you'll find is that sometimes the changes in modern
verses will fall like a pattern.
So we got in Matthew salvation being made difficult, right?
But then in Mark chapter 10, again, we have salvation being made difficult.
Now in the King James Version, Mark 10, 24 says, "And the disciples were astonished at
his words, but Jesus answereth again and saith unto them, 'Children, how hard is it for them
that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.'"
Now why is it hard for people who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God?
Because they're used to relying on themselves, their money, their bank account.
They're going to pull themselves by the bootstraps and I've earned everything I've got and I've
done it all myself and I went from nothing and built this business.
So it's hard for people who are trusting in riches to enter the kingdom of God because
it's going to take humility to enter the kingdom of God.
It's going to take relying on someone else, you know, Jesus Christ.
So it's hard for them to trust in riches but let me read for you the NIV, you're looking
at the King James in verse 24.
They say, Jesus said, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God."
So notice what's missing, instead of being hard for them that trust in riches, it's just
hard, period.
It's just hard to get in the kingdom of God because you've got to do so much work, apparently,
right?
The ESV, children, how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God.
Go to Romans chapter 11 verse 6, Romans chapter 11 verse 6.
And so I don't see how you could say, "Well, oh, the doctrine of salvation is not affected."
When you have these verses that are making salvation difficult and hard, that's going
to change the way that people think about salvation.
And I think what people mean when they say, "No doctrine is affected," what they mean
is that if you hand me any version of the Bible, I can still show you that salvation
is by faith alone.
Because I could.
I mean, you can hand me a Catholic Bible.
You can hand me an NIV.
You can hand me an ESV.
Of course, I can show you from those that salvation is by faith alone, that it's eternal.
You can't lose it.
But here's the thing, that's not the point.
The point is that you have a bunch of other verses now that are sort of contradicting that
idea by saying, oh, it's hard, it's difficult.
Or instead of the fact that you're saved, well, you're being saved and everything like
that.
And what you have to understand is that all of these things go into what you get from
the Bible.
I mean, look, when I read the Bible, I read the whole Bible cover to cover, and I walk
away saying salvation is clearly by faith.
It's a free gift and everything like that.
But here's the thing, if you have all of these misleading wrong verses pulling you in another
direction, you know, it could create confusion about the doctrine of salvation.
Also, what percentage of Christians are reading the entire Bible cover to cover?
Less than 1%, unfortunately.
Now hopefully in this room, it's like 90% or something, right?
But out there in the greater Christian world, most people are not reading the whole Bible.
They're just getting a few cherry-picked verses given to them Sunday morning, once a week.
They get just a few cherry-picked verses.
Well here's the thing, if you have a modern Bible version that's weak on the doctrine
of salvation, it's just giving all of these verses as fodder for false teachers to just
have, "Hey, hey, you think it's easy to go to heaven?
Don't listen to these easy believers and people.
It's hard.
It's difficult.
Look in your New King James.
See how difficult it is?
Look at that NIV.
It's hard.
And so this idea of, oh, well, it's okay that they messed up that verse because it says
it right over here.
Or, yeah, they messed up the deity of Christ over here, but you can get it over here instead.
It says, "But if it be of works, then is it no more of works?
Otherwise, grace is no more grace.
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace?
Otherwise, work is no more work."
I love this verse.
Amen.
It's so clear, so powerful, just telling you grace and works are not compatible.
If salvation is by works at all, it can't be by grace and vice versa just to eliminate
all confusion.
Now, in the ESV, here's what it says.
It says, "But if by grace, it is no longer on the base of grace, then grace is no more
of works."
And it's so clear, so powerful, just telling you grace and works are not compatible.
If salvation is by works at all, it can't be by grace and vice versa just to eliminate
all confusion.
Now in the ESV, here's what it says, it says, "But if by grace, it is no longer on the basis
of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace, period."
So we have completely omitted the second half of the verse, so the second half of the verse
is gone.
Now, with the second half of the verse gone, if you're reading 11.6 in the ESV, it says,
"But if by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works."
You know what that makes it sound like?
It sounds like it used to be on the basis of works, but now it's no longer on the basis
of works, like it was back then, though.
And this is, of course, the false doctrine of dispensationalism, or it's usually called
hyper-dispensationalism, claiming that, oh, in the Old Testament they were saved by works.
In the King James, it's impossible to misunderstand, because you have that second half of the verse
showing you this isn't a chronological thing, because it goes both ways.
Right?
Grace, works, they just don't mix anyway, not like, well, if it's by grace now, it's
no longer on the basis of works like it used to be.
That's the way the ESV reads.
It's confusing, it's misleading, and in effect, key doctrines about salvation.
How about the doctrine of baptism?
That's a big doctrine, right?
So here's the thing, if somebody put a gun to my head and said, "Give me the best Bible
verse for believers' baptism in the New Testament," I would go straight to Acts 8.37.
That would be my go-to to prove that you get baptized after you get saved, not sprinkled
as a baby or whatever.
Why?
Because he says, "See, here's water.
What doth hinder me to be baptized?"
Here's verse 37, "And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.'
And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'
And he commanded the chariot to stand still.
They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
So you have a prerequisite to getting baptized of salvation.
Whereas, in the modern versions, it's just, "Hey, what stopped me from being baptized?"
The question is not even answered.
We just get you baptized.
Now look, there is no way that that is an accidental change in the scripture, because
I do think that a lot of the problems in the text of scripture are accidental.
You know, a scribal error where, you know, some of these corrupt texts, they're corrupt
because somebody screwed up.
Somebody goofed up and left something out or added something.
But a lot of these changes are clearly intentional.
And when you have like a really key doctrinal verse like this, that the majority of so-called
Christianity gets wrong, isn't it kind of convenient for this verse to be removed?
If say, you're one of one billion Roman Catholics who believe in infant baptism or other just
millions and millions of Protestants who are practicing infant baptism.
You know, it seems like a convenient verse or like when it talks about, you know, how
Joseph knew Mary not until she brought forth her firstborn son.
And then, oh, firstborn is gone in Matthew 1 25 in the modern versions.
Well, that's convenient for the Catholics because they don't believe Jesus is the firstborn
son of Mary.
They think that he's the only son of Mary when in reality the Bible teaches that Jesus
had four half brothers and also many sisters, at least three sisters.
You know, we don't know how many, but you know, Joseph and Mary had at least like seven
other kids after Jesus was born.
And so, you know, isn't it kind of convenient that some of these little Catholic pet doctrines
get tampered with?
Firstborns got it.
And then you say, "Oh yeah, but over here in Luke it says firstborn."
Again, most people aren't reading the whole Bible.
Let me ask you this.
If people have not read the whole Bible and they've only read one chapter, what do you
think that chapter is likely to be?
Probably something like Genesis 1 or like Matthew 1, right?
Because how many people start a book, get a couple pages in and just kind of geek out?
So therefore, you know, Matthew 1's pretty important and so you don't want to have something
real anti-Catholic right there in Matthew 1, you know?
And you certainly don't want to have Act 837 in the Bible if you're a baby sprinkler, you
know?
So again, these doctrines affect, you know, the preservation of God's Word, salvation,
baptism.
These are huge doctrines, massive doctrines.
But you know what?
A lot of other minor doctrines are affected as well.
Go to Genesis chapter 3 verse 16, Genesis 3, 16, and you know, the Bible is packed with
minor doctrines.
What does the word doctrine even mean?
How about that?
Teaching, right?
So, you know, anything that we're teaching, we teach on all these different subjects about
spiritual things, about our everyday lives.
Those are doctrines, right?
So we have a doctrine about salvation, a doctrine about baptism.
That's what we teach about those things, okay?
And then we could have really minor things that have a doctrine, you know, just a doctrine
of really anything about the way that we live our lives, okay?
We could have a doctrine that says that men should have short hair and women should have
long hair.
That's a doctrine.
You know, it's not like a major doctrine of the Christian faith or something, but it is
a doctrine.
Everything's a doctrine if it's derived from scripture and teaching us how to live.
So here's what the Bible says.
Before you look at Genesis 3, I'm just going to read this for you from Song of Solomon.
It says, "Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines for our vines have tender
grapes."
And so the Bible says there that little foxes spoil the vines because the vines have tender
grapes.
And so sometimes these little things creep in and do damage to our lives, to our churches,
to our teachings.
And here's one of those examples.
How about this?
You know, the doctrine of marriage, how marriage works.
You know, is this affected in the modern versions?
Well, it says in Genesis 316, "Unto the woman," he said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception.
In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children," and here's the key part I want to home in
on, "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
Now, I just preached upon this passage recently, like maybe a couple weeks ago, and what I
was really driving in was the fact that even though God is giving these punishments or
curses upon mankind, they actually end up also solving mankind's problems and actually
being helpful.
And what I was showing is that when God chastens us, He chastens us for our profit, that we
might be partakers of His holiness.
And so even though it sounds terrible, "Oh man, you know, you're going to work by the
sweat of your face all the days of your life," it's actually good for man.
Going out and working actually solves some of man's problems, and you know, if you don't
have a job, probably getting a job and going out and working is going to solve a lot of
your problems.
Okay.
Working's good for you.
And here's the thing, the woman is told, "Oh, I'm going to multiply your sorrow and your
conception," and then what does Paul say about that in the New Testament?
He says, "She shall be saved through childbearing," you know, because by having kids and being
busy about the family, that's going to keep her from turning aside after Satan and becoming
some busybody slanderer or whatever.
And so you can see how these punishments, yeah, they're chastening, yeah, they're chastisement,
but they're for our profit in a sense.
You know, God still loves Adam and Eve even as he's doling out these punishments, okay?
And so when we look at this part at the end, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he
shall rule over thee," you know, this is the way the home is supposed to work, right?
The husband rules over the wife, but her desire is under her husband.
She loves him.
She desires him.
She wants to follow him, and women want to be led by a strong leader.
Don't listen to these weird feminazis.
And by the way, these weird feminazis that are like screaming the loudest against male
authority in their heart, they're just like, "Oh, I wish a big strong man would just, you
know, take me in hand," or whatever.
