in serving you.
In Jesus' name, I pray.
Amen.
The title of my sermon this morning is Ruckmanism in Light of the Bible.
Ruckmanism in Light of the Bible.
Now, you know, what is Ruckmanism?
Well, let me explain this to you if you've never heard that term.
Most people probably haven't heard that term.
But our church is King James Bible only.
And here's what we mean.
And in fact, it says it right on the window out there in a decal.
But then again, it also says that the service is going to be at 6.30 tonight.
But anyway, so yeah, it says right out there King James only.
And what does that mean, King James only?
Here's what that means.
It means that the only English Bible that we use and accept is the King James Bible.
We don't use the NIV, the ESV, not the New King James, none of these other modern versions
because they are corruptions of God's Word.
They make changes to the Bible that affect doctrine, that affect the meaning, they add
to, they remove from.
And so we reject all these other versions, we're King James only.
Not only that, we believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God without error.
And what we mean by that is we don't think that, well, the King James is a pretty good
translation, but in order to really get what God means, you've got to go back to the Greek.
You've got to go back to the Hebrew.
No, we actually believe that our English Bible gives us exactly what God said.
Now it's in our language, obviously, God wasn't speaking English, Jesus wasn't speaking English
when he walked this earth.
It gives us those words in English, but guess what, it says the same thing.
So if I look it up in the original Greek and Hebrew, it's going to say the same thing as
what my King James Bible says, therefore English speakers do not, I repeat, do not have to
learn a foreign language to fully understand God's Word.
You can have just as deep of an understanding with just an English Bible alone as going
back to another language because of the fact that, you know, you speak English and it's
been accurately translated into English, thank God, and so we are King James only.
Now, for some reason, though, that's not King James only enough for some people.
So saying we will never use any other Bible, this is the Bible we believe in, King James
only, and then even going so far as to say there's no error in it.
And then going so far as to say you don't even need to look up anything in Greek and
Hebrew because if you read it in English, the meanings are all there.
All the meanings made it across.
That's not King James only enough for some people.
Now it might be hard for you to believe that, that anyone would be more radical than that
because I mean that's already taking a very strong stand here on what we have.
But here are the outrageous claims that were made at a King James Bible conference this
week and these are all on YouTube, you can hear them for yourself.
These are the kind of radical claims of what I'm calling Ruckmanism, which is like a bizarre
over-the-top King James only-ism that teaches strange things.
Listen to the claims that were made at this conference this week.
The English corrects the original Greek.
The English corrects the original Hebrew.
Now folks, in order to say the English corrects the Greek, you're saying there's something
wrong with the original Greek or the Hebrew, okay, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Secondly, it's better, this is the claim that was made at this conference this week,
it's better to translate foreign Bibles directly from the English KJV than to come from the
original Greek and Hebrew.
Do a translation of a translation instead of going back to the Greek and Hebrew for
translation.
Thirdly, they said Bibles before the KJV, if they're not worded exactly like the KJV
in that place, they're wrong.
So even if the meaning is the same, even if they said the same thing, unless it's the
exact wording of the King James, those Bibles like the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale Bible are
wrong in those places.
They claim that if you change strengtheneth to strengthens, you've corrupted God's word.
I mean that is just flat earth level stupidity right there.
Strengtheneth to strengthens?
And by the way, if anybody knows, and I'm going to, listen, I'm going to refer to Spanish
a little bit in this sermon just because a lot of people here heavily, who has studied
Spanish at all?
You've gone to a Spanish class, it's virtually the whole auditorium because we live in the
Southwestern United States.
Probably everybody knows the Spanish word for what you're sitting on right now, it's,
what is it?
Sia.
Sia, la sia, right?
You're like, oh yeah, that's right.
But guess what?
If you went to Northern Spain, they wouldn't say sia, they would say theia, la theia.
It would be like a th sound.
Who already knew that?
Lots of people.
Well, here's the thing about that.
Do you see how an s and a th aren't really that different?
Like have you noticed how when you say ss, ss, see how your teeth are together right
up here?
And then if you say th, you just put your tongue between your teeth.
The very tip of your tongue goes between your teeth.
So guess what?
That th on the end of words in English, over the course of hundreds of years, it evolved
into an s.
The th became an s, so goeth became goes.
Strengtheneth became strengthens.
The th became an s.
And in Spain, there's just a group of people just kind of holding out.
We're going to keep making that th sound, alright?
La theia.
So the bottom line is, well no, I don't want to get to the bottom line yet.
What else did they say?
They said if you change strengtheneth to strengthens, you've corrupted God's word.
All foreign Bibles must be worded exactly like the KJV.
It's not enough if they match the Greek.
They also have to match the KJV, like they have to be worded the way the KJV words things
in foreign languages.
They said that the KJV translators themselves were inspired by God.
Not the biblical authors just being inspired by God when they wrote the word, but that
the translators were inspired by God, okay?
They also said that if the translators were born in the 20th century, they would still
use all the same archaic language and the product would be the same.
So if instead of the King James Bible translators being born in the 1500s, if they were born
in the 1900s, they would have translated the Bible the same way.
Because it's got to be strengtheneth.
I mean, it's got to be cast the same in his teeth.
Okay, now I'll get to this more.
And then they also said in this conference that the language that we speak today is Shakespearean
English.
They said, well, yeah, the King James is in Shakespearean English, but the language we
speak today is in Shakespearean English.
What?
Excuse me?
Now, who's ever read Shakespeare?
Again, in school, we all read Shakespeare.
It sounds a lot like the King James Bible, doesn't it?
Doesn't sound a lot like the way that we talk today.
And according to them, if you don't believe in these wild-eyed teachings, you're not King
James only.
We're not King James only.
We're just TR only, according to them, because we don't believe in these wild teachings.
Well, you know what?
I am going to debunk the wrong claims of Ruckmanism one by one using the word of God, using the
Bible.
Now, you can get up and say these people are crazy, this stuff's bizarre, but you know
what?
I'm going to prove it to you from the word of God.
And you know what?
You say, well, I don't think you should be attacking them.
Folks, these people have been attacking me for the last six months, lying and saying
that I'm not King James only.
And you know what the difference is?
The difference is that I do it openly.
They do it in secret text messages.
They do it behind my back.
I confront it openly, alright?
That's the difference.
But this has been going on for over six months.
Let's get into this.
Number one, let's get into this idea where they say that using a different word that
means the exact same thing is wrong.
Go to John chapter 12 and I want you to put one finger in John chapter 12 and I want you
to get your other finger in Zechariah.
And listen, you really need to pay attention this morning.
We're going to go deep on some of these subjects.
But you know what?
All of this is going to be easy for you to understand.
Even if you don't speak any other language, I guarantee you everyone in this auditorium
is capable of understanding what I'm going to preach this morning as long as you pay
attention.
So just pay attention to the sermon and you will understand.
Get a finger over in Zechariah chapter 9 and get a finger in John chapter 12.
So number one, weird wrong claim of ruckmanism that I'm going to refute with the Word of
God is them saying that using a different word that means the exact same thing is corrupting
God's Word.
So they say you can't switch eternal for everlasting.
You can't switch everlasting for eternal.
Spirit and ghost, nope.
It's got to be exactly what the King James says or it's wrong.
That's what they're saying.
There could be no other synonym used even if it means the same thing.
Well let's test that claim with the Bible itself, okay?
So look at John chapter 12 verse 14.
The Bible reads, And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon as it is written.
Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold thy king cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.
So what is it that was written according to John?
John says, well here's what's written in the Old Testament, thy king cometh sitting on
an ass's colt.
Everybody see that?
Now let's look at Zechariah chapter 9 and we'll get the source of that quote.
Zechariah chapter 9 verse 9, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem.
