So we've been going through the translators to the reader,
and we're in part seven.
The portion that I wanted to start with
is going to be the purpose of the translators
with their number, furniture, and care.
That's the titling section that we've kind of left off in.
And kind of some of the previous sections
have really been where the King James translators are simply
answering many of the accusations laid against them.
And really, if you kind of understand
the essence of the accusations laid against them,
they're pretty much falsely accusing
the King James translators of corrupting the text
and of altering God's word and the preposterousness
of updating the English version.
And really, they answered a lot of the accusations
laid against them.
But they don't really have kind of the same attitude.
They kind of have this attitude of most
every previous translation
is really a pretty good work in general.
Yeah, there's been problems,
but we're not trying to say everything else is just bad.
But really, the Bible does say,
and in 2 Corinthians, chapter number two,
look what it says again in verse 17,
for we are not as many which corrupt the word of God.
The Bible says that there is a lot of corruptions
of God's word.
And I think that there's probably multiple ways
that you could interpret this passage,
and I think they're all correct
as far as just applications are concerned.
But one application that's very important to us
is the fact that people are corrupting
the actual literal text of scripture.
They're corrupting the manuscripts,
and they're corrupting which Bible you should use.
Now, this should be immediately obvious
to anybody in America,
because if you go to the bookstore,
you have 50 to 100 different translation options
when you walk in through the door,
and they don't all say the same thing.
So if they don't all say the same thing,
they can't all be the word of God,
they can't all be correct.
And in fact, if you have been reading this with us,
you would realize that they've made mention
of that previously,
where they said if there's too many additions,
then it's certain that they're not all the word of God.
That would be very confusing,
and they kind of were making mention
of this happening in Latin.
Latin had had so many different additions and variations
within their manuscript family
that there's no way to say that every Latin translation
was the word of God.
Some were bad, some were obviously false,
and the same is with the English Bible.
You cannot say that they're all good.
They could all be bad, but they can't all be good.
And of course, we don't believe they're all bad,
we believe that King James is good,
and all the other ones are trash.
Now, I wanna read quite a bit of this
to kind of see if we can finish this evening,
but notice what they're gonna say in this first portion,
because it's very, very important
to kind of understanding their mindset.
It says in this first paragraph,
but it is high time to leave them,
and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves
and what course we held in this
our perusal and survey of the Bible.
So he's saying, previously, we were just answering
all the accusations against us.
We're done letting you set the narrative.
We're gonna go ahead and just tell you
the whole reason why we made this translation.
We're not gonna just constantly tell you what we didn't do
or what our motivations weren't.
We're gonna tell you what our motivations really were
and what we tried to accomplish.
He says, truly good Christian reader,
we never thought from the beginning
that we should need to make a new translation,
nor yet to make of a bad one a good one.
For then, the imputation of Sixtus
had been true in some sort,
that our people had been fed with gall of dragons
instead of wine, with whey instead of milk.
But to make a good one better,
or out of many good ones, one principal good one,
not justly to be accepted against,
that have been our endeavor, that our mark.
To that purpose, there were many chosen
that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own,
and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.
So very clearly, what is their stated goal
of making the King James Bible?
It was out of many good ones,
to make one principal one, right?
To make a good one better.
Now, did they say, let's just keep updating this forever?
Let's just keep making new English Bibles forever.
No, it's very clear that they're saying,
hey, we're just gonna do it one more time.
Now, it makes sense because even they themselves,
most of them were bishops.
And what's the Bible that's being updated?
The Bishop's Bible.
Now, they didn't have a problem with the Bishop's Bible,
many of them.
It was really the Puritan faction
that was really kind of upset with the Bishop's Bible
and had some issue.
And so, to kind of appease them,
King James is trying to bring everybody together
to make one translation
that everybody can just finally agree on,
and they're gonna smooth out anything
that potentially could even be argued against.
But they're trying to just dial in.
In their mind, they're saying, hey, the Bishop's is great.
And frankly speaking,
you read John chapter number three in the Bishop's Bible,
and it's almost the exact same as the King James.
But obviously, the King James smooths it out just a hair
and makes it just sound a little bit better.
Some things are worded a little bit better.
And of course, there's a few places in the bishops
that the King James really did update in a really nice way,
and it made it a lot better.
But generally speaking, if you read a Bishop's Bible
and you know the King James well,
you're gonna notice it's virtually like 99% the same text.
And I'm saying like the exact same words,
the same order, I mean, virtually everything.
The usually the only real difference between them
is that they're changing maybe the sentence structure,
how things are worded,
maybe use some different kind of synonyms.
In some places,
they might use different dynamic equivalence changes.
But for the most part, I mean,
they were already so dialed in,
and they're just saying, all right,
I guess we'll just do it one more time
to finally just satisfy you and let you know this is it.
I mean, this is the Bible.
But that's what they're claiming.
They're not claiming, you know what we should do?
We should just constantly update the English Bible
and get 50 different new versions.
They said, we didn't wanna make another version,
but we did it anyways,
and we're just gonna make it even a little bit better.
All right, that was not necessarily our vision.
We were commissioned to do such a thing.
And it says this, to that purpose,
there were many chosen that were greater
in other men's eyes than in their own.
You know, they're also very humble
in the sense that they're saying,
we weren't like, you know what?
We're smarter than every generation has ever existed.
We are the greatest scholars.
We have better information,
better knowledge than those before us.
So we're gonna make a better Bible.
No, no, no.
What happened is King James made them do it.
King James says, you guys are better.
You guys are smart.
And they were picked.
They were chosen to do this work.
They didn't sign themselves up.
They didn't say, hey, I'm gonna translate a better Bible.
They weren't Joseph Smith here,
getting some golden tablets and just, you know.
No, no, they were told to do this,
and they decided to go ahead and do it.
And when you understand this important aspect
in Christianity, really those who often volunteer
don't always have the best motives,
don't always have the best intentions.
And frankly, throughout the scripture,
many of the men in the Bible that were chosen
were very hesitant at first.
You see them being kind of like, I don't know.
Moses is very hesitant.
Gideon is very hesitant.
I mean, constantly throughout the Bible,
yeah, Saul, Saul's like hiding behind the stuff, okay?
And think about it.
Saul's literally the tallest guy by a foot.
I mean, you would think that he would be pretty prideful
considering the fact that he's like the tallest guy,
the strongest guy arguably,
and yet he was little in his own sight, wasn't he?
David was not necessarily wanting
to always be put in the positions that he was,
but he's handpicked.
Solomon really felt intimidated by the position
he was put in and was basically begging God
to help him in that position.
The disciples, they weren't going
and asking Jesus to be on his team.