But anyway, so let me read for you the ESV, and I'm just going to show you how twisted
this is in the ESV.
It says, "To the woman," he said, "I will multiply your pain and childbearing.
In pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."
So notice what the ESV is setting up marriage for.
Like, you know, you're looking to the Bible, and you're trying to figure out, okay, what
is marriage going to look like?
And I got my ESV, and I start in Genesis 1, and I'm reading along, and I get to Genesis
3, 16, and he's telling the woman, well, your desire is going to be contrary to your husband.
You're going to want to just do everything that he tells you not to do.
You're going to want to disobey him.
You're going to have the opposite opinion, but he's going to rule over you.
So that's what you are going to think about.
Marriage is this thing of, like, women are just kind of being oppressed, and they just
really want to do everything differently, but their husband's just kind of ruling over
them, or whatever.
You know, it's...
King James is saying, "Your desire is to your husband, and he'll rule over you."
You know, that sounds like a harmonious situation to me.
If I'm ruling over my wife, and she has desire for me, I think we're going to get along pretty
well.
Sounds great.
But how does this sound?
My wife's desire is contrary to me, but I'm ruling over her anyway.
That just doesn't paint a very beautiful picture of marriage, does it?
And you know what it does?
It ends up kind of giving a negative view of male authority and male leadership, instead
of being something beautiful or something that, you know, is necessary.
It just ends up being something oppressive by wording it.
And look, let's face it, it's the opposite of what the text used to say, right?
What did the Bible used to say?
The Bible used to say her desire was toward her husband.
Now their modern Bible is saying it's against her husband.
That's the opposite.
It's literally the opposite.
Here's the message.
He told the woman, "I'll multiply your pains in childbirth.
You'll give birth to your babies in pain.
You'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you."
So notice, it's like you'll want to please your husband, but then he'll just lord it
over you.
Now the husband's the bad guy in the message.
Instead of being a benevolent ruler that's leading for the benefit of the wife, benefit
of the children, benefit of the family, no, he's lording it over you.
So this is like a feminist interpretation of, oh well if my husband is the boss that means
he's lording it over me.
Right?
Well what does the Bible say?
Sarah called Abraham Lord.
So you know this is again going to affect the way that we think about marriage isn't
it?
Go to Hebrews 13 and I'm going to show you another way that the way we look at marriage
could be affected with these modern versions.
So don't tell me all these changes they don't really matter, they don't really affect anything.
Yeah they do, they're going to affect the way that you think about things, and you know
Genesis 3.16 is a pretty important verse that you know I like to talk about it a lot, I
don't know about you, but you know.
But it's a beautiful verse and then they turn it into something, they make it weird is what
they do.
Here's another beautiful verse, Hebrews chapter 13 verse 4 says, "Marriage is honorable in
all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."
And the idea here is that within marriage, that male-female relationship is beautiful.
The marriage bed is undefiled.
It's wonderful, it's clean, it's godly, it's righteous, but whoremongers and adulterers
God will judge.
That's talking about having that physical relationship outside of marriage.
That's something wicked, fornication, adultery, that's wicked, right?
But within marriage, it's honorable and the bed is undefiled, okay?
But listen to what the modern versions do, NIV, marriage should be honored by all and
the marriage bed kept pure, for god will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
And so notice the difference here, instead of marriage just being honorable and just being
undefiled, it's like, "Well, that's how it should be.
It should be that way.
It should be kept that way."
That's a big difference.
And let me tell you something, the King James is right, and the modern versions are wrong.
Even in this verse in particular, for those who want to geek out on this, I did one of
those whiteboard videos where I went to the Greek and went and explained all this, why
the modern versions are wrong, in Hebrews 13 verse 4.
It's easy to see what they're doing.
And look, there's an agenda behind these things.
And again, a lot of times it ends up being like a Catholic message that comes through.
Because do the Catholics believe that the marriage bed is undefiled and honorable and all?
No, that's not what the Catholics believe.
The Catholics believe that it's a sin for you to have sex with your own spouse, okay?
That's what they believe.
And I know that sounds crazy and hard to believe, but you know, you go into their actual doctorate,
that's why their priests are celibate.
That's why the Pope's got to be celibate, because that makes him more holy, makes him
super holy.
And you know, I've read all kinds of old Catholic literature from the Middle Ages where they're
talking about how like, oh, you know, it is a minor sin even within marriage, you know,
just because of the pleasure.
You know, you're not allowed to have that much fun, folks.
Having that much fun should be illegal, you know, according to the Catholics.
And not only that, but they will also many times teach, oh, well, it's only okay if,
you know, you're trying to get her pregnant.
So if she's pregnant, party's over, guys, for the next nine months.
That's not what the Bible teaches.
You know, the Bible teaches us to indulge in that activity within the bounds of marriage,
right?
He said, hey, to avoid fornication, you indulge in that activity within marriage.
But the Roman Catholics have this weird perverted view, like, oh, man, you know, even when you're
married, it's still a little nasty, or it's like, what the heck?
That's wrong, my friend.
Marriage is honorable in all.
The bed is undefiled.
But God looks down, and he sees the marriage and that act between a man and a woman as
something beautiful and righteous and clean.
You have to have some weird guilt about it and go beat yourself in a monastery because
you feel guilty about, you know, getting down with your own wife.
It's ridiculous.
It's wicked.
It's absurd.
And it ends up affecting how people think about these things.
There's no glory in being celibate.
Does it make you a better Christian?
No, look, some people are called to different lives and different plans that God has for
our lives.
And some people, they are going to be single, and they're going to live that single life
and do great works for God like an apostle Paul.
Amen.
But it doesn't make the one who gets married lesser than the one who doesn't get married.
And guess what?
Every bishop must be married according to the Bible.
It's a requirement.
And the Roman Catholics have unmarried bishops, unmarried priests, unmarried pope.
Why?
Because they have weird views about the bedroom.
That's why.
Because they have this weird hangup about it being sinful.
That's why they think they're better if they abstain and they're wrong.
Because marriage is honorable and whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing and obtaineth
favor from the Lord.
Right?
God looks down and He's saying, "Add a boy when you get married to a godly wife."
He's cheering you on for getting married.
He's cheering you on for having a good relationship with your wife, not like, "Well, I better
do it as little as possible just to stay super holy."
That's not what the Bible says.
Okay, but in these modern versions, you lose that aspect of it is undefiled, and it just
becomes like, "Well, it should be kept honorable and undefiled."
What the heck does that even mean?
We don't know.
Okay, how about the message?
Honor marriage and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband.
God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.
Here's the problem with that.
Like, no, the Bible doesn't say that he's against it being casual.
He's against it outside of marriage period.
I don't care how formal you are about it, or how serious you are about it, or how committed
you are, or how much you love each other, hey, it needs to be kept within marriage.
Okay?
And then he says illicit, well, illicit means illegal, okay, to quote our former pastor
friend.
He was never my friend, but he's a former pastor, I should say.
Illegal, okay, that's what illicit means.
And here's the thing about illicit, you know, I didn't know that the laws of the land are
what determine what's right and wrong, because guess what, it's totally legal in America to
commit fornication and adultery, but that doesn't make it right.
Right?
I don't care what's illicit, and I don't care if it's casual or there's a lot of pomp and
circumstance involved.
At the end of the day, whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge.
It's marriage that's honorable and all, and it's the bed that's undefiled.
It doesn't need to be cut, it just is undefiled, it just is honorable.
That's a good doctrine from the King James, amen?
Go to Acts chapter 18 if you would.
So obviously we could go on all night and I could just show you all the doctrinal differences
because here's the thing, pretty much any difference that you look at that's a significant
difference is going to end up affecting doctrine.
But now I want to kind of show you another phenomenon, and that is the fact that just
changing a word or two in the text can actually sometimes change an entire Bible story to
where the meaning of the Bible story is just totally different, it's just like a totally
different story.
Okay, so here's an example of that in Acts chapter 18, and I'm not sure if you're familiar
with this story, so I'm going to kind of just briefly give it to you, but this is a guy
named Apollos, right, and Apollos is a guy who's a very zealous follower of the Lord,
but he has not yet learned about Jesus, right, so he knows about the Old Testament, but he
was exposed to John the Baptist, he'd heard John the Baptist preach, but because he's
geographically outside of Judea, that's where his knowledge stops, he only knows up to the
baptism of John, and then Aquila and Priscilla, they have to explain to him about Jesus, okay,
so let's look at the story beginning verse 24, it says a certain Jew named Apollos, born
at Alexandria, right, that's in Egypt, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures
came to Ephesus, so this guy is a great speaker and he knows the Old Testament well.
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, right, so this guy knows his Old Testament
Bible, and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,
knowing only the baptism of John, and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue, whom when
Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them and expounded unto him the way
of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, Achaia is Greece, the
brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him, who when he was come, helped
them much which had believed through grace. And for he mightily convinced the Jews, and
that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. Okay, so here's the thing,
this guy's like an Old Testament guru, he knows the Old Testament real well, and he's
just a really good speaker. So Aquila and Priscilla, they hear this guy preaching, and
they're like, "Wow, this guy's awesome, but we need to tell this guy about Jesus. He only
knows up to the baptism of John. Now we need to tell him what comes after Jesus Christ,"
and so forth. And then once they do that, now all of a sudden he's saying what? "Jesus
is Christ." That becomes his message. That becomes Apollo's message. Before that he's
just kind of instructing people in the way of the Lord. Now what's his message? Now his
message is "Jesus is the Messiah." And he's got all these Old Testament proofs because
he knows all about the Old Testament so he's able to really hammer that home and be mightily
used by God. Okay, now let me show you what the modern versions do with this and just
by adding like one word they're going to change this entire story. You're like what? How can
they do that? Just by adding one word. Let's look at verse 25. I'm going to read for you
from the ESV while you're looking at the King James. He had been instructed in the way of
the Lord and being fervent in spirit he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning
Jesus though he knew only the baptism of John. Everybody see the difference? Now we have
Apollos already preaching about Jesus before Aquila and Priscilla even talked to him. That
changes the whole story because when you're reading in the King James basically he knows
all about the Lord because he's instructed in the Old Testament scriptures, he's from
Alexandria, he's from Egypt and he's been exposed to the word of God there and he's
zealous but he only knows up to the baptism of John and then he finds out about Jesus.
