So, I just wanted to mention that.
What else we got here?
Okay, I am KJV only and believe the KJV is preserved word for word, but how exactly are
the other versions translated?
It's obviously not the Greek, correct?
Well, here's the thing, the new versions are translating from a corrupted Greek text called
the critical text, whereas the King James is translated from the traditional Greek text.
In the Old Testament, the King James is translated from the original Hebrew, whereas the new
versions are translated partially from the original Hebrew and partially from the Greek
Septuagint, which is not a reliable translation at all.
Okay, and by the way, the reason why the modern versions have to keep changing is because
of the fact that the Greek text that underlies them keeps changing.
So right now, the Greek critical text, the Nestle-Aland Greek text is just coming out,
I believe the 29th edition, and in fact, the 29th edition has made some serious changes
to the text.
And this just came out, so no English translations will have reflected this yet, but they're
going to have to reflect it in the future.
I don't know if you understand what I'm saying, but basically like as the Greek text changes,
then the English changes like lag behind, right?
So they're overhauling right now, the entire Greek New Testament is being overhauled with
this new method called CBGM, the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.
So in the latest edition of the Greek New Testament, they've applied this brand new
textual criticism method to the books from James to Jude, okay?
And then they're going to apply it to other parts of the New Testament, and then they're
going to have to come out with a 30th edition, 31st edition, 32nd edition.
Just to give you guys a little taste of what's coming, let me tell you one of the changes
in the brand new Greek critical text that just came out, okay, 2 Peter 3.10, all right?
Give me one second to find it if you guys want to pull it up on your end.
I'm going to look it up in my King James Bible here, but in 2 Peter 3.10, and this is brand
new folks, so this isn't going to be reflected in any of your English Bibles yet, but because
this is in the new Greek text, they're going to come out with a new ESV that's going to
have this, and all the versions will slowly filter this in.
So 2 Peter 3.10, in the King James Bible, it says,
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.
The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Okay?
So the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
So this is what the ESV says.
The ESV says the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned
up and dissolved, and this is the key part, and the earth and the works that are done
on it will be exposed.
Okay, so notice that the King James says the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up, whereas the ESV says the earth and the works that are done on it will
be exposed.
So if you look in the bad Greek text, the Westcott and Hoard text, or the critical text,
it basically literally says the works that are done on it will be found.
So there's a footnote in the ESV that says, Greek here actually says found.
But it doesn't really make any sense to say the earth also and the works that are on it
will be found?
The King James says it's going to be burned up, which makes sense, fits the context.
The ESV is saying they're going to be found, but that sounds dumb, so maybe it just means
they're going to be exposed.
You know, it said found, they're going to be exposed.
Okay, but now this new Greek text that just came out 29th edition, this is what, I believe
it's the 29th.
I can't keep up, you know, they keep coming out with them.
This is what they, they add the word not now in the Greek text.
They just added the Greek particle ook, which means not.
So now the new one is going to be the works also that are done on it will instead of will
be exposed, now they're not going to be exposed.
So it's, the Greek text is now changing to the opposite.
So they're not going to be able to translate it as exposed anymore.
That's not going to make any sense.
So now they're going to translate it, I guess, as the earth and the works that are done on
it will not be found.
So notice how the King James has burned up.
The new versions are switching back and forth from it's going to be found, it's not going
to be found, it's going to be exposed, it's not going to be exposed.
I mean, there's just a little change coming to the Bible, just putting in the word not
and just making the verse say the opposite.
No big deal, nothing to see here.
And it's funny how they claim that that none of these changes will affect doctrine.
But wouldn't this affect your end times doctrine if you're if you're trying to understand the
day of the Lord, you know, and and and, you know, we all have our own views on eschatology
and end times prophecy, you know, according to my view, the day of the Lord is the same
day as the rapture.
It's the day when the sun and moon are darkened.
And it's the day when fire and brimstone is rained upon this earth, you know, the seventh
seal is open the trumpet, the first trumpet sounds and, and you've got fire and brimstone
and all the grass is burned up, and all the third part of the trees are burned.
And so the earth also in the works that are done in it, are going to be exposed, no, no,
they're going to be burned up.
