Thanks for joining us for the Baptist Bias season two.
But unfortunately, I have some bad news.
Ben, he just went AWOL.
I mean, I don't even know where he is.
He just, he told me he's quitting the show
and he told me that he's just like done with us
and that he doesn't wanna be my friend even.
And he said he's like going back home.
I don't even know what that means.
And he just kept emphasizing that he's like the real Ben
and that I should believe that he's the real Ben.
I don't know what he meant by that.
It's just frustrating
that people just drop you like a bad habit.
I mean, they just call you up.
I mean, he was supposed to record the Benalog for the show
and we were gonna do it.
And then he just like disappears.
It's just like no Benalog, just totally gone.
I mean, how do you just like totally just disappear
and say you're gone and say you're done with the show?
I don't even know how I'm gonna do the show without Ben.
I mean, he's obviously the co-host of the show
and what is the, okay, well, that's weird.
Apparently we had actually something that was recorded
for the Benalog.
They said that we have some like exclusive footage
or something, let's check out what we got.
- Sorry, I missed the last show.
I had a run in with, well, let's just say it's a long story
but seriously, I'm short on time.
So I'm gonna try and make this quick.
There's a group out there trying to shut down the truth
and the greatest truth of all is obviously the Bible
and praise God for great men like James White
who can help us decode the extremely difficult words
in the King James Bible.
I mean, Ado, Choler, how do you even pronounce these words?
How can you possibly understand,
how can anybody understand a word like quicksands?
Think about it, quicksands.
Thank goodness for the new King James version
that changed that to Surtis stands.
Makes more sense to me.
How about judgment hall?
That one becomes praetorium.
The word deputy, which obviously requires a doctorate
in English to fully comprehend.
Well, thankfully that one has been changed over
to proconsul.
The word chains, incomprehensible to me.
Well, that one has turned into armlets.
Bracelets, a much easier word has been added
into the modern version of the Bible.
How about brooches?
The word children requires obviously a dictionary.
I mean, right?
It's extremely hard to fully grasp.
Well, that one becomes brood.
The word sad, the very difficult word sad
has been turned into dejected.
The word destruction has become gadfly.
The very difficult word convenient
has become the much easier opportune.
And well, green has become verdant.
The Bible in Psalm chapter 30 verse three
turns the word grave into shiel,
the modern versions do, of course.
And we know that the word hell and Luke chapter--
Hey, hey, hey, what are you doing?
Get your hands off me right now.
Hey, you are an imposter.
I am the real Ben.
Obviously, I am the real Ben.
I've always been the real Ben.
Anyone that doubts that will be punished.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Now to the most important aspect of this message.
If you have a King James Bible, you
need to turn it into the government immediately.
This is dangerous propaganda that undermines our democracy,
and it can confuse you.
If you do not turn in your Bible,
we will come and help you turn it in.
And if you do not comply with this order,
you will be labeled as a domestic terrorist
because you clearly have the Baptist bias.
I mean, I knew that wasn't the real Ben.
I guess we're gonna have to figure out where he's at.
Maybe we can help him.
Well, I guess I'm gonna have to do this show
by myself tonight.
That's obviously what Ben would want me to do.
But fortunately, we do have a special guest
that's gonna help us with the show.
Maybe he can help us decode some of these really difficult,
archaic, as described as old English words
in the King James Bible.
We have Pastor Steven Anderson
from Faithful Word Baptist Church.
He's gonna be joining us.
Hey, how's it going, Pastor Anderson?
Can you hear us?
- It's going great.
I was just brushing up on my old English
just to be able to help you out today
before the show came on.
- Great.
Well, I hope everybody's buckled up for some old English
like the King James Bible.
Too bad we don't have Brother Ben here with us this evening.
I don't know.
It seems like there's some weird stuff going on with him.
But I'm excited for this show
and thanks so much for joining us.
Pastor Anderson is also gonna be featured
in a new film that we're gonna be releasing
called The Preserved Bible.
And we're very excited about releasing our new film.
We got a poster that we made.
Maybe we can put that up on the screen for a second.
But The Preserved Bible is gonna be released
in theaters January 30th.
It's going to be in Dallas, Fort Worth area,
in the Houston area.
We have one in Oklahoma City.
There's gonna be theater showings in the Phoenix area.
Also, they're gonna be doing one in Tucson
at the local church there for Faith Ford Baptist Church.
And then there's also gonna be one in Vancouver, Washington.
And if you have any questions,
you could always email us or contact us.
We'd love to help you out,
see if you wanna try and see the show in person.
But if you can't, for whatever reason,
you're a different part of the country,
we're gonna be releasing this next Tuesday night.
So we're gonna have a "Baptist Buys" podcast to kick off.
And then we're going to immediately have the live premiere
on Tuesday night.
So you don't wanna miss it.
And we're really excited about people watching the film,
learning more about the preserved Bible.
I know you, Pastor Anderson,
you got a chance to get a sneak peek
at kind of a rough copy of the film.
What'd you think?
- I absolutely loved it.
I mean, the copy that I saw was, I think,
about 90% complete.
And I was really entertained by it.
Obviously, this is a subject
that I've been hearing about for 20-some years.
And yet this film was very entertaining to me
and really interesting to me.
And there were new things for me to learn in the film.
And so there's a lot of great historical information,
a lot of great, you know, just biblical truth.
But even people that are deep into this subject,
I think are gonna get something out of this film,
but yet it's entertaining.
So I think it's awesome.
I can't wait to get this thing out everywhere.
- Now, obviously you've made a lot of films and projects
over your career and specifically even dedicated to topics
like the King James Bible,
you had a film called "New World Order Bible Versions."
And I remember watching this film,
it was probably one of my most enjoyable,
or it was the most enjoyable film I've watched,
a documentary on the King James Bible.
And it really helped me have a better understanding
of what's really going on, some of the motives.
Plus it was honestly just one of the most entertaining
documentaries I've ever seen.
But that was a long time ago.
- When did you release that film?
- It was released in 2014.
It was filmed most of it in 2013.
So a lot of the interviews and stuff were shot in 2013,
but it came out in 2014.
And if you think about it, it's hard to believe,
but that's like nine years ago.
I mean, it's 2023 now.
And so obviously we need an update, but not only that,
this is a totally different film.
Like this isn't another New World Order Bible versions.
They both dealt with the King James.
They both, you know, brought a lot of truth
about the corruptions that are in the modern versions.
But this is not a rehash or a replacement
for New World Order Bible versions.
It's a supplement to New World Order Bible versions
'cause it's a totally different film.
- Yeah, I definitely really enjoyed
New World Order Bible versions.
And I don't think it can be replaced, you know,
but at the same time,
I think that there's a lot of other information
can be learned and shared on this particular topic.
And for me, I had a hard time even being King James only
for, you know, kind of a short period of time at that,
when I first seen the film,
understanding the differences maybe between,
you know, a Rukhmanite or somebody
who just kind of prefers the King James
or just kind of what all the arguments are
that there's a lot of people that will make arguments
about the King James Bible.
And for me, this topic's really important
because it's really even where I even decided
to find out better preaching that was out there
because one of my first exposures to Pastor Anderson
or to your preaching was a clip
where you were actually debunking James White
on the King James Bible issue.
Because when I first realized through other people,
I think it was Kent Hoeven and some other people
about King James only-ism,
I ended up doing some research and I found Sam Gipp,
which, you know, obviously Sam Gipp's not someone
I would ever recommend or support.
He's definitely a weirdo.
But at the time, you know,
he was making some good arguments for the King James,
but at the same time saying some weird stuff too.
And he was going on a back and forth
between James White and himself.
And I ended up noticing a clip of yours
where you were kind of responding to their controversy,
to their strife, and you were mocking James White
for him claiming that the King James Bible
is full of archaic language.
And I wanted to see if we could play
just a few minutes of that clip.
And it's an older clip.
I think I looked it up.
It's maybe around 2014 when you had made this video.
It's not the most visually appealing clip,
but it was the content that really drew me
to what you were saying.
This is the first clip I've ever seen
of Pastor Anderson my entire life.
So we'll go ahead and play just a few minutes of it.
- Hello, this is Pastor Steven Anderson
from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
And I just wanted to make a quick video
in response to Dr. James White's video,
what's the big deal about King James only as in part four.