Behold thy king cometh unto thee, he is just and having salvation, lowly and riding upon
an ass, watch this, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Okay, does everybody see that?
So basically in the New Testament it says he's riding on an ass's colt and in the Old
Testament it says he's riding on a colt the foal of an ass.
Now isn't that the exact same thing?
Is there any difference here?
Is there any issue?
Would you look at that and say, oh well you've changed God's Word.
I mean you've added to God's Word.
You've corrupted God's Word.
That is stupidity.
And according to this Ruckman mentality, basically if you say ass is colt, that's different than
saying colt of an ass.
And how dare you say foal instead of colt or colt instead of foal.
Well I looked up in the dictionary, colt is a young male animal of the horse family.
I looked up foal, it's a young horse, mule or related animal.
It's the same exact thing.
So does it matter if you say a colt of an ass or a foal of an ass?
Does it matter if you say ass is colt or colt of an ass?
No folks, it's the same exact thing.
And you know what?
We could go through hundreds of examples of this throughout the Bible.
Turn if you would to Psalm 2 and Acts 4.
Go to Psalm 2 and Acts 4.
I'm just going to show you a few examples for sake of argument.
While you're turning there, how about Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14 when it says, Behold a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.
Then Matthew says, Behold a virgin shall be with child.
So Matthew changes conceive to with child.
And instead of saying she'll bear a son, it says she'll bring forth a son.
Now isn't bearing a son and bringing forth a son the exact same thing?
Isn't conceiving and getting pregnant the exact same thing?
Isn't being with child and conceiving the exact same thing?
Yeah, so has Matthew corrupted the word of God here by changing bring forth to bear or
bear to bring forth or conceive to be with child?
Folks, this is insane to look at this and say, oh well if you even use a word that means
the same thing, you've corrupted the Bible.
Then basically you're saying that the New Testament is corrupting the Bible by changing
the Old Testament quote unquote by using words that mean the exact same thing.
Look down at your Bible in Psalm chapter 2 verse 1, Why do the heathen rage and the
people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the
Lord and against his anointed saying.
Keep your finger there.
Look at Acts chapter 4 verse 25, who by the mouth of thy servant David has said, Why did
the heathen rage and the people imagine vain things?
The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and
against his Christ.
Now look how many times we've used a different synonym for the same thing, okay?
So instead of saying in the Old Testament the people imagine a vain thing, in the New
Testament the people imagine vain things.
In the next verse it says the kings of the earth set themselves.
In the New Testament it says the kings of the earth stood up.
The rulers take counsel together, New Testament, rulers were gathered together against his
anointed in the Old Testament, against his Christ in the New Testament.
Now tell me something, are these saying the exact same thing?
Yes, they are saying the exact same thing.
They are just wording it differently.
See when the Bible says the kings of the earth stood up, it's not saying they're just like
alright everybody, one, two, three.
Is that what it means by stood up there?
Is it talking about the act of going from being in a chair to being on your feet?
Or when it says that they stood up in the Old Testament it said that the kings of the
earth stood up and the rulers were gathered together.
In the New Testament it says they set themselves and the rulers take counsel together.
See setting yourself is talking about positioning yourself and standing up is talking about
positioning yourself.
I mean if I said hey it's time for people to stand up, people are like oh okay.
I mean I'm preaching and I'm like hey we need to stand up and everybody's just like, I'm
like no, no, no, I was using a figure of speech there.
Standing up, if I said hey I'm going to stand up for the King James, what am I doing?
I'm letting my position be known, I'm positioning myself, hey here's my position.
And setting yourself is another way of positioning yourself.
Now if we took it literally these are opposite.
One of them's standing up, one of them's sitting down.
But guess what?
Neither of them's literal.
One of them's saying I'm positioning myself and the other one's saying they are positioning
themselves against the Lord.
One of them says they gathered together, another one says they took counsel together.
Folks those both mean the same thing in this context, okay.
They're getting together, it doesn't matter whether you call it they're in counsel, they're
in a gathering, they've formed a coalition.
I mean there's more than one way to say the same thing folks.
And when it says anointed and then in the New Testament it says Christ, Christ means
anointed.
Amen.
You know what else they could have said here?
They could have said against the Lord and against his Messiah because Messiah being
interpreted as Christ.
So you could say anointed, Messiah, Christ.
But according to the Ruckmanite view, you know, this would be corrupting God's word.
Go to Romans chapter 3.
Romans chapter 3 put a finger in Psalm 51.
Now folks don't say that our view isn't based on the Bible.
Actually our view is based on the Bible and their view contradicts the Bible by claiming
that when you go from one language to another it has to be word for word translated.
Well that's funny because the New Testament doesn't even word for word translate from
the Old Testament.
So where am I supposed to get my ideas about translation?
Am I supposed to get it from them or am I supposed to get it from the examples in the
Bible themselves?
Okay.
Anybody who knows anything about a foreign language knows that when you translate from
one language to another it's never going to be word for word.
It's never going to be the exact words.
If you said, hey, it's raining cats and dogs outside, no one would say that it's impossible
to translate that.
Is that impossible to translate?
No, you can translate that.
But are you going to mention cats when you translate that?
No.
Are you going to mention dogs?
No.
But you can still translate that.
You could get the same idea, the same point, the same feeling, the same meaning, but you're
not going to mention any cats and dogs.
That's how translating works in the Bible.
That's how translating works outside the Bible.
But see these people would demand, no, if it mentions dogs and cats you better bring
that in.
You know, if you're speaking German you better say, hey, es regnet katze und hunde.
You know, you better say, you know, jueve, and my Spanish is a little rusty, but, you
know, jueve perros y gatos.
Is that what you're going to say?
No.
You'd probably say, jueve muchisimo, jueve mucho.
Am I making that, am I doing that right?
Somebody, somebody, can I get a witness?
But the point is, when you translate from one language to another you use different
wording, but you get the same meaning, and you say, what's this thing about meaning?
Well, let's look at another example.
How about Romans chapter 3, verse 4, God forbid, yea, let God be true, but every man a liar,
as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings and mightest overcome when
thou art judged.
Now look at Psalm 51 verse 4 where this comes from, against thee only have I sinned and
done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and be clear
when thou judgest.
So here we see that instead of saying justified when thou speakest, it says justified in thy
sayings.
Isn't that the exact same thing?
But yet we're using different words to say the exact same thing.
And then the second part, it says in Romans, mightest overcome when thou art judged, and
in Psalm 51 verse 4 it says be clear when thou judgest.
Now look, these are both saying the same thing.
Even though they look on the surface to be dramatically different, it's just a matter
of perspective because of the fact that there's a mutual judgment going on here.
God is judging man and then man's turning around and judging God and saying, you know,
I don't like the way that you've judged me, right?
Any time we balk at God's judgments, we're judging him now.
He judges us and we don't like it, we think he's wrong, now we've judged him.
And the Bible's talking about God being justified when he judges.
When he judges us, he's justified.
And when we turn around and say, you're not justified, what do we do?
We're judging him and he's justified when we judge him.
He's justified when he judges us.
It's all talking about the same incident, the same event, but according to the Ruckmanite
view this would be a corruption of God's word for wording it differently or wording it from
a different perspective, okay?
Now and by the way, another thing I didn't point out when I compared Psalm 2 with Acts
4 is that Acts uses the past tense because it already happened in Acts whereas Psalms
is looking forward to.
It's just a matter of perspective.
Now go if you would to John chapter 3.
John chapter number 3.
And folks, we could literally, I'm not going to waste your time spending hours doing this
because I think you're getting the idea.
We could look up every single cross reference and show where the Bible quotes itself, how
it uses synonyms, okay?
We could show where thou shalt not kill is quoted as thou shalt do no murder.