But in this version, notice now the whole dynamic of the whole story has changed because
now he's already teaching clearly things concerning Jesus though he knew only the baptism of John.
How does that work?
If he only knows the baptism of John how can he accurately teach all about Jesus if his
knowledge stops at the baptism of John?
This becomes confusing and it could also lead you to believe that maybe like I guess the
only thing this guy needed to learn about was just some little tweak on baptism then
basically what Aquila and Priscilla are just taking him aside and just giving him a tiny
tweak versus like actually telling this guy about Jesus.
There's a huge massive difference it just completely changes the whole story by adding
one word Jesus into that verse where it doesn't belong.
It's wrong it's false.
The NIV does the same thing.
He spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately.
Here's the message okay it's really important that we look at this respected version.
Act 1825 the message, Apollos was accurate in everything he taught about Jesus up to
a point.
But the only one as far as the baptism of John, he preached with power in the meeting
place when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and told him the rest
of the story.
You know it's just again this is not the same as the King James narrative it's just it just
totally changes the whole thing.
All right so let's look at Daniel chapter 2, Daniel chapter 2 but and the reason I illustrate
that to you is just to show you how adding a single word in the Greek text can just dramatically
change the whole meaning because now all of a sudden he already knew about Jesus.
Which the King James story there's no indication that he already knows about Jesus or that
Jesus is the Messiah or anything like that.
So let's look at Daniel chapter 2.
Now here's another story that you might be familiar with where Nebuchadnezzar has a dream
and he forgot the dream and so he wants all the Chaldeans and soothsayers to come in and
tell him what his dream was and the interpretation of the dream.
Now the reason that I figured out that this was different in modern versions I was talking
to a guy who was actually a guy who had been a Christian for many many years but he'd been
on the ESV for many years and he had just switched over to the King James and I said
to this guy something about oh yeah you know tell me the dream and the interpretation and
I made some analogy about like not remembering the dream and the guy's like what are you
talking about and I'm like well you know the Bible story and Daniel I'm like because I'm
like what the heck like you know the Bible why do I have to tell you like this basic
Bible story but the reason why is because in his version the story is just totally different
and just by changing again one word in the Hebrew just understanding one word differently
totally changes the dynamic of the whole story and I'm going to show you how that works let's
look at the story together now beginning verse number one and in the second year of the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams where with his spirit was troubled and asleep
break from him right that means he woke up like his sleep break from him like you you
know if you ever had a crazy dream and you kind of wake up and your heart's pounding
you're kind of sweating so his sleep break from him then the king commanded to call the
magicians and the astrologers and the sorcerers and the chaldeans for to show the king his
dreams so they came and stood before the king and the king said to them i've dreamed a dream
and my spirit was troubled to know the dream then spake the chaldeans to the king in syriac
also known as aramaic oh king live forever tell thy servants the dream and we will show
the interpretation by the way side note this is where the book of daniel starts to be written
in aramaic everything from daniel one one up to chapter two verse four is all written
in hebrew in verse four it shifts to aramaic and it stays in aramaic all the way until
the end of chapter seven so all the rest of chapter two three four five six seven is in
aramaic just not important but just wanted to tell you that because it's cool trivia
king answered and said to the caldeans verse five the thing is gone from me okay does everybody
understand so they're like well tell us the dream and we'll give you the interpretation
and he's like well the thing's gone from me and he says if you will not make known unto me the
dream with the interpretation thereof ye shall be cut in pieces and your houses shall be made at
dung hill but if you show the dream and the interpretation thereof you shall receive of me
gifts and rewards and great honor therefore show me the dream and the interpretation thereof they
answered again and said let the king tell his servants the dream and we will show the interpretation
of it king answered and said i know of a certainty that you would gain the time because you see the
thing that is gone from me what's he saying i can't tell you the dream because i don't know what the
dream is because i forgot now look i've woken up freaked out from a dream and my heart's pounding
and i don't even know what the dream even was like i don't even know why i'm upset right
everybody's done that you wake up and sometimes you feel a certain emotion but you don't remember
what the dream was i mean you forget immediately you forget instantly so he says you guys are
supposed to have all this supernatural power and psychic abilities and whatever you know you guys
need to tell me what did i dream and what is the interpretation and they're like what the heck like
tell us the dream and then we'll interpret it the thing's gone from me okay i forgot okay tell me
now and he says you guys are trying to gain time because you see that i forgot now let's see what
the esv does to this and see if it's the same so look at verse five if you would and i'm going to
read for you the esv you look down at verse five and the king james the king answered and said to
the chaldeans the word from me is firm so instead of the thing is gone from me it's the word from me
is firm if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation you shall be torn limb from
limb and your houses shall be laid in ruins look at verse eight the king answered and said i know
with certainty that you're trying to gain time because you see that the word from me is firm
now here's the thing that is a totally different meaning and it ends up changing the whole story
because now there is nothing in the text about him forgetting the dream so when you're reading
the esv there's not even an a hint or an inkling that he doesn't remember the dream it's just the
word from me is firm and then yeah he'd be withholding it from them which is stupid because
if the guy's really upset and he really wants to know the interpretation he wouldn't just play
this weird mind game of just well i'm just not going to tell you even though i know what it is
i'm not i really want to know bad but i'm just not going to tell you and in fact i'm just going to
kill everybody it's stupid it makes no sense but here's why else it's stupid it makes no sense
because if you look at verse 8 he says i know of a certainty that you would gain the time because
you see that the thing is gone from me so the idea here is that he's saying look i know what
your thing you know that i forgot the dream and if you guys can stall for a while you can just pull
out whatever and make up whatever and the further we get from the dream the less likely i'm going to
be to know whether you're telling me something accurate or not does everybody understand what
i'm saying i'm trying to make this as clear as i can but here's the thing if if i woke up from
my dream and don't remember what it was if somebody told me minutes or hours later here's what you
dreamed yeah that is what i dreamed but if it's like a week later it's just like who knows so then
it makes sense to say well you're trying to gain the time because you see that the thing is gone
from me come on king look we want to help you tell us the dream and we'll tell you the interpretation
the thing is gone from i don't know that makes sense here's what doesn't make sense the word
from me is firm i'm just not going to tell you tell me the dream and the interpretation or i just
kill everybody it's like no because if he's really upset because he is very upset he wouldn't just be
like well i'm going to play this weird game with you and and i'm just going to kill all the people
that could help me because i just want to ask them to do something that no king has ever asked anyone
to do but if he actually forgot the dream it's his only option is to get is to just really push them
you know you got to do this you know get you need to get satan on the phone and get him to help you
out here you know what i mean i thought you guys supposed to have a bad phone to satan what's up
and so here's the thing why would time be more helpful because the thing from his firm because
he says like i know from a certainty that you're trying to gain time because you see that the word
from me is firm here's the if the word from him is firm if they understand that the word is from
what gives more time than to do if somebody says this is my final answer the word for me is firm
i'm not going to change he wouldn't be like well since you know that i'm not going to change my
mind you're trying to stall for time uh why would time help if he's not going to change his mind no
matter what it doesn't make any sense but what does make sense is well you're trying to gain the time
because you see that i've forgotten the dream that's why you're trying to stall so that eventually
you can just you know pull out that actually makes sense the esv version makes no sense and again
this is an example how changing one word in the original language you know it ends up being a
couple words in our language but it's still just one little phrase that ends up just dramatically
changing the whole story so that when i could say to a fellow christian hey you remember where
nebuchadnezzar forgot the dream and they're just like huh what nebuchadnezzar forgot his dream what
are you talking about because it's not in their bible and here's the thing look we could go on
all night with these kind of examples okay doctrines that are affected stories that are
affected okay this is just the way this issue works my friend so do not buy into this thing of
oh well no doctrine is affected you know i mean we i mean come on we still can find out that
jesus died on the cross well here's the thing yeah okay but i want to know everything that the
bible has for me i don't want to just know that jesus died on the cross was buried in rose again
you know i also want to know how marriage is supposed to be i also want to know about
daniel and his interactions with nebuchadnezzar and i want to know about apollos and i want to know
everything that god wants me to know it's all important you know what about the fact that the
modern version will take out the word sodomite and replace it with male prostitute is that going to
affect doctrine because then it could be a situation of well the problem is that they're
selling it you know it's it's not that they're doing it is that they're selling it okay no or
what about changing hell into the grave is that going to affect doctrine because we all know that
hell is a place of fiery torment where people go after they die the grave is a place where you just
are in the ground and it's just where the carcass the body goes right hell is where the soul goes
okay and so again the examples abound differences affect doctrine and you know what's funny is
you'll hear people say sometimes oh well this church is totally doctrinally right and wonderful
it's just ah they don't use the king james that doesn't exist does not exist you show me a church
that is not using the king james and i will show you a church that is filled with doctrinal error
okay isn't it interesting that the doctrinally sound churches are using the king james
isn't it interesting that soul winning and evangelism powerhouses of america are all using the king james
isn't that interesting and you know what's funny also you know i've been doing a lot of missions
lately and i know a lot of you guys have done a lot of missions and things like that you know
what's interesting is that when you go to other parts of the world the king james is king the
king james dominates you know i've now i've never been to the philippines who's the philippines guy
here yeah i mean is the king james super prevalent in the philippines or is it just is just the niv esv
everywhere it's king james you know it's like you go to other countries you go to guayana you know
i've been to guayana i've been placed in the caribbean and it's just the king james is all
over the place now they get infected with modern versions too here and there but you know what
thank god that the for the fact that the king james is all over the world bearing fruit all over the
world and great works for god are being done in places like the philippines caribbean south
america you name it with the king james bible okay the thing dominates all over the world now
in the u.s does it dominate in the u.s well here's the thing about that is that you have all these
liberal fund center churches and you have a lot of even baptist churches and independent baptist
churches using wrong versions in the pulpit but yet when pew research did a poll of which bible
was the most read bible in america it's the king james it's the king james and so you'll see
statistics about the niv possibly outselling the king james in a particular year but it's it's not
out read because everybody gets their little precious moments little niv and it's like oh
this is my little three-year-old you know it's just like a little thing that goes on the shelf and it
