Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faith Forward Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona.
I'm going to be making a series of videos responding to this book,
The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White.
This book came out in 1995 and it's available in a lot of Christian bookstores across America.
A lot of people have read it and it seems to be the most common book against the King James Only position
or speaking against being King James Only.
I'm going to make a 10-part series responding to the 10 chapters in this book.
I am King James Bible Only. I believe that the King James Bible is the word of God without error.
This book is wrong.
I'm going to go through and just explain why Dr. White is wrong at every step of the way.
Starting out with just the introduction, he starts out by telling an anecdote about a woman
walking into a Christian bookstore and she wants to buy a Bible.
The sales clerk offers her the NIV and she says,
Hey, I'm looking for a real Bible. I need a King James Bible.
She doesn't want the NIV and scoffs at it.
He basically tells that as a reason why this book is so important
because people think that the King James is the only right Bible, etc.
The reason why he thinks this is important is because he says that we need to have unity
and that this King James Only position is so divisive.
On page 16, he says,
This book is written out of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ.
He talks about how there have been splits as a result of the King James
where churches have split or people have broken fellowship one with another over this issue.
Here's the ridiculous thing about this.
He's claiming that the King James Only position is bad for unity and that it's divisive.
Think about how ridiculous it is to think that having multiple Bible versions in English
is going to create unity.
Let me give you an illustration from politics.
Let's say the United States Constitution was available in 400 different versions.
Do you think that that's going to bring more unity to lawmakers and to Supreme Court justices
and people that are interpreting and reading the Constitution?
Of course not.
People already argue about what the Constitution means and how it's interpreted it.
Can you imagine if they had hundreds of different versions of it, the confusion,
and you wouldn't even be able to have a conversation about the Constitution
with someone who's using a totally different version that leaves out entire sentences
or adds entire sentences or just says something completely different here or there or somewhere else.
It's the same thing with the Bible.
Look, I spent five years going to an NIV preaching church that had all kinds of versions in it.
Sometimes it was the New American Standard being taught.
Sometimes it was the NIV.
We'd go to Bible studies and people would bring the Living Bible, the Message, the NIV,
the New American Standard, all different versions, the New King James.
Let me tell you something.
It was confusion.
It was like the Tower of Babel at these Bible studies.
You'd go around in a circle and everybody's reading out of their version
and it says something completely different and it created all kinds of doubts, confusion, arguments.
If you go to these churches where they use a whole bunch of different versions of the Bible,
often you'll talk to five people about the same thing.
You ask five people about salvation, you're going to get five different answers.
In these big non-denominational churches or these Baptist churches where they use multiple versions,
everybody believes totally different things.
They're not even reading the same Bible.
It's not like these Bibles are just wording things a little bit differently.
I mean, they have major differences.
Entire phrases are left out.
There are entire verses that are left out.
There are statements that are just completely different or even the opposite.
One will say the opposite of what the other one says.
One will have the word not.
The other one leaves out the word not.
It's just two totally different statements.
To think that you're going to get unity from a whole bunch of different Bible versions is ridiculous.
Our church, Faithful Word Baptist Church, has about 400 people in it.
We're all King James Bible only, so everybody's got a King James Bible.
That's why we have unity in our church, because we're all following the same rule as the Bible says.
We're all minding the same thing.
We all have the same foundation.
If the Bible is our foundation for everything we believe,
all matters of faith and practice are based upon the Word of God,
then how can we be unified if we have completely different Bibles saying completely different things?
It's just not going to happen, folks.
You have unity by all rallying around the King James Bible.
The King James only position actually brings unity.
It's the multiplicity of versions that has created the division.
You say, well, yeah, but it divides between those who are King James only and those who aren't.
Good.
There ought to be a division between those who are King James and those who are reading an ESV or a New American Standard or an NIV.
Because how can we have unity with people who believe a totally different Bible
that leaves out 17 verses in the New Testament that completely rewords things and changes things
and is going to promote a different doctrine at the end of the day?
We can't be unified with those people.
I'm not trying to be unified with every so-called Christian in the entire world.
Think about all the denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, Lutherans,
you've got your cults like the Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals.
Look, I can't be unified with all people that claim the name of Christ.
What we ought to strive for is unity within the local church.
Because we can't be unified with heretics and people who believe in false doctrine.
