The translators of the King James Bible believe that the Bible had been preserved in Greek
and Hebrew from the time of Christ to them and that they were going to create another
translation from that pure source, from that true source, and that's the same viewpoint
that I have.
And so their authority was the Hebrew and the Greek.
And I think that for us, we have to be honest, like, our authority should not have transitioned
away from that.
We should still have the Hebrew and Greek as our authority.
It's just now we've been blessed with a third authority, the King James Bible, and these
three agree in one.
And these three are kind of the three-fold cord that is not easily broken.
And so I think that, you know, that's why, especially for English-speaking people, we
have such a great opportunity to put all of our trust and confidence in the King James
Bible.
And for other languages and other peoples, they have many Texas or Sepulchre translations
where they can, you know, trust their Bible for the most part and whatever maybe really
minor discrepancies.
They're usually so trivial, they don't really affect anything.
And if they really want to know, well, they could learn Hebrew, Greek, or English, and
they could get that settled for them if they truly wanted to kind of understand every single
minutia and every single minute detail.
But I think that it's pretty clear from our documentary that we demonstrate the Tyndale
is the same as the King James Bible.
It's over 80% of the time in the New Testament.
I added another speaker, Warrior of Christ.
How's it going?
Hey, good evening guys.
Good, good.
Interesting discussion.
I'm coming from the Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox faith.
I do live in America for the last 10 years, but then I was just like Googling what are
the differences in some of the, and I didn't see many, but the Baptist faith and Orthodox
Church, so that's why I was just Googling as you guys were talking and yeah.
Yeah, I mean probably one of the biggest differences is about salvation, and you know we believe
salvation is by faith only, and it's just a one-time decision to put all your trust
in Jesus' finished work on the cross.
That's what we believe would be essential for the salvation to go to heaven, and I believe
that a lot of Greek Orthodox believe in kind of a combination of faith and being faithful.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
So that's, you know, for us, you know, we would like people to change their mind and,
you know, believe in what we call faith alone as far as a doctrinal possession.
But additionally, you know, the Greek Orthodox will say this, they're typically right on
the Bible issue.
A lot of them subscribe to the Textus Receptus and virtually all the Greek Orthodox, they
have Greek manuscripts that line up with the King James Bible and they have the same viewpoint
on that because they speak Greek and they understand that.
I mean, the modern Bibles today say some weird stuff and do some weird things and the critical
text is just kind of a joke.
It's a joke.
I believe that probably the official English language should have kept the words like "thou,"
"the," "thine" and stuff like that.
It's really specific in the language and it represents precise what you want to express
if you will.
Don't you agree?
Yeah, absolutely.
Singular versus plural.
In fact, I was talking to a coworker one time about this and he kind of objected about
the thine and the these and I explained to him like, well, the thine and the thou is singular
and the ye and ye is plural and that actually helps you get a little bit more nuanced meaning.
And he's actually a pretty smart person, he's one of my really close friends now, but he
was like, you know, you're right.
And the modern versions kind of destroy some of that distinct knowledge that's coming from
the these and the thou, so it's definitely superior as far as an understanding perspective.
Frankly, I don't even have a problem reading it, like at this point it sounds good too.
I think maybe at first it's a little awkward, you know, and I'll admit that, but once you
kind of read through the Bible a couple times, it really becomes just kind of part of your
understanding.
I mean, most written documents are like this.
If you read a legal document, that is not how we talk.
It's very formal, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong or bad.
And I think with the Bible itself, it's going to at times not necessarily sound exactly
like we talk.
But I often catch myself listening to a preacher reading the King James Bible and thinking
like, "Is he reading or is he just talking because it just sounds so good?"
And so I like the King James Bible language.
It sounds good.
And there's so many passages where I love it when the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans.
He's just answering the question and it just flows so beautifully that you feel like you're
literally there and he's just having a conversation with you.
Like, "What then?
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"
God forbid.
He's just answering his own questions and it just flows so beautifully.
Now fool.
Yeah.
In answer to the objector.
The objector.
He brings up so many objectors.
Sure.
And actually, that's how...
Don't you think...
He had a lot of debates.
When you read the text, it seems like Apostle Paul's constantly having contention and debates
with people on these issues, because think about how many objections he's constantly
bringing up.
I also think that's how we preach, though, too.
You say, "I don't agree with that."
Well, you know what?
Go find another church.
You know what I mean?
The you say objector.
But obviously, I agree, and the thing with the language, too, is that there's this misconception
that the King James is using Old English.
It's actually using Modern English.
Old English you would not be able to understand at all.
That's like Beowulf.
That's really distinct in the way that it sounds, and it's unrecognizable.
What we speak is contemporary English, you and I, but the King James is written in Modern
English, not Old English, so that's a misconception.
So I added a couple more speakers in here.
Shout out to Tyndale, like the name.
How's it going?
Thank you.
I'm a Baptist, I'm King James only, I'm from Canada, and I just wanted to like, yeah,
pretty rare.
I just want to address what Gerrit was asking or commenting, like was there something authoritative
before 1611, and what was it?
Roughly, I guess that's what he was saying.
And one thing I want to remind people is that a lot of the language that we use today was
actually defined by the King James, because if you think about it, at that time they didn't
even have canonical spellings for words, right?
Like you could spell a word any way you like it and people would just have to accept it.
Whereas now the King James, because of the King James Bible, because of its authoritative
status in the English language, it basically created a spelling for English, you know?
It's because of the King James Bible that we have canonical spellings for words.
So I'm basically just trying to get at the point that, yeah, of course they had something
authoritative back then, but they were writing a Bible for what people needed to read at
the time, right?
And it just so happens that after 400 years, it's stayed tried and true.
Like, I really don't think English has changed that much in 400 years.
I mean, of course you don't use these and those and whatever, but even at that time,
I think "the" and "thou" and "thine," those were sort of going out of style anyway.
So anyway, yeah, that's just sort of my comment on what Jer had to say.
That's a good point about obviously our language has been really crafted by the King James.
Many of our phrases, a lot of our terminology, key vocabulary is coming from the King James
Bible and so that definitely makes a lot of sense.
I added one other speaker, Wade.
How's it going, Wade?
Hey.
Thank you.
Long time listener, first time caller I guess, but actually Wade is the stage name.
My real name is Billy.
It's going pretty good.
Just wanted to kind of touch on, I guess, before the Word of God got completely refined
in the King James, I mean a lot of people forget that we had soul winners.
Early on they had Moses and the prophets, but how can I understand unless some man teach
me, right?
Before everything got refined in the King James, we still had people doing missions.
We had people preaching, soul winning, so the word was also preserved just through word
of mouth, through exactly what we're commanded to do as well.
That's a good point, and thanks for tuning in, thanks for calling in.
We're just kind of doing an ad hoc live stream space here, and we're trying to even get
it set up on Rumble too, but I've invited a couple other people that are going to possibly
come a little bit later, and maybe we might change the topics, but I really like talking
about the King James Bible right now, and it's such an impactful book.
It's literally changed the course of history, and I've even heard people speak about this
like Jordan Peterson, and Jordan Peterson is kind of saying the reason why the King
James Bible and the Bible is like the truth is because it kind of made itself the truth
by just existing, like because it was the standard, it just kind of became the truth
and just kind of came our worldview.
You know, I think that's almost like a secular way of looking at it.
I believe the King James Bible just is the truth.
It's just that simple.
It's not like this overcomplicated idea that, well, because we wrote it and it's an early
document, it just happens to be what we perceive as truth.
I don't think it's just perceived as truth, I think it is truth.
And I don't really subscribe to this secular argumentation when it comes to the Bible of
trying to prove everything with logic.
To me, sometimes it's just by faith, of course.
And of course I believe the King James Bible is the word of God and ultimately that's my
final reasoning for accepting it.
But what's convenient and nice about it is that when you believe the King James Bible
is the word of God, you see how true that is in every aspect of our life.
I actually did an interview with Dr. Stringer today for a new film project working on.
It's called One Nation Under God and I'm really looking forward to this film project.
We're going to talk about Christian heritage and Christian lineage and how our country
was really just built on Christian principles and for a large portion of it, the King James
Bible, of course the Geneva Bible is also influential for some of those early colonial
settlers. And the Geneva is, you know, good in a lot of places. But ultimately, the King James
Bible greatly influenced this nation. Our nation is what it is because of the Bible specifically,
and how we modeled our country after the language of the King James Bible. And that's what was
studied. That's what people use to read, to write, for law, to study law, to understand the law,
to build society, to build relationships. I mean, the reason why we love America so much is,
honestly, because of the King James Bible. And I think that people have forgotten that the reason
why we like the things that we have today is because it really just ultimately came from the
Bible. What is your thought about this project? And I know you're going to work on it with me.