That's, that's, that's according to, you know, what I would understand of end times, but
but here's the thing, according to this, the works that are done on it will be exposed,
but now they're not going to be found.
So if the earth is not going to be found, then now you'd be associating with the day
of the Lord with like the earth disappearing or ceasing to exist or not being found.
Like I can't find the earth.
Where's earth?
I can't find it.
Whereas Ecclesiastes says the earth abideth forever.
I mean, do you guys have any thoughts about this, this new change that's coming?
So let me ask you this, where did they find that ook at, you know, like where did they
did they just, just plug it in or did they, did they find something?
Here's the best part.
No Greek manuscript says ook there.
None.
Zero.
None.
So they're just inserting it.
This is what it's called.
It's called a conjectural emendation where they're conjecturing, we think, because they're
looking at this thing of the earth also in the works that are done on it will be found
and it makes no sense.
So they just are guessing, well, it must, it should say not found.
So what they have is they have some versions in other languages.
They have some ancient translations and other languages that have the word not.
They found some evidence in languages other than Greek for the word not, but they don't
have a, they don't have any Greek manuscripts that say not there, but they're adding the
word not to the Greek text, but you have to understand these people don't believe that
God has preserved the Greek new Testament, right?
People believe that it's been corrupted.
And they actually, if you read quotes from them, they'll basically say things like, we'll
never know when it's right.
We'll like, we'll never know exactly what the authors wrote.
You would almost say that like they're ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge
of the truth.
That is perfect.
Ever, ever correcting the text and never able to come to a settled Greek text, 29th edition.
Is the 29th edition, none?
Nope.
Because they've only applied CBGM to James or Jude.
Okay.
Well, James or Jude, what do we get?
Tell them what they get folks.
You get to add the word not into second Peter three 10 with no Greek text to back it up.
Think about that.
That's that's the, yeah.
When you were talking about that, I was like, how, I mean, they just inserted it, you know,
but it's funny because, you know, they, so they're just,
they're just literally finding some other language that has not, and then they're just
like, yeah, that's probably what it was.
We just haven't found the text yet.
Because they're, they're using a Greek text that, that has the Greek word for found instead
of burned up.
It makes no sense to say, yeah, you know, the it's going to be burned up.
It's going to be dissolved.
And the earth is going to be found.
It's like, well, we already found it.
We're on earth right now find earth.
So then they're like, oh, well, maybe it's going to be exposed, except that guess what
that Greek word doesn't mean exposed.
That's why they have to put a footnote that says, well, the Greek says found here.
Well, then why don't you just translate the Greek you bozo and instead of giving us exposed,
but then they're like, no, that doesn't make sense.
Oh, I get it.
It's not found.
Or you could just go with the traditional text.
It's burned up.
Right?
No issue.
You know, I think people don't if people realize their thought process with translating, which
your interview with James White, you know, is one I've watched a few times, just because
it goes into the idea that they go with the stranger meaning, you know, and you've talked
about this before, when he when when they look at a passage, they're like, Well, this
has to be right, because it doesn't make any sense.
You know, and it's like, it's backwards, the way you would normally think, and they're
like, well, it, that's probably the right ones.
And that's why they pick the critical text, because like, well, that doesn't make any
sense.
So that's probably what it is.
And that they're thinking is, well, the scribe is going to try to make it simpler.
And they're assuming that the person that made the mistake is the person making that
the simpler reading is the mistake, because everybody knows that if it's really complicated
people are gonna try to make it simpler and I can make it more complicated.
Or you just have a big dunce that is writing down the Bible and writing stupid stuff, and
corrupting the Word of God.
So it's just this faulty logic that they're using throughout the whole translation process
on top of everything.
So
no, they literally they actually spell that out.
They say the difficult reading is to be preferred.
And when they say the difficult reading is to be preferred, here's what they mean.
The one that sounds weird and doesn't seem to make sense, that's probably the right one.
Because why would anyone change it to this weird reading?
You know, they would see the weird reading and fix it and make it say something normal.
But here's another option, is that maybe the person who was copying Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
didn't even speak Greek.
So they put in certain gibberish weird things that don't make sense.
Or maybe they were just sloppy and messed up.
But think about what you're doing to the text.