If we're going to have unity in a local church, then we need to have one Bible.
The correct Bible is the King James Bible.
That's what we have at our church. We have unity.
I don't know what kind of unity Dr. White is looking for when he says,
Hey, I just want to have peace in the Church of Jesus Christ.
When he says peace in the Church of Jesus Christ, he believes in a universal church or a Catholic church
made up of all believers everywhere.
He has the unrealistic goal of trying to be united or have peace and harmony with all believers everywhere.
All Christians everywhere who make up this so-called universal or Catholic church.
Look, that's not what I believe.
I want to be unified with my local church and I would love to be unified with other local churches that believe like we believe.
That believes the Bible that we believe.
We're not trying to be united with everybody who is saved or claims to be saved.
The Bible teaches there are a lot of people that we should withdraw ourselves, even brethren.
The Bible says, Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from us.
There are people that we need to separate from.
Split is good. Split happens.
We shouldn't just try to be united no matter what.
Another thing he brings up in the introduction is that the English language, according to him, is a less rich language than the original Greek and Hebrew.
He said, you're translating on page 17 from an ancient text, a rich foreign language, into our less rich English language.
That just simply isn't true. English is a very rich language.
In fact, by many metrics, English is the richest language on the planet.
English has the greatest vocabulary of any language on the planet by many metrics.
Obviously, some people would disagree with that.
But it's pretty easy to see that the English language has a larger vocabulary than biblical Greek or biblical Hebrew.
English just frankly has more words.
Now, there are some examples where there are more words in Greek for the same word in English.
Like the example that people love to bring up, the different words for love.
They say, well, there's agape and phileo and eros.
You've got to go back to the Greek to see that.
But if you actually read the New Testament in Greek, you'll see that the words agape and phileo are used interchangeably.
They'll try to say agape is this special kind of love, this unconditional love, or some kind of a higher, more transcendent love than phileos.
But basically, if you actually look it up, then the Bible uses the word agape when it talks about the scribes loving the uppermost rooms at feasts.
So they have unconditional love for a chair or a seat.
And then it talks about the father loving the son with phileo.
So, you know, it's just two words for love, folks.
But in the vast majority of cases, there are actually more words in English, more variety in the English vocabulary.
So to say our less rich English tongue just shows that he doesn't understand the richness of the English tongue.
That we actually have a larger vocabulary and our language is a great language.
I'm glad I was born speaking English. Amen?
Now, on page 18 in the introduction, he says, I am a biblical conservative.
In light of this, there are a number of Bible translations I would not personally recommend.
So he explains here that he's not just giving a carte blanche in this book for people to just use any translation.
You know, even Dr. White is going to draw the line somewhere.
Okay, you know, we draw the line and only use the King James Bible.
But he'll draw the line and reject a whole bunch of translations that he thinks are garbage.
I'm sure that Dr. James White would agree that the New World Translation is garbage.
Or that the Living Bible or the Message are both garbage.
You know, I mean, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that he would agree that those are bad translations.
Okay, so he's not giving a carte blanche to use any version.
He's saying he's only going to use biblically conservative versions.
Yet in this book, the version that he keeps bringing up over and over again is the NIV.
And in fact, he starts the book. The very first thing he does is tell an anecdote about the NIV.
He brings up the NIV again and quotes from it on page 14.
Then again on page 17.
And all throughout this book, he's talking about the NIV in a positive way.
But yet, when I confronted Dr. James White about some of the bad stuff in the NIV
when we were filming our movie, New World Order Bible Versions,
if you watch that movie, New World Order Bible Versions,
and I talked to him about, well, what about this in the NIV?
What about that in the NIV?
He says multiple times, well, don't expect me to defend the NIV.
And then when I explained to him that the NIV was the best-selling English translation that year,
he's arguing with me and saying, no, I don't think that's really true.
I think it's the ESV.
And I'm pulling out the statistics telling him, no, actually, the NIV is the best-seller.
He says, well, I guess if you're including liberals, then maybe, yeah.
And I'm like, well, of course we're including liberals. It's just the best-seller.
We're not trying to figure out who bought it.
It's just the numbers of how many people bought a King James, how many people bought an NIV,
how many people bought an ESV.