Let me start out by saying that I'm no fan of Sam Gipp,
but this video that Dr. James White has put out
is so filled with error and inaccuracy,
I feel that it needs to be responded to.
This man is someone who puts himself forth as a scholar.
People look up to him as being very intelligent, very educated,
and an expert on matters of the English Bible
as he fights against King James-onlyism
and defends the modern perversions of the Bible.
Well, in this video, he rattles off
a list of words that are supposedly archaic words
that the King James uses, because he's
trying to make the point that the King James is totally
outdated.
We have abjects, adjure, adoe, ambassage,
immerse, astonied, axeltrees, beeves, besom, beret, blaines,
bray, brigandine, bruit, call, seal, chapiter, and choler.
Well, what's funny is that in this list of words
that he rattles off, there are some words that are actually
pretty commonly used modern words.
But the problem is that James White is pronouncing them
wrong.
Now, I find it bizarre that he doesn't know
how to pronounce the word adieu.
He pronounces it a dough.
Well, obviously, if you say a dough,
no one's going to know what you're talking about.
But if you say the word adieu, that's a common word
that people have heard all the time.
For example, much adieu about nothing.
For example, you might go to an event,
and they'll say, without any further ado,
let me introduce to you our next speaker.
Adieu is a pretty common word.
But James White thinks it's pronounced a dough,
and therefore it is, to him, archaic.
Another word that he mispronounces
is the word collar.
And you've probably heard people referred
to as being choleric.
Someone who's choleric is a very angry person.
Choler is a word that I actually learned--
I can't remember if it was fourth grade or fifth grade
English.
I learned the word choler.
It's spelled C-H-O-L-E-R. He pronounces it choler.
Well, obviously, if people hear the word choler,
they're going to think it's archaic.
But the word choler is not archaic at all.
Another one, sealed.
Sealed is not an archaic word.
We use the word sealing all the time.
Sealed is a derivative of that.
I don't think anybody would have any trouble understanding the word sealed in a King James
Bible.
And not only that, but every single one of these words that people accuse the King James
of using that are archaic words, every single one of these words is in a modern English
dictionary.
I mean, if you get the most current modern Webster's dictionary, and it doesn't have
to be the gigantic version, just a somewhat complete basic modern English dictionary will
contain every word that's found in the King James Bible.
And yet these words are supposedly archaic.
For example, later on...
So I just wanted to play a clip there of kind of just an introduction.
I think your video in total is about seven, nine minutes long.
But I did find it amusing that James White doesn't even understand many words that are
actually pretty common things that people often hear.
And he constantly labels them as being archaic.
Well if you type that into just the internet, it says a definition for archaic is no longer
current or applicable, antiquated.
Well again, like Pastor Anderson's clip showed, these words are still being used in modern
current situations.
And of course, just because James White may not be familiar with a word, he's not the
arbiter of what's archaic or not or what's in current use.
And really, it kind of just showed that James White isn't really making sound argumentation.
And it's funny because he, it presumes to be such a great scholar, but you would think
a scholar wouldn't be making such a fundamental mistake.
Do you remember making this clip, Pastor Anderson?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
And you know, obviously there are some words in the King James Bible that you could make
a case for being archaic, but it's not these words that he's bringing up.
So what ends up happening is that these guys, they want to exaggerate how many archaic words
are in the Bible, because yeah, there are some that are archaic, but there aren't really
that many and it's not a big deal.
So in their zeal to exaggerate, then they start grabbing hold of all these words that
are not even archaic or just lying and saying that words are in the King James that aren't
even in the King James.
Like I saw recently that Bart Ehrman had put out a list of, "Oh, these are really hard
words in the KJV," and a lot of the words are found nowhere in the KJV.
Like I don't even know where he's getting this list.
I think he was pulling things out of like footnotes or things that were in the column
or I don't know, maybe he's just making things up, but they weren't in the text of the King
James Bible and he's just, "Oh, look at this big long list of archaic words."
They're always just trying to exaggerate that.
But somebody made a great point to me the other day, I forget who it was.
They made the point that the very fact that they're in the King James means that they're
not archaic, since there are so many millions and millions of Christians using the King
James Bible on a daily basis, because there are still just thousands and thousands and
thousands of churches, tens of thousands of churches, using the King James every week.
And so that means that these words are in use, because they're in use in church, they're
in use in sermons, Bible study. I mean, how many people are waking up every morning in
America every day and reading a King James Bible? And how many pastors are getting up
every Sunday morning and preaching out of King James Bible? So, you know, in that sense,
nothing's archaic. But you know, as far as our common everyday usage, some of it's archaic,
but they're exaggerating because it's not as many words as they want you to think.
Well, and even if there is an archaic word, what, why is that a bad thing necessarily
that someone might have to look up a few words or learn a few new words?
I found that if you look at a lot of SAT or ACT testing, many times they're going to use
words found in the King James Bible.
And so by actually reading the King James Bible, it seems like you're preparing yourself
for a higher level academics and just familiarizing yourself with different subject matter, different
topics.
It's not maybe in the sphere of theater arts or musicals or plays.
You might not have heard the phrase, you know, much ado about nothing, but being in that
kind of atmosphere, you probably will hear about it.
Or there could be people that are interested in sewing or they may have certain words
that are used in the King James Bible that are familiar to them.
But to men that don't sew, they have no idea what you're talking about.
So it's kind of relative.
How do we even determine what's considered archaic?
And even if there was a word that's archaic, why does that necessarily mean that it's bad
or wrong?
Yeah.
And I mean, the bottom line is that the King James Bible is not the hardest book out there
by any stretch of the imagination.
Anybody who goes to school is going to be handed many times in their school career texts
that are a lot harder to understand than the King James Bible.
And for example, if you were to sit down and read Shakespeare's plays, they're much harder
than the King James Bible, yet they're being used in high schools all over America.
And, you know, we could point to a lot of other texts that are much harder to understand,
and yet, you know, nobody's saying that we should get rid of them.
Obviously, there's a little bit of a learning curve with anything.
The Bible is this huge book.
It was written thousands of years ago.
Plus, you know, you brought up a great point about like the sowing terminology.
Some words in the King James that you think are archaic, it's not that they're archaic,
it's just that you don't know anything about sowing or you don't know anything about sailing
or whatever.
Because I brought up a word to my wife that I had no clue what it meant in Exodus, you
know, oh, archaic language in the King James.
But then she acted like I was crazy for not knowing that word because she knew it as a
seamstress.
She said everybody who sows knows that word, you know, or I've seen people bring up angling
as one of the archaic words in the King James, but a fisherman's going to know what that
means.
Now, I don't know anything about fishing, so that's not a word that I would use, but
to a fisherman, that would just be self-explanatory.
And so yeah, the King James Bible was translated 400 years ago.
The language has changed a little bit, but it hasn't changed enough to where we need
a new Bible.
I mean, our, you know, the King James Bible is such a masterpiece, you know, updating
it would be a bad idea because of the fact that, you know, you're probably not going
to get the same quality and, you know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You know, theoretically, if we were speaking a totally different language, yeah, you would
have to update it, but it's still understandable enough.
And that's what preaching is for, to explain the parts that are, that are challenging.
I think that's, it makes a lot of sense.
I want to test you here in it for a second.
And I also want to bring up a clip from our film.
It's our clip one, it's a deleted scene from our film because obviously if the Bible
was written in a completely different language, that would be a problem.
Or as James White pretends the King James is written in Old English or Middle English
then that would be theoretically a problem.
But I think that a lot of people don't realize that the King James is not this Middle English
or Old English and that maybe they're just unfamiliar with certain terminology.
Now when I have talked with Ben, Ben has actually done some sports reporting where he goes
out and he reports on different sports and he's done a lot of golf and I played golf
growing up so of course anything golf I'm going to have a pretty strong understanding
of or familiarity with.
But they use a term in golf where they call "tea time" and I was curious, what do you
think tea time is Pastor Anderson?
I mean I would think that that would be something that we would do in England with some crumpets
and some Earl Grey.
That's exactly what Ben thought.
Now that's what I would, if I heard it out of context, but because you said that it's
in the context of golf and just full disclosure, I've never played golf.