Jesus came and met them where they were
and said, come and follow me.
And in fact, when Peter was even confronted by Jesus Christ,
he said, Lord, depart from me for I'm a sinful man.
He didn't say, hey, obviously you picked Peter.
Obviously you found me and I knew
that I was gonna be on your team.
No, of course, a lot of the men in the Bible
were a little bit hesitant, were a little bit resistant,
but you know what, they were chosen.
And once they were chosen, they got all the way in.
Jeremiah was kinda nervous about it,
but you know what, he got all the way in.
And once they got in, they did the work
that they were supposed to.
And of course, that doesn't mean
that these men weren't great.
It just means that they weren't gonna go around
and tell everybody how great they were.
They were gonna let another man praise thee
and not their own mouth, right, not their own lips.
Now it says, as we keep reading here,
it says again, they came or were thought
to come to the work, not exersindai cosai, as one sayeth,
but exersititai, that is learned,
not to learn for the chief overseer,
and I don't know how to pronounce this Greek word,
so there you go, under his majesty,
to whom not only we, but also our whole church,
was much bound, knew by his wisdom,
which thing also Nazianzen taught so long ago
that it is a preposterous order to teach first
and to learn after, yay, that, and another Greek phrase,
to learn and practice together is neither commendable
for the workmen nor safe for the work.
So one thing they're saying, one thing that's good
about this work that was done is that the men
who translated the Bible didn't have to end up
learning Greek and Hebrew to then translate the work.
They already knew it.
That's why they were even picked.
It was like, hey, we already know all this stuff perfectly.
That's the reason why they were chosen,
and it kinda makes me think of missionaries today.
A lot of missionaries, they go to do a work
in a foreign country and they don't even know
the language yet.
It's like, that's weird, that's backwards.
It's backwards that you're gonna go
to a foreign country to then learn the language,
to then possibly give them the gospel.
Why don't you go somewhere that you're already prepared,
you're already ready?
And it's funny as we keep reading how much
that correlation is kinda picked on here.
Look what it says in the next sentence.
Therefore, such were thought upon as could say modestly
with Saint Jerome, at Hebraium sermonum,
ex parte, desicidimus, et in Latino,
pene, ab, ipsis, en cunibus, detri sumus.
Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue and part,
and in Latin, we have been exercised
almost from our very cradle.
So, they're saying, we've known these languages
almost from as a baby.
We've just been prepared.
And a lot of us don't necessarily get to choose
what languages we learn, because whatever's
your native tongue, you were just born in, right?
You were a toddler, you were a child,
and you just learned it.
If you live in a dual language household
where your parents were speaking two different languages,
or maybe your home language was different
than the school you were going to,
you know, that's just a gift from God
that you have that opportunity.
And what do God, people would use the opportunities
and the talents they have.
I kinda preached about this a long time ago,
but there was a guy named like Fernando or something,
and he wanted to be a missionary,
and he wanted to be a missionary to Japan.
And he didn't speak Japanese.
And I'm thinking like, what about Mexico?
Fernando?
You know, it's like, wouldn't that maybe fit
a little bit better than going there?
And look, I'm not against witnessing to the Japanese,
or if you wanna go to Japan and preach the gospel,
please do.
But you know what, if you don't speak Japanese,
it might not be very effective.
And of course, honestly, from my opinion,
Japan's probably not as receptive as Mexico anyways.
So I don't know how good Fernando's doing over there,
but why don't you use the language
that God's given you, right?
These guys were already given such a great gift
that they were obviously chosen for this work.
So Saint Jerome make it no mention of the Greek tongue,
wherein yet he did excel because he translated
not the Old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.
And in what sort did these assemble?
In the trust of their own knowledge,
or in the sharpness of wit, or in deepness of judgment,
as it were in the arm of flesh, at no end.
They trusted in him that at the key of David,
opening and no man shutting, they prayed to the Lord,
the Father of our Lord, to the effect that Saint Augustine
did, oh, let thy scriptures be my pure delight.
Let me not be deceived in them,
neither let me deceive by them.
In his confidence and with this devotion
did they assemble together not too many,
lest one should trouble another, and yet many,
lest many things happily might escape them.
If you ask what they had before them, truly,
it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,
the Greek of the new, these are the two golden pipes,
or rather conduits, where through the olive branches
emptied themselves into the gold.
Now, man, this is really making it clear
how they feel about a translation work.
They're saying Saint Jerome was an expert in Greek,
yet he still chose the Hebrew for the Old Testament.
He made no mention of the Greek.
Now, even though they're commending
some of these previous translations
or previous translators, they're saying
it didn't come of their intellect,
the translations they had.
They were praying and asking God
to give them the understanding
and to help them in that particular work.
And specifically, what they were using
was the Hebrew of the old, the Greek of the new,
and they're saying these are the two golden pipes
where essentially that's you're gonna get
the gold of the word of God.
What would be outside of that?
Not gold, right?
Fake gold.
And of course, they don't want that.
They want the real thing.
They want the real substance.
And they're looking at, they kind of seem to indicate
throughout the whole thing that they believe
in the families, right, the Hebrew family
and the Greek family.
This is where the text is contained,
and they're just doing a refining process
and getting it from there.
But be it certain that they're not going to
get a translation work from any other source.
They believe and are locked it in Hebrew old, Greek new.
This is what they believe.
This is what they say.
All of the people they have respect for of history
and antiquity have believed and used as well.
Now, it says St. Augustine call them precedent
or original tongues, St. Jerome fountains.
So he says, hey, St. Augustine's calling them
original tongues and St. Jerome's calling them fountains,
meaning this is the source of the water.
This is the source of the text.
The same St. Jerome affirmeth and Gratian have not spared
to put it in his decree that as the credit of the old books
he meaneth of the Old Testament.
It is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes,
so of the new by the Greek tongue,
he meaneth by the original Greek.
Now that's a really important phrase, the original Greek.
What's not the original Greek?
The Septuagint.
So they keep pointing out how the Septuagint
is not to be trusted, is not to be the source,
is not to be used.
It's supposed to come from the original Greek.
It says if truth be to be tried by these tongues,
then when should a translation be made but out of them?
These tongues therefore, the scriptures we say
in those tongues, we set before us to translate,
being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak
by his church, by his prophets and apostles.
Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste
that the Septuagint did.
So they're also criticizing the Septuagint saying hey,
this Septuagint was just made super fast.
So we're not gonna do that.
We're not gonna do it in 70 days.
They took seven years.
They took their time.
Not only that, the Septuagint is a brand new source.
It's coming from Hebrews straight into Greek.
They weren't going straight out.
They're using the bishops as a source
that's already 99% dialed in.