So I was trying to show him that the NIV is the best-seller because he kept saying,
oh, don't expect me to defend that. I'm not going to defend that.
And I don't even think that's the best-seller.
Well, actually, it is the best-seller.
And then he's like, well, if you include liberals, then yeah.
Okay, so he says here, I'm a biblical conservative.
In light of this, there are a number of Bible translations I would not personally recommend.
All throughout this book, he's singing the praises of the NIV.
Folks, it's how the book starts.
The whole book starts with a woman telling the clerk she doesn't want the NIV,
and that's why this book is so needed because she's wrong to reject the NIV and be King James only.
Yet when you pin him down on problems in the NIV,
he's ready to throw the NIV under the bus over and over again
and say that it's a Bible for liberals and that conservatives ought to be reading the ESV.
So it doesn't make any sense, folks.
The reason that he sings the praises of the NIV in this book is because the NIV is the best-seller.
And he wants his book to be a best-seller.
So, obviously, if he wants his book to be popular in Christian bookstores, he can't condemn the NIV.
But when you pin him down, he'll condemn it because the NIV is garbage.
That's why.
Down at the bottom of page 18, he says,
Christians should not engage in circular reasoning or unfair argumentation.
Now, one of the major themes of this book all the way throughout
is that he accuses those who are King James only of using circular reasoning or circular logic.
And the way he explains this is he says,
the King James Bible is the standard because it's the standard.
That we as King James only just believe the King James.
Why do we believe the King James?
Because the King James is the Word of God.
Well, how do you know it's the Word of God?
Because it says it's the Word of God.
That's what he would call a circular argument of using the King James to prove the King James.
But what's funny about that is that when I spoke to him when we were filming our movie
and when I interviewed him, he had to admit the fact that all of Christianity is based on a circular logic
or circular reasoning because of the fact that why do we believe the Word of God?
Why do we believe the Bible is God's Word?
Because the Bible says it's God's Word.
So forget King James or English translation.
How about just God in general?
Why do we believe in God?
What's the evidence for God?
We believe in God because the Bible said that God exists.
And why do we believe in the Bible?
Because the Bible is written by God.
And why do we believe in God?
Because the Bible told us about God.
And why do we believe the Bible?
Because it's written by God.
So we believe the Bible because of God and we believe in God because of the Bible.
You know what that is?
According to him, that's a circular logic.
So to attack King James only-ism for using circular reasoning is basically to attack Christianity
for circular reasoning because of the fact that the Bible and God are the reasons for each other.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
I believe in the Bible because God's Word is powerful.
I believe in the Bible because of the Holy Spirit.
Because of the fact that when I read the Bible, it has power.
It's the Word of God.
What does the Bible say should be the basis of our faith?
It says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
The Bible says that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
So then when we apply that to the King James Version and say,
well, the King James Version is the one that has the power.
The King James Version is the one that's bearing fruit.
The King James Version is the one that the Holy Spirit testifies to us that it's the Word of God.
We hear the voice of the Shepherd when we read the King James.
And the King James is the standard because it's the standard.
Because it's the Bible, the Word of God that has power that God has used that got us saved in the first place.
So he doesn't like that kind of logic and calls it a circular argument.
But you know what?
Write back at you, buddy, because your faith in God and your faith in Jesus and your faith in the Bible is a circular argument by that logic.
Let's get into Chapter 1 of the book.
Chapter 1 is called King James Only.
And in this book, he basically wants to differentiate between the different types of King James Onlyism.
He doesn't want to paint with a broad brush and put all King James Only believers in the same category.
And thank God for that because I certainly don't want to be put in the same category with Peter Ruckman and Gail Ripplinger and people like that.
So he breaks down King James Onlyism into a few different categories.
So I'm going to go through those categories and talk about where I would fall on this.
He says group number one is, I like the KJV best.
And he basically says these people are fine.
He has no problem with people who like the King James best.
If somebody wants to just read the King James because they like it the best, he's fine with that.
He just doesn't want you to be King James Only.
So group one, I like the KJV best.
He says they're not really King James Only.
It's just all they use because they like it the best.
So he's okay with that crowd.
Number two group is what he calls the textual argument.
Now the textual argument is that the majority of the texts typically support the King James.
And so therefore we should go with the majority of Greek texts, not with anomalies.
Not with a few texts that support the modern versions.