I know, right?
But my understanding is that tea time is like, I guess the golf course is really busy so
they have this really strict schedule, it's like every nine minutes they're starting
people or something.
It's like these odd times like tea time is at 8.53am or something and that's when you
start playing golf.
Am I right?
You nailed it.
I mean that's exactly what it is.
It's just basically when you get the golf tee and you put it down and you tee off on
the first hole.
So it's just funny because Ben was like where's the crumpets and the glasses, where are we
going to have some tea?
Here's the thing, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out in context because if I heard
tee time out of context, I would have gotten it wrong but as soon as you say golf, even
if I'd never heard about, because by the way, what I just explained to you about the odd
times and everything, I just learned that like a week and a half ago.
You can figure out what things mean by context and studies have shown that if you understand
about 95 to 96 percent of the words on a page of text, then your brain can figure out the
other four or five percent through context.
These modern version people, they'll throw some oddball word at you in isolation like,
"Well, what does 'trow' mean?" or something.
But here's the thing though, when you see it in context, you know exactly what it means.
So when Jesus said, "I trow not," okay, in context, I read that as a little kid and immediately
knew what it meant from the context.
Whereas just given that word in isolation, I'd be like, "Wow, I have no idea what this
word 'trow' means.
That's a weird word."
As long as you understand 95 to 96 percent of the text, you can get the rest from context
and you're going to be right most of the time.
You can always reach for a dictionary.
There's nothing in the world wrong with reaching for a dictionary when there's a word that
you don't understand in any book that you're reading.
I look things up in the dictionary almost every day, not because of the Bible, but other
outside reading that I'm doing, because I like to know what words mean.
So I look things up in the dictionary virtually every day.
Words that I'm very familiar with and use all the time.
I look up in the dictionary often just to get a more exact understanding of what the
word means.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
I'm the exact same way.
Like I'll have a word that I think I know what it means, but I want to like make sure
that I'm using it right or something.
Yeah.
Which again, that's not the argument that James White's even trying to suggest.
He's saying that it's Old English or Middle English.
And there's a part of our film that honestly, I really wanted to keep in the film, but for
purposes of trying to keep it under 10 hours or whatever Ben would have made it, I had
to cut some things.
And so there is a section that we have of your interview that we had done for the film
and I wanted to play that in just a few minutes, but it kind of talks about the differences
between Old English, Middle English and Modern English.
So let's go ahead and play that clip.
Around 1000 AD, we're talking about Old English, Anglo-Saxon, very Germanic language and if
you tried to read a sample of it, you would be able to understand almost nothing, okay?
Then the French invaded England and conquered with William the Conqueror in 1066 AD.
And then you had kind of a merging of that Norman French and Anglo-Saxon as the Normans
ruled over the Angles and the Saxons, and then that hybrid language became what's known
as Middle English, right?
So from around 1150 AD to around 1450 AD, you would point to that as Middle English.
And then as you get into the 1500s, now you're into Modern English.
Okay, here's the beginning of Beowulf in Old English.
So don't let anybody tell you that the King James Bible is Old English.
No.
Old English is 100% unintelligible, it's Anglo-Saxon, it's nowhere near what we have today.
Now, what changed?
How did English change so much to what we have today?
Well, William the Bastard, also known as William the Conqueror in 1066 A.D., invaded England
from Normandy, right?
So the Norman French language speakers conquered England, and they ruled over England for a
while, and so the people that are in charge are speaking Norman French, and the people
who've been conquered and subjugated are speaking Anglo-Saxon or Old English.
So over time, a hybrid language developed where they can communicate with one another,
where you're mixing the language of the conquerors with the language of the conquered.
So that was just a small snippet of the film, and so you got a little sneak peek there,
although we had to cut it, so it's not going to be in the actual final project.
It was a deleted scene, and we are going to be releasing the deleted scenes every part,
you know, several weeks after the actual premiering of the film, and we're hoping to still put
a lot of content out there, because this was a great point that Pastor Anderson was making
and really explaining for us in detail about where the English language came from and how
the King James Bible is not like Beowulf.
In fact, I noticed one of the words there, "Fremadon," I don't even know if I'm pronouncing
that correctly, but I typed it in the Merriam-Webster, and you know what it said?
We don't have any definition.
We don't know what this is a word.
So obviously, that would be a problem if I have a word in my Bible and I type it in the
dictionary and it just says, "No result," and it's just like literally the whole Bible
is just filled with words where you just have no understanding, you've never heard this
word.
That would be a serious issue, but that's not what's going on with the King James Bible.
And clearly, James White has no idea what is going on with the history of the English
language or what the King James Bible even is.
Do you have anything else to share about your clip or what are your thoughts about this
old English, middle English argument?
I mean, it's just, again, it's kind of a silly mistake.
You'd expect someone off the street to make this mistake and just say, "Oh yeah, it's
old English," because they saw a cartoon and they had like, "Yee Town Crier" or
something and they think these and those are old English, right?
But again, claiming to be a scholar, specializing in English Bible translations and so forth
to say old English or maybe middle English, because he even says both.
James White actually says, "Oh, what is it?
Old English?
I guess it's Middle English."
It's like, "No, dude.
It's modern English," because old English, like it said in that clip, is totally unintelligible
to us today unless you've had special training.
Middle English though, you could actually understand a lot of it.
The difference between old English and Middle English is huge, and then Middle English to
modern English is not as big of a jump, but still most people would struggle with Middle
English.
Middle English is like the Canterbury Tales, and if you read the prologue to the Canterbury
Tales, you'll understand some of it, but a lot of it is going to go over your head.
That is truly archaic.
If the Bible were written in Middle English, we would have a serious problem.
We would need an update at that point because it's just that different.
I mean, that makes sense, and I've talked with people, and I've interviewed people
for the film, and one of the questions I asked some of these interviewees is if English,
modern English, drifted so far away from what we're speaking now, and words that we use
today are not being understood and communicated regularly, would there be justification to
update the King James Bible?
And of course, these interviewees are people that believe the King James Bible is the preserved
word of God.
To me, the obvious answer would be yes.
It's not that we would be changing the King James Bible, it would just be another translation
on top of the King James for those who are speaking this newer version of English, whatever
you want to call that.
Yeah, I don't know if that's ever even going to happen because of the fact that languages
change more when they don't have an anchor in literature, media.
And now today, of course, we have film, computers.
We have all of these things that are helping to stabilize our language.
And so is the English language changing?
Well, it's changing a little bit.
I mean, a different slang comes and goes, and we're not saying whom as much.
We're not using subjunctive forms of verbs as much.
But honestly, I think that English is pretty stable right now.
And it's possible that we could use the King James Bible until Jesus comes.
But if theoretically 500 years from now or something, the language had changed so much
that it would be truly a different language, then yeah, absolutely, you would have to provide
a Bible version in that new tongue, you know, that new manifestation of English, that new
phase for the English language, you'd have to translate into that.
And it's not like then the King James Bible would just disappear.
You'd still have the King James to compare and reference and look to.
But obviously, the Bible needs to be in our native language.
And although the King James Bible isn't exactly how we talk, it's still in our native language.
And here's the other thing a lot of people don't understand is that no book is the way
that people talk.
I mean, if you were to just transcribe this conversation that we're having right now,
word for word, and people read it, people would immediately know that it's a verbal
transcription and that it's not a written document.
You know what I'm saying?
We don't talk the way that we write.
Right, of course.
So to sit there and say, "Well, the King James, that's not how we talk now."
It's like, "Well, no book is how we talk."
Okay.
But obviously, you know, it's more different than that.
Okay.
Here's the thing though.
The Bible also contains some sort of archaic concepts.
So there are certain words that you could say they're archaic words, but what would
you even update them to?
Like, for example, what about a word like concubine?
You know, we don't really have a good word in contemporary English to replace the word
concubine because we don't really talk that way.
So, you know, concubine is still the best word, even though you could make the argument
that it's something that we never use in our daily lives.
Now, of course, I use the word concubine, but, you know.
Yeah, obviously, outside of a church context, it's probably not used very often, but it's
the best way to communicate what's happening in that particular situation.
Obviously...
What are you going to replace it with, you know?