I think it's a very important project because it demonstrates that this leftist idea that America
was always this secular state is completely false. And you're going to show that in this film.
And I'm excited to help you work on it. But also, Pastor Shelley, just to throw it back at you,
I'm curious about is there anything that you've unearthed so far in your research
that surprised you at all about American history as it relates to Christianity?
Was there anything at all that stuck out where you said, I didn't know that. Wow.
In terms of just how Christian America's roots truly are.
You know, I mean, honestly, I feel like I'm learning every day. I think I'm still in the
research phase for this project. So, you know, to me, some of the coolest things that I've learned
is just like Pennsylvania, specifically, you had to profess faith in Jesus Christ to be and hold
any political office. Additionally, Rhode Island, I didn't I learned this today in the interview with
Dr. Stringer, that specifically Rhode Island also had the exact same statute. And so I think that
that's just that's really unique. And I think a lot of people don't understand that. And so to me,
it's really important to explain how our nation had really like Christian laws. And so, you know,
I think it's crazy that people think that we're a secular nation. But I've had people literally
tell me that. Well, sure. I actually I work in law enforcement. And I've worked in two states,
South Carolina and Kentucky. And we had laws on the books that were based on Christian principles,
laws against sodomy, against homosexuality, and they were still in the books. And yeah,
this was I went through the police academy in 2007. They actually showed us these laws and said,
Yeah, but you can't enforce them because it's a violation of their rights. And it's like,
why are they still in the books then? But they're still they were still there, you know, then.
Yeah. And, you know, I think that people get confused because of this concept, which is not
in the Constitution. It's a interpretation, this, you know, separation of church and state.
And they even the First Amendment itself, they think somehow discredits the idea that Christianity
is what America was founded on. And it's what made America great. And, you know, people talk about
make America great again. Well, in my mind, you cannot make America great again until you make
America Christian again. And we go back to the values that put this country on the map to begin
with. So, to me, that's what I get a little frustrated because there's all this fervor
politically. And that's fine, you know, if you want to be into that stuff. But don't forget,
if you're going to get into politics and be all political and things like that,
don't forget what actually will solve the problem, the Lord Jesus Christ, and getting back to
the Bible as our authority as a society, because how in the hell could you have a country that
accomplishes anything when half the nation literally believes in giving puberty blockers
to their children? You can't, there's no unity. You can't have that. I know it's not necessarily
half the country. Well, what about, what about satanists? I brought this up in our discussion.
Satanists say that their religious liberty is to have abortions and to murder children.
So how is that? How can I have my religious liberties and them have their religious liberties?
They're incongruent. They're incompatible. How can, how about a Muslim? They're supposed
to be able to have four wives. That contradicts American law. And you know, this is the interesting
thing that we kind of teased out, but it's like, is there really such a thing as a law that's not
religious? And you know, from my viewpoint, there isn't, there's no such thing as a non-religious
law because they're all coming from a framework of morality that's based on your belief system.
And for the beginning of our country, our belief system as a nation, as a group of people was the
Bible is the word of God. That's where we should draw our laws from, not just mob rule, not just
this dictator is going to tell us what the rules are, Kim Jong-ul, not just, well, this is what so
and so did before but we're saying the King James Bible is our rule set and whether you like it or
not it was the most successful that we've ever seen in human history as far as providing individual
liberty and providing individual prosperity. Of course there's still nations today like communist
nations that have some level of strength and they have military might and they have some power but
they have no individual prosperity and they have no individual freedom. China, North Korea,
you know, look at all these different areas where there's no Christianity, there's no really
individual liberty. Obviously there's some people that are better off in a caste system like in India
or at the top of the communist pyramid but generally speaking it's kind of awful for the
vast majority of the population. Whereas you could argue that for a lot of America's history the
general populace has it pretty good and they have the opportunity to even make those changes and
that the decisions that they make can essentially the manifest destiny can control their future.
And so you know I think that's just a testimony to how the King James Bible and the word of God
is truth and even if you didn't believe it you'd have to say well even if it's not the truth it's
the best truth that's out there. If anything's true it's going to be that and so you know I
think that was really impactful. I really like the conversation. I'm glad to hear that because I
wasn't there so I don't know how it went. Oh it went great. You're going to love some of the
sound bites of this discussion. Awesome. That's really great to hear. Yeah I'm excited about
this project. I want to add to what you said. You had said our laws essentially are derived from
scripture okay and that they ought to be derived from scripture. Absolutely. Well doesn't it make
sense Pastor Shelley for there to be an external referent beyond humanity an external arbiter
by which we can adjudicate between two competing moral precepts. There has to be something beyond
humanity by which something like that can occur. Well if you're an atheist you don't believe that
of course but then there's no such thing as morality it's just simply whatever I want I win.
It's subjective. It's just it's selfishness. Selfishness is the rule of law and it's whoever
is the biggest the strongest. It's basically evolutionary teaching that the strongest will
survive whether that's mentally physically whatever is but by that means but the strong
will adapt and survive and the weak will perish and you know that's just not congruent with
what we see in the world you know this is I want to go to 1611 populace here in a moment
because we added him as a speaker but before I get there just just play out this rabbit
troll with me for a second and and I think you could this is the person I want to talk
to about this and I was thinking about this evolutionary teaching is that everything slowly
adapts over time and that they have quote beneficial mutations to help them survive
and so we see like slow adaptations and changes over time to you know to eventually combine
into maybe a major change right and then so they would say like rocks turned into promoted
promodial soup and soup turned into bacteria and then bacteria turned into some small
organism and those small organisms turned into fish and those fish turned into mammals
and those mammals you know amphibians maybe and they came out of the water and then they
grew wings and all this stuff right and I was just thinking like what about popcorn
and I was just thinking like at what point did corn decide that having the beneficial
mutation of that when corn kernels get really hot they turn into delicious popcorn like
why did it that evolve you know and I'm just like to me popcorn is just such an obvious
clear example of the fact that God created the world and that he created amazing interesting
things like corn that not only is corn just delicious and you could turn it in I mean
corn you can just eat right corn then you can also grind up into meal and you could
make corn meal and that corn meal then you can make tortillas and breads and all cornbread
all kinds of different things not only that you can literally just heat up a corn kernel
to the point where it pops into delicious popcorn like how is that not just amazing
that that exists and I'm just thinking like how could I ever think that popcorn was just
sitting there thinking like you know what I just need to turn myself into popcorn eventually
to you know adapt over time or something like there's just no way because in order for it
to even do that it's dead like it didn't even know that that was going to happen necessarily
and it was probably by accident that mankind even discovered like they were cooking corn
too hard or threw it in fire on accident and it popped they're like what was that and then
they're like oh man this is awesome like popcorn like am I just crazy or was I just being like
a little over the top or am I just like isn't popcorn just like an interesting testimony
to how it's not evolution it's basically special creation?
Yeah I think it shows the creativity of the Lord Jesus Christ our creator who created
the world that something like popcorn exists and I also think it shows that it wasn't
an accident that it wasn't some sort of genetic accident that somehow it just so happens by
coincidence that when those kernels pop they create this very delicious snack.
So I'm with you.
Right like they'll talk about microevolution and they'll say like certain animals that
are prey that their fur coats maybe blend with the environment better and so they survived
longer because the predators couldn't see them as well and they were able to escape
and you can see how like maybe a certain type of bunny or deer their skin color or skin
coat maybe was more like better than another one and so one population is kind of destroyed
while the other one survives but I'm just like at what point was it like this corn produces
popcorn like you know the corn was sitting here like we're not doing very hot as corn
yeah but if we could make popcorn then people would like us I agree there would be no beneficial
mutation there like popcorn wouldn't in my mind constitute a beneficial mutation I'm
with you I think I get where you're coming from there and I'm with you I don't know
why I just thought that but that is a random thought like were you eating pot no no I was
watching someone make popcorn on TV and it does it like I just thought of it okay so
let's go to 1611 populace hey how's it going I'm going good I'm hoping you guys are having
a great Sunday great always a great Sunday so there's some talking about kind of Christian
history in America there's a couple of a really cool tidbits about a Baptist history that
I kind of wanted to bring up and you've probably already studied I'm not a hundred percent
sure but uh one talking about Rhode Island uh Roger Williams the guy who was the founder
of Rhode Island was actually the founder of the First Baptist Church in America which
is always cool uh John Ganow uh pastor that baptized George Washington was a Baptist I
don't think Washington ever identified as a Baptist but he uh he actually Ganow founded
several Baptist churches in the Virginia area and actually uh crossed the Delaware with
Washington and he was a Baptist pastor and the other thing I kind of wanted to bring
up is uh the trial of Patrick Henry and Lewis and Elijah Craig now that one uh so Lewis
and Elijah Craig were two Baptist preachers in Virginia when it was an Anglican state
at the time and um they got arrested and charged with on the official Virginia state records
of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ that was the crime they were charged with by the
Anglican church so when they were in court a young lawyer kind of not known at the time
named Patrick Henry was uh their defendant and that case he actually got them off scot-free
and allow them to continue preaching in Virginia and that case is what jumpstarted Patrick
Henry's career all the way up until the give me liberty or give me death pamphlet and that's
kind of what I wanted to bring up.