gets enshrined little precious moments niv but when it comes to like actually waking up in the
morning and reading your bible q research which is not an independent fundamental baptist organization
you know they're just poll they're just a polling company they're saying that the bible that the
most americans are reaching for who actually give a rip what it says who actually wake up in the
morning and read it who even read it at least once a week or more it's king james king james rules
another thing is interesting is if you go on amazon and just search for bibles on amazon the
top results will be esvs but you know what they say they have this little word under them sponsored
sponsored esv you know sponsored but then you start going down to the best sellers
that aren't paying to be at the top and the best sellers on amazon or king james i went on amazon
search the best sellers are king james once you get through all the little sponsored you know
because of course they're pushing the modern versions right and i remember you know back in
the days of the christian bookstore which is kind of maybe an obsolete concept today but i remember
going to the christian bookstore and it was like front and center they're pushing the modern versions
hard all the time pushing it pushing it and the king james is kind of in this back court it's sort
of like you know samuel trying to anoint the next king of israel and they're parading all the sons
in front of you you know and you're like have you not a bible here besides and they're kind of like
well there is one other bible you know it's it's over here by the he's dealing with the sheep over
here and you know it's this hidden corner of the king james it's like you know we keep the good
stuff in the back you know it's like under the counter or whatever you know king james because
they're pushing the esv they're pushing the niv you know it's sort of like all the prophets of
bail like you know prophesying or or not the prophets of bail excuse me uh in the story of
micaiah the son of imla it's like all the fake prophets ahab's prophets and they're all prophesying
and everything it's like is there not a prophet of the lord besides that we can inquire of him
you know and they're like well we've got the new king james and it's like well is there not a
prophet besides well we got the king james but i hate it because it calls it said it told me
that i was a sodomite you know and you're like oh let not the let not the christian bookstore
worker say so you're not you're not even that faggity although you are a little bit effeminate
you know folks the devil has an agenda pushing these modern corruptions of god's word sowing
confusion so that he can ruin the doctrine let me ask you this has the doctrine in america
gotten better since these modern versions have started to take over or was the doctrine better
back when the king james was monolithic and ubiquitous right when the king james ruled
the doctrine was superior but the last point i want to make tonight is this doctrine is derived
from the word of god right how can you say oh the differences don't affect doctrine doctrine flows
from the word let me give you some verses on this uh titus 1 9 holding fast the faithful word as he
hath been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers if you're gonna teach sound doctrine you have to hold fast the faithful word right so it's
like holding fast the faithful word so that i'll be able to give sound doctrine why because sound
doctrine flows from the faithful word not the corrupted word not the kind of sort of close word
not the not what the new testament author said even if it were we wouldn't know it word but the
faithful word what does faithful mean trustworthy reliable look you know why i trust the king james
bible part of the reason is because it stood the test of time it's been the dominant bible for over
400 years and it's still awesome and it never is replaced even though everybody's trying to
replace it all the time it's like a rock it won't go away how much do you really trust
like the new version of the esv that just came out right like like think about it you're you know
you're going along with your little es or let's say you're going along with your little precious
moments niv you're like oh i got my niv you know 1984 1984 niv and all of a sudden the 2010 niv
comes out like do you just right away just trust it with its new gender neutral pronouns like are
you just gonna right away just be like yup trust it super a lot just everything you know it's like
what the heck it just came out it's brand new whereas like you can have a little more confidence
in something that's been around for over 400 years and listen it has not changed in the last
400 years don't listen to the retards who tell you that it has changed they're lying to you
and they're retarded into the bargain i'm telling you listen to me my friend the bible the king james
bible you can look at the replica it says the same thing they're like yeah but there's this one little
part where it's yeah i'm sure it says he or ye and literally if you read it with he or ye the meaning
of the sentence is identical it's like no difference in meaning in context draining in a gnat and
swallowing a camel is what they're doing right they strain in a gnat of this little well which
which king james is it hmm you know is it is it the 1611 is it the 1769 they're the same thing
these are just these weird little pedantic little splitting of hairs just doting about
questions and stripes of words just all this dumb little hair splitting you know rearranging of
decks deck chairs on the titanic type of stuff when in reality there's this colossal beam in
their eye they're trying to get this little moat out of your eye of just some meaningless
little spelling difference or something yeah the spellings have changed who cares read it out loud
and you won't know the difference and so don't don't buy into those well which textus receptus
which king james which hebrew text it's all this weird dumb pedantic stuff meanwhile they're just
taking like a chainsaw to the bible and just chopping out entire verses just make all these
dramatic changes and then they want to like argue about some tiny difference that doesn't affect
meaning and here's the thing if there's a difference because there's i want to make it
clear here when i say differences affect doctrine i'm talking about actual meaningful differences
i'm talking about actual meaning i'm not talking about like god versus lord it's like news flash
god and lord are the same thing and the same hebrew words and greek words will sometimes be
translated as god or lord in different situations just because they're interchangeable folks you
know it's like these people that are going to sit there and and enter with the they're going to try
to tell you that there's like a difference between you know the kingdom of god and the kingdom of
heaven are two different things so it's just kind of just yeah it's just kind of goofy splitting of
hairs and and pedantry and meanwhile they're trying to get you to swallow a camel they're
trying to get you to switch to a bible that is totally different and that is constantly changing
the esv in 2020 announced this is the final esv we're locking it in we're logging less than six
months later they're like let's revise it again they did it's true look it up they say we're done
it's locked in you know i promise i'm not going to move the football this time charlie brown
you know and then it's like what do they do you know lucy moves the football as soon as he goes
to kick it second timothy 315 from a child that was known the holy scriptures which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in christ jesus all scripture is given by
inspiration of god and is profitable for doctrine it's profitable for doctrine oh the differences
don't affect doctrine no my friend it's the scripture that gives us the doctrine it's holding
forth the faithful word that allows to be able to teach the doctrine we preach the word with all
long suffering and doctrine if thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things thou
shall be a good minister of jesus christ nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine the
word these are the words of good doctrine and you know the esv is the words of bad doctrine
the words of goofed-up doctrine till i come give attendance to reading to exhortation to doctrine
right these things are connected let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor
especially they who labor in the word and doctrine you know don't try to separate
doctrine from the word the word is where we derive doctrine if you change the word you change the
doctrine period and i've already illustrated that to you several times tonight let's bryan's and have
a word of prayer father we thank you so much for your word and we thank you for the wonderful
doctrines that flow from your word lord i pray that every person that's here would would understand
the seriousness of this issue and the damage that can be done when wrong bibles pervade our culture
and we have all these people reading all these verses about about salvation being difficult and
it's hard and and and and just all of these strange things that they're reading and and and
getting wrong ideas lord help us to realize how important it is that man live by every word of
god and not to just settle for something vaguely in the ballpark but rather that we would have an
every word bible and in jesus name we pray amen so we're doing a q a obviously with
pastor steven anderson and i have a whole bunch of questions here i do have some backup
questions as well in case we run out of these quickly we have pastor anderson on the hot seat
so let's begin the first question i have here asks this what do you say to people who ask you about
the origins of the bible from before jerome so i guess before the latin latin vulgate well i mean
everything about the origin of the bible happened before jerome because i'm just going to explain
who jerome is jerome is the guy who in the late fourth century after christ so the late 300s
lived in bethlehem and kind of immersed himself with the jews and their language so that he could
translate the bible into latin there were already lots of latin translations of the bible floating
around but uh they wanted to have one definitive latin translation and so he translated the old
testament from hebrew into latin obviously the greek new testament and that's what's known as
the vulgate which is the official bible of the roman catholic church but as far as the origins
of the bible i mean that's that's such a big question that would take hours to explain obviously
you know the hebrew bible and the greek new testament and all the origins but it all happened
hundreds of years before jerome so it maybe the question is implying that someone's acting like
hey we didn't really have the bible until jerome came along well yeah we did because we had it in
greek we had it in hebrew and there were even lots of latin bibles floating around before jerome
it was just uh they just made a better translation with jerome all right we have
another question here is it true that the translators didn't translate from the manuscripts
how many manuscripts did they have to translate yeah so that it is 100 true that they did not
translate from manuscripts because the definition of the word manuscript is a handwritten copy of
something right you think about the spanish word mano is hand or doing something manually is to do
it by hand so a manuscript is written by hand and so the king james bible translators when
they're translating the old testament had the 1525 bomburg rabbinic hebrew old testament in front of
them which is a four volume set it's four books and that was their old testament a printed hebrew
bible and then for the new testament they had printed greek new testaments from biza and
stefanus and erasmus so they did not have manuscripts they were not looking at manuscripts
the people who made those printed books they're the ones who looked at manuscripts and we don't
know exactly how many manuscripts they looked at but obviously at the end of the day we believe
it's the providence of god that god knew that this is like a time in history where the printing
press is being invented and it's time for the word of god to be locked in translated into the
languages of europe and going forth to all the world and so he worked it out perfectly with the
jews being expelled from spain in 1492 and with the fall of constantinople in 1453 so basically
you have all the jews fleeing spain and they've got all their hebrew bibles and their hebrew knowledge
coming into england and then you also have greeks fleeing constantinople in 1453 coming into italy
filtering into the rest of europe and so greek and hebrew all the tools all the manuscripts
come together king james comes to the throne you got 54 of these brilliant scholars they're willing
to put the time money and energy into producing the greatest bible translation of all time in
any language the king james bible and so it all kind of came together that you had these wonderful
printed hebrew edition you know from bonberg and the greek of biza and boom so no they did not have
handwritten manuscripts and so they were doing printed editions i want to follow up when you
say that they used erasmus because you bring up erasmus stefanus biza yeah but when you bring up
the erasmus's edition of the textus receptus you're not referring to the first edition that
came out in 1516 it would be a later edition that would have been very obsolete by 1611 and that's
why the opponents of the king james or king james onlyism they really want to focus in on that 1516
erasmus which because it was obviously you know the first draft so it's going to have issues and