Is that what thou shalt kill means?
Yeah, thou shalt kill is not saying, hey, don't kill a plant.
You know, don't kill an animal.
That's not what, we all know that thou shalt not kill in context means don't murder.
Which is why sometimes it's going to be quoted that way because it's the same thing.
But according to them, you can't change that.
You can't change kill to murder.
And just to be clear, nobody's trying to change the King James Bible.
Do I want to change the King James Bible?
No.
Look, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's been the standard for 400 years.
I think it's a bad idea to update it because every time somebody claims that they're going
to update it, they always end up making radical changes and changes that do affect the meaning
and everything like that.
But here's the thing about it.
I don't want to change it.
Leave it alone.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But you know what?
Someday if our language changed so much that English becomes totally different, then obviously
you would have to update it.
Otherwise you'd be like the Roman Catholic Church telling people, well, you still need
the Bible in Latin even though we're doing Spanish now.
Even though we're doing Italian now, you got to read the Bible in Latin.
Look, if you handed a Latin Bible to a Spanish speaker, they can't read it.
They cannot understand it.
It's too different.
But guess what?
Those used to be the same language.
Spanish is Latin hundreds of years later after it changed and evolved.
Now look, our language has changed very little since 1611.
Obviously it's changed.
We don't use thes and thes.
We don't use some of the expressions.
But our language is 99% the same.
And by the way, it's probably not going to change anyway because English is kind of locked
in with technology that we have now and everything.
I doubt it's going to change.
But you know what?
If it did change hundreds of years from now, you would have to translate the Bible into
that new language, whatever English turned into 500 years from now or 800 years from
now.
And you don't know when Jesus is coming back.
So don't claim that you do.
Look, hey, I hope Jesus comes back in my lifetime.
But Jesus might not come back for 400 years or 500 years or a thousand.
You don't know when Jesus is coming back.
None of us knows.
People a thousand years ago thought it was about to happen.
People 50 years ago thought it was about to happen.
And look, it's good if we kind of feel like it's about to happen because it kind of keeps
us thinking about things and getting the right perspective.
But at the end of the day, we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
But these people say you could never change it.
You could never update it, even in theory.
It just, it's madness, okay?
Look down at your Bible in John 3.15.
Let's see if the Bible backs up our position of using words interchangeably that mean the
exact same thing.
John 3.15, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Now those two words mean the exact same thing.
And here's the proof.
They were just used interchangeably.
And guess what?
If you look these up in a Greek New Testament, you don't even have to know Greek because
you could just look and see that every shape on the page, even if it just shapes to you,
you could look that every shape on the page is the identical shape.
That this phrase that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal
life in a Greek New Testament is exactly the same as that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish but have everlasting life.
And I'm supposed to believe that the King James Bible translators had some special insight
where, you know, God really meant everlasting over here.
Even though it's the same phrase, same word, same context, I think he meant eternal here
and everlasting here.
Folks, what is the, you know what eternal means?
Forever.
You know what everlasting means?
Forever.
What's the difference?
And I've heard people try to come up with a difference.
I've heard people try to say like, well, here's the difference between eternal and everlasting.
And they'll say, well, eternal means it goes both directions forever.
Well, let's see, we have eternal life.
Did we start forever ago?
Because last time I checked, I started being alive, you know, less than 40 years ago.
So am I just, well, now that I have eternal life, I guess I just have a past that goes
forever backward.
And by the way, everlasting, the Bible says five times, I believe, in the Old Testament
from everlasting.
So come on, folks, everlasting and eternal both mean the same thing.
And guess what?
In Spanish, you only have one word, aeterna.
In verse 15, it's going to say, be the aeterna, and in verse 16, it's going to say, be the
aeterna.
Right?
But according to them, nope, it's got to be different.
Eternal and everlasting.
They're disagreeing with John 3, 15, and 16 then.
That's what they're doing.
Because God used it interchangeably, and it's the same thing in the Greek.
And they're like, well, how dare you look at, well, we're talking about translations.
Last time I checked, when you talk about translation, there have to be two languages involved.
Am I missing something here?
Now when I get up and preach Bible doctrine, it's all English.
But when we start talking about a translation, we have to talk about the source and the target.
Right?
Two different languages.
One more quick example, because I've got to hurry up and get to other things.
Well, I'm sorry, I'm just going to skip it for the sake of time.
So number two, so we're refuting the claims one by one.
I spent a lot of time on that one, but it's an important thing, and there's so much evidence.
Number one, the Ruckman claim is that using a different word that means the exact same
thing is wrong and it's corrupting God's word.
Well, I think you saw plenty of evidence on that.
We could spend all day on that.
But number two, they claim that the Greek and Hebrew text that the King James Bible
was translated from don't exist.
So they reject the original Greek and Hebrew text and say that they don't exist.
So if you prove to them, if you basically set in front of them a Greek New Testament
and say, look, my friend, in the Greek New Testament it's the exact same word, eternal
everlasting, same phrase, same context, same sentence, they'll just be like, well how do
I know that that's right?
How do I know that's really what the Greek says?
Or you can show them, for example, that the King James doesn't always translate literally.
Like in Romans when it says God forbid, you show them, well in the Greek New Testament
it doesn't say God and it doesn't say forbid.
It uses a different figure of speech.
God forbids a figure of speech.
In the original it says something that literally means may it never happen, may it never be,
may it never come to pass, let it not happen, something like that.
Well that sounds lame in English.
God forbid gets that point across with power effectively, accurately.
But if you show them that, I showed one of these pastors who's lying about me and saying
that I'm not King James only, I showed him, I said, here it is and I pointed it out in
the Greek New Testament and here's what he said to me.
He said, well maybe that Greek New Testament's wrong.
And I said, well this is what every Greek New Testament says.
He said, maybe they're all wrong.
Now folks, the King James Bible did not fall out of the sky in 1611.
And it wasn't like the Book of Mormon where God gave him some gold plates to translate
from and then the plates disappeared when he was done.
You know, supposedly the Book of Mormon is translated from gold plates and then it's
like where are the gold plates?
Oh, they disappeared.
You know, God brought them to me, I translated them and then they disappeared.
Is that what King James onlyism is teaching now?
No.
Folks, the King James Bible was translated from the original Hebrew and the original
Greek.
Now look, people often ask the question, well if you believe in the King James Bible, where
was the Bible before 1611?
Now for me this is a very easy question to answer.
I can set three books on the pulpit and show you the Bible before 1611, okay?
Very simple.
Here is Baumberg's edition of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Baumberg's edition of Hebrew Old Testament, Stephanus's edition of the Greek New Testament,
and Beza's edition of the Greek New Testament.
These collectively in these three books you have the entire Bible, the perfect Word of
God eternally preserved before 1611 in three books that you can hold in your hand.
Baumberg, Hebrew Old Testament, Stephanus, Greek New Testament, Beza, Greek New Testament.
And then of course later on the Greek New Testament that I read from basically fixes
the tiny minute little discrepancies between these two versions of the Greek New Testament
that are virtually identical and just have a few little differences that don't affect
the price of tea in China and basically, you know, that's resolved.
But all I have to do to find the Bible before 1611 is put these three books out and there's
your Bible.
But you know what?
That's not what they believe.
They would reject this book, reject this book, and they'll even reject this book if it's
not worded exactly like the King James.
And make no mistake my friend, the King James does not contradict what I have here.
The King James does not contradict the Greek New Testament anywhere, zero zilch places.
And it contradicts the Hebrew Old Testament zero.
But does it word things exactly the same?
No because it's a different language, okay.
For example, when Jesus is on the cross and it talks about the thieves reviling him, it
says in Matthew 27 44, the thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his
teeth.
Now that's an expression that has to do with them basically talking trash.