No I appreciate that I was looking up John Ganot while you were speaking because I don't
know anything about him.
I definitely know a little bit about Roger Williams and I like that point.
So John Ganot according to Wikipedia he was actually raised a Presbyterian and his father
was a descendant of French Calvinists but his mother was an English Baptist and then
he said after he got saved he became a Calvinist Baptist.
He was ordained in New Jersey and he became the founding pastor of what became the first
Baptist church in the city of New York.
He was the pastor there until 1787 so he started in 1760 then to 1787.
So definitely interesting, I don't know a lot about John Ganot but some good points.
I also believe the first Baptist was John Smith, I think as accredited as that in England.
I actually did a whole sermon on Christian, kind of like a Christian timeline of Baptist
lineage.
When was that?
It was in Sansom Park.
I don't think you had moved yet.
No I haven't.
To the church.
So I preached a whole sermon on this.
Do you want to repreach that sometime?
I probably need to.
I'd like to.
I actually went from the first Baptist to steadfast.
And so I just kind of...
Pretty cool.
And like, here's the thing.
There's a little bit of a viewpoint called Landmarkism or Baptist Briders.
What is that?
I'm not sure, frankly.
Yeah.
I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint, but it's this idea there's always been like
this unbroken lineage of Baptist churches from John the Baptist to us.
And I don't really subscribe to that.
So each church begat the other one in an unbroken chain?
Yeah.
Like obviously I believe in...
Like salvation?
I believe in the unbroken chain of salvation personal.
But not with churches?
Probably not.
All right.
And again, like from my viewpoint, there's probably been just a lot of different starting
points.
Like there's been times where it kind of dwindled and then it kind of kickstarted, restarted.
And so, you know, it's kind of a muddy history as far as how church congregations go.
Are independent Baptists Protestants?
See, that's a good question.
And I would say no.
But it's kind of a complicated question because number one, I think you have to first say
that Protestants are trying to reform the Catholic Church and I'm not trying to reform
the Catholic Church, I'm rejecting the Catholic Church.
But I believe that Protestantism came from a mixed multitude of people that wanted both.
Some people kind of want to just reject and start over and then others wanted to reform.
So like the Puritans and the Calvinists, they kind of were like, "Let's start over."
They basically said like everything the Catholic Church is doing is wrong.
And then you kind of have like a lot of the reformers that are saying, "Well, the Anglican
Church, the Catholic Church was off and we're going to kind of do it right."
And of course you have the Great Schism way before this where you have the Greek Orthodox
Church splitting from the Roman Catholics, but I'm just kind of focusing on what you
said about the Protestants.
I would say that from that movement of Protestantism though came other people that were rejecting
the Catholic Church as a whole, starting their own kind of churches and then they kind of
slowly over time evolved.
I don't want to re-preach a sermon in five seconds, but it's kind of like John Smith
is coming from the Protestant movement, but he's not trying to reform the Catholic Church,
he's starting over.
You kind of have the Baptist movement starting.
He brings it to America.
Roger Williams and others create some of the early American Baptist churches.
There's about seven kind of in the early colonial times.
They formed like an American Baptist Association.
That grew and then maybe in the 1800s, it was a big schism between the Northern and
Southern Baptist churches where the Southern Baptist Church separated from the Northern
Baptist Churches over the issue of slavery and you have the Southern Baptist Movement.
Out of the Southern Baptist Movement though, you got to think about this.
Jack Hiles was ordained as a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church and then he separated
from the Southern Baptist Movement, became an independent Baptist and he's personally
started a lot of independent Baptist Churches in this country and our sending pastor, Pastor
Steven Anderson was from Regency Baptist Church which kind of describes the landmark viewpoint
but he also went to House Anderson influenced by Jack Hiles greatly so you could almost
make this tie a loose tie of that.
But I say this, it's like there's a lot of people who are raised Catholic and then they
later get saved and leave the Catholic Church and become a Baptist.
I wouldn't say that they are, their origin of their faith came from Catholicism, right?
Even though they were a Catholic at one point, that's not the origin.
Their origin was when they believed in Jesus Christ and they got saved, when they kind
of rejected the Catholic Church.
So I'd almost say like, our lineage is from like a rejection of the Catholic Church, not
from that as our source, if that's kind of a fair way to put it.
Well, I think when you parallel an individual getting saved and leaving the Catholic Church,
that helps me comprehend better what you're describing there.
So that makes sense.
Yeah, I think like a lot, you look at a lot of people that I look up to, like William
Tindale, and again, in all fairness, the Catholic Church in the 1600s, the 1500s, the 1400s.
There was a change.
No, I'm just saying this, there's a lot of diversity of opinions.
Why do you think they had the Council of Trent?
It's because a lot of Catholic churches had deviated from Catholic teaching, and some
Catholics are teaching salvation by faith, and some Catholics are teaching it's by works,
and so then they come together, create the Council of Trent, and condemn justification
by faith.
Gotcha.
Why is it that William Tindale's literally burned at the stake for believing in justification
by faith, and he's a former Catholic priest?
It's because some Catholics were actually getting saved and reading their Bible and
realizing like, "Whoa, the Catholic Church is screwed up on this."
And so I believe that there's plenty of people that had gotten saved, but back then the Catholic
Church is part of the state.
So you can't really ignore the Catholic Church because it's part of society, almost.
It's part of the government.
You know what I mean?
So I want to go back to Jared here.
I'll let you ask another question here.
I don't know if we answered or satisfied your question earlier, but thanks 1611 for your
thoughts there.
Jared, what would you want to say?
Yeah, great conversation.
Yeah, your answers that you provided earlier to my question were clarifying, but I did
have a follow-up about the King James Bible, if that's okay?
Yes, please go for it.
Okay, yeah, so it sounds like your position is that you can still have an authoritative
text even allowing for some amount of variation based on what I heard you saying about the
prior English translations and referring to even some other previous translations saying
they still have an authoritative source.
So you guys aren't so hardcore that it has to be 100%, these words, some amount of variation
is acceptable and you can still have an authoritative source.
Yes, of course.
Okay, all right, well that seems more reasonable to me than some other positions that I've
heard on KJVO.
So would you guys be, how would you feel about somebody using the new King James?
Well here's the thing, in our documentary, The Preserved Bible, we kind of tried to address
this distinction between King James onlyus, because some King James onlyus, which we kind
of label, and sometimes they label themselves as a Rukmanite, they would say that you can't
alter anything in the King James Bible without it corrupting the text.
And that would mean like replacing a word that's a synonym or even changing word order
or sometimes even spellings.
They get that crazy and we don't really subscribe to that.
I would say as long as the text is communicating the exact same thing and you're not missing
any words from the original text in far as meaning is concerned, then I believe it's
still the word of God.
And that's what the translators to the reader communicated and I agree with that.
Obviously, when you're translating from one language to another, you're never going to
have a word for word match.
And so, sometimes it may be three words on one language, it's four words in another.
But you're not necessarily removing a word or adding a word, you're communicating the
exact same thing.
Or idioms even.
Yeah, just sometimes the message has to be communicated in different words.
When you look at a Tyndale, Bishops and King James, it sometimes uses a little bit different
language or synonyms, but it says the exact same thing.
You're never going to be thinking something different based on either verse construction.
And then ultimately, I would say they're both the Word of God and they're both authoritative.
When it comes to the new King James, there is a few places where the new King James,
I believe, departs from the text or septus, departs from the King James, and says something
different than the King James.
And so that's what I take offense with.
The new King James is pretty faithful to the King James, and I grew up on the new King
James.
But there are, in my opinion, several places where it's very importantly different.
Like Matthew 7, I believe it's verse 14, it says specifically in the King James that narrow
is the way which leads to the life, and the new King James says it's difficult.