problems and you know they say oh it was it was hastily done or you know james why loves to say
it was you know he likes to do that quote that he repeats like every single time he talks it was
rather precipitated than published you know yeah yeah i don't cross i'm not going to cross my legs
like a girl i'm sorry but but the point is that you know that's not relevant because 1516 is not
1611 it's almost a hundred years so the greek text of erasmus was a start that was getting
them to first base but then you know you have almost a hundred years of refining where stefanus
comes along and biza comes along and they're refining it dialing it in and so forth does that
make sense yeah and um you said it all i don't have anything to say all right moving on this is
not relevant what's your this is not relevant either all right here we go what's your sign
what that's not relevant okay this is an interesting question here why are my favorite
song is all the way my savior leads me not not relevant not relevant exactly why are reformed
calvinists so hostile towards the king james version example and you already brought him up
james white well here's the thing you know reformed calvinists they they really love to sort of geek out
on scholarship and academics and theology and stuff like that and so they like to geek out on the
original languages and so if you're just going to say well the king james is all we need we've
already got in english we don't need greek we don't need hebrew they kind of really want to geek out
on the original languages and so they don't like that answer now here's the thing i can sympathize
with that because i really like to geek out on the original languages too but at the same time i'm
just you know doing it for fun it's interesting i love it it's beautiful it's beautiful reading
the bible in its original language but like i'm not gonna lie to you and say oh hey i have some
special knowledge from reading it in the original i'm going to tell you the truth that if you read
it in english it says the same thing and you got everything you need in the king james bible now
here's the thing though it doesn't really make sense for the reformed calvinist types to be
negative about the king james because of the fact that all of their heroes all of their puritan and
protestant and reformation heroes they were all using this text or you know whatever the
dutch equivalent or german equivalent they you know should be excited about like the king james
because all their puritan heroes are doing a king james they're not doing the modern versions
and so now over the last like 10 years or so you are starting to see a big movement among
presbyterians and reformed baptists that are actually getting back to the traditional text
of scripture and i and i know that my interview with james white and maybe to a lesser extent
new world order bible versions did play a role in that because i've had presbyterian and reformed
baptist pastors tell me you know hey i'm received text now i'm preaching the king james now because
i saw that interview with you and james white and you were sounding more like the westminster
confession of faith you were sounding more like the london baptist confession than than our supposed
calvinist guy himself so so hopefully more of them will come around you know hopefully they'll stop
being a calvinist too but hey but hey we'll take what we can get right yeah no there's definitely a
contingent of reformed people who believe in king james oh i mean they wouldn't yeah they
wouldn't call they say they would say confessional bibliology which i which i think that you know
what what their confession of faith says about the word of god is is spot on dead on and so i think
confessional bibliology is a great movement i know all right was was joel lamp saved there's no way
that guy saved that guy was so goofed up it's not even funny but he was great in the movie we made
him look awesome in the movie but like but then talking to him afterward he had some weird ideas
did you talk to him too yeah you agree with me yeah and for those who don't know that was the
bible guy in new world order bible versions and the preserved bible he was i can quote some of
the movie to help people let's just call erasmus what he is the smartest man who ever lived you
know outside of deity factor you know king solomon was pretty smart too but you know
erasmus is the smartest man who ever lived all right just to help people get context
i can recite the whole film no i'm just kidding there were some things we didn't put in the
preserved bible that he said yeah all right up next what are your thoughts on translating
kjv to a foreign language if it should be translated from greek slash hebrew it should be done as
how kjv was translated should it be king james or back to the original language yeah so here's
the thing i believe that ideally it should be translated from the original languages and cut
out the king james as a middle man you should go straight from the greek and hebrew into the
target language and you know i there are a lot of examples i could give but in a lot of ways for
example spanish is closer to greek you know than english is to greek or than english is to spanish
like like spanish and greek are are not really that different in a lot of ways and so it would
make way more sense just go directly from greek into spanish you're going to get a better product
you're going to get a better translation but that being said if there's a language out there that
has no bible there is nothing wrong with just translating the king james into that language
to get him a bible you know get him going get him a bible there's nothing wrong with that at all
but obviously if you have the resources and the ability to to get a more serious translation
you know obviously in a perfect world you're going to go back to the original languages
so you know it doesn't make any sense if if there are languages out there that already have a
good version that's from the original languages and then you're going to translate the king james
you're probably going to produce an inferior product than what to what they already have
so let's go to one that was online here uh this question is what are some of the most interesting
facts about how the books of the bible were compiled and translated or about the people who
did it okay so we're just looking for interesting facts and trivia about i mean well uh we've got
lancelot andrews in the back of the auditorium tonight and uh lancelot andrews speaks 15 modern
languages and six archaic languages so you know one of the king james translators lancelot andrews
spoke 21 languages he would go visit his parents once a year and he would just uh delve into a new
language every year and just immerse himself and learn it while he was spending time with his
parents and so he was an extremely brilliant scholar and then um as far as how the the books
were compiled and things you know i'll just say something about this that you know a lot of
people will come at you with like oh the catholics are the ones who told us which books are in the
bible you wouldn't even have the bible if the catholic church hadn't given it to you who's ever
heard that jazz before here's what here's what's so dumb about that what they're what they're talking
about they're not talking about the canon of the old testament because the canon of the old testament
was determined by the jews because the roman catholics have a different canon for the old
testament they have all these dumb apocryphal books in there and i'm going to preach about those on
saturday like half half my sermon on saturday is about the apocrypha but here's the thing is that
they supposedly determined the canon for the new testament but here's my question is if we needed
them to tell us which books are in the new testament canon then show me the runner-up show
me the book that almost made it in but didn't because what you'll find is that every book that
was left out of the new testament is total crap okay and then what you'll find is that all 27
books that are in the new testament are all awesome so did we really need them to tell us that if you
have 27 books of pure awesomeness and nothing else that's even it's not like there's like some
fifth gospel that was pretty cool and just didn't quite make it in it's there's nothing even close
there's matthew mark luke and john that's it there's nothing else even close so it's like wow we really
needed them to tell us that you know it'd be like this is a really crude analogy but it'd be like
somebody having to tell you hey space balls is not really part of the star wars trilogy you know what
i mean i'm sorry i apologize for that analogy but i grew up in the 80s and you know sorry sorry about
that now you get it okay but you see what i'm saying you don't know what i'm talking about who
knows what i'm talking about okay all right it'd be it's just like it's just something so absurd like
like how absurd it would be the other books that are left out and you know it's so funny to listen
to catholics argue for because it is so far it's it's it's just wow bible's awesome on every page
amen this person asks is there anything you can understand about the bible that you can get from
knowing hebrew or greek and not just english such as chapters that start with the hebrew letters or
poetry examples etc so here's here's the thing the stuff that you can get from reading the bible
in the original hebrew and greek is more like fun stuff and like trivia stuff but it's nothing
doctrinal so like when you're reading it in english you get all the doctrine you get all
the teaching you get everything that you need for faith and godliness and living for god so all the
stuff is just little fun stuff like hey every you know verse in this chapter starts with a different
letter of the hebrew alphabet so it makes a little crostic poem i mean it's kind of fun it's
interesting but did you really like need to know that to understand the chapter no you didn't right
and then there are also in the hebrew especially there are a lot of little plays on words there's
a lot of word play that's fun if you're reading in hebrew like oh that's really cool that's really fun
you know like i'll just give you a couple quick examples if you want like at the end of genesis
chapter two it says the man and his wife they're both naked and they're not ashamed and it uses
a word for naked that's not necessarily the most common word for naked and then the very
next verse says the serpent is more subtle than all the beasts of the field because the word for
naked and subtle it's just a play on words though there's there's no meaning that you should read
into that or something it's more just word play that the hebrew bible does a lot where it'll play
with different definitions of the same word and use the same word in different ways in the same
verse or something so it's more just kind of like oh that's cool it's more just like something fun
to bring up at a party but it's not going to affect your meaning of scripture okay it's it's
not the kind of party you know that maybe you go to that people talk about stuff like that but anyway
yeah i was wondering what party you were referring to but when i say party when i say party i'm
talking about like getting together with a couple of really geeked out baptists and presbyterians
and like talking about language studies i'm a 24-hour party person sure everything's a party
yeah exactly right you've said that before i mean i think that if you know the the original
language is really well it equips you though to defend the king james bible in a special way
perhaps that perhaps you couldn't do yeah i feel like you know you need you need a few guys on our
side who know about this kind of stuff to be able to defend and promote the king james so that basically
all the greek and hebrew knowledge isn't on the enemy side want to have a few guys on our side who
can go you know toe to toe with these people and take them to task and expose a lot of the fraud
that they try to perpetrate so you know you need a couple people in every generation but i'm not one
of these that thinks like oh every pastor needs this every pastor needs to be reading hebrew or
something i mean i definitely think if you have the ability and the aptitude and the wherewithal as
a pastor i do think it's very helpful but it's not necessary i want to ask a question um there's
obviously areas in our king james bible that are under attack because we're talking about defending
it using the original languages you have the real ending of mark is what i like to call it you have
the woman taken in adultery you have first john five seven these scriptures i'm curious if you
think there's going to be a lot more places like those passages that are going to end up being
under attack in the future and here's why i ask this as you know the modern scholars of our day
have come up with a new form of text criticism the coherence based genealogical method and they've
only applied it to cbgm cbgm they've only applied it in james through jude i believe in any in the
28th edition of nestle allen's greek new testament well na 29 is coming out they're going to apply it
to the gospels do you anticipate there will be many more passages of scripture under attack when
that greek new testament comes out i mean here's the thing and you know they're not going to fully
implement cbgm until like the 32nd edition have they implemented it for the whole thing
and yeah there are going to be uh changes every single time they're and they're going to be
sometimes dramatic changes to a verse or a word or a phrase and like i showed tonight even just
changing one word can change the whole story in a sense but as far as like are new passages going
to come up like big chunks like that that they that they want to remove i don't not as a uh as
a result of cbgm or anything like that i mean who knows what they're going to do right because these