Because there are a lot more texts supporting the King James 99% of the time than supporting the new versions.
So this is what he calls the textual argument or the argument for the majority text.
Now people who use this argument, they don't believe that the King James is without error.
And they don't even necessarily believe that the Textus Receptus is without error.
They believe that we should always go with the majority text.
And there is a Greek text out there that you could purchase called the majority text.
And it just gives you whatever the majority of the almost 6,000 extant Greek manuscripts read.
It just goes with the majority all the time.
Those people are typically going to use a King James Bible in English because of the fact that 99% of the time the King James is going with the majority text.
That's group number two.
Group number three is the received text only group.
So this is the group that says, we believe that the received text, the Textus Receptus, Greek text, is the perfect word of God.
Now these people are not necessarily saying that the King James is perfect.
Because theoretically they would say that there could be a better translation here or there.
But they believe that the Greek text underlying the King James is the perfect word of God.
That the Textus Receptus is the only thing they're going to accept.
They're not going to accept these modern Greek texts that are based on newer discoveries and so forth.
So the received text only group, their argument is, according to him, let me just read for you the beginning of it.
The next group of individuals would insist that the above mentioned Textus Receptus or received text either has been supernaturally preserved over time or even inspired and hence maintained in an inerrant condition.
So what's funny is that James White doesn't believe that.
James White does not believe that any Greek text has been supernaturally preserved over time or even inspired and hence maintained in an inerrant condition.
So what you have to understand is these people that are not King James only, it's not that they're not King James only and that they just want to use other English translations.
They don't even believe that the Greek New Testament that we have today is perfect.
They believe that there are problems even in the Greek New Testament.
So basically he's talking about this group that they're wrong.
He's saying they're wrong because they think that the Textus Receptus, the received Greek text, has been supernaturally preserved.
Well, why wouldn't it be supernaturally preserved when the Bible says that heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away?
It says that it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
I mean the Bible tells us that God will preserve his word unto all generations and that God's word will abide forever.
So yeah, of course it's supernaturally preserved.
Now what's the difference between the Textus Receptus and the majority text?
Well, received text or Textus Receptus simply means that which has been passed down, it's been received by us.
We received it from whom? The previous generation.
So it's known as the traditional text or the text that's been passed down, the received text.
The logic for this is that God preserved his word.
So therefore, we don't believe that the true word of God is buried in the sand somewhere and some archaeologist has to dig up the true word of God.
No, we that believe in the Textus Receptus believe that it has been preserved supernaturally by God as Dr. White stated here and it's been maintained in an inerrant condition.
Folks, if it hasn't been maintained in an inerrant condition, then we're in trouble.
How can you get up and say, well, the word of God's inerrant, but then you can't even point to a Greek text that's inerrant?
Because Dr. White's Greek text, he doesn't claim it's inerrant.
That's why he's on the 27th edition or 28th edition of the Nestle-Allen Greek text or the UBS 4th edition or the UBS 5th edition.
Why does it keep changing? Because they don't believe it's perfect. They don't believe it's inerrant.
And if they go dig up some new papyrus in Egypt or some new manuscript, they'll change it again, folks.
They'll dig up more evidence and more manuscripts and they'll change it again and again and again.
It just keeps changing, okay?
Well, folks, if you believe the Bible's God's word and that he's going to preserve it, that's ridiculous.
The word of God should be the same. It should stay the same.
And so even if you're not King James only, it's crazy not to be Textus Receptus only,
not to believe in the Greek manuscript that's been passed down and preserved.
Look, it's not just the King James that's translated from the Textus Receptus.
What about all the Bibles in other languages? What about the German Reformation-era Bible?
What about the Spanish Bible from the Reformation era? What about the Italian Bible?
What about the Icelandic Bible?
What about all these other Bibles in all these different languages that are all being translated from the Textus Receptus?
Just millions and millions and millions of Christians have been reading, preaching, believing, soul-winning
with Bibles that were from the received traditional Greek text that's been passed down, that's been received by all.
That is the word of God, not something that was dug up in the 1800s.
That's what James White wants you to believe in.
He wants you to believe in a Greek text that was dug up in the 20th century in many cases
or in the 19th century as opposed to the traditional Bible that we have received.
Look, I will never believe that the true word of God was buried for centuries.