Now look, that's an archaic expression from the 1600s that we don't use today.
But you know what?
When I was a little kid reading my Bible and reading Matthew 27 for the first time and
I read the thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth, I immediately
knew they're talking trash.
And they're talking the same trash that the Pharisees are talking, right?
I mean is that hard to understand?
No, I mean when you're reading the context, when you're reading the story, it makes perfect
sense.
But guess what?
If you read that in Greek, it just uses one word, it doesn't say cast in his teeth, it
just says basically they reviled him, they reproached him.
In fact, the word that it uses is used nine other times in the New Testament in the King
James.
It's translated as either upbraid, revile, reproach.
That's how the King James always in this one place, they got creative and said they cast
the same in his teeth.
But see, according to this Ruckmanite view, now every Bible in the world has to mention
teeth in that verse.
So you got to put teeth in the Spanish Bible, put teeth in the German Bible, put teeth in
a Portuguese Bible because the King James used an expression, cast the same in his teeth,
to get across what the underlying Greek was saying.
Do you see how ridiculous that is?
But if you show them this example, here's what they'll say, well no, no, no.
There must be some other Greek New Testament out there that mentions teeth and we just
can't find it.
We just don't know where it's at but it's got to be out.
There's got to be one that says God forbid in Greek.
There's got to be one.
And in order to snow, and folks don't, I know we're dealing with a lot of heavy material
here.
Folks, get some smarts.
Pay attention.
It's okay to go a little deep on a Sunday morning, okay?
Learn this material.
Now what they'll do, they'll try to snow you by just saying, well the King James Bible,
they didn't, do you think they translated from a book?
Yes.
Yeah, I do.
Yeah, because any history book will tell you that they translated from a book.
I mean, you think they just had a book and from like a Greek New Testament on the table
and then they're just like translating from Greek and English?
Yeah.
Yeah, that's how it works when you translate stuff.
You open your Greek New Testament over here and you get your pen and paper over here and
you look at the Greek and you translate it in English.
That's how it works.
They said, no, they didn't translate from a book.
They translated from over 5,000 manuscripts.
Okay, who here has read the New Testament 5,000 times cover to cover?
Okay, who here believes that anyone on this planet has read the New Testament 5,000 times
cover to cover?
Who thinks it's possible?
Who thinks it's humanly possible for any pastor to read the Greek New Testament over
5,000 times in his lifetime?
Who thinks that's possible?
Do a little math, folks.
Look, if you've read the Bible cover to cover 50 times, you've read it a lot.
If you've read the Bible cover to cover 20 times, you've read it a lot.
If you've read the New Testament 100 times, you've read it a lot.
You haven't read it 5,000 times.
But I'm supposed to believe that the translators got together and laid out 5,000 manuscripts
on the table and said, alright boys, we've got our work cut out for us, we've only got
seven years to do this.
It's not even humanly possible, folks.
And by the way, who thinks that there were 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament
in England in 1604?
Folks, we have 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament today in the whole world combined.
So like all over the world in every museum, every university, every archaeologist's office,
every place in the world combined in the year 2020, you have 5,000 Greek, or 5,000 plus,
you know, it's like 5,900 and some whatever manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.
But we're supposed to believe that the King James is based on them going, you know, they
took time.
This is what was said at the conference.
They took the time to go through those 5,000 manuscripts, you know.
And basically, then they must have a time machine.
How can you, you can't take that time, that much time doesn't exist.
There's not that much time in life.
Even if you never ate or slept, you can't do that.
You can't translate from all 5,000, that makes no sense.
Folks, but you know why they keep making that bizarre claim?
Because what they want is they don't want you to be able to check and see what it says.
So they're just like, oh, what are you going to do, look up all 5,000 of them?
And then you're like, I mean, I guess one of them might say, God forbid, because I didn't
look at all 5,000 of them.
Folks, the fact is that the King James Bible translators had one of two books in front
of them as their primary source.
Their primary was the Beza, Beza's edition of the Greek New Testament in book form.
That's what they had in front of them.
And then many of them would have had in front of them Stephanus's edition of the Greek New
Testament.
So the only time they made any decisions about which one they're going to go with was in
certain places where there was a little bit of controversy or conflict.
Then they would check with Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.
But folks, maximum, they would have had in front of them three books in front of them
that they're looking at.
Now look, they looked at other foreign languages too.
Hey, let's see what the Latin says, let's see what the Syriac says.
But guess what?
At the end of the day, they never translated a single word from Latin, Spanish, or anything
else because the King James instructions were you must translate the Old Testament
from the Hebrew and you must translate the New Testament from the Greek and you cannot
translate from a foreign language.
That was one of the instructions to the translators, no translating from the Vulgate, no translating
from the Syriac, it's got to come from the original Greek and Hebrew.
It's right there, rules for the translators.
Now here's the thing, look, let's say I were translating the Bible into some language into
2020, don't you think I'd probably look at other language translations just to get ideas?
Let's see what the Spanish did, let's see what the Syriac did, let's see what they did
over to get ideas.
But at the end of the day, I'm not going to translate from a translation.
At the end of the day, you're going to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew, that's
part of the rules of the translators.
So the bottom line is that to sit there and say that the Greek New Testament is wrong
and the Hebrew is wrong, how can the King James be right then?
Now let me give you some Bible on this.
You don't have to turn there, if you would turn to Matthew 14.
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
Not one.
Did you get that?
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
Not one.
Why not get something clean from something that's unclean?
Either make the tree good and his fruit good or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit
corrupt for the tree is known by his fruit.
So let's say I had a pitcher of water up here, okay, and I have an empty glass and I pour
the water into the glass and I tell you this glass is filled with pure, clean water.
What am I automatically saying about the pitcher?
Would it be possible for me to say, hey, listen man, this is clean, pure water, but don't
drink out of that pitcher.
That pitcher is dirty.
And what if I went to them and I said, hey, look, there's something floating in this pitcher.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is clean.
This isn't.
Would that make any sense?
If this is poured into this, that makes absolutely no sense.
Either they're both clean or they're both dirty.
It's that simple.
Okay.
Now, could I take that clean one and pour it into something and the product be dirty?
Sure, because what if there was dirt in the glass?
So if I have a dirty glass and I pour out of the clean pitcher, I could say, wait a
minute, the New King James, that's dirty because it's a dirty glass.
Ah, it's from the Texas Receptus, it came from the clean pitcher.
Yeah, but you poured the clean pitcher into a dirty glass.
Does everybody get the difference?
The New King James is pouring clean water into a dirty glass.
The King James is pouring the clean water into the clean glass.
But the Ruckmanite says, no, we got a clean glass of water, but the stuff in the pitcher
is dirty.
And then when you try to show them, well, no, you know what, the stuff in the pitcher
is the same as the stuff in the glass.
Here's what they're going to tell you.
They're going to tell you, no, no, there's this other pitcher.
You know, actually, no, this glass came from 5,000 different pitchers.
And it only took the cleanest H2O molecules from 5,000 different pitchers.
So you can never check that.
You have fun checking each molecule from which of these 5,000 pitchers it came from.
When in reality, there's really like three pitchers on the shelf.
You got Beza pitcher, Staphonus pitcher.
It's like, come on folks, these people are nuts.
Okay, I got to hurry.
So number one, we said, hey, using a different word that means the exact same thing.
They say it's wrong.
We proved from the Bible it's the same thing.
Number two, they reject the original Greek and Hebrew texts and claim that they don't
exist.
This is crazy.
Number three, they say that we should translate directly from the King James Bible instead
of translating from the original Greek and Hebrew.
Well, you know, I'm sure glad that the King James Bible translators didn't have that philosophy
and say, hey, let's translate directly from the Vulgate.