And if you look at John MacArthur's study Bible, it explicitly states that salvation
is difficult.
And the King James does not communicate that message.
It communicates that it's a one way, because there's only one way to heaven is through
Jesus Christ by faith alone.
But it's not difficult, it's easy.
And John MacArthur believes it's hard and difficult because he believes it works salvation
and because he's not saved and he's a heretic.
And so, you know, I don't believe people should use the New King James.
I grew up in a church that was New King James only, if you can believe that.
But yeah, it's kind of interesting.
But you know, I believe the King James is superior.
It's the accurate preserved translation.
And look, if the New King James said the same thing, I wouldn't really fight against it.
It's just it really does say a lot of different things in a lot of different places.
First Corinthians 1.18 also says that you're being saved as opposed to you are saved.
I actually have a whole list of this.
If you go to GodResource.com, you go to KJV, and then you go to comparison chart, I have
a complete comparison chart with over 70 or 80 examples of discrepancies between the NIV,
New American Standard, New King James, and the King James.
And it explains the diverse differences and why I think that they're an issue.
And that's just a small list.
There's way more than that.
There are plenty of other websites that are great and talk about this issue as well.
So the differences that you're okay with are just synonym differences.
So if there was a verse that's actually communicated something slightly different, then...
So you're saying that all the previous English versions that you guys would consider acceptable,
they all say the same thing.
They just use different words.
There aren't any verses that say something slightly different.
No, there's a few differences, and I think that's where the refining process comes in.
The King James obviously needed to be done because there was some imperfections.
There was a few places where maybe it didn't line up with the Greek and the Hebrew correctly
and it needed to be corrected.
And so I think that that's why you did...
To me, the reason why we wouldn't use the King James is we noticed there is still some
issues and we need to refine the text one more time.
But as Ronald Reagan famously said, it has been gotten right.
So it's been gotten right, we've got it, we don't need to update it anymore.
Unless English evolved to a language that's completely different, we're good.
Now again, if it evolved to a different language, then it's a different language.
I mean, have a different language Bible.
But I think that English itself is settled.
King James Bible, it's settled, we'll never need to change, we never need to update it.
And that would be the case with any language, if there's a new language that came out, I
wouldn't necessarily expect the first translation to come out is always necessarily dialed in.
Maybe it does take a few refinements.
And especially considering the heritage of the King James Bible because many of the men
translating it were on the run for their life, they were fighting against the Catholic Church,
they were having to do it in secret, maybe by themselves.
And it wasn't really until the King James translation where you got 50 plus scholars
all sitting around together, taking seven years, taking their time and dialing it in,
and I think that's why it got dialed in at the time that it did.
And again, if a New King James or a modern version says the same thing, I'm not going
to argue with it.
It's just that there's plenty of places where it doesn't say the same thing, and that's
what I get mad about.
Yeah.
And just a few more examples in the King James Bible, it says, "Obstain from all appearance
of evil."
The New King James says--
Rejects every evil.
It says, "Obstain from every form of evil," which is essentially what you're saying.
And then you have in the book of Hebrews, it says in the King James Bible, Hebrews 2,
16, "For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels."
The New King James says, "For indeed, he does not give aid to angels."
So these are two different concepts.
Obviously, we have major issues with Matthew 7, 14.
We have issues with 1 Corinthians 1, 18, but those are just some other examples of
the New King James saying something that is completely different or even the opposite
of what the King James Bible says.
So here's the thing about the New King James that I think confuses people.
It does claim to translate from the same source text as the King James Bible, the received
text of scripture.
However, it often deviates from the received text and in doing so, agrees with the other
modern versions.
That's the first thing.
The second thing about the New King James is that it includes, in the marginal notes,
it includes notes that cast doubt on the text and tell you what the critical text says.
It tells you what UBS 5 and Nestle Allen's 28th edition says.
Well, in all fairness, any Bible could do that.
You could get a Scofield King James that has bad notes and you could buy a New King James
that has no notes.
So, I think the notes is a separate issue.
But I agree with you that a lot of New King James have bad notes or the footnotes say
some really big discrepancies.
And just to echo the sentiment, you know, if hypothetically there was a Bible that said
the same thing as the King James Bible but it just updated the language, I wouldn't have
a problem.
I personally would not have a problem with it.
But the New King James does not do that.
It actually makes consequential changes that affect meaning and affect doctrine.
And that's what our issue is.
And they both can't be right.
Exactly.
Do you think there's a way to interpret Matthew 7?
So if it's translated wrong, right, if it should be narrow and not difficult, then that's
a good point.
But I think even if you had difficult, I think there's a way to interpret that that would
be consistent with other KJV texts like Acts 14 22 where it says, "Confirming the souls
of the disciples and exhorting them to continue in the faith in that we must through much
tribulation enter the kingdom of God."
So I think most Baptists would hear that and say, "Yeah, I mean, living the Christian life
is difficult and there's hardship and tribulation and being faithful to Christ is not easy.
It's a difficult path and it's not necessarily saying that justification is difficult to
receive."
Yeah, exactly, but couldn't you interpret Matthew 7 that way and just say it's a difficult
path to enter the kingdom of God, not saying that salvation itself is difficult.
Well, that's the argument I usually hear and even like another passage that's similar
to what you're describing is John 3.36 because in the King James it says, "He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life," or "He that believeth on the Son hath life and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him."
In the modern versions it doesn't say, "Believeth not," it says, "Obey."
And then I've heard people say, "Well, you could just interpret that word obey as obey
the gospel," meaning they didn't believe.
And again, to me that's a cop-out because most of the people that subscribe to the modern
versions and use this language end up interpreting it the other way.
And I think that if obey means believe not, then let's just put believe not.
And if the context of Matthew 7 is about salvation and going to heaven, then let's not put difficult,
let's put narrow because that's what we're communicating.
But even if it's a doctrinal issue, it doesn't really matter what the doctrine is, it just
matters what the Greek text says.
And I believe that the King James is faithful to what the Greek text says and these other
ones don't.
I want to go to another speaker here for a second, Baptist Meme, how's it going?
Baptist Meme Factory, sorry.
Howdy guys, long time listener, love your documentaries, just wanted to have a chance
to say thank you before I go to bed, got to get up early in the morning.
One quick comment though before I leave, you guys were talking about going to the English
from the Hebrew and the Greek, I'd like to point out in Zephaniah chapter 3 verse 9,
"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the
name of the Lord to serve Him with one consent."
Great verse, thanks so much for the opportunity.
I love it, thank you very much Pastor Shelley for all of your documentaries, keep up the
good work.
It's just, to me, it's weird that a Bible is gonna supposedly translate from the TR,
but then it's constantly appealing to the critical text and even, you know, I know you're
not a fan of necessarily the talking point about the footnotes, but to me it just shows
how it's still respecting the critical text and trying to tell you what it says and casting
doubt on the actual text to tell you what the critical text, it's like I don't care
what UBS-5 says or NA-28, you know what I mean?
Well, I mean this issue is a big issue and I think that, you know, I love talking about
the detail, but I think at the end of the day we have to just try and simplify it because
most people aren't going to care about the nuance, aren't going to care about these
things.
I think it's, let's just try to narrow it down to simplicity.
Which TR?
The King James Bible and modern versions don't say the same thing in every place.
They both can't be right.
The King James Bible has shown incredible fruit for the last 400 years.
The modern versions have shown all kinds of heresy.
The modern church today is corrupt.
It's filled with all kinds of degeneracy, freaks.
I mean, think about like some of the people like Transformation Church with Todd, Michael
Todd.
Think about all the different craziness with Kenneth Copeland, T.D.
Jakes, all kinds of different things that are going on.
Life Church, Craig Groeschel.
We have what other, there was somebody else that was really weird that oh yeah, Andy Stanley.
This guy is just off the rails.
I don't like him.
I mean, there's nothing to like about Andy Stanley and I think that the modern Bibles
are just clearly evidencing bad fruit and that the King James is clearly evidencing
good fruit and that's where we got our nation, our country, our prosperity, our blessing
and we need to get back to that.
And they're always going to change, right, Pastor Shelley? Like you have to understand
the modern versions are not done evolving because they're always coming up with new
ways to change the text. In our film we talk about the four different text types that exist.
Well that's going to be outdated very soon because now they've come up with a new digital
form of text criticism that they have yet to apply to the Gospels and, Pastor, once
they apply CBGM to the Gospels, would you agree that the amount of passages we fight
over right now will grow exponentially? Like, they're going to cast down on a bunch more
scriptures.