people who knows what they're going to dig up in the desert and come at us with or something
you know obviously if they found some super old greek manuscript that's like the oldest that
they've ever found and it leaves out something then that could be the new woman taking an adultery
story you know in that sense so i think you know james white said it best when he said that every
verse in the new testament is up for grabs because dr jeff riddle asked him and pinned him down and
said is there any verse in the new testament where you would not change your opinion on it
no matter what is discovered or no matter what and he said no he's willing to change any verse in the
new testament if new evidence surfaces so every verse is up for grabs jesus wept is up for grabs
john you know john 3 16 is up for grabs but but but here's here's what i would say just on a side
point woman taken in adultery is one of the most popular passages in the in the new testament
first john 5 7 is an extremely popular verse mark 16 15 is extremely popular verse okay here's my
question if these verses aren't authentic then why do saved spirit-filled christians love them so much
do they just love fake verses or how about this one father forgive them for they know not what
they do you know the modern version crowd doesn't think that's authentic james white doesn't think
that's authentic okay father forgive them they know not what they do is that not one of the most
beloved phrases in the bible then ask yourself this question why would spirit-filled christians
just love fake verses so much doesn't it make more sense that they love it because it's the word of
god and their spirit speaks to them through the holy spirit that hey this is the word of god
and so that's why we love the woman taking an adultery we love the the real ending of mark as
you call it something called the long ending of mark we love first john five seven because we got
the holy spirit and we know the voice of the shepherd that's why we love it what a foolish
thing to think oh christians just love all this fake scripture it's their favorite it's like what
the heck how does that even work because whenever i hear fake scriptures like book of mormon stuff or
quran stuff i'm like what the heck right yeah and you know when people come at us and say that
shouldn't be in your bible i think it's a perfectly legitimate answer to respond and say well the holy
spirit bears witness to me that this is the word of god period yeah it's the bible is self-authenticating
and that is and by the way that's why these calvinist reform types in their confession of
faith in chapter one it says in section five that the bible is self-authenticating and we don't
believe in it because of science history archaeology we believe in it because of the power of god's
word and the holy spirit bearing witness that it's the word of god and that's what i said in that
interview and that resonated with them because that's what they're supposed to believe according
to their own document you know that's not our document but it's their document and that's what
it says and it's right the bible is self-authenticating and interesting they can't they they can't even
process that like well that's just subjective so everything's just based on your opinion or
whatever but they don't understand no it's it's it's you know it's it's it's a spirit thing you
wouldn't get it you know it's like you got to have the holy spirit no not you i mean i'm saying
that's what i would say to them you would get it of course yeah yeah they'll say oh it's circular
reasoning you know uh the bible proves the bible yeah amen the bible proves the bible because the
bible is the final authority you know god is kind of god because he's god i am that i am you know
is that circular the you know the the idea is that basically we know that the word of god is the word
of god because it's awesome if the creator of the universe writes a book it better be awesome and if
it's not awesome it wasn't written by god that's how we know the quran's not written by god that's
how we know the book of mormon's not written by god because it just and they're just like well here
you just decide what's awesome or whatever it's like well you know i'm sorry if you can't tell the
difference between the diamond and the cubic zirconium if you can't tell the difference
between the the literal palm tree and the cell phone tower that is made to look like a palm tree
then i'm sorry i don't know what to tell you i guess it's just subjective that i think that
the palm tree is better yeah and the sheep hear the shepherd's voice i think butter is better than
margarine is that subjective is that circular all right let's go to another question this person
asks how will science and slash or technology attack the authenticity of the king james bible
well i think that people will go to ai and say hey is this verse authentic no it is not you know and
the thing about that is that you know the ai is just going to do whatever it's programmed to do
and you know what's funny is when i get on when i get on grok which is the ai that i use
i go on grok and i'll be on there and i talked to grok for a while and grok is just tracking
with me grok sounds like a fundamental baptist by the time i'm done with it but then i guarantee
you there's some weird gross liberal on there like and it's just like oh yeah you go girl and
whatever it's just like affirming them so ai tends to just kind of affirm whoever is feeding
it information but then also what you'll notice is that sometimes you'll tell grok to do something
it's just like i'm sorry this goes against my program he's too hateful or whatever you know and
so the point is i think that you know a lot of people will just say oh well ai is totally
unbiased and totally impartial and it says king james only is wrong you know i could see that kind
of a you know but you know i may trust this holy spirit over skynet you know i'm sorry okay this
person asks if someone wants to learn languages would it be a good idea to learn spanish and greek
at the same time before learning biblical hebrew i would like to learn greek spanish and hebrew
yeah i mean you know i don't know that necessarily you have to do it in a certain order i do think
that like learning spanish and greek are definitely going to complement one another in the sense that
they're similar they're related they have a lot of the same grammatical structures in fact i
always do this experiment whenever someone doesn't speak spanish i play for them an excerpt of modern
greek audio and i say what language is this and they always say that's spanish because it kind
of just has a similar cadence and sounds say a lot of the grammar is the same but as far as what
order to do it in some people like to only study one language at a time other people like to have
a couple languages going me personally what i like to do is i like to have one language that's my
primary language that i'm working on but i always like to have a backup language because sometimes
i'm just burned out on my main language then i'll kind of have a backup that i'm doing on the back
burner so maybe i'll spend several hours a day on one and then just you know 10 15 minutes 20
minutes on the other just to kind of break things up a little but you know i think a lot of people
think that learning hebrew is way harder than learning greek but it really isn't like i kind
of thought that for a while but i find that learning hebrew and learning greek are a similar
level of difficulty you know like the greek alphabet you can learn in like a couple hours
the hebrew alphabet you know it may take you like a week to really get good at it
so the alphabet's a lot harder but as far as the language the thing that makes greek easier is
because greek is european so greek is more similar to english yeah hebrew is semitic so it's just
totally different language but i think just objectively like hebrew is a little bit simpler
and easier than greek so if you were coming from chinese i feel like hebrew would be easier you
know because just objectively but because we're europeans maybe we like greek more because we're
european yeah i don't know learn them in whatever order you want folks you know or don't learn them
at all and probably learning spanish is probably the most important of those three so not for the
bible but just for life definitely uh soul-winning opportunities in spanish as well speaking did you
want to say something no speaking of hebrew this question is asking about it it says woe one to the
idol shepherd in zechariah 11 17 why do the modern versions change it to quote unquote idol
what sayeth the hebrew this person is asking and that's a yeah if we have to research i don't want
to just right shoot from the hip on that so just give me it give me it so i can put in my pocket
and put in your pocket and you can address it at a later date yeah exactly so these people trying to
stump you apparently yeah frankly i think it's rude but that's okay no no no it's just kidding
um i have i have a question for you we'll get to these here but and i'm not interesting i just want
to make sure everybody knows i've never claimed to be some kind of a greek expert or hebrew expert
or anything like that i've never put on airs like that you know it's just what it is is that basically
i can actually read the thing and have read the thing whereas a lot of these so-called experts and
scholars you know they know sometimes even less than i do and it's embarrassing you know i've read
i've read the greek new testament 11 times i've read the old testament cover to cover and the
septuagint but you know i still feel like i would call myself like intermediate you know but these
people are calling themselves experts and scholars and have literally not even read these things
cover to cover have not read the illiot and the odyssey or anything like that and then they are
working on these translation committees literally okay whereas i'll guarantee you that every single
greek translator of the new testament in the king james version had read the illiad the
odyssey had read greek literature you know was able to read it fluently okay and the level of
scholarship on the king james is way higher than today but then these guys today they have a couple
semesters of greek a couple semesters of hebrew and they're like oh unfortunately the king james
translators got this wrong you know these 54 geniuses who've read the whole thing cover to
cover and read homer and they've read hessied and they've read the tragedians and you know
but but i you know daniel wallace told me that you know they got it wrong here and so you know
we know so much more now baloney yeah and isn't it true that dan wallace isn't even a believer
he doesn't believe in god he's like an agnostic or something i thought he's i thought he's some
kind of evangelical evangelical okay yeah but but i mean bro is definitely agnostic when it comes to
the text of scripture if he says we don't know what the new testament authors wrote and even
if we have it he said it's not in any version exactly what they wrote and even if we did have
it we wouldn't know it he wouldn't know it if it bit him on the back side apparently so so i want
to ask something and you you're probably not going to like the question and uh frankly speaking i don't
think anybody in the room even cares but i want to ask it i want to ask it because it leads to
another question that's a lot more exciting but this is my question for you as a greek as a greek
speaker and reader you understand that there are some very minor differences between the different
editions of the received text yeah stefanus visa right and so critical text advocates as you
mentioned in your sermon will come up to you and or online i'll ask this question well which tr so
i'm going to ask you the question now which tr scrivener 1894 done so that leads me to this
question and the thing about that is that you know what what they're talking about most of the time
is mainly just minutiae and again talking about erasmus first edition is silly and irrelevant we
want to talk about the last edition of erasmus the last edition of staphonis the last edition
of visa that's the stuff that matters you know the final product not because obviously human beings
are constantly going to have you know typos and and just you know there's going to be human error
involved and so you know act like there's all these different texts no there's one textus
receptus it's just different editions of it and just you know dialing it in and stuff but it's
again that's this kind of minutiae does irritate me and you know you're making me mad no i'm just
kidding no but but as far as the one the one that is that puts it all together is the greek new
testament that i read from which is the scrivener and and they'll lie about the scrivener and say
oh it's back translated from the king james that is a lie and a fraud all it is is it's a visa
Greek New Testament and then just every time the King James translators went with Stefanus instead
then you know it changes it to that so just it's just basically like mixing Stefanus and Biza
basically. But the reason I ask that is because and I'm gonna turn the heat up a little bit here
there was a not on you there there was a uh there was someone else who in there was there was a
not sure I didn't get it but it's okay there was a preacher in Florida who in his hand lifted up
what represented the 1894 Scrivener and he claimed that it was actually a corruption of God's word
because it does not word for word match the King James Bible. Did he throw it on the ground and say
it was a piece of junk? I was going to say throw it on the through it on the ground calling it a
piece of junk. Okay your reaction. Just give me one hint was this the guy who said one line in a city lost?