Because guess what?
There's another Bible that came out the same time, a couple years before the King James
called the Douay-Rheims Bible.
The Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims Bible, and guess what it's translated from?
The Latin.
They didn't go to the Greek.
They didn't go to the Hebrew.
They just translated from the Latin.
Because they said, well, we know the Latins, right?
Let's just go from that.
Wrong.
Let me give you an example, okay?
Go to Matthew 14, and look, I'm going to get technical here for a second.
Do not tune me out, okay?
Do not tune me out.
If you're looking for the cotton candy bubblegum church, it's down the street.
The good God, good sin, cold hell church that just gives you these really easy to digest
little milk of the word.
You're in the wrong place, okay?
It's okay to learn something and go a little deeper, okay?
And the fundamental Baptists, many of them have been anti-intellectual, anti-education,
anti-learning for too long.
You know what?
It's time for some of you to learn the language of English.
I'm not, I don't, look, I don't want you to learn Greek and Hebrew.
I just want you to learn English.
I'm not trying to get you to learn calculus here.
I'm just trying to get you to learn multiplication and division here, okay folks?
Now listen, Matthew chapter 14 verse 26, here's the verse where Jesus is walking on the water.
It says in verse 26, and when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled
saying, it is a spirit, and they cried out for fear.
Everybody understand what happened here?
Pretty easy to understand, okay?
You know, we'd probably say in our modern vernacular, they thought he was a ghost.
Isn't that what we would probably say in 2020?
We'd say, hey, they saw him walking on the water, and they're thinking to themselves,
people don't walk on water.
People are affected by gravity, and this is not being affected by gravity.
This is not material.
They didn't think there's any matter there.
There's no mass associated with this object.
They, you know, it's just floating on the water, so they think it's like a ghost, like
woo.
What about Scooby-Doo, you got a ghost, have you noticed the ghost doesn't make contact
with the ground.
You know, Scooby and Shaggy, they're running, and their feet are hitting the ground, and
the ghost is just kind of like, or sometimes they'll have a little bobbing motion.
But what you'll notice is that ghost is not making any contact with the ground, right?
So basically, they're seeing Jesus walking on the water, and they're assuming that's
the situation.
They think it's a spirit.
Now look, is that hard to understand in the King James?
Would you walk away from this and be like, I don't know what this is talking about.
What does that mean, they thought he was a spirit?
They thought he was spiritual?
You'd automatically, when you read that, you know, hey, they think he's a spirit, like
he's not flesh and bone, they must think, you know, he's like a ghost.
And you kind of know anyway that ghost and spirit mean the same thing, you know, because
you got the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit.
And the Ruckmanites, those are two different things, by the way.
Two different, yeah, they say, hey, you got to have it different.
So let's stop and think about this.
Let's say I'm going to translate this verse into Spanish, okay?
Everybody pay attention.
This is going to be easy enough for everyone to understand, so don't think like, oh, this
is going to go over my head.
No it's not.
Okay, if you're going to translate this into Spanish, if you were translating directly
from English, then you'd translate spirit as a spiritu, right?
I mean, that's a no-brainer, pretty easy, right?
Hey, they thought he was an spiritu, spirit, spiritu, apple for apple, piece of cake, done.
Let's move on to the next verse, okay.
But here's what's going on, here's what's interesting.
Spanish as a language is much closer to Greek than English.
Spanish and Greek are very closely related languages.
In fact, you know what I've often tested people?
I've often taken someone who didn't speak any Spanish at all, and I've played them an
audio clip of someone speaking Greek, just in modern Greece, and I said, what language
do you think this is?
And they always say Spanish, just because it sounds so similar.
A lot of the words are like exactly the same, because they're, you know, Greek and Latin,
you know, are very closely related, Latin turned into Spanish, so there's a closer relationship
between Greek and Spanish than Greek and English.
So to translate into English is harder than to translate into Spanish, okay.
So here's the thing, the Greek word here, and you know, people are going to accuse me,
you're going back to the Greek, tell us what, no, folks, we're talking about how to translate.
Everybody get that?
The Greek word is phandasma, phandasma is what the King James says, spirit.
But here's the thing, in English, we don't really have a word like that.
Now some people use the word phantasm, but phantasm is not really a word that we would
really use much, right?
But in Spanish, they have the word phantasma, and they use it all the time, that's like
their main word for a ghost, is una phantasma, or actually it's, I think it'd be un phantasma,
because it's one of those rare words that ends in an A, but it's masculine.
So el phantasma means the same thing as the Greek word phandasma.
Now look, if you were translating the New Testament from Greek into Spanish, what are
you going to put?
Are you going to put a spirit to, or are you going to put phantasma?
Keep in mind, you're looking at a Greek New Testament, it says phandasma, aren't you just
going to put phantasma?
Isn't it kind of a no-brainer since it's literally the same exact word and it means the same
thing?
It would be according to their view, you'd have to put a spirit to.
I mean, does everybody understand what I just said?
And I could show you a thousand examples like this, where it would be easier just to go
straight from Greek into Spanish, it would just be real easy, phandasma, phantasma, but
they're like, no, no, no, you've got to stop off in English and become a spirit, and then
now it's a spirit to.
Now look, here's the thing.
See, you translated it into Spanish as a spirit to.
Would Spanish speakers still get the idea?
Would it be wrong?
It wouldn't be wrong.
They'd still get the idea.
Like if a Spanish speaker read, hey, they thought he was a spirit to, they'd still get
it.
They'd still understand it.
But which one's better in Spanish?
Which one's better in Spanish?
Phantasma is better in Spanish.
Okay, and if you're just going to stubbornly say, no, I think a spirit to is better because
You're just being an idiot at that point.
You're just being stubborn.
Because this isn't complicated, folks.
Okay, look, if a Spanish Bible is translating something that says they reproached him, they
abraded him, they reviled him, do they have to say, they threw the same in his teeth?
When that's not what the original says?
They cast the same as you?
Do they have to use that English expression?
So now that, folks, it makes no sense.
It's crazy.
I hope that, I mean, I want to say I hope it's not going over your head, but I don't
think it's going over anyone's head because I think it's just so simple.
I think everyone sees it.
That if you're translating from Greek into Spanish, you're going to go with phantasma.
You're not going to say, well, we got to do it the way the English did it, even if it's
not as good in Spanish.
And there are people who want to talk about el phantasma santo, which would be literally
like saying the holy ghoul.
And I've had an independent fundamental Baptist preacher look me in the face and say the Spanish
Bible, every time English goes with ghost, should say holy ghost, like ghost.
Because that's what phantasma means in Spanish.
That's all it means.
And if you, if you start talking to Spanish people about the phantasma santo, they're
going to freak out.
But your Rachmanite friends are going to love you.
They're going to love it.
They're going to be like, finally, we have a reliable Bible in Spanish.
We finally got the right Bible in Spanish, it actually says a different word for ghost
and spirit.
Finally, it's accurate.
They would love it.
If you came out with a Bible that said phantasma santo, Rachmanites would buy it up and love
it.
This is amazing.
Now go if you went to Matthew chapter five, Matthew chapter five.
I'm almost done, I'm trying to wrap up here.
But can you see how you can take a good doctrine and go overboard with it?
Here's a good doctrine.
The good doctrine is God promised to preserve his words.
God said man does not live by bread alone, oops, I actually changed the doth to the,
does, whoops.
God said man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God and so every word of God has been preserved and we have God's word today
and we don't have to wonder if what we have in front of us is really what God said.
If you have a King James Bible in front of you, you have what God really said.
You have God's word.
You have to wonder, well I wonder what the Greek says, I wonder what the Hebrew says.
Hey, it says the same thing as what you have in front of you.
And you know what, I've believed that for well over 20 years, but guess what?