So you could argue it's not even just a seven year project
but it's almost a hundred year project.
It's almost like the Noah's Ark project or something
where it's just taking just so many years
in order to construct and to perfect
and to get it dialed in.
And of course this is an important point
because they're constantly criticizing the idea
of using the wrong source, even the Latin.
The Latin, if you've been staying with us,
they constantly said hey,
they have a lot of editions of this Latin.
They're all over the place and all kinds of different.
Which one would you even pick?
We're not gonna pick any of those.
We're picking the Hebrew and we're picking the Greek.
We're not gonna make an English translation
out of anything else but these two sources.
Now it says, if that be true, which is reported to them
that they finished it in 72 days,
neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again
having once done it like Saint Jerome.
If that be true, which himself reporteth
that he could no sooner write anything
but presently it was caught from him
and published and he could not have leave to mend it,
neither to be short were we the first that fell in hand
with translating the scripture in English
and consequently destitute of former helps
as it is written of origin that he was the first in a manner
that put his hand to write commentaries
upon the scriptures and therefore no marvel
if he overshot himself many times.
None of these things, the work,
hath not been huddled up in 72 days
but hath cost the workman as light as it seemeth,
the pains of twice seven times 72 days and more.
Matters of such weight and consequence
are to be speeded with maturity.
For in a business of a moment,
a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness,
neither did we think much to consult
the translators or commentators,
Calvary, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no,
nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch,
neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done
and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered,
but having and using as great helps as were needful
and fearing no approach for slowness
nor coveting praise for expedition.
We have at the length, through the good hand
of the Lord upon us, brought the work
to that pass that you see.
So what they are essentially saying is this.
We didn't try to do it slow on purpose
and we didn't try to do it faster than we needed.
We just took whatever time we thought
was necessary to did it right.
And we even consulted not just with all
the previous English translations that were working for us,
but we considered even of other foreign languages
and other foreign tongues to make sure
that when we have this dialed in,
there's no way to have any approach against it.
It's lined up with all of the Greek,
all of the previous Hebrew,
and all of the other foreign language translations,
and all the English before it,
and it's just that one more exact translation.
It's that one more final product.
And really, if you think about it,
slow and steady wins the race.
That's basically their motto.
That's what they're saying.
Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin
where there is great probability for each.
Some paired venture would have no variety of senses
to be set in the margin.
They're called ruckmanites.
Lest the authority of the scriptures
for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty
should somewhat be shaken.
Now, again, if you get an,
we have an exact reprint out here.
If you open it up, you'll see in the margin
sometimes some notes.
They're not a lot of notes,
but pretty much all the notes are just related to the text.
They're not commentary.
They're not necessarily even a reference.
It's more about the text itself.
And what they simply will put in the margin occasionally
is they will put some kind of a synonym.
If they felt like, you know what,
this particular Hebrew word or Greek word
kind of gives two senses,
they would sometimes put the alternative in the margin.
But of course, the one that they thought was right
and they agreed upon is the one they put in the text.
But they just put it in there
for educational purposes or whatnot.
Additionally, there are places
where maybe the Greek or the Hebrew
might have a slightly more literal interpretation
than what they actually chose.
And so they just put in the margin
the very literal Greek or the very literal Hebrew
in the margin so you could just see what that said.
But often the literal is kind of like a Google Translate.
It's not actually gonna be that beneficial.
And it's not even gonna necessarily help.
I wish, for sake of explaining this point,
it'd be nice to have the drawing board up here.
But if you try to give the literal sense every single time,
you would sometimes get awkward translations.
And so to give an example, let's just say Spanish.
And a lot of people do speak Spanish,
so it's a little bit easier.
But if you were just gonna say, my name is Jonathan, okay?
That's the English.
And you would say, this was originally spoken in Spanish.
So what did the person say in Spanish?
Well, if you're a Ruckmanite, you would say,
well, it was a literal word for word, okay?
So you would have been like,
it must have been mi nombre es Juan, okay?
But here's the thing, someone that actually speaks Spanish
would never speak like that
because that's just kind of a little awkward.
What they would probably say is like, como se llama Juan.
And that is just like saying, my name is Jonathan as well.
It's saying the exact same thing.
But if you were to take that Spanish phrase and,
or, you know, if you're gonna say it in Spanish,
like the literal, you're actually using yamar,
and yamar means to call.
And it's like, to call myself Jonathan.
Well, if I were to take that and translate it into English,
I would have said, my name is Jonathan, okay?
But in the margin, you would have put, hey, to call myself.
But that's kind of awkward.
What if I went around and I said, I call myself Jonathan.
You'd be like, that person's weird, okay?
My name is Jonathan, right?
But in Spanish, obviously you might word that
a little bit differently and that's okay.
Again, also plenty of places when you think about it,
word order is never gonna be the same.
In Spanish, it's always backwards, okay?
And it's, you know, English is right.
No, I'm just kidding.
But obviously if it was like a green house,
in Spanish, they usually don't say that order.
They would say casa verde.
So it's like house green and you're like,
well, that was weird, it's backwards, right?
Cause it's a green house.
No, I'm just kidding.
But again, things like that
are going to be common in any translation, right?
Anytime you're going to make a translation work
or you're going to switch into a new language,
you're gonna have variations
within how you do the sentence structure,
how certain words are used.
Even sometimes a word when it's directly translated
actually has a different sense in another language.
And so you cannot,
you cannot always have a literal translation.
And sometimes when you are trying to be literal,
you're actually inaccurate
because that's not what they actually said.
Cause if I said, my name is Jonathan,
and they said, oh, so the Spanish must've been
mi nombre es Juan,
that could be inaccurate
because that may have not been
what was actually spoken in Spanish.
It was something else.
Me llamo Juan.
You know, I call myself Jonathan.
If I say, me llamo Juan,
and someone says, what did he say in English?
They're gonna say, he said, I call myself Jonathan.
He would say, my name is Jonathan, right?
Me llamo Juan.
But again, what is that in English?
My, like me call myself Jonathan.
Me call myself Jonathan, right?
But you know, there is actually some English translations
that were way before the King James,
way before any of these other translations
that were kind of like that,
where they would translate just portions of scripture,
like Psalms.
Like Psalm 23 is a pretty famous passage of scripture,
and someone did this like overly literal translation of it,
and it's just so awkward.
It's like, the Lord, me shepherd, me shall not want.
And you're just like, whoa, that's weird, right?
Just because they're trying to be like overly literal
about the word order and the sentence structure
and everything like that.
But that's bizarre, okay?
So if you had an original work,
me llamo Juan, and then you translate it in English,
it would say, my name is Jonathan.