I mean, it's tough to say because I think that a little bit the modern movement's kind
of dying. I think that they're going to try, but I just don't know how well that's going
to be received. I don't know if it's actually going to catch on. I mean, think about the
legacy standard Bible that just came out. Is it really going to catch on or is it just
like a handful of James White sympathizers that are going to catch on?
Yeah, I don't know. How popular is it? I'm not sure.
Yeah, I just, I don't see the modern Bible version movement having much momentum is what
I would say. So, I think that they might continue to try and undermine. I think what the future
is and this is where what you brought up might come into play is AI. And if there ends up
coming like an AI Bible version or something, that's when it could get really weird and
really hairy really quick.
AI?
Yeah, I'm not even joking.
The chat GBT version.
Yeah, where you say like, what does this verse mean? And then it's just, it could be anything.
And it could get, it could get to a point where people don't even know what the Bible
is anymore because they're like, maybe they stop using versions and they just like start
using an AI by like everybody's using this AI Bible. And it just, it's based on the CBD
and it's just like, they just have no idea. And I mean, think about all the weird versions.
Remember that Hawaiian pigeon version? I know you've preached on it. I'm just saying like,
what if they, what if they make like AI's like, uh, I want you to change this verse to sound like
Kanye West or something stupid like that. Like I think that that's the danger. I don't think that,
I don't think that this there's going to be a lot more print Bibles that are going to make a big
impact. If that makes sense. I think they're going to continue to try to come up with new ones,
obviously, who knows if they'll catch on, but really just to add to what you were saying,
there's a huge distinction, too, between the shifting sands of the critical text and the
modern scholarship that undergirds it and the received text, because the received text
is a rock. It is not changing. It's been the same for hundreds of years, whereas the critical text
is always evolving. That's why the Nestle Allen Greek New Testament is on its 28th edition. That
illustrates my point right there. There you go. Whereas we're still using, you know, the 1894
Scrivener. Let's, I really like this conversation, but I do want to, I want to try and change it
just a little bit and see what your opinion is because last night, Stu Peters was trying to,
I guess, I think it was last night. Yeah, last night, Stu Peters was trying to go to a Tucker
event that he was invited to and he wanted to interview him for his film Occupied and it got,
he got totally banned from the event. Did you hear about this? Yeah, I saw some ex-posts on it.
It's too bad that that happened. At the same time, I'm not going to use it to attack Tucker
Carlson necessarily because I don't have any proof that he, I haven't seen any proof that he's the
one who ordered him to be kicked out or something like that. If it is, if that's the case, then
that's negative for sure. But if it's his event, doesn't he have, doesn't he have a power to talk
about that? If we're going to, if we're going to, if we're going to lay the responsibility at the
feet of Tucker Carlson, then I would say I disagree with that move from him. But at the same time,
I think when people are starting to change on an issue, it's unrealistic to expect them to go from
zero to a hundred overnight. So maybe he just needs a little time because, you know, there was a time
when Tucker Carlson wouldn't talk to Alex Jones. Like he thought Alex Jones was too radical and crazy
and now he goes on and does events with them all over the country. So it's like, I don't agree with
what he did if he was responsible, but I don't believe in attacking him for it because I think
that he's slow, if he is slowly turning on the Jew issue, then I'm just going to give him space
to make that transition and hope that he'll get more hardcore as the years go by.
But here's the thing. Am I making sense or do you get what I'm saying?
Yes, but at the same time, isn't it giving liberty to communism? Because in the sense that...
I'm not going to defend it. I don't like it. If every person just says we're going to talk
about it, what are they going to do? Are they going to ban everybody? Are they going to literally
just censor every single talking head? That's not a good look. And if they are, they were going to
anyways, or it was already happening. So why not just everybody talk about it?
I mean, I agree with that 100%. I just think that if Tucker did that, if he's the one responsible,
it just it just shows that he's not quite there yet. He's just not quite fully on board with the
anti-Jew stuff yet. I know I kind of changed topics here a little bit, but I'm curious,
Wade, did you want to comment on that or Jared again? No, to tell you the truth, actually,
I got booted out. I think I dropped service. And so when I came back, my mic was off. But
I'm actually not familiar with Stu Peters. I mean, I know, you know, Tucker, obviously, but
I'm not familiar with who's Stu Peters is. Yeah, he he has his own like kind of network. I don't
exactly know him outside of his own network. I actually was introduced to him because of the
died suddenly film. I think that's the first time I ever heard anything about him. Did you did you
know anything about him prior to the died suddenly? Yeah, I don't I didn't know much about the guy.
I'm not. You watch the documentary? I'm not super familiar with him. I did not watch died suddenly
because there was images there I didn't want to see. I'm sure it was a great film, but. I thought
it was pretty powerful. Yeah, I didn't know a lot about him prior to that film. Definitely a lot
about him. I don't agree with everything he puts out, but I do think that on the Jew issue he's
definitely got some good things to say. Have you seen the trailer for his occupied film? Yeah,
I believe so. Yeah, I've seen it. It looks pretty good. That does look good. That does look good.
It looks like he's gonna get in some hot water. You know this better than anyone. I mean, if you
approach that topic at all, you're going to get persecution for it. It's like when it comes to
radioactive subject matter, it's the homosexuals, it's Jews. You know, those are the two that you
really can't touch without getting persecuted. And evidently amongst fundamental Baptist circles,
the timing of the rapture, but that's a different topic for a different time.
Oh, yeah.
And that's what I just real quick to bring it back to Dr. Stringer. That's what I appreciate
so much about him is that in spite of our doctrinal differences, he treats us like
brothers in Christ. And pastor, do you share just that enthusiasm that I have to just say,
you know what, it's okay that we disagree. We don't have to hate each other.
I try my best to not hate people unless I have to. And this is what I kind of said to Dr. Stringer,
I said, I want to be friend, like your best friend and your worst enemy in the sense that,
you know, I want to be somebody that is a friend to you no matter what, if you're in that category.
But you know, if you're a reprobate, like I don't even want to try to pretend. You know what I mean?
So like I think there's a lot of fakeness out there and I kind of am stealing that talking point
from a former boss that I had, but he would always say, in the banking world, he would say,
you know, I'm going to be your best lender or your worst lender as if you pay. And you know,
like I appreciate that attitude, right? And I think we should be the best Baptist friend out there
and we should be the meanest, most hateful, bigoted, you know, preacher out there too,
like to the enemy. Yeah, because there's tears amongst the wheat and we got to contend against
somebody. There's somebody that we're fighting. So you can't be on everybody. You can't be Joel
Osteen and be like, of course, I'm for everybody. Yeah, of course. But you know what, with America
being destroyed with all these disgusting filthy faggots and the Jews and the destruction of our
culture today and just all these depraved people out there shoving their filth down our throats,
my issue is not somebody having a difference of opinion with me on the timing of the rapture.
I'm not saying that obviously all doctrine is important, but at the same time, you know,
cutting fellowship with someone over a secondary issue in my mind is just counterproductive when
we're all under attack by the same enemy. And what's wrong with America today goes far beyond
people being screwed up on some Bible prophecy or the finer points of Bible prophecy. That's my point.
Well, not even just end times Bible prophecy. I mean, there's a lot of subjects that people
get upset about. Like, there's a lot of Baptists that won't fellowship over communion, open or
closed communion. And it's just like, you know, it's just crazy. Like, I think that we need to
just have more of a mentality of like, we're going to talk with all kinds of people, even
non-Baptists. Like, I'm still going to talk with them. You know, to me, like, I think we sometimes
can be over do the separation aspect. It's like, to me, Sunday morning, I am going to separate
and I'm going to be an independent fundamental Baptist and we're King James only and we're
hardcore soul winning, we're hard preaching. But you know, when I leave the pulpit and I leave the
church building, I hope that it's different because Jesus Christ literally says that he doesn't want
to keep us from the world. He wants us to keep us from the evil. How could you argue that you're
going back to the world if you're never interacting with people that aren't like you exactly? I mean,
if I'm interacting with people exactly like me, that's like fellowship in church. When I'm
interacting with people that are not like me, that's me going out into the world. That's me
earnestly contending for the faith. That's me in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.
Let's prevent your God, give them, you know, repentance, acknowledging of the truth, right?
So to me, like, I think that there's a time and a place to just go out there and just talk to
anybody, everybody, be friendly, be kind, be relevant in the culture, which I mean,
I mean, Jesus was a was heard among the gladly heard among the common people, right? So sadly,
a lot of fundamental Baptists are not relevant. And they're older, and they're dying about this
in general. Southern Baptists, they're trying to be culturally relevant. You know, this was sad.