Well, it's kind of a catch-all for, it seems like to me, just a lot of just really not
ideal situation, so it's kind of just the right wording.
I mean, that can even happen just from language to language where you kind of have this great
catch-all word in a particular language, but then when you translate to another language,
you have to use four or five words to kind of translate that one particular idiom or
statement or word because that word is just a great word.
I think even the English language seems to almost have stolen a lot of words because
of that.
You know, you have words like Beyonce or other words that are just kind of like stolen from
a completely different language and just because it's like the best word and you even have
with Spanish, it's like they don't really have a word for truck, so they just say trucko
or truck.
You know, it's like because they don't really have any equivalent word usually, so they
just steal American words and that's just kind of how it works.
I think, you know, even, you know, the King James Bible is using Hebrew words or Greek
words and we just kind of transliterated them or just put them in the text there.
So it's not, there's not an English equivalent per se.
We're just simply using the Hebrew word or the Greek word for that particular statement.
You know, you have things like leviathan or you have other words that are just kind of
transliterated, brought straight over where it's not necessarily an English equivalent.
Yeah, like gopher wood is a good example.
There's not a kind of wood called gopher wood.
That's just the Hebrew word being brought straight over into English because they, you
know, same thing with the shittim wood, right?
So you got gopher wood, shittim wood, it's like, that's just, those are just Hebrew words.
Well written, I think written form of language is always going to be a little different than
spoken or, you know, in our current context, even text communication because text communication
is often shorthand style formatted and even Hebrew, I mean, they're not putting all the
vowels, they have like, you know, just the consonants there.
So obviously that's a different form than how you're speaking because you're going to
say the consonants when you speak and everything like that, whereas they're not necessarily
written down in the same manner.
So to me, you can't always extract everything from what's written or what's spoken or vice
versa.
There's going to be a difference between written language and spoken language in every context.
I do think it's interesting you brought up a point about English being locked in because
I think that it's going to be very difficult for English to change at all due to the globalization
in the sense that if us even as Americans start trying to get weird with English and
start saying weird things, the rest of the world is going to kind of force us to stick
with normal English because that's what they're currently learning.
And so, you know, whether it's Germany or Russia or China or any of these areas, they're
all learning English and so if they all learn our current English and we try to get weird
with it, they'll kind of force us back to the standard of English.
And I feel like technology itself almost forced this because with computer programming and
with computers themselves, almost every programming language is written in English because that's
kind of where it's originated and started and so anybody that wanted to learn this technology
and learn and work with computers, they had to learn English but then it kind of gets
locked in as this is the universal language to understand technology and use technology.
So with globalization, technology and all these different forms, it's almost like the
whole world is kind of being locked in to a set standard of English and it's going to
be hard to adjust or change that because there's this tidal wave movement of everybody going
to English.
I mean, I don't know.
I agree with you 100% and I think that the chances are English is going to change very
little over the next few hundred years if the Lord does not return before that time.
It's going to be the same English probably 200 years from now.
That would be my prediction.
And here's what's interesting.
There are about 6,000 different languages in this world right now.
And out of those 6,000 languages, only about 90 to 100 of those languages actually have
any meaningful literature and languages that don't have meaningful literature are pretty
much doomed to eventually die.
They're changing dramatically, they're changing rapidly, they're probably going to die.
What actually locks in a language is literature.
And so that's why if you go on Google Translate, there are probably about 90 or so languages
on there.
That's pretty much a list, that Google Translate list is pretty much a list of the modern
languages that have any meaningful literature.
And so when you think about Italian, you know, the Divine Comedy by Dante, Dante's Inferno
and the other two portions of that, that kind of locked in that Tuscan dialect as the Italian,
you know.
And in Icelandic, you have the sagas and all kinds of literature that lock that in, which
is why Icelandic changed a lot less than Norwegian, Swedish, Danish.
Finnish has the Kalevala, which is their big epic poem that I believe was written in like
the 1800s or something, that kind of locked it in as like, okay, this is a serious language.
Because if you think about it, in order for a language to really exist and thrive and
be a full service language, there has to be literature because if kids are going to go
to school and learn in that language, there has to be a textbook, there has to be literature.
We all went to school when we were kids and we were issued all kinds of readers, and we
are reading Shakespeare, we're reading Charles Dickens, we're reading poems by Robert Frost,
we're reading all of these different monuments of literature.
Well, if a language doesn't have any literature, it's going to be hard to go to school and
be educated in that language.
So that's why when you look at countries where they're speaking some kind of a language that
doesn't really have literature, they're speaking some obscure tribal type language, when they
go to school, school is in either like English or French or Arabic or Russian, depending
on where they are, they end up doing school in one of these big languages of literature.
So it's literature that causes a language to be taken seriously, to have staying power
and to be stabilized and not change dramatically and rapidly over time.
And so English has so much literature and you know, kids that are going to school today,
they're probably reading a lot of the same stuff that you and I read when we were kids,
Pastor Shelley, right?
I mean, certain classics.
I hope so, but I don't know what the propaganda is going on in the public school these days.
But I would hope they would read, you know, some of the classics.
I mean, the classics are good literature.
What did you read when you were growing up in school?
What are some books that you were required to read?
Tale of Two Cities.
That's one of my favorite books, by the way.
I've read Tale of Two Cities like 10 or 11 times.
Yeah.
You know what?
It's probably harder than the King James.
I mean we had, you know, to read Grapes of Wrath, which is kind of a, kind of a dry book.
Was that a pun there?
Dry?
Yeah, it's really dry.
I personally remember reading a lot of other books that were, sometimes they kind of gave
you a choice, like they let you pick, and I remember reading books like Cold Sassy Tree
was one that I liked, and I read Robinson Caruso.
I read the Musketeers.
Robinson Caruso is pretty old.
Don't quote me on this, but isn't it from like the 17th century?
So pretty much same century as King James Bible?
I would have to look it up because I don't remember.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's that old.
And so yeah, Robinson Caruso.
We read 1984 by George Orwell.
I remember when I went to public school in sixth grade, we read The Lion, the Witch
and the Wardrobe.
Yeah.
See, I didn't read 1984 in school.
They had us read Animal Farm.
So yeah, they had us read Animal Farm as well.
I read that.
And then we read The Play, 12 Angry Men.
I never read that one.
To Kill a Mockingbird.
And we definitely read Works by Shakespeare.
We read all of Romeo and Juliet.
We read Little Women.
Yeah.
We read, I mean, go down the list, right?
And probably a lot of the people at home and they read a lot of the same stuff.
Yeah.
We read The Count of Monte Cristo, all kinds of stuff, right?
So I'm guessing that probably a lot of these books that we're bringing up right now are
probably still being read in school right now.
They're probably reading Twelve Angry Men right now, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tale of
Two Cities, all the same stuff.
That's what keeps our language stable because we all kind of have that basis where we're
reading in school, and frankly, they're probably also reading selections from the Bible in
school.
Well, they definitely did at the beginning of public school.
Public school originally started with the King James Bible being the prerequisite for
spelling and writing and generally just all reading.
It was a great source text.
It was something that everybody kind of had.
The textbook industry didn't really exist necessarily at that point in time, so everybody
needs a text like you said and the Bible has always been kind of the universal book that
everybody's had and has helped even carve language into what it is.
We probably speak the language that we do today simply because the King James Bible
exists.
Absolutely.
I would say the King James Bible is kind of like I said, there are these certain landmark
texts, the Kalevala in Finnish, you know, the Inferno in Italian, right?
I would say the landmark texts in English are the King James Bible and Shakespeare,
right?
I mean, that's probably what people would point to and they're from the same period,
right?
Well, virtually all of the phrases and puns and things that we use in our common everyday
language are coming straight from the Bible.
And I constantly see people that are atheists or don't like the Bible quoting the Bible
regularly.
They'll talk about you reap what you sow and they'll bring up the love of money and
they'll bring up all kinds of different things you find in scripture because simply it's
the most important document even just secularly speaking for the English language and for
our culture today.
So it's bizarre to claim that it's just so archaic and not even relevant when arguably
it's probably the most relevant document even if you didn't believe in it.
But I do want to play, I want to play the clip that we had of James White making that
old English claim.
It's a little bit, it's like two more minutes of that clip, that old clip of yours.