But in the margin, it could say,
literally, I call myself Jonathan, right?
But would you ever want that in the text?
No, you wouldn't want that in the text.
That wasn't really accurate.
And of course, Ruckmanites will get really weird
about this stuff, and some people are beyond Ruckman.
They're kind of like a Ripplinger fan.
And they'll literally teach that there's like
some kind of a Greek manuscript out there
that matches the King James' word order, sentence structure.
And they'll reject the text's receptives.
They'll just say, you know what, all this was trash.
There must be this magical Greek text out there
that's my version.
And that's a dumb idea.
It's a dumb idea, and it's proven wrong
by every fact of reality, the fact that literally
you can look at our exact replica, and it'll say,
hey, this is literally what the Hebrew or the Greek said,
and then this is what we put.
But you don't want to get superstitious
about the King James Bible, folks, okay?
Because it's not like, or I've heard,
even Ripplinger and some of her fans,
they'll say that the King James Bible
is not translated from the Greek and Hebrew.
It's a first edition, because God just opened out
the mouth of these translators, I guess,
and they just spoke.
Well, think about this.
Let's just say that happened for half a second,
which it didn't, okay?
But if you were just, you're just,
I'm gonna translate the Bible, Lord.
Well, I don't need any Greek or Hebrew.
I don't even know why I wrote this entire
translator as a reader, because I didn't even use
the Greek or Hebrew.
I just was like, oh, you know, I'm just speaking
the word of God in English.
Why in the world would I put in a margin
what the Greek literally meant?
If I had thought, like, if God just came
and just came, you know, the Holy Spirit came on me
and I just spoke the word of God,
why would I then put in the side margin?
But literally in Greek, this is what it means.
That's bizarre.
It's because they didn't think that,
no one thinks that.
You're weird if you think that, okay?
So, that's what they did.
They put in the margin some different
varieties of senses.
Do you need that?
No.
Do you think these Bible have margins?
No.
I don't think it's necessary.
They put it in there.
It's not a big deal.
I have no problem with it.
But of course it does help prove that
ruckmanites are stupid, so I like that.
Says this, lest the authority of the scriptures
for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty
should be, should somewhat be shaken,
but we hold their judgment not to be so sound
in this point.
Ruckmanites are dumb.
For though whatsoever things are necessary
are manifest, as Saint Chrysosome sayeth
and as Saint Augustine, and those things
that are plainly set down in the scriptures,
all such matters are found that concern
faith, hope, and charity.
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled,
that partly to exercise and wet our wits,
partly to wean the curious from loathing,
of them for their everywhere plainness,
partly also to stir up our devotion
to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer,
and lastly, that we might be forward
to seek aid of our brethren by conference,
and never scorn those, that be not in all respect
so complete as they should be,
being to seek in many things ourselves
that hath pleased God in his divine providence
here and there, to scatter words and sentences
of that difficulty and doubtfulness,
not in doctrinal points that concern salvation,
for in such it hath been vouched
that the scriptures are plain,
but in matters of less moment that fearfulness
would better beseech us than confidence,
and if we were resolved to resolve upon modesty
with Saint Augustine, though not in the same case
altogether, yet upon the same ground,
milis est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de insertis,
it is better to make doubt of those things
which are secret than to strive
about those things that are uncertain.
There be many words in the scriptures
which be never found there but once,
having neither brother nor neighbor as the Hebrews speak,
so that we cannot be hoping by conference of places.
So they said a lot, what are they trying to say?
They're basically just saying that all the places
that are really, really important and of doctrinal importance
we know and they're certain and we've ironed them out
and they're perfect, but there are some places
in the Bible that are a little bit more unique,
little bit more uncertain, and in fact,
there's places where it just has one Greek word
or one Hebrew word that are never used in another place,
and so just to add to the education of the reader,
they would put in the margin sometimes extra notes
or extra things about that particular word.
In some cases, they even just brought the word over,
you know, and so you have words like leviathan
and behemoth and things like that,
and it's like, what is that?
Well, many of us don't even know exactly
what those things are and so they themselves
are putting these things in.
There's a lot of creatures and things of antiquity
that, you know, there's speculation on,
what is a cockatrice or what is, you know,
some of these different things exactly or,
and so they're just bringing them in
and putting names on these animals
and not everybody's seen that.
I mean, think about it, in the 1600s in England
has everybody seen every single one of these creatures
mentioned in the Bible?
No, not really, and so there's gonna be some places
where they did the best that they could
in basically their opinion,
but they don't think it changes anything.
It's not like it's not the word of God,
it's not like it wasn't done well,
it's just, let's be honest here,
some things are just really hard to be understood,
yet we put them in there and we did the best we could
and we would put some marginal notes,
you know, where fitting, where it made sense,
but none of our marginal notes mean anything.
None of our marginal notes change any,
there's no doctrinal division in the notes,
there's no extra secret hidden knowledge in the notes,
it's just there if you want it, right?
Just like you looking up words in the dictionary,
that doesn't draw you closer to God,
but it may give you a little better understanding
of how words are understood.
Now, they say, I think, if I pick up again,
again, there be many rare names of certain birds,
beasts, and precious stones, et cetera, concerning,
which the Hebrews themselves are so divided
among themselves for judgment,
that they may seem to have defined this or that,
rather because they would say something,
than because they were sure of that which they said,
as Saint Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint,
now in such a case does not a margin do well
to admonish the reader to seek further,
and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this,
or that preemptorily, for as it is a fault of incredulity,
to doubt of those things that are evident,
so to determine of such things
as the Spirit of God hath left,
even in the judgment of the judicious questionable,
can be no less than presumption.
Therefore, as Saint Augustine saith,
that variety of translations is profitable
for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures,
so diversity of signification, and sense in the margin,
where the text is not so clear, must needs do good,
yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
We know that six disquentous expressly forbideth
that any variety of readings of their vulgar addition
should be put in the margin,
which though it be not altogether the same thing
to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way.
But we think he hath not all of his own side,
his favors for this conceit,
they that are wise, had rather have their judgments
at liberty and differences of readings,
than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.
If they were sure that their high priests
had all law shut up in his breast, as Paul II bragged,
and that he were as free from error by special privilege
as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable,
it were another matter.
Then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision.
But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked,
and have been a great while,
they find that he is subject to the same affections
and infirmities that others be,
that his skin is penetrable,
and therefore so much as he proveth,
not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
So he's saying essentially, translations of the past
by Rome and the Catholic Church and the Latins,
they would like to pretend that they were always perfect
and never made a mistake, but now at this point,
there's been so much knowledge and explosion
that they realize they made a lot of mistakes.