The Southern Baptists are trying to be relevant, but you know who they're trying to be relevant to?
Democrats. To like Satan, Satan worshipping, abortion performing, you know, sodomites or
something like this. And it's just like, why are you trying to be relevant to those people? To me,
that's the wolf saying, I'm a wolf, please more wolves join our church. And, you know,
how about just the jq question? I mean, it's frustrating that we get banned and we get censored
and you see people like Stu Peters, Tucker, you know, situation. And that's just to me, just a
similar to like how when we would say like, hey, I want to hang out with you want to be friends,
and then they just cancel us, or they uninvite you or they reject you. And so your thoughts on
the Tucker thing, I was being, you know, gracious to him. I don't know if you have a different view.
It was a dumb move. It was a bad move. It doesn't help him. It's a lose-lose, because number one,
let's say Tucker can ignore this. Well, we're going to go into a communist hellhole.
If he talks about it, then at least there's a chance to right the ship. If the ship gets
righted without him, well, then he's going to look like a shill. So to me, by ignoring it,
you don't win. Because think about it, if you ignore this issue, we could literally be in a
communist takeover with Kamala Harris. It's not even a question. It's almost a certain reality.
But maybe his issue is more with Stu Peters himself.
Okay, then just say that. Okay, well, then just say, "Hey, come in the show. Have the
conversation anyways." Here's the thing, if you have such a bad viewpoint, but you're a big
political figure, another big political figure is there, why don't you just refute his arguments?
Why don't you just say, "Well, you know what? I don't like you. I don't like what you have to say.
I don't like this thing." And isn't that great for ratings anyways? I mean, aren't these people all
about ratings and views and getting money and blah, blah, blah? And wouldn't it just be so great?
You know, I think this is the problem. I think that he was going to agree with Stu Peters a lot
and he was going to find what he said interesting and compelling because there's a lot of truth to
it. And his producers and everybody else were afraid. His advertisers were afraid. And they
said, "Don't do it." And he said, "Okay, I'm not going to do it." And it's kind of a coward move.
It's a coward move. And we need people to be brave. How can you say that you're standing for
the truth, you're in rebellion to the quote deep state, you're standing on what's right,
you're going by your moral convictions, and then you do these kind of things. Like it wasn't like,
I just don't like you. I say, "Hey Ben, come over to my house for dinner." And then you show up at
the door and we close the curtains and turn out the lights and pretend like we're not home.
And then call the cops and say, "There's this Middle Eastern man knocking on our door. We
don't know who he is. Will you please take him away and arrest him?" Like that's different than
just not inviting you to my house. Well, that is Stu Peters point of view. I'd like to at least
hear what Tucker's explanation was. Well, he provided receipts. He provided all that. I mean,
he literally has the video of him standing there at the check-in and saying, like, "I'm on the list."
And they say, "We know you're on the list, but we were asked to not let you come in." I mean,
how are you going to refute that? No, that's hypocritical, especially because Tucker Carlson
comes from a line of thinking that says, "Hey, I'm pro-free speech. Let's have the discussion.
Let's talk about things. Nothing's off limits. The free exchange of thoughts and ideas."
And this is where you see the right enter into hypocrisy a lot of the time because they make
that claim, but then if you bring up something that makes them uncomfortable, you get canceled
and deplatformed the same way the left does. How is this not the exact same as us wanting to talk
to a pre-tribber, us wanting to talk to a Zionist? I mean, we get canceled from Baptist churches and
preachers in these events and they won't have the conversation. It's because they're a coward.
It's because they, and they're promoting a bad ideology. Again, I'm not saying that you couldn't
legitimately say like this person is a troll or a weirdo or a freak and I just don't want to talk
to them and I get that kind of a viewpoint, but this is somebody that we're friends with.
Like they were friends and they have some relationship. This person's on the list.
Like you don't invite, uninvite. Like that's just a weird move. Yeah. Did someone have a question?
I'm sorry. I wanted to just, I'll check in and our speakers here. Yeah. I had a question. Go for it.
So, um, I haven't heard of Stu Peters, um, but I have heard this other controversy going on
with Tucker recently about, and I didn't see the interview, but he interviewed somebody who was
doing a supposed, you know, world war two revisionism about, you know, Churchill being the bad guy.
And then people were saying, okay, yeah, I don't, I don't know. Uh, I just kind of was, uh,
hearing some of the aftermath chatter and, um, and people were saying, you know, people were
concerned that Tucker was compromised because of his, his past links with the, with the CIA and
with his dad being in the CIA and him trying to, to get a job and being rejected and, you know,
working for CNN before and stuff. And they, they're saying, yeah, this, this kind of,
we're getting bad vibes now from Tucker, like red flags are going up that he might be getting
influenced by people up top. I mean, obviously he is, you know, but he might be succumbing to some
of that influence. And would, do you think that that might have something to do with this where
he's, he's having an event and somebody above him just says, no, you're not going to talk to that
guy? No, I think that you're right because the Darrell Cooper conversation, he got a lot of heat
and he had to kind of backpedal on that interview and even, and say like, man, I got a lot of people,
you know, mad at me about this particular conversation. And, you know, I don't, I don't
know how much Tucker is, is kind of playing coy on those things where he kind of knows what he's
getting into. And then he kind of acts like, oh, I didn't know I was getting into this, you know,
controversy or whatever. I mean, you bring a guy on and talk about World War II. That's, you know,
I'm sure that they fact check these people and figure out like what their perspective is.
I do think that he got a lot of heat. And I know that Stu Peters documentary,
Apocupied is getting attention. And it looks really good. It looks like it and it's bringing
receipts. It's not just like this random guy just sitting in a room just talking to a camera like
it's just, it's just video package after video package and just clear hard evidence of how our
country has so many high ranking positions infiltrated by Jews. And that is exactly what
happened in the Bolshevik revolution. I've been reading a book about it. It's pretty interesting
called Behind Communism by Frank Britton. And he's talking about how in Russia specifically,
the government to try and appease Jews gave them free education. And so almost all of the Jews were
educated while the rest of the residential population was not. And that caused all of the
Jews to come into all the positions of influence, power, and authority in the nation. They basically
dominated all professions, all the trades. They dominated the cities. They were in all kinds of
high-ranking positions. And so whenever the revolution kind of came to pass, like all these
people are in all these positions of control. And so it just, it's a lot easier to just basically
take over. And I mean, you know, you look at America right now, there is a lot of high-ranking
and influential positions when it comes to the major corporations, banking, the presidential
cabinet, our information when it comes to the news media, Hollywood, even production of food,
social media, the internet, military. I mean, there's just, at what point of infrastructure
is it not just dominated by a Jewish influence? And you have to ask this question, like,
do they have our intentions, like the America first or our intentions at best of heart here,
or is there something nefarious going on? And I think that that's a fair question. I think that
when you look at the history, when you look at what these people practice and what they believe,
like this is some serious stuff. And you know, World War II, you sometimes, I heard a lot of
people talk about this last night. This is the crazy thing. It's like, I don't even remember
learning anything about World War II in school. Maybe I did, but even what I did would have been
super brief. I remember thinking about like Texas history. We learned about ancient Greek history
and Roman history and some of 1776 and maybe civil war. But like World War II was just not a
subject that I remember discussing very much in school whatsoever. And I think in a lot of
people's minds the question was never resolved of like why does Hitler just randomly decide like I
just hate all Jews? I mean that's not a question you're gonna get answered in public school. Yeah
but I'm just saying like did you hear that? Like when you were in public school did they say like
here is the clear and definitive reason and evidence why. What was the catalyst for him?
Yeah there's this guy. I think race-based wasn't it? I mean didn't he want to create like an
all-white ethnostate I guess according to the narrative. Aren't Jews why? I don't believe he
considered them to be according to the... I'm just trying to explain the historical narrative isn't
it that he thought Jews were ethnically inferior or genetically inferior? No I agree he definitely
had an evolutionary mindset. Yeah. But I'm just simply saying like that doesn't necessarily just
immediately say like why you would classify Jews as being the most subhuman species on the earth
and that they are inferior beings. Like why where do you get where do you draw that conclusion though?