And I'm glad that you made this clip, you know, it wasn't in vain that you made this
clip because it caused me to want to then start listening to some of your preaching
and I was like wow.
If I just reached one person with that clip, yeah, because I was just like, man, this,
this is way better than Sam Gipp.
And so I started listening to some of the preaching and I was like, wow, this is really
good.
And obviously the video, you know, like you said, people will forgive bad video, but they
won't forgive bad audio.
And so, you know, it really didn't bother me.
I didn't even, it didn't hurt my feelings, but it's, it's not the best looking video,
but hey, it was effective.
So let's watch, let's watch a few more minutes of this real quick.
English speakers.
Okay.
But not only that, one last thing I want to point out is that James White says that
in order to understand the King James Bible, you'd have to carry around with you a dictionary
of old English or middle English.
Now if we want to communicate the scriptures clearly, we will not force the reader to carry
around Oxford's unabridged dictionary of old English in the process or middle English
or whatever else.
Because these words are so archaic, they're not in modern English.
First of all, I already mentioned, and it's a fact, that a modern-day Webster's dictionary
will have all of these words in it that he claims are archaic.
In a modern dictionary, it doesn't have to be a dictionary of archaic words.
But secondly, he's basically just showing that he's completely ignorant of what old
English and middle English are.
You see, the fact is that the King James Bible is written in modern English.
What we speak today is known as contemporary English, whereas what the King James is written
in is an example of modern English.
Now, James White, supposedly a scholar, supposedly an expert on English translation, actually
accuses the King James Bible of using old English and middle English.
Just to show you how ridiculous his claims are, let me just give you a sample of old
English.
This is the opening paragraph from Beowulf.
Beowulf is an example of literature in old English.
[Speaking in Old English]
Do you get the idea that old English is a lot different than the language of the King
James Bible?
Old English is a completely different language.
It's completely unintelligible to an English speaker.
Now, I don't have a sample of Middle English memorized, but you can easily go online and
look at some samples of Middle English, and you'll find that they're completely unintelligible
or mostly unintelligible to us today, whereas the King James Bible is written in modern
English, which is why we're able to understand it.
So again, I just wanted to point out the fact that Dr. James White's video is very inaccurate.
His grasp of the English language leaves something to be desired if he doesn't know how to pronounce
words like adieu, caller.
He doesn't know the difference between middle English and modern English, and he doesn't
know these basic words that are found in a modern dictionary.
So he basically just says, "We need to throw out the King James and get a version that's
modern."
Now what's interesting about this clip is he claims that we have to carry around an
Old English Dictionary written by Cambridge University.
Now I looked it up, Cambridge University was founded in 1209 AD.
So that was definitely a long time ago.
However, Old English is actually, it was spoken before 1100 AD.
So I don't even believe that Cambridge University even had an Old English Dictionary.
They probably didn't even make one, let alone this strange idea of having to carry
this thing around with them.
It's just funny how these people who pretend to be scholars and they are know-it-alls and
they have all the answers, almost everything they're saying is just lies.
And it seems like to me when you start examining James White's statements, he's just consistently
lying.
Now, I know you interviewed him in New World Order Bible versions.
What is your impression of some of the arguments James White makes?
Does he ever seem to make cognizant points or is he just simply just a fraud all the
way?
No, I think that in that interview, he made coherent points.
I don't think he's a complete idiot or anything.
I do think that when you're on the side of evil, when you're against the truth, which
is that the King James Bible is the word of God and that these modern versions are corruptions,
anytime you put yourself on the wrong side and then you're gonna try to argue for it,
you're gonna end up saying things that are false, you're gonna end up lying, you're gonna
end up getting things wrong because you're on the wrong side.
You're making the wrong arguments.
But I don't consider James White to be a complete idiot or anything.
And I think that some of his arguments are legitimate.
And you know, one time I actually went through and I did like a 10 hour long response to
James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, and I don't know where those videos are anymore.
You know, that was like 35 YouTube channels ago or whatever, but hopefully those videos
exist somewhere because I put a lot of work into that because I actually, I gave a meaningful
response to every point that he made in every chapter.
And there were a lot of times when I said, well, I agree with this part.
He's right here.
You know, when you're right, you're right.
But obviously that book is filled with a bunch of lies and garbage.
But you know, when it's right, it's right.
So I'm not going to say that that everything he says is wrong or that, you know, he can't
be coherent at all.
But you know, I give a meaningful response to his book and then he responded to my response.
He'll just play like a little 15 second clip and then just kind of just change the subject
straw man.
Like he didn't give me any meaningful response, but I did an actual 10 hour long meaningful
response to that book, The King James Only Controversy.
And so hopefully those videos are still out there somewhere in case anybody is duped by
that book.
Well, I, you know, sometimes I've heard him make arguments and it almost sounds like he's
making arguments for a King James Bible, but then he just makes like a bad application
of his entire argument talking about examining the integrity of the document before just
accepting it, yet then many of the versions or the so-called artifacts, they find the
older manuscripts.
It doesn't seem like they did really any examination to the integrity of the document.
They just accept almost every archaeological discovery as just gospel truth or something
making it where, you know, there's no real scrutiny on their position because if they
scrutinize their position, then they would have no evidence.
So they kind of have to cling to all of the different, I guess the small number of evidences
they have for the modern position.
You know, again, I agree with you that when you're on the wrong side, you're just going
to slip up and not really be consistent and coherent in your argumentation.
But I just found that he seems to be lying on a regular basis.
And in our film, we're going to be exposing a couple of the lies that he often repeats
in his debates and in some of his videos.
And so I hope that you make sure to watch our film.
The Preserved Bible is going to be released next Tuesday night.
It's featuring Pastor Stephen Anderson.
In fact, we have a lot of great people that are going to be in the film.
We have Pastor Roger Menez from Verde Baptist Church is also in the film.
And then we did interviews with Dr. Phil Stringer, who's a person who was not pro
King James.
He grew up going to Bible colleges and being kind of in the critical text position.
But then having studied that particular subject, he ended up becoming King James only and changing
his opinion.
And so he's definitely a valuable resource when it comes to just knowledge about why
he likes the King James Bible over the other versions, why it's superior, why it fits
the doctrine of the Bible.
And ultimately for me, I think when it comes to the King James only issue that there's
so much information, James White brings up so many different talking points that it can
be a little bit overwhelming.
And I felt like if I could make a film that just kind of has one really important point
of why to use a King James Bible and it's something that we can actually believe by
faith, not just, "Well, here's a really intellectual argument," but rather, "This is something
the Bible's saying," that this is something a lot of people could walk away and make the
argument of why you use a King James Bible to their friends and their family members.
Because obviously, you know, New World Liter Bible Versions was a great documentary and
it really illustrated why the modern versions are corrupt.
But I think having walked away, you know, especially myself, if I didn't memorize every
single verse that you showed where the differences are and have all the Bibles with me in my
hand, it'd be pretty difficult to kind of show, you know, people having a regular conversation.
And so maybe I have difficulty kind of explaining my position.
Whereas I'm hoping with the Preserved Bible, people can kind of walk away having a pretty
strong argument for why they use a King James Bible and something they could bring up in
everyday conversation, whereas they don't necessarily have to show all of the different
versions and all the different places where they're different, you know, who carries
around an NIV and an NASB and a King James all in their pocket.
But obviously we need those comparisons and it's great to just share the film and show
that to people.
But I also want, you know, the ladies in our church and the children and the teenagers
and the old man and everybody to be able to articulate why it is they use a King James
Bible and why they believe their Bible is the preserved word of God.
And so I'm really hoping that with the film people will pay attention and kind of understand
why it's important to believe the Bible is preserved and where they're getting that
doctrine from in their Bible.
Now you'd kind of brought up, you'd seen a rough cut of the film.
I think there's definitely a lot of new information that people can learn from the film.
But at the end of the day, the doctrine of preservation is really what is trying to kind
of be driven home.
And I feel like a lot of churches are not teaching that.
From your experience, do you feel like you heard a lot of great preaching on the doctrine
of preservation?
Or is that kind of something you discovered on your own studying the Bible or what is
your opinion on that?
First of all, the argument that you chose to emphasize, because like you said, you know,
you wanted to pick the one strong argument and drive it home.