From their perspective,
they're not approaching the King James translation
as if they have maybe not made a mistake,
as just saying, hey, we just want it to be on the table
and open, judge us and decide if we made a mistake,
and if it's there, find it.
But obviously, they don't think they made a mistake,
otherwise they would have corrected it and made the check.
They think they did a good job,
but they're allowing it to be scrutinized, basically.
They're saying previous works, they would just be like,
this can't even be scrutinized, it's perfect,
but don't even look at it, don't even judge it,
don't even consider whether it's good or not.
But obviously, the test of time will tell, won't it?
And the test of time has proven
that the King James Bible, they got it right.
Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon it
in identifying, I'm sorry, an identity of phrasing.
Another thing we think good to admonish the of,
gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves
to a uniformity of phrasing, or to a quote,
identity of words, as some paired venture would wish
that we had done, because they observed
that some learned men somewhere have been
as exact as they could that way.
So basically, they're saying, hey, we're not ruckmanites.
I love how they just keep bringing up this point, okay?
Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that
which we had translated before,
if the word signified the same thing in both places,
for there be some words that be
not of the same sense everywhere,
we were especially careful,
and made a conscience according to our duty,
but that we should express the same notion
in the same particular word, as for example,
if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose,
never to call it intent.
If one were journeying, never traveling.
If one were think, never suppose.
If one were pain, never ache.
If one were joy, never gladness, et cetera.
Thus, to mince the matter, we thought to savor
more of curiosity than wisdom,
and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist,
and bring profit to the godly reader.
So, basically they're saying,
hey, we changed the words at our own liberty,
but only if it gave the exact same sense,
and if it didn't give the exact same sense,
we wouldn't necessarily just arbitrarily change words,
or use different English words for the same underlying word,
so as to confuse the reader, but in essence,
they're saying we didn't just smooth everything out,
and just always use the exact same phrase
every single time, over and over,
and they're kind of pointing out
that this would breed scorn in the atheist,
if they did that, as opposed to, you know,
profiting the godly reader, in the sense that it's not,
the atheist will look at how sometimes
the King James Bible, or the Bible itself,
will use some different wording,
or some different language to express the same notion,
or even sometimes quotes, maybe aren't even a verbatim,
or an exact quote, and the atheists say,
oh, see, the Bible has an error in it,
or has a contradiction, but they don't care
about the atheists, because, you know what,
nuts to the atheist, and they said,
instead of just smoothing it all out,
just so it just read exactly the same,
or had the exact same words every single time,
so as to content the atheist,
they thought it's not gonna profit you as the reader.
What would be more beneficial to you
is to have a little bit more variety of language,
a little bit variety of words,
so that you get a better sense
of what the text is actually saying,
and if you understand how sometimes in the Old Testament,
the Bible will use the word congregation,
but in the New Testament, it'll use the word church, right,
and we appreciate that, whereas someone could look at that
and say, oh, well, isn't it supposed to say congregation?
No, it could say church in the New Testament.
It's the same thing, but of course,
you know, this is like the same idiots that'll say,
well, you know what, there's a difference between John 3.15,
where it says everlasting, and eternal,
because in John 3.15, it says eternal life,
and in John 3.16, it says everlasting life.
That's two different things.
No, it's the same thing.
Just like if it says the Lord Jesus Christ,
or it says the Son of God,
it's the same person.
It's not like that's two different persons.
No, it's the same thing, okay?
Whether you call it everlasting life, eternal life,
if you call it forever life, it's the same thing, okay?
You know, that's a dumb way to start looking at the Bible,
and notice the people that get really weird about this
are atheists, according to them,
so what do they think about these freaks and weirdos
that are trying to make a distinction
between these everlasting and eternal points of contention?
You know what, these people are not to be reasoned with
because they're unreasonable, so nuts to them,
and he's saying, you know what,
I don't care about these people.
I'm not trying to appease these people.
I'm trying to appease you
because you have a brain in your head,
and I want to profit you, all right?
It says this, for as the kingdom of God
become words or syllables,
that's the question you should ask every Ruckmanite.
I love this.
For as the kingdom of God become words or symbols.
Now, don't mistake what they're saying.
They're not mocking the fact that the word of God is words.
They're not mocking the fact that the word of God
has been preserved and that we believe
in the integrity of scripture,
but what they're saying is, look,
we chose which English words to use here,
and it wasn't that they couldn't have chosen other words
and it wouldn't still be the word of God.
Just like, hey, when the bishops or the Geneva
or any of these other Bibles before it,
when it said the exact same thing as the King James
using slightly different words or synonyms,
let me tell you something, it was still the word of God.
And think about this, syllables,
they even had people in their day
that are saying there's a difference
between speaketh and speaks,
and it's like, no, there isn't, you idiot.
Is the word of God become symbols, you know, syllables,
where it's just like, well, if you don't say
the if, you know, you've corrupted God's word.
You know what, that's stupid.
Okay, that's foolish, it's nonsensical,
you even have, frankly, in the Bible itself,
sometimes people's names change.
Have you ever noticed that?
The syllables changed, woo.
You know, but it's silly,
especially from a translation perspective
to get hung up on this stuff.
Look, if we were trying to copy the 10 Commandments
from the original tablet that God had handed Moses
that he'd written with his own finger,
let's make sure it's dialed in 100%.
I mean, there's no, we're not gonna alter that thing ever.
We're gonna get it exactly dialed in,
let's not change it, why an iota.
But when we're talking about a translation, folks,
to get it dialed in to a specific syllable
is just, it's asinine, okay?
It's just, it's really to get to a point
where you just are kind of scorning the Bible,
and you're scorning the doctrines,
and you're just becoming too pious, okay?
Says this, why should we be in bondage to them?
Why am I bondage to F?
I don't have to be.
If we may be free, use one precisely,
when we may use another no less fit as commodiously.
A godly father in the primitive time
showed himself greatly moved,
that one of newfangledness called,
and then he uses two different Greek words, okay,
through the difference be little or none,
and another reporteth that he was much abused
for turning kubita,
which, to which reading the people had been used,
into hedera.
Now, if this happened in better times,
and upon so small occasions,
we might justly fear hard censure,
if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changes.
We might also be charged by scoffers,
with some unequal dealing,
towards a great number of good English words,
for it is written of a certain great philosopher,
that he should say that those logs were happy,
that were made images to be worshiped,
for their fellows, as good as they,
lay for blocks behind the fire.
So if we should say, as it were,
unto certain words, stand up higher,
have a place in the Bible always,
and others of like quality,
get ye hints, be banished forever.
We might be taxpayer adventure with St. James' words,
namely to be partial in ourselves,
and judges of evil thoughts.