You just randomly assign like well I just think you know these group of people just ran it like
you know. No it wasn't random there was that's what that's the question pattern that led to
that conclusion. So but you know the thing is with with Hitler and the Jews everything like that is
the devil certainly used all of that in many different ways and you know chief among them
is the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948. So I don't know that that's not 100%
relevant to what we're talking about but as far as the question why I don't think you're
going to get that answered in public school. Jared did you do you feel like you remember
a lot of World War II history from school? I don't remember a lot of anything from school
so long ago. I've definitely learned a lot more in my own reading and you know I read a book about
in 1933 kind of like the rise of Hitler so there was some good information about that but I think
the most important thing to remember is that it's just like World War I part two. Yeah of course.
It's just like Germany just got decimated in the first war and their country was chopped up and
they were paying like ridiculous amounts of money to like compensate for all kinds of stuff and you
actually had like the French invading Germany and taking over towns and murdering people and stuff
and their economy was just totally destroyed and people were just on the brink you know so they
were so there's there's a lot all that stuff leading up to it but with the like when you
were talking about Jews in high positions so when we talk about Jews obviously there's like two
different senses in which a person can be a Jew right they are practicing the religion of
pharisaical Judaism or they claim to have some type of ethnic Jewish ancestry right so like to
me that's an important distinction you know like are these people you know oh they're Jew okay but
what kind of Jew like they just say they just you know have a family history of of word you know
understand ourselves as Jewish people you know because I mean to say like I was thinking about
this the other day to say oh I'm French you know is to say that like the my ancestors came to the
United States from France right it's it's tied to a land you know and no matter what color they were
or anything I could still say well I'm French because my ancestors go back to this geographical
region you know whereas Jews don't really have that I mean they maybe they do a little bit more
since the modern state's been been created but prior to that you know Jews just lived everywhere
you know so it to me it's it's important to say well this person's in a high position of authority
and they're they're a religious Jew who is you know operating under this religious framework.
Well let me let me say this I think that actually and I kind of made a list the other day there's
actually about five or six different ways that Jew could be understand because I think that you
kind of have initially those who are the tribe of Judah in the Bible then you have a sense where
it's like you lived in Judah doesn't mean that you necessarily were of the tribe. Yeah you're
of that particular geography or that particular nation and then you kind of have what Paul
refers to as the Jews religion and and I would argue that that's what you brought up with a
pharisaical understanding of quote Jews. Then you kind of have in the New Testament the
distinctions between like the Jews which are the synagogue of Satan and and that's similar to the
pharisaical Jews and then you have like a spiritual Jew and then I would say there's one more
category so there's kind of like five and it's like the other one is modern-day Judaism and I
think that all of these are different. You could even maybe argue now that there's even another
sense of people who are quote ethnically Jewish or culturally Jewish and not really practicing
of that religion and so there's a lot of ways that the word Jew could be used. I think though
in times past it wasn't as muddy and for the most part if it was like hey I'm from Mexico
you're probably Catholic. If you're from a certain you know location in the world you kind of it's
almost like a one-for-one for religion in a lot of places and so you know I think for most people
and especially in times past if you were Jewish you were probably practicing the religion of
Judaism especially around the time of Hitler and even though there's a lot of people today that are
quote culturally Jewish or just simply their mom was Jewish or that I was just I believe that they
still live in communities where they're interacting with other their uncles are Jewish and practicing
Judaism. They're in it there maybe have the practices of Judaism they're reading the Talmud
they're going to synagogue they they have a lot of these things that are these just principles that
kind of define who they are even if they're not really that much practicing and that the principle
of Judaism as far as modern day Talmudic Judaism is a love of money and is a belief system that
you can do anything to acquire more wealth and power and it's justified that there's really no
moral restraint and that Goyim or the Gentiles are an inferior group of people that you can
treat inhumanely in the acquisition of more power and wealth and that they really are pretty tribal
and looking out for their own and regardless if someone is actually raised reading the Talmud
or going through all these teachings I think that a lot of that culture is kind of infused in the
brains of even these children that grow up in these homes and so you kind of see a lot of quote
jews even in modern day having just very unscrupulous principles very dominated with
the mindset of the love of money and power and wealth and fame and promoting a lot of smut and
filth being very anti-christ in their behavior and attitudes and of course those who are actually
practicing Judaism exhibiting all those character attributes intensely and it's interesting that
then most positions of authority and influence in our country happen to be dominated by this
small demographic. I'm not saying all Jews are bad. I've met Jews that are saved believers. They
believe in Jesus Christ. When I mean Jew I mean they were raised ethnically Jewish and they have
converted religions but they I guess have a physical lineage associated with that and I
don't hate those people. I love those people. I don't even just hate Jews in general. I want
them to be saved and believe in Jesus Christ but I do think we have to recognize that there's a
stranglehold in our country and there are a small group of the Jews who are probably the reprobate
synagogue of Satan that the Bible describes who are really trying to bring in the Antichrist.
So I don't know if that kind of satisfies the distinctions in Jews. What do you think about that?
Yeah, that makes sense. So even if you had like an atheist Jew in some high level government position
or powerful corporate position in media or something, they're still a part of a community
that has a certain worldview. You know, you could even argue that like the some of the Pharisees
might have been atheists, you know, they didn't really they were hypocrites. They didn't really
believe. Yeah, but some of the points of doctrine they brought up where they, you know, they view,
you know, Gentiles or Goyim, the nations as, you know, animals that you can treat however you want.
I mean, Muslims have teachings like that too, but I see them actually like living that out in a more
violent and extreme way in these nations that have just opened their borders to let Muslims flood in
and they're just raping and pillaging and destroying. You know, the Jews don't, you don't
see them behaving that way. This is my viewpoint on that because I agree with what you're saying.
I think it's that the Muslims have what I'd call brazen hatred and the Jews have what I'd call
deceptive hatred. So they kind of equally hate but then the way they manifest their hate is
different. So the Muslim will stab you and yell, you know, "Alu Akbar" but the Jew will rob you of
all your money and goods and laugh all the way to the bank. So I think it's kind of fair to say that
they both hate you, it's just the way that they exercise their hatred is probably a little bit
different. And I don't know, is that a fair way to kind of categorize it, Ben?
Yeah, Psalm 28 comes to mind where the Bible says, "Draw me not away with the wicked and with the
workers of iniquity which speak peace to their neighbors, but mischief is in their hearts."
And that seems to be what you're describing, Pastor Shelley, with these Jews. They may speak
peace, but in reality, they have a ton of mischief in their hearts.
"When he speaketh fair, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart."
That's another great passage.
"And his hatred shall be shown before the congregation."
Amen to that. So, I don't know that I have much to add other than it's important to make the
distinctions you made between a religious Jew or Judaism as a religious worldview and what people
presume to be an ethnic line because your issue isn't with anyone's ethnicity or their DNA,
but rather the ideology of that is part and parcel of Judaism that is responsible for so
much evil in the world. And when people are able to understand that distinction, I think it makes
our position a little bit more palatable because it stops being a race issue and instead becomes
an ideological issue. Well, a lot of people will be mad at what I just said because they think
it's a race issue. Like Hitler, I think, doesn't agree with us. Hitler just thinks they're inherently
bad. There's no redemption for the ethnic Jew. Racial problem, yeah. Yeah, almost like a Canaanite
in the Bible, like you just wipe out the women, children, and infants type mentality. And I think
a lot of people have that towards Muslims too. And I would say that I think there's redeemable
people on both sides. The religions are super evil, but there are some people on both sides
that could be converted and redeemed and reach the gospel. And you know, I've met a lot of
Muslims that are very nice people. In America, there's a lot of Muslims. In fact, if I knock
on a door and it's a Muslim or a Jew, the Muslim is nice almost every time and the Jews almost never
nice is my personal experience. So, you know, I don't think that all Muslims are necessarily
really represented well in the media as far as like we just see, you know, they're beheading babies
and they're, you know, yelling on the lock bar and they're blowing up buildings and it's like,
who really did blow up the buildings on 9/11, Ben? Are we going to find out on 9/11? Was it your
cousins? Actually, I don't even know which cousins it is. You have cousins on both sides of the aisle,
don't you? I do. The official version says yes. I mean, according to the official story, there was
Lebanese who were responsible. Okay, there you go. That's the official narrative. Okay. So if you
want to believe that... It wasn't George W. It was the Lebanese folks. It was Lebanese people. There
it was. We don't even need to have our stream on Tuesday. Yeah, I think the individual, I forget his
name. Jared. Sorry, Jared? Jared. Jared? Jared. Jared. Okay, there you go. Third time's the charm.
It's a silent D. No, I'm just kidding. He's right because in this sense that the Islamic invasion of
Europe has led to an uptick in women getting raped all over the place and crime and things like that.