The Bible that is the true Bible has been copied and copied and preached and used and preserved down to us today.
But it's funny how he describes this.
The next group of individuals would insist that the above-mentioned Textus Receptus or received text
either has been supernaturally preserved over time or even inspired and hence maintained an inerrant condition.
Of course we believe that it's been supernaturally preserved and of course it's inerrant,
but James White doesn't have an inerrant Bible that he can point to.
That's why his Bibles have to keep changing.
A little bit later on, he gets into group four, which he calls the inspired KJV group.
This is the group that I would fall under, by the way.
He's getting basically stricter as he goes.
The first group, group one, was the one who just said,
Well, I like the KJV the best.
They're not even really King James only.
They could barely even be called King James only.
He says they're fine. They're okay.
But group two and onward, he says, are wrong.
Group two, the textual argument, the majority text crowd, he doesn't like them.
They're wrong.
Of course, they have a lot of great arguments, but they're not right on either.
Group three, the received text only crowd, they're right about the received text.
I'll take it even further because I'm actually in group four, which is the inspired KJV group.
What does that mean?
I not only believe that the textus receptus is the word of God without error,
and that the Old Testament Masoretic Hebrew text is without error,
and that the New Testament Greek received text is without error,
but I also believe that the King James Bible is without error,
meaning that I believe that the King James is a perfectly accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek.
Now, I don't know why this would be so hard for people to believe.
I mean, even just from a human perspective.
The King James Bible was translated over the course of seven years by 54 brilliant scholars,
one of whom spoke 21 languages fluently.
Many of them spoke multiple languages.
They didn't just speak Hebrew.
They spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic, so they spoke the related Semitic languages.
They didn't just speak Greek, but they also spoke Latin.
One of them I read about had literally read every word of ancient Greek or biblical Greek that was available at that time.
This guy just ate, breathed, and slept the Greek language.
So 54 brilliant scholars over the course of seven years.
And not only that, it's not like they started from scratch, folks.
They were already building on a good Bible translation, the Bishop's Bible.
So they already have the Bishop's Bible as their basis, which is a great translation.
And then they spent seven years just perfecting it and just getting it right.
Folks, it's not hard to believe that they nailed it, even from a human perspective.
But when we stop and think about the fact that God has used English-speaking preachers more than any preachers in the history of mankind,
that English-speaking missionaries have brought the gospel to more people than any other language in the history of mankind,
that the King James has been translated into just so many languages.
Where missionaries didn't even know Greek and Hebrew and they just took the King James and translated it directly into these native languages of tribes here and there and everywhere.
Look, God providentially allowed the King James to be a perfect English translation. Why?
Because English is the most important language in the world.
English is the universal second language of the world.
It is the number one most significant language in 2019.
It's been the most significant language for a long time and it has been spiritually the language that God has used to preach his word to more people than any language in the history of mankind, including Greek and Hebrew.
So it makes sense that God allowed this wonderful occurrence that 54 brilliant minds got together and translated the Bible into English and gave us this wonderful Bible, the King James Bible.
There was such a great Bible that eventually all the other English Bibles went out of print and that's why if you get an old King James, it won't even say King James on it.
Sometimes it'll just say Holy Bible because for a long time it was the only translation that anybody used in English.
There were previous translations. Like I said, the Bishop's Bible was a great Bible.
People aren't buying and reading the Bishop's Bible today, folks.
The previous versions went out of print because the King James superseded the previous English versions.
You say, well, what about before that? Well, you know what?
The modern English language has only existed since the mid 15th century.
Before that, it was Middle English and before that it was Old English.
The modern English language hasn't really existed for that long in comparison with the King James Bible.
The King James Bible was published in 1611.
Modern English goes back to around the mid 1400s, mid 15th century.
In the early 1500s, you have Tyndale's New Testament and then you have five other translations between that and the King James.
Then you got to the King James.
Look, the previous translations were like rough drafts for the King James.
Anyway, I got to get back to the book here.
Group four is the inspired KJV group.
He says in the first sentence, most King James only advocates would fall into this group.
I agree with that. That's where I would fall.
They believe that the King James version itself as an English translation is inspired and therefore inerrant.
Now, here's the thing.