Okay all right. I mean it's just blasphemous and stupid to say like this piece of junk or whatever
when it's literally the perfect word of God that he's holding in his hand. The Greek New Testament
underlying the King James Version is a piece of junk. If that Greek is a piece of junk then how
could the King James be perfect when it's translated from that Greek? But he expects the English
to be word for word like literally the same as the Greek when that's not how languages work.
You know you have to word things differently when you take things from one language to another.
And the funny thing about that is that I debunked him hard. Okay and I don't know if you guys have
seen that video where I pull out the replica of the King James and show where they put in the
column that they did not translate it literally and they say this is what it literally says and
this is what we translated it and it's in the column of the replica where they're admitting
that they're not doing it word for word but but when he comes to those places he's just like oh
it's not word for word well you got the wrong Greek then it's like well no because the King James
translators are showing that and he even used he used such a dumb example too he said oh for example
you know if you have the word casa you know because he was talking about Romanian but it's the same in
Spanish right casa everybody knows what casa means okay so uh you know muy bien you know no I'm just
kidding so I'm doing but Pastor Mejia always makes fun of me that I have a horrible uh Spanish accent
but I think my accent's okay personally but anyway you know the word casa he said you know that means
when you translate the word casa it's going to be house it's not going to be home it's not going to
be abode it's not going to be domicile it better be house casa should be house that's that's how the
king james translates things and of course this is total baloney because if we literally take the
word house which is bite okay and then if you put it with another word it becomes bait like
bethlehem bethlehem or betel you know beth you know bethel house of god house of bread
and so forth here's the thing you can buy there's a place in psalms where it says like the bite
the house of the spider but then in the king james it translates it the web of the spider
so is the king james being like super literal castles gotta be house no but we all know that
the house of the spider is the spider's web and so it can't it comes out more beautiful and poetic
as spider's web you know another example is like in lamentations it talked about like the um the
the sons of his quiver were against me and in the king james says the arrows of his quiver
because you know otherwise if you're reading this in english if it just went word for word you'd be
really confused reading the bible because you'd be like the sons of his quiver like what that you
know you might not understand that idiom so for him to say oh you know casa is house it's like
well no because if you look up how the king james takes the hebrew word for house bite it is going
to be home house even web if it's talking about a spider you know it could be it could be all kinds
of things yeah by asking those two questions i'm just basically just trying to hammer home this idea
because of the fact that i ask you which tr you say the scrivener so that just shows you the high
regard that we as king james onlyists have for that edition of the text but i would but i also
have a 1550 stefanus greek new testament i would i would carry that and read that and not even
bat and i did to carry that around and use that as my bible read that it's just like
but this is minutiae no that's absurd the thing is though because when we talk about which tr we're
trying to uphold the doctrine of preservation and say this one was perfectly preserved word perfect
there may be critical text advocates who listen to us use the doctrine of preservation to defend
king james onlyism and they may come at us with this question why limit preservation to one textual
stream why can't it be the preponderance of manuscripts why can't it be the byzantine
manuscripts the alexandrian manuscripts the critical text god preserved his word by allowing
us to have all these different versions and so why not all of them all of it is kind of we device
it's in there somewhere basically yeah like you know why why not all of them can't we all get
along you know well you know the king james bible says we are not as many which corrupt the word of
god and so there is corruption of the word of god out there and even even the people who are kind
of you know thinking that all versions are fine and hey the niv is fine the esv is fine they would
be horrified by the new world translation so they all draw the line somewhere because at the new
world translation they'd be like whoa this is a corruption of god's word well we're just we just
we're just drawing the line in a different place right all right let's go to another question here
that was just handed to me what doctrine is affected by removing the part about the woman
con and adultery in john chapter eight and if you don't mind i'd like to flex for a moment here
the fancy theologians refer to this of course as the pericope adultery very good go ahead excellent
what doctrine is affected yes i mean i don't know if i really have a great answer to that off the top
of my head um obviously there's i mean there's a lot you can learn from the story just about like
forgiveness christ is forgiving a giant sin say that a particular doctrine is you know
that does violence to a certain doctrine i think you're just missing out on a beautiful story that
god has for us and whatever i mean basically just whatever you could learn from that story is now
gone whatever you know i'm not gonna sit here and expound that story right now i've done entire
sermons on that story you go on our website woman taking an adultery i've done a whole sermons on
it you know and it's you know for the forgiveness and you know i mean you name it whatever whatever
you get out of that story is now gone because the story's gone this person asks help explain
not given too much wine in the kjv and how people use that verse to say drinking in moderation for
deacons is okay yeah that's not really king james yeah i mean you you could argue maybe it's like a
king james rendering but we'll move on yeah it's something that's i'm pretty sure it's same in all
the version i think as far as i know yeah so we'll move on from that one not a bad question but
it's not this person asks what do you think about the modern versions john 118 and the esv yeah so
this is where they say uh we've only begotten god instead of only begotten son so the the reason
that they do that is because textual critics they do this thing called the lectio difficile or
okay and that's the more difficult reading so what happens is when they have two greek manuscripts
and they're not sure which one's right the one that's weird and doesn't make sense is the more
difficult reading so they say well this must be the real one right and here's their logic their
their logic is well who would change it to this it's so weird and stupid no one would change it
to this but if somebody came to this weird reading they'd be likely to be like whoa this doesn't seem
right i'm going to change it to something normal so that that this is their logic is that the weirder
more difficult reading is the right reading and the one that seems to harmonize and smooth it out and
make it flow better is the wrong way but but and obviously there could be some truth to this logic
when it comes to like secular literature and stuff but but but the problem with this is that what they
don't understand is that someone just screwed up because they were just being sloppy and so some
scribe somewhere was saying you know the only begotten god which is in the bosom of the father
because he's just drunk or something because you know these monks they're drinking beer all day in
the monastery and copy in the bible and bro was drunk and wrote god instead of son and they're
like whoa it's a more difficult reading it must be right that's why you get these kind of goofy
things you know sol was one year old when he began to reign i mean that's definitely a more
difficult reading they like the difficult reading and then these oh and by the way these are the
same people to tell you that king james too hard for you but the point is that they they prefer the
more difficult reading that's why you get that stupid the only begotten god which is in the bosom
of father when it should be the only begotten son but they love that difficult reading the one that
makes you cringe that must be authentic it's you know and uh only begotten son is the majority
reading correct isn't that what the majority of greek manuscripts would say i would say so yeah
this is a good question here um when you're out basically the question is this when you're out
soul winning and you want to teach somebody who just got saved or just anybody that you meet out
there about king james onlyism yeah like as you said on the baptist bias back of a postage stamp
how do you explain this doctrine if you think about we all do this all the time because we're
all winning people to christ all the time and a lot of times after we win people to christ in fact in
the basic soul winning demonstration video that we've had online for the last almost 20 years or
whatever at the end of the 10 minutes i think at the end i'm like hey do you have a bible and then
the video cuts off because it was like a 10 minute limit on youtube i think i'm like hey
do you have a bible because we often ask people do you have a bible because we want to lead them to
their next step of christian growth reading the bible and i always just ask them hey does your
bible say thee and thou because if it says thee and thou 99 percent of the time it's a king james
so i'll say like hey do you have a bible that says thee or thou or is jesus like hey what's
up homie and then they're like if they say like oh it's one of the thee and the thou i'm like okay
that's the right one and usually the only thing i will say to them is yeah it's important to stick
to the king james because of the fact that the new versions make a lot of changes to the bible
to make it more politically correct and they they soften the message so you just want to make sure
that you have the you know the old school king james that's all i say i just spend 20 seconds on
it because i'm just not really there to get into a big like dissertation on it and our even our
invite to church that we hand out our soul winning it lists the problems with the modern versions in
the invite to our church so i'm leaving them with that tell them to read with the these and the
vows i don't give a big you know scholarly explanation to them or preach a sermon to them
i'm just like hey stick to the old one the new one stinks use the old one and they're just like okay
and we're just like cool man they're just like okay yeah someone's asking essentially a similar
question but about the spanish okay bible and sort of how you might explain that to someone who
doesn't see a big deal with you know the 1960 versus the with 2010 well i'll probably leave
that here because that's what he's preaching on tomorrow night he's going to cover that
and and and the thing is you know i i you know i like the reign of lara gomez 2010 but i also
like the 1602 reign of lara you know the 1602 reign of lara is a great bible as well so you know
we accept both of those at our church the the the original old like reformation era bible from the
king james era and even the you know the more modern reign of lara gomez because they're you
know they're both received texts you know good bibles lining up with the king james etc so i
mean the 1960 if i wanted to prove to somebody that there's something wrong with the 1960 i would
just show them some of the discrepancies and deviations where it's dramatically different
from the king james this person asks is there validity to older bibles like the geneva or
older bibles that predate the king james uh so you know essentially the received text here's the
thing all the bible all the bibles leading up to the james are good except for the geneva bible
the geneva bible is the worst one even though it's not near as bad as the modern versions or
anything like that it is the lowest quality translation that in my opinion so you know the
like the best bible before the king james the bishop's bible and the bishop's bible is pretty
much right on bishop's bible is an awesome bible the reason why king james wanted to change the
bishop's bible is not because it was wrong or an error that it was a bad translation it was actually
translated by a whole bunch of really good scholars it was a wonderful translation that a
whole bunch of really smart i forget how many people are involved but it was like i feel like
it was almost like 20 people translating it so it was like it wasn't quite as many as the king james
of 54 but it was a lot of people working on it that were super smart scholars the bishop's bible
is awesome the problem with the bishop's bible was a style problem so it wasn't the the content
it was that the style was kind of like not that beautiful yeah just the way things are worked so
basically like you could get all the same doctrine and all the same preaching out of it but it just
it just wasn't as beautiful the king james is not only accurate it's also beautiful that's kind of
the difference between the king james and remember we read the rules from the translators tonight the
first three one of them was you start with the bishop's bible and you only change it if there's
something wrong with it you don't just change it for the sake of changing it because it was already
an awesome bible people are all like geeking out on the geneva bible now it's like a little trendy
like oh geneva bible so cool it's because they're just like instead of just being king james it's