You end up massacring the text when you have this attitude, go with the more difficult
reading.
So then you get weird readings, like only begotten God in John chapter 1 verse 18, instead
of only begotten son, because only begotten son sounds normal.
Oh, let's go with the one that sounds weird, begotten God.
Let's go with that.
That's literally one of the rules of textual criticism.
Yeah, it's interesting, because, you know, the Bible says that the common people heard
him gladly, and common people are not necessarily people who are scholars or would go for a
difficult or would understand difficult passages, difficult sayings, but it was those are the
ones who are open to the Word of God.
And it's interesting, because what even with like the 1961 of the editors that specifically
said that they were looking to make radical changes within that translation.
And the reason for this because they wanted to make a Bible that was for scholars by scholars.
So it's like they want, they want the difficult passages, they want the passage to say something
very difficult to understand.
So they can be the mediator or the one who's translated for the congregation or the preachers,
you know, understanding these dark parables, and you have to go to them to understand what
it's saying instead of actually understanding it for yourself.
So kind of like fits their little agenda they got going, where it's like, we don't want
to make it simple to understand, we want to make it difficult so that we have, they have
to come to us in order to explain what it actually means.
Yeah, and take that contrast to what the King James translators say, just read the translators
to the readers.
And the whole point of why they said we need this translation is because they want to put
in the vulgar tongue, which meaning the common tongue, so that, that it's not like this revealed
this sealed book, you know, the way the way they they talked about it, like this unknown
tongue, if you will, is what they say in the letter.
And that's exactly right, because what was going on at the time in 1611, and in the Reformation,
all that stuff that was going on is the Catholic Church was basically keep people blinded by
having it in Latin, people didn't understand Latin or wasn't speaking Latin.
So the same type of thing is going on today.
And they're using an unknown tongue and saying, well, we got to go back to the Greek, most
people don't speak Greek.
So yeah, even in the translation, they're using this, this weird.
Yeah, I agree with you.
It's just this idea of like, we're in this ivory tower, you can't touch us.
And you know what, you need to come to me to know what's really up.
So yeah, they actually, I don't know, can you guys hear me?
Yeah, we can.
Yeah.
And it's, you know, it's funny, they accuse us of trying to make it hard for people by
telling them to read the King James, because the King James is a little bit more difficult
than say an NIV or something.
They'll accuse us of making it hard for people, but they're telling people that you have to
read it in Greek and Hebrew to get the true meaning.
So what's harder, learning some of the old vocabulary in the KJV or learning Greek and
Hebrew?
But they know that nobody's actually going to go out and learn Greek and Hebrew.
So it allows them to be, like you said, that mediator that basically they will go back
to the Greek, they will go back to the Hebrew and tell you what it really says.
And you poor little idiot, you can read your NIV and you know, and it's filled with errors
and we know it's filled with errors, but you know, we'll break it down to you.
And doesn't it give them room to like, obviously, like create weird doctrines as well?
Because like, if you think about, you know, the King James uses hell consistently.
And obviously there's variations of how the King James will describe hell, like Lake of
Fire or the darkness, but always in context, we know what it means.
But you think of like what Second Peter chapter two in Greek, it uses the word Tartarus, right?
Which actually means hell.
And it's just that Peter's using a higher form of Greek.
And that's not a word that you'll necessarily find anywhere else in the Greek New Testament
other than there in Second Peter.
But yet the King James translators chose to use hell because of the fact that it's just
a it's simple to understand that that's exactly what he's talking about.
But then you have people who use that and say, well, in the Greek, it actually says
Tartarus, therefore, it's like a different compartment or something, you know?
Yeah, I heard people say it was like a special part of hell or something.
Yeah, really just in Greek mythology, Tartarus and Hades are the same place because in Greek
mythology, Hades is actually a person, not a place.
The place is actually Tartarus and then Hades is the person, but it becomes known as like
a house of Hades or the dwelling of Hades.
And then eventually the place becomes known as Hades eventually.
But how about, you know, hell and the bottomless pit?
I mean, it's the same place, you know, but obviously two different, you're like, well,
that's not the, that's not the same place because it's different words.
You go there after you die, it's hot, you burn.
The word was...