I don't believe it anymore, I know it.
I used to believe it and people are like, you don't believe that anymore.
Yeah, you're right, I know it's true now.
I used to believe it was true, now I know for a fact it's true.
Now why is that different?
Because in the past I believed that it was true because I'd never read the Greek New
Testament cover to cover so I hadn't read the whole thing to know for sure that that's
true.
But I believed, yeah, the King James says exactly what the original Greek says because
logic just told me that God has preserved his word in 2020 and that we don't have to
go back to an archaic document or an archaic language, it should be available somewhere
prevalent today.
So I always believed that.
But now I know for a fact because now I've read the Greek New Testament almost seven
times cover to cover and so now I've, with all the knowledge of knowing what the King
James says, reading in the Greek and seeing over and over again, it says the same thing.
Now is it worded identical?
Of course not because if it were worded identical it would sound goofy to us.
Boy, a lot of things they say in other languages sound pretty goofy when you put them in English.
Am I right?
Yes.
But guess what, raining cats and dogs sounds pretty stupid to them.
To us it sounds normal but it makes no sense.
Okay, they have their own expressions that don't make sense to us.
So the bottom line is I know for a fact that the Greek New Testament lines up with the
English King James Version with no issue.
Okay, so fear not.
I believed that for decades.
Now I don't even have to believe it because I've seen it, right?
How do you believe in something you've already, once you've seen it with your eyes, it's like
well now I just know it for a fact.
Now I kind of lost where I was going with that.
Okay, Matthew 5.18.
So look, it's a good, oh yeah, good doctrine taken too far.
So it's a great doctrine to believe, hey, what Bible that you have today is what God
gave and you can trust it, it's reliable, it's perfect, it's accurate, okay?
That's a great doctrine.
But that doctrine can be taken overboard and it can be taken to absurdity, to absurdity.
Now let me show you what they're teaching and why it's absurd.
It says in Matthew 5.18, 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.
Now God has preserved his word and he says heaven and earth shall pass away but my words
shall not pass away.
He didn't say the thoughts, he didn't say the meanings, he didn't say the ideas, he
said my words shall not pass away.
So it's not enough to say, well we have the general idea or the general gist.
No, those words have been preserved and they have not passed away but you know what?
Those words are right here in a Hebrew Old Testament because to say that this verse is
talking about the King James Version, okay, well let me ask you this.
What about all the spelling and punctuation changes since 1611?
Aren't those jots and tittles?
Okay, when he said no jot or no tittle, he's talking about from the original.
Now look, now does this verse apply to the King James?
It applies to the King James, yes, indirectly and let me explain to you why.
Because for example, if I'm reading Matthew chapter 5 and Jesus says that if you are angry
with your brother without a cause, right, he's talking about how you've sinned and you're
guilty, right, and he says if you're angry with your brother without a cause.
Now the modern versions remove that phrase without a cause.
Now here's the thing, there's a Greek word that means without a cause.
So if you remove the English phrase without a cause, you know what, you've de facto done,
you've basically removed that Greek word.
You know God gave that word and one of the words that God gave, you didn't translate
it into English, you took it out.
So you've removed from God's word, right?
Does everybody understand that?
Now according to their stupid logic, you'd say well the King James added two words there
because without a cause in the original is one word and they used three words.
Derp.
So when the Bible says you can't add or remove a word, you can't apply that to translation
or it would be impossible to translate.
If you're going to say this jot tittle applies to translation, then you can't translate anything.
It's not possible to translate without adding or removing words as long as you don't change
the meaning.
Now stop and think about this.
What is a jot?
You know what a jot is?
A jot is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet is pronounced yod, right?
So that yod, jot, iota.
In English we say not one iota, iota, yot, yud, yod, jot is all just different variations
on the same word.
So we're talking about a very tiny letter in Hebrew, okay?
He said not one jot or one tittle.
What's a tittle?
In Hebrew there are letters that look very much alike and you could easily mix them up.
Like two letters that look really similar and you got to really pay attention.
You know it's sort of like, sort of like in English we have some letters like this where
you, you know O and Q or something, you know capital O, capital Q or you know there could
be sometimes a lowercase a or a lowercase d.
It's like well how long is that stick?
You know what I mean?
And there could be, now here's the thing, in English we have a better alphabet, amen?
Because we can tell our letters apart.
But I'm telling you man, if you learn Hebrew some of those letters are really hard to tell
apart.
The tittle is the thing on the letter, two letters that are really similar, the thing
that separates them apart where you can tell which is which, one of them has a tittle
and one of them doesn't.
So basically you have two really hard to tell letters apart.
The tittle is the thing that's distinguishing so you can figure out which one we're talking
about.
Does everybody understand?
Okay so what's a jot?
A jot's a letter.
What's a tittle?
A tittle's a part of a letter that helps you know which letter you're talking about.
That's what these words mean, okay?
Now here's the thing.
When you go to the back of the auditorium we have a replica of the 1611 King James Version.
We have an exact replica and I've held a real first edition 1611 King James in my hand and
I can assure you that replica back there is an exact replica.
Even the weight is the same, the way the paper feels is the same, it's extremely authentic,
it has a certificate of authenticity framed above the wall above it, okay?
It's been certified by a historian that that is an authentic replica of the first edition
King James.
And what you're going to find is that the words are spelled dramatically differently.
Now it's going to say the exact same thing that your King James says except a few typos.
They had bad technology back then and so it has more typos than books have today.
But as far as, you know, if you looked it up it's going to say the same thing but you
know what?
It's going to take a few minutes to figure out how to read that thing because you're
not going to be used to the spellings.
You're going to get confused by those spellings until you get used to it.
So let me ask you this, if one jot or one tittle is talking about an English translation
like it has to be the way it was translated into English, then why aren't we using that
1611 edition?
You know, why don't we have that?
When they've changed letters, they've removed letters, and folks, I've heard some craziness
from people.
Like for example, you know, color used to be spelled c-o-l-o-u-r?
Music used to be spelled m-u-s-i-c-k?
But they say it's wrong to drop that k because you're not, what?
I've heard people say, so you know you have color, honor, okay, valor, ending in o-u-r?
Well here's the thing, the word savior ends in o-u-r.
I've heard preachers get up and say, if you take out the u and spell it s-a-v-i-o-r, that's
the antichrist.
They said savior, the six-letter savior, 666, you know, they said, they said if you spell
savior with six letters, that's the antichrist, you've got to spell it with seven letters.
You know what, there's a word for that, superstition.
I mean, but don't you just want to play it safe?
Yeah, you know what, let's just play it safe and let's just not step on that crack because
we don't want to break our mother's back, amen?
Let's just play it safe and you know, if we spill a little salt, we better just throw
some over our shoulder just to be safe.
And maybe I better just keep carrying this rabbit's foot around with me just to be safe.
And maybe I better not walk under that ladder just to be safe.
It is superstitious.
It's this mystical mumbo jumbo that there's something magical about savior with seven
letters versus six letters.
It's madness.
It is madness.
It's crazy.
Think about it.
And then you go into Spanish, it's salvador, eight letters.
I guess we'll just split the difference, amen?
Isn't it stinking believable to apply jot and tittle in that bizarre way?
Now look, does this verse apply to the King James?
Well look, here's how I would apply this verse to the King James.
If he says it's not possible for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law to all be
fulfilled, that tells me that the Hebrew Bible has been preserved so that when the King James
Bible translators had that Hebrew Bible in front of them, guess what they had?
Every jot and every tittle.
So my English Bible reflects every jot and tittle of the original.
So I can hold up the King James Bible and it doesn't matter whether I have a 1611 edition
or a 1769 edition, it doesn't matter.