like oh geneva oh it's exotic you know they get all they get all yeah they get all excited about
the geneva the geneva bible was out of print until recently how about that it was a totally
out of print you couldn't even buy it until recently because nobody cared because the king
james 100 superseded the geneva bible to the point where it was out of print for a long time
people are starting to print it again now like kurt cameron or something you know oh man now i
just thought about that fireproof movie and i'm just like oh man darn that kurt cameron
and then kurt cameras promoting this new weird jesus cartoon that was super i saw one clip from
that new jesus cartoon what's it called king of kings someone help me who knows what i'm talking
about there's like a new jesus movie cartoon that came out called king of kings and uh in
my facebook feed like a four minute clip from it came up and it was the woman taking an adultery
scene and they butchered it so bad i was like yelling at the computer and it was bad so like
yeah but you know and kirk cameron's like oh king of kings is so great you know but the thing is
like you know the geneva bible he was like shilling the geneva bible a few years ago
and uh calvinus geeked out on it because it was made by calvinus in geneva honestly like i i did
a video where i just started in matthew one and just was showing like every problem in it like
and i'm just like turning the page and the problems are glaring so the bishop's bible is way better
doesn't it have some marginal notes that are probably yeah everybody everybody makes a big
deal about the marginal notes and and you know that's part of why king james in one of the rules
to the translators one of the rules translators not to steal anybody's thunder but it's like no
marginal notes he didn't want king james didn't want like theologically charged marginal notes
he didn't he wasn't trying to make a schofield reference bible you know someone's asking online
here on first john five seven have you considered making a first john five seven documentary or
sermon defending first john five seven with evidence from scripture and history that could
help a lot of people i'm sure you've preached on the validity of that yeah i think a lot of
other people have done that a lot of other people have i mean that that subject has been so there's
so many resources and people have written wonderful essays and so i you know you know what i try to do
stuff that other people aren't doing so that that's kind of like how my whole ministry is like i try to
i try to make a documentary that no one else has made not like hey let's just kind of do something
so like if other people have already done a good job at some i'd rather just point people to that
and be like hey here's an awesome essay about first john 57 like i don't have to write one myself
i'm not going to reinvent the wheel but on first john 57 just to follow up on that question yeah
obviously the main reason one of the big arguments against it from the critical text crowd is that
it's based on a minority of existing greek manuscripts of course we know it's in the
majority of latin manuscripts and things of that nature but i wanted to ask you this question
we know there are some minority readings in the king james we also know that the manuscript
evidence for the masoretic text can be kind of difficult to track right isn't that there's
a lack of it is it possible that the king james bible can actually represent manuscripts that we
that no longer exists today so maybe a minority reading in 2025 was not a minority reading you
know in times past yeah but the way that you phrase that question there's nothing in the
king james that's not in existing manuscripts like you're talking about like if you're talking about
quantity then yeah that's what i mean if you mean quantity then yeah but it's not because otherwise
because otherwise it would sound like boil there for a minute no no quantity if you're going to
say like well you know the king james has stuff in it and there's no greek text that's got it and
the king james has got it it's like nah man because the king james was translated from greek text
that we still have and so what you're saying is oh something could be a minority of greek text now
but in the past it wasn't well here's what you have to understand is that there you know when
people say oh there's 5 000 manuscripts of the new testament you know what a lot of people picture
like 5 000 complete new testaments when in reality a manuscript of the new testament could
literally have like two words on it or it could be like one sentence it could be a chapter it could
be a verse it could be or it could be the whole new testament or it could be one book or half the
new testament or it could be any of the above so the question you have to ask is like really
how many manuscripts of first john are there you know and again you know and i'm not going to go
into some huge first john five seven thing but what i do want to say is that the king james
translators translate and this is one of the rules as well 100 from the hebrew in the old testament
100 from the greek in the new testament but they also took into consideration other versions
they're always translating from the greek but they're going to take into consideration
so this idea of just majority text only ignores all other languages and just goes with the greek
when in reality if you want to get the full picture you have to think about latin armenian
georgian syriac you know you have to think about every you have to think about all the evidence
right so we don't just bean count manuscripts to determine Greek Greek manuscripts right yeah it's
like because because if you want to bean count then bean count every language because there's
evidence handwritten manuscripts of the new testament that are very ancient in armenian
georgian syriac etc this person asks are there any modern bibles that claim to be a hundred percent
received text that is so what issues do they have new king james version and the modern english
version and so the the new king james version and the modern english version are are 100 received
text at least in theory that's the idea that's what they're claiming okay and and i'm not going
to even necessarily say that they're not as far as that's their underlying text but the problem is
the way that they're translated is terrible and so there are two problems with the modern versions
and they're separate problems one is when they're translating from the wrong underlying text the
other problem is just the way that they're translated is bad okay and in tonight's sermon
it was a mix of both some of the stuff you know those of us who are being saved it's the power of
god this that doesn't have anything to do with underlying greek text that's just a translation
problem same thing with desire shall be toward your husband versus desire contrary to your husband
they're both looking at the same hebrew text they're just interpreting it in a stupid way
and so i would say the problem with the new king james and the mev is that the scholarship
behind them is terrible they're making terrible translation choices bad translation philosophy
bad execution and they're just poor translations you know and that's the problem it's even though
they are you know so a lot of people be like oh well if you want to textus receptus bible
and you don't want it to sound archaic get the modern english version get the new king james
except i could just show you place after place after place where they screw it up and it's going
to have those type of things where you know difficult is the way to salvation and the stupid
stuff you know and uh actually one of the big proponents of what you just said is uh who's
the guy sounds like a faggot mark ward and you know he says hey you know you can have a modern
version and keep your tr2 or something like that so well he's just basically just like satan is
just trying to get the king james out of your hand the two-edged sword replace it with a butter knife
called the mev and so he doesn't care what bible he uses as long as you don't use the king james
you know and so yeah he's like oh you don't want the usb we'll have the mev you know why
you know why he says that is because of these two problems the textual problem and the translation
style and philosophy the problem the style and philosophy problem is probably the bigger problem
in some de facto when it comes to like how much it affects doctrine and stuff because when you
think about it like you could say the same meaning with different words and it's going to come off
different like let's say we said a word like slim skinny slender thin they all mean the same thing
but don't they have like a different connotation you know so you could say like oh well you know
hell what if we just changed every time it says hell in the bible we just change it to heck
you know like is that it's just it's well it means the same thing it's the word of god but at the same
time it'd be a problem you know person is asking does a direct translation of the hebrew how do you
pronounce this right here tanaq that uh how is that helpful i should say is a direct translation of
that helpful towards understanding old testament doctrine is a direct translation of the hebrew
tanaq helpful absolutely because the direct translation of the talk is the king james version
the king james version is a direct translation of the tanaq and by the way just just to help you
know what the word tanaq means because some people might not know that term the tanaq is the old
testament there you have it folks it's it's a it's an acronym t n k so the t is for torah law
the n is for nevi'im prophets and then the k is for ketuvim writings law prophets writings it's
really just the old testament it's the exact books that we have in our old testament 39 books
the old testament is the tanaq a direct translation of the tanaq is the king james version directly
translated from the tanaq into english for you now what they might mean is like a literal
translation is that going to help you absolutely not it's going to confuse you and lead you into
false doctrine overly literal translations are bad translations you know what they are they're google
translate you know actually i but i can't even really say that anymore because google translate
is so good now it's google translate 15 years ago that's what literal translations are that's
that's the esv well uh we'll begin to wind it down here but before we do i want to ask you this
question often the slogan of the modern versions is that older manuscripts are better and that's
one of the reasons that's one of the ways that they justify them in saying hey they're predicated on
manuscripts that are older and therefore more reliable why reject that idea of older manuscripts
always being more reliable because satan is older than any of us you know and so here's the thing
the bible is already being corrupted in the first century ad so oh well this one's 200 years after
jesus instead of 300 years after this one's 400 years after jesus instead of 700 who cares they're
both way after the fact anyway and we know that the bible is already being corrupted in the first
generation so you know you know what it reminds me of it reminds me of catholicism we're the
oldest church orthodoxy we're the oldest church or hinduism we're the oldest religion well yeah
because you go all the way back to satan in the garden of eden you know like some somebody left
somebody left a comment on on that salvador video this is for you uh lancelot but um uh it's the you
know the the one where salvador is saying it's the government who decides who gets the children and
the government you know uh decides who the parents are and everything like that and somebody commented
on there and said like well isn't this guy too young to be preaching or something and i was just
thinking to myself well you know satan is is goes all the way back over six thousand years you know
and and you know bro is literally satan in that in that clip you know so yeah maybe even outside
the clip i don't know i'm being silly right because it's getting late man so you know i'm
i'm not giving serious answers anymore we're gonna wrap up i'll end with this question we'll
just wrap up here it kind of seems like to me the difference between the two philosophies
settled i typically one one side believes in a text that is settled yeah that is a stone that
will not move and another one that is constantly changing so my question is this for somebody that
believes in a modern bible version how in the world can they base their life on a bible that
is constantly being updated constantly they're built on the sand you know and how frustrating
it would be to memorize verses and then and then and then your bible goes out of print because like
the 1984 niv is out of print now it's the 2010 you know the esv keeps changing and you memorize
verses and then it keeps changing it's like it's like the mandela effect you know except for real
wait i could have sworn this was different you know and imagine imagine when everybody's reading
on like an e-reader or a kindle or whatever they'll just like you'd have the downloaded esv
and then they'll probably just like push a button on there and it'll like change it on your device
because i've had audiobooks that i downloaded and then i listened to them again years later
and they'd be different because the publisher had updated it the artwork would change and there'd be
an extra chapter and so i mean they can just push a button and just changing your bible all the time
you know at least the king james we can memorize it preach it and we know 20 40 50 years from now
it's always going to be the same you know it's comforting i think that's a nice place to leave
this yeah conversation here so i'm used to podcasting so i'm going to end this as if it's
a podcast pastor aderson any last words you want to say to the audience tonight before we wrap this
thing up no what we've got god bless you all