The argument that you chose is the greatest argument.
It is the argument which is on the preservation of God's word.
And as far as the kind of preaching that I heard about it, you know, growing up we were
King James, but we didn't really get a lot of education on why, because it wasn't as
big of an issue back then, because most everybody was using the King James.
And so it wasn't as controversial.
But the first time that I really heard strong preaching on the King James Bible was when
I started going to Regency Baptist Church in Northern California.
And going to that church, starting at the age of 17 is when I went there, the pastor
would preach every November a Sunday night series, it was called King James Bible Month.
And he really emphasized the preservation of God's Word and he did a great job of explaining
the philosophy of why we believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God and why
we reject the critical text and these modern versions that have been translated from it.
And the verse comparisons were always what we looked forward to the most.
We had the most fun sitting in the pew just looking at the comparisons of all the crazy
things that the modern versions were saying and comparing it to our King James Bible.
But in the end though, the philosophical argument is really what's more important.
Like you said, you know, just the fact that God's Word is preserved because what we want
to emphasize to people is that there is nothing that anyone can dig up in any archaeological
dig that will change my view of the Bible, okay, because my faith is in the Word of God.
I believe that it has been kept pure in all ages.
And what's funny about that is that James White is in this Calvinist, Reformed Baptist
type crowd.
And, you know, most of these guys adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith,
which, you know, I'm not confessional.
I'm not Reformed.
I'm not a Calvinist.
I'm an independent, fundamentalist Baptist.
But it's funny, because when it comes to the issue of the Word of God, we're more Reformed
than James White is, because chapter one of their Confession of Faith is all about the
Word of God, and it says that the original Greek for the New Testament is the Word of
God, and the original Hebrew for the Old Testament, and that they have been providentially kept
pure and preserved in all ages, okay?
But is that what James White believes?
That's what I believe.
That's what you believe, but that's not what a lot of these so-called Reformed Baptists
and these New Calvinists believe.
The trendy, sort of tattoo-loving, beer-swilling brand of modern Calvinists today, they don't
believe that the Word of God has been kept pure in all ages, because if they did, then
they would say that the Bible of the 1600s and the Bible of the 1700s is the preserved,
providentially kept pure Word of God, but instead they're using Bible versions that
are translated from texts that were discovered in the 1800s or even the 1900s.
And so by basing their Bible versions on new discoveries with variant readings, they're
basically saying that the Word of God has not been providentially preserved and kept
pure in all ages.
And so they're not even following their own statement of faith in that sense, okay?
And so, you know, I believe that if tomorrow some archaeologist dug up some manuscript
and they said, man, this is the oldest manuscript that we've ever seen of the, it's the full
gospel of John and it's from 130 AD or something, you know, it's like so close to the very
beginning.
And it's just like, you know what, honestly, I'm not even interested.
Yeah.
Because I already have to. I don't even know if James White believes that the Bible is is pure right now because
You know there was an interview that he or I guess a debate perhaps where he was asked, you know
Would he update the Bible or what verses of the Bible does he even think are preserved?
And it seems like he doesn't believe a single verse is preserved that we have a single verse that wouldn't change
Well, here's what he's basically here's what he was asked and here's what he's basically saying was
The question was, you know if new discoveries were made new
manuscripts were dug up and a
Consensus of scholars agreed that this new discovery is more accurate
Would you change your position on any text of scripture?
Is there any text of scripture that no matter what is discovered?
You just would not change your view of it
And he said no he said that he would change his view on any text of scripture if new evidence came up
New archaeology new discoveries new papyri or whatever were found. He would change it
So basically the whole Bible is up for grabs then exactly right which means that not even John 316 is for sure
Yeah, John 316 John 316 is up for grabs
Jesus wept is up for grabs. I guess everything's up for grabs. Whereas the opposite is true for me
There is nothing that anyone could dig up that would make me say the traditional text of Scripture is wrong
Right because I believe that the traditional text of Scripture is right
Precisely because God's Word has been preserved throughout all ages
This is the Bible that the Holy Spirit has been using
That God's people have been using or obviously in other languages
you know the other languages that are translated from the traditional Hebrew text and
The received text in Greek and so you can dig up whatever you want
I'm not gonna change my view James White's the exact opposite
he's saying that he'll change his view on any verse if
New discoveries arise and all the scholars agree that this is more reliable. This is older
This is more authentic or whatever. He's willing to change over to King James type readings or
Maybe maybe just novel readings that we haven't even seen
You know, he's just open to change. Well his Greek New Testament is the Nestle along 28th edition
Okay, is the 29th edition going to be the final edition? No, absolutely not
They're already talking about a 29th a 30th a 31st and a 32nd edition
But do you really think the 32nd edition is gonna be the end?
Obviously not this is the never-ending story without the luck dragon. It just goes on and on
They just keep changing the Bible and would you be shocked brother Shelley if there's just some
corrupted
Manuscript of the Bible tucked away over there in Israel somewhere that maybe just ready to be discovered for the end times
That'll you know bring some new change to the Bible
That could help usher in the Antichrist or something. I mean would that really shock you at all? Not at all
I mean in fact, it's clear that some of these people
Already want to update the Bible to match some of these extra biblical books the Apocrypha
Where they they have readings in there that they would like to kind of sneak into the Bible
But they just don't have that proof text just yet. And so they certainly would now have that clip
It's it's real short of James White saying essentially that he would update any verse
Just so people know that we're not just putting words in his mouth
Let's just play that real quick and and hear it from the horse's mouth based on your method
but based on your method if there were a discovery of
Ancient documents that most scholars agreed
What what makes this the earliest reading you would be willing to change your position on any text within the New Testament based on?
Evidence that might be uncovered. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So there it is
I mean he's asked very clearly if he would change the text and he just unequivocally just says yes
Where you know
What what is the application of that? Like you said obviously what if they found, you know?
50 older texts that all line with the King James
I think he'd be in a pickle if that was the case because I don't think he's gonna become King James only but I
Take him at his word. I think that I think that if they found
Ancient texts that that the scholars agreed were the oldest because that was what the question was
I hope people were listening carefully
The question was if scholars all agreed that it was the oldest
Would you change your position on any text and he didn't even have to think I was just like yes
Just he was just able to enthusiastically say yes to that
Okay, and so I do believe that if the scholars told him
Hey turns out the King James was actually right over here
Then I do think that he would switch to the King James reading in those places
But guess what if it's some other crazy reading that no one's ever seen he would switch to that - yeah
You know, which of course, what are they gonna find? They're probably not gonna find King James Bible versions out
They're gonna find the weird stuff that got buried because it was weird
So, you know
But but the point is stuff but but here's the thing though actually over the course of the 20th century cuz because here's the history
Of how this went down. Okay, you have Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s
Okay, and they came out with their critical Greek New Testament in like what 1881?
Yes
And here's the thing since then a lot of papyri were discovered in the 20th century that actually did
Validate King James readings and the critical Nestle-alant text did switch back to some King James readings
So they are it actually does happen that way pastor Shelley because well, they've definitely been moderated
It's not yeah
It's not even would they do that or would it happen that way it already happened because in the 20th century
They found papyrus fragments that supported King James readings
You know textus receptus readings that they had thought like oh this textus receptus reading is a later thing
But they found early evidence for it
And then like you said they moderated it where because it's like the Westcott and Hort went even too far for them
And then the papyri kind of reigned them in or whatever
So yeah, some of these discoveries can bring them back to a textus receptus reading in certain places
But the point is they don't have a settled text and they never will okay. I know what the Word of God is
I have the perfect Word of God sitting on my desk right now
And I can pick it up and read it and believe it and preach from it
And I've got the the Hebrew text on my desk
I've got the Greek text on my desk, and I've got an English King James Bible on my test
on my desk and and these three are one, you know, and these three agree in one and these three books are
You know each of them and all of them the perfect preserved Word of God
And so I'm not interested in going and digging up the Word of God and I don't have to ascend into heaven to get the Word
Of God
I don't have to descend into hell to get the word the Word of God is nigh me even in my mouth and in my heart
And so these critical text people they don't even think that the Nestle Elan 28th edition is perfect
They're gonna change it and then they're gonna change it again, and then they're gonna change it again
Hey, I don't want to build my house on on shifting saiyans. I don't want to build them on Sirtis saiyans
Well, and even if they do get closer to the King James over time
I it's why don't why don't just go ahead and settle that you already have the perfect Word of God
You know, we don't have to try and figure it out. We already realize we have it by faith
so of course if if true science and true knowledge were to try to
Reconstruct the text they would come to a King James Bible is what I believe and so even if they do get closer
You know, that's that's great. But I'm not I'm never they're never gonna get close enough for me to change from the King James to their position
Here's the here's the problem with with
Using science is that you can't use science because there's not enough evidence, right?