If I can hold up any edition of the King James that's actually a King James and I can say
this is an inspired, preserved, every word, jot, tittle Bible because every jot and every
tittle of God's word is in here in English translated from Hebrew.
The actual jots and tittles were in Hebrew, folks.
Otherwise if you're going to say, well no, the jot and the tittles, then you know what?
You got to go back to that 1611 because the punctuation and the commas and the periods
have been changed, spellings have been changed.
You're going to have to go back to the V for a U and a U for a V. I mean, you better just
be safe.
I mean, I'd rather err on the side of caution and just be safe.
Well then go get a 1611, and you know what?
Carry around that 1611 replica, I wouldn't even get the small one.
Just to be safe, I'd get the big one.
Because you know what?
If you get the little small one, you know the 1611 replicas that are this size?
They change the font a little bit.
They do, yeah.
They Latinize the font.
There's a slight change.
I'd be safe and get a furniture dolly and put the original, I get the actual replica
that's been certified, and carry it around on a furniture dolly and go soul-witting with
that, because I, you know.
Because that's the jot and the tittle.
Folks, that is so stupid, that's insane.
It's crazy.
When he says, don't add to or remove from God's word, he's not saying, hey, that translation
is now, it can't be touched.
Well, what are we going to do if Christ hasn't returned 800 years from now then?
And what if we're not speaking English anymore?
What are we going to do at that point?
Be like the Roman Catholic Church, where we just have church in another language?
It's crazy.
Look, like I said, I don't want to change the King James.
I don't believe it should be revised.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
We're not out revising Shakespeare.
It's fine.
We can understand it.
There are a few archaic words in it.
Just explain them while you're preaching, you know.
You come to an archaic word, you just explain it.
It's not a big deal.
But to sit there and say, nope, nope, you can't change a jot or a tittle in the King
James.
Well, that's already happened four times because there have already been four spelling punctuation,
you know, capitalization, revisions, okay.
So let me just conclude on this, okay.
Our doctrine must agree with two things.
And this should be common sense.
Whatever we believe about any subject needs to agree with two things, okay.
Number one, it must agree with the Word of God.
And number two, it must agree with our physical reality.
Yes it must.
And you're like, whoa, I don't know about that.
I mean, I think we're just only supposed to go by what the Bible says.
Newsflash, if the Bible's true, it's going to agree with our physical reality.
And if it doesn't agree with our physical reality, you know what that means?
You're understanding it wrong.
Okay.
Does everybody understand what I'm saying?
Does everybody believe that physical reality is real?
Like do you believe, you guys all believe we're in this building right now, right?
Does everybody believe that, who believes that we're physically here this morning?
Okay.
Who believes that what I'm seeing in front of my eyes right now is real?
You guys believe that?
Who believes that the sounds I'm hearing right now, those sounds actually exist in the real
world?
The actual waves and, okay.
So I'm here.
What I see, hear, smell, touch, and taste is real.
Does everybody agree with that?
Okay, so I'm not like just in somebody else's dream or something.
You know.
So we all agree that physical reality represents truth?
Okay.
Who here believes that the Bible is 100% true?
Okay.
So if the Bible is 100% true and my physical reality is 100% true, are these things going
to line up?
Yes.
Now what if I'm reading the Bible and something in my physical reality is not lining up with
it?
One of two things has to be true.
Either the Bible is wrong or I'm misinterpreting the Bible or physical reality is wrong or
I'm misinterpreting physical reality.
Look, I don't believe the Bible is wrong and I don't believe my physical reality is wrong.
I think a lot of times we just interpret things wrong.
Right.
Does everybody understand?
So you know, you have people saying, well the earth is flat, but hold on a second.
We can physically demonstrate a thousand different ways that the earth is a globe.
Amen.
Well, but the Bible, the Bible never says it's flat.
Just do a little search on the word flat.
Just type in flat earth, zero results.
The Bible says God sits on the circle of the earth.
God says that the earth hangs on nothing.
The Bible teaches the truth about it, but some people will try to twist the Bible, but
and then you're like, hey idiot, the earth's round.
Here's a hundred reasons.
They're like, well, you got to show me from the Bible.
What?
I'm sorry.
I don't have to show you everything from the Bible.
Like, like for example, you know, I don't have to show you from the Bible that the sky
is blue.
I have like, well, let's see, is there a, is there a verse that mentions the sky being
blue because this idiot won't believe it's blue.
Can I just take him outside and just be like, all right, look.
But today we have people who just deny reality.
They're literal reality deniers.
Just you show it and you're just like, but this is what we used to do when we were kids
and we didn't want to listen to them, but who did that when you were a kid?
Like you just, just not going to, folks, you can, you can show somebody, well, look,
the King James Bible translates literally all the time.
It might put words in a different order, but it's going to be apple for apple, word for
word.
And then you show them, okay, King James, God forbid.
Original Greek.
Mi, yenito.
Mi doesn't mean God, yenito doesn't mean forbid, and yenito doesn't mean God, and mi doesn't
mean forbid.
It's too, it's like, and this is what they say, no.
And you're just like, excuse me?
You know, well, well, well, maybe it's a different group of guys.
Okay, okay, well let's go on the Bible Museum's website where they have first editions of
Stephanos, Beza, Erasmus, every Greek New Testament that existed before 1611.
And we can look at scanned PDFs of all of them and they all say the exact same thing.
And here's what the King James translates had in front of them, no, no, I still think.
And then one of these bozos at this conference, you know what he even said?
He said, well, if that were true, if that were true that the original doesn't say God
forbid, I mean if that were true then the King James Bible would be a fraud.
But you guys are really building people's faith in the King James, doing great guys.
Building people's faith in the King James by telling them, well, if it doesn't say that
exact expression, God forbid, if it doesn't say anything about God or anything about forbidding
the original, then the King James is a fraud.
You know what?
Today, the kids in your church might actually grow up and look that up and then they're
going to remember you saying that dumb thing and then they're going to be like, oh, wow,
well, I guess it's not, I mean, I guess you do lose something in the translation.
Think about that.
I mean, look, did I lose something in the translation if I say esregnet, because I didn't
say it ran cats and dogs?
Did I lose something?
Like do I just really have to have those little furry creatures in that statement?
Or is the gist of what I'm getting across, the point, the meaning, is it's raining really
hard.
So it doesn't matter if I say esregnet und regnet, or if I said it's raining cats and
dogs.
Right?
I mean, do you see what I'm saying?
But they get up and say, well, if it doesn't say God forbid and the great, then the great's
wrong.
Well, I can't show you where the right Greek is, but I just know that one's wrong.
You cannot deny reality, okay?
That's going to lead you into all kinds of bizarre, crazy stuff.
And you know what?
It's sad when you can just show someone evidence and they're just like, nope, nope, well, maybe
I'm dumb, they keep saying.
Maybe you are.
They just keep saying, well, maybe I'm just dumb, but maybe I'm just dumb, maybe I'm just
dumb.
Folks, that's a stupid attitude.
It says, maybe I'm just dumb, why don't you just look at it and be like, okay, I was wrong.
There it is.
Well, it turns out it's not the way I thought.
And you say, you know, what are you trying to do?
Why are you attacking these guys?
You know what?
This is a dangerous doctrine.
Last time I checked, the inspiration of the Bible is a pretty important doctrine.
Last time I checked, the final authority where God's word lies is a pretty important doctrine.
And I'm sorry if I'm not going to let these people have a three-ring circus of crazy
ruckmanite doctrine, hashtag new IFB, and I'm just supposed to sit back and not say
anything while they teach everybody this asinine, stupid doctrine.
Not going to do it.
And you know, and it's funny how today they're all crying about it today.
And like, they're not loving, they're so hateful, you know, these people are so hateful and
not loving.