So what they're saying is,
when they chose a particular English word,
when they had a choice between two words
that said the exact same thing, meant the same thing,
they're synonyms, and we just say,
hey, we're picking this one over this one.
We're not actually saying this word's just a better word.
That's just the one we chose.
And you know what?
He's saying, praise God,
that word should be happy that it was chosen.
Just like the stones that were put in Solomon's Temple
should be pleased that that's the stone they were used,
and not the stone used in Leviticus 20, 13.
Okay?
Who got a bunch of gross blood all over, right?
I mean, of course, maybe some stones were happy
to be used that way, I don't know.
But it's like, hey, you're gonna be used,
just be happy that you're used.
And they're saying, but we're not thinking
that that other word's somehow inferior,
or less of a word, or is somehow bad.
Just like we're not supposed to judge people,
and think like, oh, the rich people are good,
and the poor people are bad, and to judge them,
and think that they're not worthy to be used.
No, we can like every English word the same,
and appreciate them, but then obviously words
that are found in the Bible get some preeminence
in the sense that, hey, they're gonna be remembered forever.
Of course, that's why in a modern dictionary today,
you can pretty much find every word
of a King James Bible in them,
because they were put in the Bible.
So therefore, they're gonna be kept, and used,
and people are reading them, and understanding them,
and studying them.
But they're not saying, oh, these words
are just so much more special than any other every word.
Says this, oh, oh, oh, because I've heard somebody say this,
there's all these words made up for the King James Bible.
I don't even know where you come up with this doctrine.
Because it seems like something you couldn't even prove.
And I'm not joking, I heard someone say,
they did not have the word female,
and they made it up for the Bible.
And I'm thinking like, what is this, 1984?
Were they calling them not male?
You're a not male.
They just never even thought of that word.
How could you even know a word
that wasn't even in existence 400, or 500,
or 600 years ago?
You know how people even, this is what scholars do,
is they theorize this, because they can't find any book
that has a particular word,
and so they just assume that it wasn't in use.
But that's a bad assumption, and it's unprovable anyways.
But don't get super weird about the Bible, okay?
Because we don't wanna be in this weird cult of Ruckman,
or Ripplinger, where we believe dumb things,
and in fact, they're gonna admonish us here.
Look what it says.
Add here into that niceness in words
was always counted the next step to trifling.
You know, it's like arguing, okay?
And so was to be curious about names too.
Also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocation
than God himself.
Therefore, he using diverse words in his holy writ,
and indifferently, for one thing in nature,
we, if we will not be superstitious,
may use the same liberty in our English versions
out of Hebrew and Greek.
Notice they're saying, don't be superstitious, folks.
And they also said this, that they didn't consider niceness
when translating the Bible.
Praise God.
They used words like bastard, and piss,
and every other, hell, damnation.
They weren't trying to just make the Bible sound nice.
They were trying to make it accurate.
They were trying to make it the word of God.
And you know what?
God is nice, but he's also not nice sometimes.
Have you ever read portions of Psalms?
Psalm 58, not very nice.
Sodom and Gomorrah, it wasn't a nice day.
Hell, not a nice place.
So sometimes, if you're gonna describe
the God of the universe, you have to use the word
that's appropriate.
And sometimes it's an ugly word,
because it's an ugly thing that's being described.
Okay, like a reprobate.
It's an ugly word for an ugly person.
Vile, it uses the word vile,
or it talks about gross things, disgusting things.
Sodomites is constantly brought up in the Bible.
There's some crude words in the Bible,
some rough words, but you know what?
That doesn't scare me, okay?
It might scare you, but that's your problem.
He says, for that copier store that he hath given us,
lastly, we have on the one side avoided
the scrupulosity of the Puritans,
who leave the old ecclesiastical words
and betake them to other, as when they put
washing for baptism in congregation instead of church,
as also on the other side we have shunned
the obscurity of the papists and their asymes,
tunic, rational, holocaust, preppus, pasque,
and a number of such like,
whereof their late translation is full,
and that of purpose to darken the sense,
that since they must need to translate the Bible,
yet by the language thereof,
it may be kept from being understood.
But we desire that the scripture may speak like itself,
as in the language of Canaan,
that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
Vulgar is meaning common.
So they wanted to get away from the Puritan leaning
of getting away from anything related with church,
because the Puritans just think like,
everything church related is wrong and bad.
Why?
Because the Catholic church is really bad.
But that doesn't mean,
you can't throw the baby out of the bathwater.
And then they want to get away from what the Catholics do,
that's the papists, that's what they're called,
because they use words that basically,
no one has any understanding of,
just to use it from tradition.
And then basically,
people won't understand the Bible anymore,
because just using all these words
that nobody's familiar with.
Kind of like a legal document,
where lawyers just use all these words,
you have no idea what they're trying to say.
And really, they're still making very simple statements,
but they just use so much complicated language
to kind of disguise what they're even saying.
And he's like, we don't want either.
We want to use the words that should be used,
that are accurate, regardless of past, history, future,
and that are easy to be understood.
And they don't want you to get hung up on the wording.
Hey, is the King James Bible,
do we believe that it's perfect,
that it's God's word and there's not an error?
Absolutely.
But that doesn't mean that previous translation works,
saying the same thing slightly differently
can't also be the word of God.
And that was their opinion, that's my opinion.
I also agree with that.
I'm not mad at the NIV or the New King James
or any of these other versions
for saying the same thing differently.
I'm mad at them for saying different things.
I'm mad at them for taking verses out.
I'm mad at them for corrupting the text.
I'm mad at them for changing doctrine.
I'm mad at them for lying about their intention.
I'm mad at them for using the wrong source for the text.
There's a lot of reasons to be mad at them,
but let's not get a superstitious view
and then get mad at them for the one thing
that doesn't even make sense.
And this is why James White even has a platform
is because he basically only attacks Ruckmanite view.
He pretty much attacks this over the top superstitious view
of just like, well,
it's gotta be locked into these exact words.
You can prove that wrong so many times.
I mean, you look at the 1611 and yours,
there's gonna be slight changes and variations
in the syllables.
But you know what?
Who cares?
It's saying the same thing.
There's the Bishop's Bible saying the same thing, folks.
Let's not get over the top with this viewed
where basically we look like freaks, okay?
And Ruckmanites are freaks, all right?
Many other things we might give the warning of,
general reader,
if we had not exceeded the measure of a preface already.
Well, at least they recognize that this was too long, okay?
And if you felt like this series was too long,
well, you know what?
They said they're sorry, okay?
It remaineth that we commend thee to God
and to the spirit of his grace,
which is able to build further than we can ask or think.