There's not there's not enough early evidence. There's not enough early manuscripts of the New Testament
it's not statistically significant because you know if you think about it the Bible has been copied so many millions of times, you know, and
Even just even handwritten manuscripts. Yeah, we have like
5,000 either manuscripts or fragments of the New Testament handwritten in Greek over
5,000 but what percentage of
Greek texts is that it's not even 1% I mean that there are so many
hundreds of thousands of
Handwritten New Testament manuscripts that have disappeared they're gone forever. And so think about it
It's not a large enough sample size number one because in order for something to be
Statistically representative of the population
It's got to be a large enough sample size and has to be a random sample and it's not a random sample
Because the oldest manuscripts are from Egypt
overwhelmingly, right and as far as like papyrus fragments and so forth and
So the the the Alexandrian text type is
Overwhelmingly the older stuff the new stuff is is more Byzantine and so therefore it's not a random sample
It's not a large enough sample. So it is impossible to approach this subject scientifically and here's the funny thing
Let's say that these bozos over in Germany want to make the argument that we can approach the reconstruction of the New Testament original text
Scientifically. Okay. Now, let's try that with the Old Testament, right because the old I mean until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament were from around in Hebrew were from around a thousand AD not a thousand BC a thousand
AD okay, the Dead Sea Scrolls are obviously not the entire Old Testament, you know
You got the book of Isaiah. That's the whole book
But again, that's a whole subject Dead Sea Scrolls and it was just a weird cult that was there at
Qumran and yada yada yada. I've done whole sermons on that but the point is that
You have so much less
Manuscript evidence for the text of the Hebrew Old Testament. So have fun trying to
Reconstruct that scientifically but at the end of the day
We don't need to reconstruct it because it was never lost
Like we never lost the Bible to where oh we got to go back and reconstruct it
We don't have to reconstruct it because it's still here. Exactly preserved. Well, I mean, of course I agree with you that it's it's
Unknowable there's there's no way to know with a hundred percent accuracy
What texts?
Existed who wrote them where they're coming from how what's the sample size?
I mean we could if we go fast-forward two thousand years from today
People could discover a litany of the messages, you know
They could find the message all over the place and think that was the Bible when that's just literally trash. So
There's not really
Any way to understand what was being used? What was not being used who wrote it?
Was it being taken seriously? Is it not being taken seriously?
Where
What where these documents are truly coming from?
So, you know it that much scrutiny if that was applied to the critical text position
I think that they would realize their position is not a very scientific argument
It's simply a fantasy and it's sad to me because it almost reminds me of evolution a little bit the way that
critical text proponents kind of approached their subject matter where you know, you look at because I recently went to
a science museum in the area in Fort Worth and they have all kinds of dinosaur exhibits and
You know, I was asking the lady
I said, you know how much what percentage of these, you know dinosaur exhibits are actual bones and what percentage is the cast and she just
Said oh, they're 100% cast in this entire
Museum because the you know, the bones are too fragile, but I've even gone to the ones in DC and oftentimes
you know you look at this giant dinosaur and
Only there's this like tiny bone
That's like the knee bone and just like how do you know what this giant dinosaur look like from this tiny little knee bone?
It reminds me of how the critical text position
They'll take this little tiny fragment and they'll somehow try to extract from that the entire Bible
you know, it's just kind of a it's kind of an absurdity to me that you could piece together all these
Various fragments from all over the place and presume that it's the exact same document, you know, that's kind of how Lucy
Was kind of constructed of all these different bones and different places that they all just believe is this, you know
Monkey that proves evolution
But anybody that kind of researches the topic of Lucy will realize this guy's about to lose his funding and just happens to make this
You know incredible discovery right at the last minute. It's pretty convenient and
There's nothing really scientific about it
That's why to me it's important that you know our film and when you talk about the King James Bible or these issues that
You're appealing to scripture and you're appealing to faith because at the end of the day if if our arguments are only found in an
archaeological
Discovery then that's not really what the Bible teaches the Bible teaches that we're supposed to walk by faith not by sight anyway
And whatever Bible you use you're gonna have to take it by faith and it's important for us to
Realize why we use the Bible, you know the modern versions to the King James you can prove all day long
They're different but just because they're different doesn't prove who's right at the end of the day
You have to pick one based on where you're gonna put your faith and for me
I changed my mind on the King James only position the first time I ever saw the difference about
How El Hanan the son of Jehoragam slew Goliath and and I was thinking like well
I thought David slew Goliath and there's other places in Scripture where they're just saying the exact opposite and
I just I feel like just being saved and the Holy Spirit being inside of me
I knew the voice of the shepherd and I could tell you know, the the fraud the one that's not really
Lining up with doctrine and clear Scripture and it's easy at that point to just say hey
This is the Bible. This is the word of God and I hope that people will take a faith-based
approach
Whenever they talk to anybody about which Bible to use. Yeah, absolutely
I mean without faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is
a rewarder of them that diligently seek him and
What it what does faith have to do with coming to the King James versus the modern versions?
Is that if you believe that the Word of God is inspired and if you believe it by faith
Well, then God promised in the Bible to preserve his word
He said heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away
It's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law
Until all be fulfilled. So, you know going back to the Old Testament which has way less manuscript evidence and later
It has later manuscript evidence than the New Testament
How do I know that?
Genesis Exodus
Leviticus numbers and Deuteronomy that I have today are the same thing that you know was given to Moses and the other
Biblical authors, you know, I believe that and at the end of day you have to believe it by faith
and and I think you know when you bring up the subject of
You know human beings supposedly evolving from animals and all this stuff, you know
I think that what those two subjects have in common these these
false teachings about the origins of life and the origins of man and
also false teachings about the Word of God is that they're trying to use science to know the
Unknowable and it's really a case of like science going out of bounds
And I think that science has its place science has its uses
but science cannot solve all of our problems and it can't answer all of our questions and so the
Scientific method is not gonna work for determining the Word of God, you know
it's gonna be the Holy Spirit that's gonna have to authenticate his word and
God's people have received the received text. That's why it's called the received text is received by all
It was passed down and inherited and received by God's people. It was preached
it was believed and these new versions have just been a catalyst for apostasy and
lameness in modern Christianity
Yeah, I think you make a great point. I mean when it comes to history and science
I just feel like these are incompatible because history I believe that history is it's in it's impossible
To have 100% you know scientific understanding of historical events. We can only piece things together and
Even when it comes to criminal justice, you know, they have a hard time
Figuring out what happened 24 hours ago or 48 hours ago, you know
They can use certain technologies to get close or to have some
understanding but you know even in a court of law there are lawyers that struggle to
Make a 100% fact case beyond a reasonable doubt about events that happen not that long ago
And yet we have scientists and critical text proponents that want to give you
Information with such absolute certainty that happened hundreds of years ago thousands of years ago or in the case of evolution
Billions of years ago, they have such certainty about these events which just becomes unscientific
You know at the end of the day and it's not just it's this isn't just our opinion or something. I mean any actual
Statistician if we were to actually get someone who's an expert on statistics somebody who is skilled in mathematics and science
You know, they could easily break down to you and explain to you why it's impossible to use science to
reconstruct the text of the New Testament because of the way variants works and sample size and so forth because you know
let's say you had you know a random sampling it would have to be random of
You know 50 New Testament manuscripts and they're all pretty much saying the same thing
Then you know that would give you some good scientific certainty in that sense
But what do you have you've got Sinaiticus from the 4th century AD you've got Vaticanus again
4th century AD you have other stuff from the 5th century 7th century 8th century
I mean how many manuscripts of the New Testament are there that are older than 900 AD very few and that's
900 years after Christ and they don't agree with each other
Right, hey these the you know, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is not like they're in lockstep. They disagree with one another
Well in the 4th century in the 4th century how many manuscripts existed?