Isn't that interesting, isn't that interesting?
Were they loving when they, when they've been texting people and saying, Pastor Anderson
doesn't believe our English Bible is inspired?
Was that loving?
That's a lie.
That's a bold-faced lie.
Is it loving when they text people and say, Pastor Anderson doesn't believe that we have
God's words in our language, he just believes we just have the general idea.
The general idea?
Is that what I've taught?
Or have I taught that if you read a King James, you're getting all the meaning?
Okay, so isn't it loving for Joe Major to lie about me and call me ecumenical?
Ecumenical?
I mean, that's wild, folks.
I mean, I've been called a lot of things.
I never expected to be called ecumenical.
So, so, so isn't it funny how they can talk bad about me behind my back, sending text
messages, lying, okay?
And you know, when I uploaded that video showing those text messages, I didn't realize that
was Patrick Boyle that typed that text message.
I didn't even know that when I uploaded the video because I just saw a couple phone numbers.
I don't know what those phone numbers are.
Yeah, it turns out it was Patrick Boyle.
And you know what?
I'm supposed to just sit back while they go around lying behind my back.
I publicly say, hey folks, this is not what we believe.
This is not what we've been taught.
This is a radical, crazy view.
And then I'm somehow not loving or hateful.
And look, folks, what am I trying to accomplish with this?
You know what?
I am preaching the truth.
I'm setting the record straight because people have come in to our circle of friends.
They've come into our group.
They've come and surrounded themselves with our friends and then they've brought, they've
smuggled in this Ruckmanite stupidity is what they've done.
And you know what?
It makes us all look stupid because I'm sure, I'm sure the enemies of the King James are
going to have a field day with that conference.
Wait until James White gets a hold of it.
He's going to tear it to shreds because it's wilder than Gene Kim.
In fact, I think even Ruckman would blush at some of the things that were said at that
conference, literally.
Even Ruckman taught Greek and Hebrew classes at Pensacola Bible Institute.
Yeah.
So you know, I mean, it's so wild the stuff that they're saying.
But you know, to sit there and just say, oh, well, look, and I'm not, I'm not saying, I'm
not saying, hey, break fellowship with these people.
They're bad people.
They're horrible people.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm not saying you got to quit their church.
You got to do this.
I'm getting up and rebuking outright lies and false doctrine.
Okay.
And you know what?
Patrick Boyle and Joe Major, they know that what they're teaching is false because I personally
showed it to them months ago.
So don't sit there and tell me, well, you should have gone to them personally.
I did.
I sat right here, one mile from here at Chan Pan Thai restaurant, the best stinking restaurant
in the whole Phoenix area.
One mile from here at Chan Pan Thai restaurant on baseline at 48th street, tell them Pastor
Anderson sent you.
I sat in that restaurant and I showed him, I said, look, God forbid me, and he looked
me right in the face and said, well, the Greek, the Greek's wrong.
And I said, I said, this is what every Greek New Testament says.
Well, they're all wrong.
If that's what they say, then they're all wrong.
Folks, he, it's not that he's ignorant or with it, look, he's getting up and teaching
reality denial, ruckmanism knowingly.
Okay.
And look, you know what, you know what I, you know what I want to say, you say, what
are you trying to accomplish?
Hey, you know what?
You know what?
I'd like to see happen.
I'd like to see these people basically realize that they're wrong and say, you know what?
We've made a mistake and moderate their view, moderate their position.
I don't hate them.
You know what?
Let me say this.
Look, I think that Patrick Boyle is a great pastor, even though he's lying about me behind
my back as those text messages show.
You know what?
I think he's doing a great job.
You know, I look at Patrick Boyle, I think he's a hard worker.
I think he's been effective.
I think he's had a great ministry, but you know what?
He is teaching a crazy doctrine.
It's too important to sit back and just say nothing about it.
And he can say, well, well, what do I do in my church, my business?
Not when you call it a conference and tell all of our church members and all of our friends
to tune into it, okay?
You said this is a conference and we want you all to tune in and you're broadcasting
this stuff and then you team up with someone who specifically has broken fellowship with
our church for not being King James only enough, and that's your speaker, but you poor little
victim you.
And look, I don't think he's a bad guy.
I don't think he's a bad pastor, but you know what?
He is wrong.
He has lied and he, and you know what, if people don't like me calling it out, well,
sorry.
Sorry.
Yeah.
Paul rebuked Peter to the face.
That's the difference.
He did it to his face, not secretly behind his back.
And you know what?
I would love nothing more than for these guys to renounce their stupid ruckmanite trash,
but even this morning, even after I've proven it, I've stood in front of a whiteboard and
made it so simple that even a theologian could understand.
Yet, this morning, Patrick Boyle said, I still stand by every word that was spoken at that
conference.
Well, you know what?
That's just sad.
That's just sad if you're still going to stand by those things that have been just completely
debunked.
And just, just stick your head in the sand and just buh, buh.
Look, my goal is always for people to repent.
And I already explained this to these people privately.
I already, look, I spoke to Joe Major privately and I was very gracious to him and I even
recommended him a reading list.
I said, look, here's a paperback you can read.
This will really help you understand the history of the King James.
Here's the name of the book.
Here's the author.
You know, read these books, man, that you're going to understand what I'm saying.
You got to look this up.
I promise you he didn't read those books.
I promise you because he wouldn't have said these wild things about them translating from
5,000 manuscripts if he read the book.
So look, if people are going to refuse to learn, refuse to study, refuse to face facts
that are right in front of the face, we don't live by facts, we live by faith, well I live
by both.
I live by both facts and faith.
Like as if faith is contrary to fact?
What kind of a religion is this?
You got to choose between faith and facts.
That's bizarre, folks, because last I checked God wants us to put our faith in fact.
What if facts are truth?
Put our faith in the truth.
It's going to line up with facts or else it's not a fact or it's not the truth.
But to sit there and just say, well you know what?
Even though it's right here, I just, nope, not going to believe it.
Well you know what, friend, then you know what?
Don't be surprised when you get called out publicly.
When you're publicly broadcasting garbage.
And you know what, I see my church members and I see my friend's church members being
influenced by this and people are coming to their pastor telling their pastor that he's
not King James only enough.
One of my pastor friends called me to thank me for calling this out.
Actually four of them did.
And one of them called me to thank me for calling this out and he said, yeah, I just
had a church member leave my church this week because I'm not King James enough.
Even though I believe it's perfect.
So folks, who's, who's causing division?
The people coming in and teaching doctrine contrary to what we've learned.
Okay, we've never been Ruckmanite.
Our friends have never been Ruckmanites.
These guys came out of a Ruckmanite college.
That's where they got this junk.
And you know what?
They can repent of it whenever they want.
They can repent of it whenever they want, friend, and, and, and this will all be over.
But no, I'm not going to sit back and allow my people here in Phoenix to be infected by
this junk that they're spewing out online of all these bizarre things.
Anyway, I've already gone over on time.
Let's pray.
Dear Lord, we thank you so much for your word, Lord.
We thank you that we do have the perfect word of God in English, that we can read it with
the confidence to know that what we are reading is your word.
Lord, help people not to go off on these wild tangents and go too crazy on these things,
help us not to go overboard, help us, help it to just be enough for us that you have
preserved your word and given us an accurate English translation, Lord.
Let that be enough for us and Lord, may we use that translation to speak and teach the
truth and Lord, I pray that, that people would not be discouraged by this controversy or
that, uh, you know, uh, Lord, I just pray that your will would be done and that good
would come of this.
But Lord God, please help us not to be infected with this spirit of reality denial, of flat
earth and, and, and ruckmanism and, and just all these weird things, Lord God, help us
to have a sound mind as well as Bible doctrine.
In Jesus' name we pray, amen.