So there's definitely an element of Islam that is violent and radical and crazy and it is causing
the rape epidemic we're seeing in Europe today because of the unfettered migration that's
happening through there. So for sure that's true. Okay, yeah, that's true. Europe is seeing some
really bad stuff. Is that kind of what you're referring to, Jared? Yeah, where they've just
opened their borders, like you were saying, unfettered, you know, immigration, and they've
just let Muslims take over entire sectors of their country. And it just becomes, you know,
Pakistan inside of the Netherlands or Belgium or wherever they're going, you know,
France. And they're just setting up, they're not learning the language, they're not assimilating
and all that. They're literally, you know, I've seen clips of them saying, you know,
we're taking, we're taking this over. This is ours now, you know, and, and they're attacking
people and yeah, it's, it's bad. You know, it is, it is, it is a problem. I think that it's even,
you know, again, I think the Jews might be partly responsible for that. And maybe they're allowing
that to happen just to weaken those nations. Because I think that they recognize that if
Germany becomes strong again, if UK becomes strong again, they might start asking questions about
World War II and asking questions about why they're paying all this money to Israel and
all the different things that are happening. And the Muslims are a big distraction right now
from maybe asking some of those questions. Well, I think it creates a clash of civilizations
scenario from which the ruling class can then implement order out of chaos, which is what they
want. And when you have a clash of civilizations, it can be used as a stepping stone for globalist
political policies. So I think that's another dimension as well. Well, thanks so much for
tuning in, guys. I know it's just it's kind of a small space. It just did it last a minute. I'm
going to be doing a space tomorrow morning, 8am, with several people talking about the Bible's
influence on modern culture and kind of really just a timeline of the Bible from the starting
point of Christ to now and just kind of how our whole culture and the whole world has
really been shaped by the Bible specifically. I'm kind of excited about this discussion.
You can tune in live to that one as well. I kind of shared it on my Twitter. I think
Dominique, Michael Trippi in Malcolm and a few others are going to be doing that. We're
planning on also maybe doing another space conversation next Saturday where we go and
talk. We're going to kind of watch through a sermon and we might incorporate some of
our speakers. So I appreciate you guys coming in. Do you have anything last you kind of
want to say there, Jarrett?
Jarrett.
Great space. Looking forward to the next one. Thanks for having me up.
Yeah. Thanks for joining and talking. Wade, did you have anything else?
Good questions.
You wanted to say?
Yeah. I just want to thank you both again for everything you do. The Baptist bias, the
space, just the online sermons. It's just really enjoyable. And Ben, actually, I met
you once about five years ago at Steadfast Jacksonville. It was right after Jonathan
Shelley kind of took over. I'm sure you don't remember me. I came through once with my wife
on vacation, but I did get to meet you there. So I just want to thank you again for everything
that you both do.
Well, God bless you. I don't remember that interaction, but hopefully I didn't leave
you with too negative of a first impression. It was a while ago and I met a lot of folks
instead, so I don't remember. But thanks a lot for your support.
Hey, Pastor Shelley, just so you know, we know each other too.
This is Jared Neville I assume, right?
Yes.
I do know Jared Neville. He's from Faithful Word.
Yeah, I went to Faithful Word a while back before I moved back to Louisiana.
So that's the bayou. There we go.
Is this just everyone we know?
That's it.
Is that it? It's a family reunion?
Yeah, exactly.
Cool.
Well, thanks guys.
Yeah, we go back to the Trinitarian controversy and all that stuff.
He was a way back.
He was in our preaching class and then just one day I just didn't see Jared. He was just
gone so he just disappeared into the bayou.
Life is strange sometimes. That's what I'll say about that.
What's bayou? What's that?
Are you still King James only or what?
I would say I'm King James preferred.
Okay. What about salvation by faith? You still salvation by faith?
Yes.
Okay.
Justification by faith alone.
There we go. What about Trinity? You didn't turn into a modalist or something, did you?
No, absolutely not. I've been in the IFB up until just very recently. I'm doing instruction
on becoming Lutheran right now. So maybe we could talk about that sometime.
Can I ask, what's the appeal to Lutheran?
So the main appeal for me was just finding out about what the history of Christianity,
what people with ancient Christians believed for most of the history of Christianity and
how certain things that I thought were not okay to believe as a Christian is what everyone
believed for a long time. And so it was kind of the main thing that had me feeling like
I was missing out on stuff was the IFB church that I've been going to here for over a year,
they haven't partaken of the Lord's Supper once. And what I had learned from just researching
about Christian history is that, you know, the Lord's Supper communion was an essential
part of the worship of God in church, that people were, you know, they had a very high
view of it, that, you know, God would bring forgiveness of sins and grace through the
partaking of the Lord's Supper, this is what Christians everywhere believed.
That's the Catholic view, yeah, if that's what you're referring to.
Well, I mean, we have a different view than Catholics on the Lord's Supper.
No, I understand that the Protestant view and the Lutheran view is different on the
Eucharist, but I'm just saying specifically, like, the heritage or the history of the Eucharist
from the Catholic Church is that it does bring salvation and those kind of things, but again,
our Church does perform the Lord's Supper and it's kind of on the seldom side as opposed
to mainline Protestant denominations.
I mean, a lot of Catholic Churches and Protestant Churches, Episcopalian, Lutheran, they have
communion in every single service.
In fact, I would argue that's the main emphasis of the Church service, not the preaching.
It's more like the communion aspect and again, I'm not against communion at all.
I wouldn't even be against the Church if it literally had communion in every service,
but I think that the preaching is the emphasis.
Again, Luther wanted to reform the Church.
I reject the Catholic Church.
That's kind of my view and I think there's nothing wrong with people being wrong for
a long period of time because if you look throughout history, there's plenty of people
that are historical but they're wrong in the sense that look at how long Mormons have existed,
they've been wrong the entire time, look how long Islam has existed, they've been wrong
the whole time, look at Hindus, they've been wrong for a long time and even the children
of Israel if you actually study they did the Passover wrong for like hundreds and hundreds
of years and it wasn't until like Hezekiah like reinstituted it that God's like okay
now you're actually kind of doing it like what the Bible said. So, you know, to me-
Yeah, but the argument, the force of the argument is that some of the things that I believe
simply didn't exist at all in the church until like Zwingli came along and nobody believed
that the Lord's Supper was just a remembrance, a purely symbolic right of the church. That's
a novel teaching. It just didn't exist at all. So if you say, "Well, yeah, I mean, it
was right when they got it wrong for a while and then they got it right again," that's
not as forceful of an argument as to say, "Well, it just didn't exist until, you know,
the 16th century." - Yeah, I wouldn't say that that's...
I'm not trying to argue that necessarily because I agree with you, but I would believe that
the apostles and the early disciples, of course, did the Lord's Supper correctly, period.
Whatever they were doing was probably exactly what was supposed to be done.
But even...
But think about this.
First Corinthians issue in chapter 11, that's a church that's not even really removed much
from Christ.
And they had the apostle Paul get them saved, and they're screwing up the Lord's communion.
So that tells me that if they were screwed up in the first century, that they could have
been screwed up at any century, at any time, and that people could be doing it wrong very
easily.
Additionally, I think that there's probably a lot of history that we just don't know.
And I don't really look at the Catholic church as being an authority on history.
And I think that there's a lot of stuff out there that contradicts some of these narratives.
I've never really studied communion specifically in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth
century or anything like that.
So I wouldn't know what details or information may exist as far as people doing it differently.
But again, the Catholic church will kind of tell people that, like to me, Lutherans basically
just adopt all the Catholic history up to a certain point and then say it kind of got
corrupt at one point and then they reformed it.
And I think that it's a little bit of a propaganda gaslighting narrative of history that some
people get sucked into with the Catholic Church and I just think that it's a little bit dangerous.
I'm going to have to wrap up this story here.
Well, the great thing about Luther is that he's super, super against the Catholic Church.
I just finished reading Babylonian Captivity of the Church and then he just tears into
them.
Oh yeah, Luther was really against a lot of the Catholic stuff, but they were doing bad
stuff.
I mean selling indulgences, doing crazy things.
The popes were super corrupt, so obviously Luther really, really went on some tangents
against the Catholic Church.
And Jews.
Yeah, even the Greek Orthodox don't like the Catholic Church, but again, that's a big conversation.
We should probably have a different--
That's another two hours.
Yeah, that's another 8,000.
You want to stay out for what?
That's like another 10 years.
All night.
I got to get home.
But thanks so much for--
It's 1030 here in Louisiana, too.
Well thanks for tuning in, guys.
Y'all have a good night.
Thanks, Ben, and thanks for joining our space.
Y'all have a good night.
God bless.