He removeth the scales from our eyes,
the veil from our hearts,
opening our wits that we may understand his word,
enlarging our hearts,
yea, correcting our affections,
that we may love it above gold and silver.
Yea, that we may love it to the end.
Notice their view towards the Bible.
They want you to love it.
They want you to love God's word.
They want you to love this book more than gold itself.
The most precious thing on the planet,
year brought under the fountains of living water,
which he did not,
do not cast earth into them with the Philistines,
neither prefer broken pits before them with the wicked Jews.
Hey, I like these people.
Others have labored and you may enter into their labors.
Oh, receive not so great things in vain.
Oh, despise not so great salvation.
Be not like swine to tread underfoot so precious thing,
neither yet like dogs to tear and abuse holy things.
Hey, they didn't like the dogs either.
Say not to our savior with the Gergesites,
depart out of our coasts,
neither yet with Esau,
sell your birthright for a mess of pottage.
You know, like the message.
Don't sell your birthright for the message.
If light be coming to the world,
love not darkness more than light.
If food, if clothing be offered, go not naked.
Starve not yourselves.
Remember the advice of the Nazazin.
It is a grievous thing or dangerous to neglect,
a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterwards.
Also the encouragement of St. Chris's Stone.
I like this guy.
It is altogether impossible that he that is sober
and watchful should at any time be neglected.
Lastly, the admonition and menacing of St. Augustine.
They that despise God's will, inviting them,
shall feel God's will, taking vengeance of them.
It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of living God,
but a blessed thing it is,
and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end
when God speaketh unto us.
To hearken when he saideth his word before us to read it,
when he stretches out his hand and calleth to answer.
Here am I, here are we to do thy will, O God.
The Lord work a care and conscience in us
to know him and serve him,
that we may be acknowledged of him
at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
to whom with the Holy Ghost be all praise and thanksgiving.
Amen.
So we've concluded,
and I just want to make a few concluding statements,
but don't miss this last portion
because wow, it's really powerful,
and this is what they're really trying to say.
God wants to speak to you.
God wants you to have a relationship with him.
God wants you to know him,
and God wants you to actually do great
and mighty works for him.
Don't get an earthly mindset
and start taking away from this.
Believe that this is God's word.
Put your faith in the Bible
and trust in the word of God.
God wants to speak to you,
and there's so much human reasoning
to try and tell you why.
No, man tampered with it,
or no, it's all, you can't trust anything.
No Bible's good, no translation's right.
We'll never have it.
We'll never get it.
That just lies from the devil
to get you to not believe in God's word.
Just like in the Garden of Eden,
yea hath God said.
Yes, he did say it.
Amen.
Yeah, there's many that are corrupting the word of God,
but you know what?
We don't follow those bozos.
We follow the Lord Jesus Christ,
and we have a certain truth.
We have that tried cornerstone.
We have a foundation that's steadfast,
and you know what?
We put our faith in this.
This is the anchor of our souls,
and you know what?
We believe this is the word of God.
It's not like the word of God.
It's not kind of the word of God.
It is the word of God,
and I'm not ashamed to believe that.
I'm not ashamed to defend the King James Bible.
These men were not ashamed to call this the word of God.
They believed it with all of their heart,
and they said, hey, stop quibbling over this nonsense,
and just believe it, and trust it, and use it,
and start exercising faith
instead of just constantly just being led astray
with the wicked.
So in conclusion,
why would the translators use the King James Bible today?
We've read this,
and I've tried to read through this and think about
what are the points that they made?
What was their mindset?
Let's just be honest with what they believed.
Would they use a King James Bible today?
And the answer is 100% yes, 100% yes.
Reason number one is because they chose
the Hebrew over the Septuagint.
I mean, is that not super evident?
They said it so many times, over and over,
Hebrew over Septuagint, Hebrew over Septuagint.
Well, okay, the modern versions, where are they coming from?
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Guess what they are?
Septuagints, folks.
Why in the world, well, they didn't have
these older manuscripts.
It doesn't matter the age.
They didn't say, well, if we had older Septuagints,
we would use them.
They rejected, arguably, older Septuagints than Sinaiticus,
because even though Sinaiticus,
let's say it's third or fourth century,
which I doubt that's even true,
even if it is true,
they're rejecting the original Septuagint
from the original 72.
That was before the time of Christ,
and they're saying, we're still not using it.
So why would I think that they would use
one from the future then?
They wouldn't.
They've already told us they would never use that.
So of course, they would never accept
an English translation from any Septuagint ever.
That's point one, all right?
Point two, why they would still use the King James,
because they have to believe in a Bible
that agrees with church history.
And you know what, they've shown,
how many times they give a quote from the church father?
They're not gonna go with a Bible
that doesn't line up with Saint Jerome,
and Saint Chrysostom, and Saint Augustine,
and all these other guys that have used
the King James fountain.
They're like, hey, all of our church fathers
are using the Hebrew fountain,
and they're using the Greek fountain,
so why are we gonna go and use something else?
We're gonna line up with what they did
and what history did, and what everybody else was using,
the preserved Bible.
They believe in preservation,
and that it's being preserved in the originals,
and that they're not going to go with some other source.
So number one, they're never gonna use a Septuagint.
Number two, they're gonna go with what church history
laid before them, which is the only way
to actually believe in the doctrine of preservation.
You have to realize this.
You can get mad about church history or not like it,
because there's a lot of Catholic stuff going on,
but let's just be real, that if you don't want
to go down the church history route,
then where's your preserved Bible?
You have to believe that the ones before us
were using the right Bible too.
Not only that, they believe that the originals are perfect.
I mean, they were calling it gold.
They're calling it the fountain.
They're calling it the original source.
So they believe that the originals are perfect
coming from the Greek and the Hebrew.
So if they're the ones that are perfect,
they would never use an alternative.
They would never use Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.
They already rejected the Latin.
They rejected the Septuagint.
They said, look, they were fine to be used.
There was some merit to them of antiquity,
but frankly speaking, no, we're gonna use the originals,
and therefore, they would still use a King James Bible.
Amen.
There's no way James White can get up
and with any integrity say, well, the reason why
I'm not King James only is because I read
the Translator as a Reader.
They have made zero arguments
that could even possibly be used.
Think about how, why would they even make arguments
in their own preface to the book?
Like, don't even use our book.
Like, frankly speaking, if someone finds something
in a trash can later, please use it.
I mean, this is such, this isn't even very good at all.
I'm sure anything in a trash can would be better.
Look, that's dumb, folks.
James White is dumb, and James White's a liar.
And you know what, he can only argue against Ruckmanites
because they're also weirdos and liars too.
But you know, James White doesn't really seem
to make a lot of arguments that have any real coherence
because there is no way to gainsay the King James Bible.