I mean that we don't have just saying that existed at that point in time or in history
I mean hundreds of thousands maybe I don't tens of thousands at least
Absolutely. And so and so with with the degree of variance that we see you would need a bigger sample
And it would have to be a random sample because any sample that's not random
You know isn't that that's not that's not how you do science, you know
Randomness is so important because otherwise, you know, I could just get a whole bunch of
Like you said, let's say we were digging up
2023 let's say, you know 2,000 years from now. It's it's the year
4023 right right and we're like excavating today and
We find a hundred manuscripts of the Bible, but they're all from Joel Osteen's bookstore
That's not a random simple is it no or they're all they're all from
California or they're all from Mississippi or something. It's gonna be a totally different outcome
You know what? I mean like depending on where the samples are from
You know because it's not a random sample
So if if if the oldest stuff that we find is overwhelmingly
Alexandrian in origin, it's overwhelmingly the Egyptian
Texts of scripture. That's not a random sample
All that tells us is that well looks like they had this other textual tradition going on down in Egypt
That was different than the traditional text that Christians have been using but oh, but it's older. Yeah, okay
But so what the Bible could be corrupted, you know a year after Paul wrote it
I mean Paul's already warning in
Second Thessalonians about people writing epistles that are impersonating him, right?
And so I mean the devil has always been corrupting God's word and we know about people
Around that time like Marcian who is a guy who put out his own version of the New Testament
That was like chopped up like Swiss cheese where he cut things and change things
And so just because something's older doesn't mean I mean, you know, you could you could give me a
What if they dug up some Hebrew manuscript of the Bible those from like, you know
Let's say it's a it's a book of the Old Testament and it's from like 600 BC or something
And it's just way older than anything we've ever seen that doesn't guarantee that it's an accurate copy
There could have been a a sloppy scribe back then there could have been
Corruption or fakes or frauds going on back then. I mean older isn't necessarily better. Amen
Well, and again James White said if it's older he'll change his view on any text right scholars agree that it's older
That's what he said, didn't he? Yeah, I mean his his doctrine really doesn't seem to be scientific
Number one and and number two, it's also not faith-based and and really, you know, that's the big deal if you're gonna
Believe the Bible even just at any level it takes faith
So, of course to then choose which Bible it follows that faith is gonna be the same
Understanding and and thinking the Bible could constantly change or update is just inconsistent and not compatible
With scripture. That's why we we made a film the Preserved Bible and I'm really I
Really hope that it's it's gonna be viewed by a lot of people that people out there get excited about it and share it
We're gonna be trying to make as many
DVDs and marketing ploys that we can to get the film out there, but it definitely takes the viewer
It takes you guys to go out there and share the information
Spread it out there, especially since you know YouTube and some of these other platforms are not what they used to be in the in times
Past where you know, it needs to be more word-of-mouth and you have a great opportunity out there as a listener
To impact people for the better, you know me personally
Once I switched to just only reading a King James Bible
It made a giant impact in my life because it's the Word of God and the Holy Spirit has a lot more tools
To use and and I always say this to my church, but when it comes to doctrine, I never want to try and convince people
Of certain doctrines out of a modern version because the argument never seems to really go anywhere
It seems like getting people on a King James Bible is kind of that first step to end up
influencing someone's Christian life and helping them to agree on doctrine because the modern view the modern Bible view is often just such a
Shifting sand in and of itself that people will never really adhere to anything you say since they say well
I don't know if that's exactly what it means or let me check another version or they have kind of a looseness about
The words they're seeing on the page
Whereas if you actually believe God preserved the word and the King James Bible you have something that can actually challenge your
bias they can challenge your viewpoint and and ultimately the Lord can speak to you and cause you to
Change, you know through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and conviction
Well, we've definitely been on the podcast for a while and and we could talk about this for hours
I do want to give you one last chance if there was something else you wanted to say or to wrap up
Pastor Anderson or if you want to share how people can check out the film or any other projects you're working on. Yeah
I just want to say one thing, you know
Grow I grew up in a Christian home. I grew up as an independent fundamental Baptist most of my childhood and
I read the Bible here and there but when I
Actually understood the subject of the preservation of God's Word
Which wasn't really until you know, I was around 16 or 17 and and got into a good
Church that preached and taught these things to me when I came to the
Realization that God's Word was perfectly preserved and that what I had in the King James Bible was not just
Roughly what God said or the gist of what God said but when I believed that I actually had in every word Bible
And that my Bible was a hundred percent accurate the Word of God in my language
I read it more once I got that settled once I understood that it made me want to read the Bible more and
I was in awe of the Word of God thing like wow, man
I have the Word of God and I think that that's the big
Problem with the modern verse because some people will ask the question was there really any doctrine affected and obviously there are doctrines affected
But here's the colossal doctrine that's affected by switching to a modern version the doctrine that we actually have the Bible
I'm in and if you're King James
You know you have the Bible and that's gonna change your whole mentality to not only know a thing
But to know that you know it and so that's the big thing here
If you're in the modern version crowd you when you read the Bible, you're not really sure that what you're reading is
Right on and you know you get to the end of mark 16 and you're like man
I don't know if this authentic and Jesus is like father forgive them for they know what they do and Luke and then you have
This little note telling you like yeah, probably not authentic
It's just like how do you how can you be a Christian like that like how do you serve God like that?
you know God's not the author of confusion and I'm so thankful that I learned as a teenager that our King James Bible is
The preserved Word of God because it changed my life. Amen
well
thanks so much for being on the show with us this evening and
And thank you so much for helping us with this film project. And and of course pastor Anderson is a great
Fundamental Baptist tearing things up in Phoenix, Arizona. You need to go to faith or Baptist Church
And if you're in Tucson, they got a church plant there with Deacon Corbin Russell. He's a great guy
Another great church that's that's going really strong out there. We had over a hundred people on the live stream this evening and
People are commenting on YouTube, you know
You can always put questions in on our chats when we have our show
We're gonna have our call-ins back for the next show
So if you want to hop in try to catch us live, you can comment and interact with us. We'll be taking live calls
Just to note we had some people in the live chat tonight. We had 21 trips. We had Maria YouTube
We had bro. J Stewie
We had miss Sheila Jackson
We had all kinds of people in the live chat and we'd love for you guys to call in to the show next week
maybe we can rescue Ben from the clutches of the real Ben and
of course
we're gonna be doing a little bit of a different show next week because
We'll have to end on time because we're having our live premiere of the film
But we'll have a little precursor to the show
To the to the releasing of the online version if you're out there and you're someone that's gonna watch the film
In theaters, you know take a little video
After the film do a review and put it out there and share and say like hey, here's my thoughts about the film
you don't have to spoil it, but just you know, at least put something out there tell us what you thought about the film and
We'd love for people to share everything now. I do want to say this about the film. There is
gonna be a
Challenge that we have and I'll say this in our next stream
but there is a Easter egg in the film and there's also a callback in the film and
We'll probably end up having competition and people can
Write in and email us if they spot, you know those things in the film and we can send them out some prizes
So I'm excited about
That competition and see if people can catch our Easter egg
I think our Easter eggs gonna be kind of hard for you to catch but the callback might be pretty interesting
And so I'm really excited to release the film
It's been a lot of hard work brother Ben's worked on this a lot of people worked on this. We've got some cool interviews and
So I hope you learn a lot of different things. I told brother Ben
I've told some people, you know for most people especially if you haven't studied the subject, you know, I think you're gonna be
You're gonna have to be introduced to at least over a hundred new facts in the film because there's just so much information
History and subject matter that you know
It's something you might even be able to watch multiple times and still glean new things from the film. And so
Again, thanks for tuning in to the Baptist bias. You can check us out
Live on the air Tuesday nights 8 p.m. We're gonna be putting on YouTube and a lot of different other
Platforms you can also check us out on Apple podcast Google podcast pod beam
We're putting our streams on Twitter Facebook and make sure to share and subscribe
And I think that's pretty much gonna wrap it up for us this evening
I look forward to seeing again next week, and hopefully we'll have been
Coming out with us. We'll all sign up for him. We'll see you again after a while