Amen.
Now, here's my only con, okay?
I've read the thing and I agree with almost all of it.
There's a few phrases that I, and a few references
they use that I already kind of told you
I disagreed slightly.
But in essence, I agree with this.
I thought it was great, okay?
You can have your own opinion.
This is where I disagree with them.
Read, let's read verse 17 again of our text.
Second Corinthians chapter two.
This is an old IB sermon where you get one verse
for this one.
For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God,
but as of sincerity, but as of God,
and the sight of God speak in Christ.
They're saying there's a lot of people corrupting the Bible.
And one thing that they don't seem to really talk about
is just all the corruptions that exist.
They kind of were a little bit too liberal, in my opinion,
a little bit too lenient towards all the previous works.
Now they did sometimes suggest the idea that,
hey, there's some like bad things here.
There could be some foul play here.
But they didn't really go too far into that.
And of course, they're probably being
a little too political, right?
They still got to sell the book.
They still want to make sure the king likes them,
everybody else likes them.
So, you know, they didn't necessarily get into
all the nitty gritty.
But that would be my only criticism is that
they're not attributing a lot of these other works
to the working of Satan.
But here's the thing.
We know that Satan is not just walking around saying,
man, my hands are tied, I can't even touch the Bible.
You know, I'm never going to be able to corrupt it.
No one's ever going to fall for my bad translations.
So I'm just not going to even try.
No, we realize that the devil's a roaring lion
and he's doing a great job actually,
if you think about it,
with all the different Bible translations and corruptions
and confusion that's just going out about
what God even said,
let alone getting the right interpretation.
We struggle a lot with interpretation,
but just think about how much we struggle
with just getting you people on the right text.
I mean, it's so frustrating.
You talk to family members and friends and coworkers
and other Christian, and they're like,
well, that's not what my version says.
And it's just like, well, your version's trash, okay?
It's like, but even amongst people
that are only King James only,
we still have plenty of variation, okay?
We still have plenty of bad doctrine out there.
You can still get bad doctrine from a King James Bible
when you have a bad heart and you're not saved.
But one of the big problems in America
is that we're not all in the same text.
What causes problems is not having unity.
And of course, why is America struggling so much today
from bad religion?
Everything's always a spiritual issue.
Everything's a spiritual issue.
America is suffering because we have
severe spiritual issues in our country.
And frankly speaking, a lot of people
will put their plan of how to save the country
or their idea of what, this is how we would fix it.
Eliminate the FBI or eliminate the CIA
or get all the Democrats out of office
or get only Republicans in office
or only libertarians in office or Rand Paul or Ron Paul
or I don't know, anybody, you know?
They think, or Trump, if we just get Trump,
then we would fix our country.
Well, if we get DeSantis, the Jew-loving idiot from Florida,
if we could just get him in office,
then he would fix our nation so fast.
I mean, there's, you know, maybe it'll be Kanye, you know?
Does anybody believe that?
I don't know.
But I'm just saying there's all these different ideas,
there's all these different suggestions.
Well, we just got rid of taxes or we just did this.
But none of those are right.
None of those are right.
The only way to change and fix America
is a spiritual solution.
And of course we need people to get saved.
Like, you can't preserve a nation without salvation.
But let's be realistic.
Is 100% of America gonna get saved?
No, it's just not gonna happen.
But you know what would be very necessary
if you're gonna actually fix our country?
We'd have to get everybody on the right Bible.
Because our laws, law itself comes from the Bible.
That's where we even got the law.
And when we don't have the right Bible,
we're not gonna have the right law.
When we don't have the right Bible,
we're not gonna have the right salvation.
We're not gonna have anything, we're not gonna have unity,
and the house divided is gonna fall.
For America to actually have any chance
of redeeming itself,
it would have to get back to the Bible.
Now here's the thing, I personally believe
that America could be fixed tomorrow if it wanted to.
And that it could last for a very long time
if it wanted to.
But what it would take,
it would take the whole nation as a whole
getting on their knees and begging for God's mercy.
And saying, we were wrong, we're repenting,
we're gonna get right with God, just like Nineveh.
They all repented, and they got right,
and we'd have to put the people to death
that needed to be put to death,
and we'd have to adhere to the word of God.
But as a nation,
we wouldn't need everybody to get saved necessarily.
I mean, according to Sodom and Gomorrah,
they only needed 10.
I'm sure we probably have enough saved people in America
to keep it alive.
It's just that our nation as a whole is rejecting this.
It's rejecting this book right here, and that's our problem.
Our number one problem in America
is the rejection of the King James Bible and what it says.
And that's the only way to fix it.
That's why the documentary we made is so important.
We need to get people on a King James Bible.
We need to get them back to reading the scripture.
That's what's gonna bring us, this is the light.
Jesus isn't gonna come down from heaven.
We already have him here.
And this is what fixes everything.
The nations in our world that are nice to visit,
like the Bahamas, you know why they're so nice?
Because everybody's got a King James Bible there.
And even though they're not saved and they have problems,
it's still really nice to be there.
You know why?
Because they have a lot of respect for this book.
You know the nations that have no respect for this book?
Terrible places to visit.
Go find me a place where it's illegal to have this,
and then go tell me how great it is to be there.
North Korea, China, any of these places.
This is your beacon, this is your testing ground
of how nice of a nation it is.
How much do they respect this thing
that I hold in my hand right here?
This is how you know how a nation and how a country
and how a people are is how much respect they have
for the book that I hold in my hand.
Because this is Jesus Christ, okay?
And so we need to realize that these corruptions
are a big threat and we need to get rid of them.
That's why at Pure Words we literally burn bad translations.
And we replace them with good ones.
That might hair lip every liberal out there,
but I don't care.
Because you know what?
These other things are trash.
They're broken, they're corrupted,
and we need to replace them with the King James Bible
in our country if we're gonna change our nation.
So I hope that you realize the treasure you have
in your hand today.
I'm not gonna give you silver and gold,
but you have something better.
You have the King James Bible.
Let us read it, let us worship it,
and let us live by it every day of our life.
Let's close in prayer.
Thank Heavenly Father so much for giving us
a King James Bible, for giving us the light of the world,
for giving us your words so that we could live by them,
we could study them, we could meditate upon them.
I pray that we would treat it with care, with respect,
that we could inspire our children,
we could inspire our grandchildren,
we could inspire our city and our state and our country
and yay the world to love the Bible,
to get back to the word of God,
to have respect and fear for the words of God,
and that these garbage trash translations
would be thrown in the fire,
that people would reject them,
that they'd just be destroyed,
that no one would have anything to do with them,
and in Jesus' name we pray, amen.