Basically, what he's saying is we believe the Bible is inspired because our Bible is the King James Bible.
We don't walk around door to door soul winning or go to church or go to a Sunday school with a Greek New Testament in our hand or Hebrew Old Testament in our hand.
We're living in the United States of America and the vast majority of people English is their language.
So that's our Bible.
I mean, that's the only Bible that most people in faith for Baptist Church will ever read.
The vast majority of them are not going to learn Greek and Hebrew.
They don't need to learn Greek and Hebrew.
I mean, God gave them the word of God in their language.
So basically what James White wants you to believe is that the Bible in your hand is not inspired by God.
If you're walking into church with the King James Bible, he'll point at that and say, that's not inspired by God.
You've got to go back to the original to be inspired by God.
You've got to go back to the Greek.
You've got to go back to the Hebrew.
And look, if I believe that, then all I would read would be the Greek and Hebrew.
And I would encourage everybody, man, you must learn Greek.
You must learn Hebrew if you're going to really get the inspired word of God.
But folks, I don't believe that you have to learn Greek and Hebrew.
To get the inspired word of God, I believe you can get that from English.
Now look, I enjoy reading the Bible in the original languages.
I'm on my third time through cover to cover reading the New Testament in Greek.
And I'm also reading an Old Testament translation into Greek from Hebrew.
And I also enjoy reading the Old Testament in the original Hebrew.
Although my Hebrew is not on the level of my Greek.
But the point is, folks, that you don't need to do any of that.
I do it because foreign languages are a hobby for me.
And I enjoy reading it in the original language.
But you don't need that.
There's no doctrine that you're going to only get from reading it in the original.
There's no surprises when you go back and read it in Greek.
It says the same thing it says in English, folks.
So again, he wants people, I guess, to believe their Bible is not inspired.
Because it's like, hey, can you believe these people think the King James is inspired?
Well, yeah, it's their Bible.
And if it says the same thing in English that it says in Greek, if the Greek's inspired, then the English is inspired, folks.
Because it's God's word no matter what language it's in.
I mean, when the apostles are quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament and they say stuff in Greek, it's still inspired.
I mean, when Acts 2 took place and the Holy Ghost is causing them to speak with other tongues and they're speaking the word of God in at least 17 different languages,
well, then, was that not inspired what they said?
If it was the word of God, it's inspired, folks.
Inspired just means it's what God said.
It's God-breathed.
It's what God spoke.
So, yeah, I believe the King James is the inspired word of God.
Why?
Because it's a perfect translation from the original Greek and Hebrew, the correct, received, traditional, passed down Greek and Hebrew, translated perfectly into English.
Yeah.
So a little bit later, he says, this group's key affirmation, which gives form and substance to the entire KJV-only controversy, is found in the following equation.
The King James Bible alone equals the word of God alone.
Amen.
We must understand that this is the starting point in the thinking of most KJV-only believers.
This belief gives rise to so much of the heat that marks this debate, for in the mind of a convinced KJV-only believer, any attack upon the KJV is an attack upon God's word.
Again, of course, we believe the King James Bible is God's word.
If we didn't, then we would be like, oh, we don't have God's word in English.
All we have is these translations, 50 of them, and they all say different things, and we don't know what to believe.
Of course, we believe the King James is God's word.
Why?
Because it's our Bible.
It's the final authority of our faith and practice.
That's a circular argument.
So what?
We got saved because we believed what the King James told us about salvation.
We heard the King James preached.
Faith came by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
A perfect English translation of the Greek original is the word of God.
If it's the word of God in Greek, it doesn't stop being the word of God when you translate it into Spanish, folks.
If you translate the Greek New Testament into Chinese, it's still the word of God.
Oh, not the word of God anymore.
What, because it's not some magical language?
If that were true, then why did God give us the Bible originally in three languages?
Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.
It doesn't have to be in a certain language.
Otherwise, the whole thing would be in Hebrew.
But no, he gave us part in Aramaic, part in Greek.
So it doesn't stop being the word of God when you translate it.
He thinks that when you translate it, it's no longer the word of God because he's criticizing people for thinking that the KJV is the word of God.
They hold up an English Bible and say this is the word of God.
So because we believe that the KJV is the word of God, anything that deviates from the KJV, we say you've changed the word of God or you've corrupted the word of God.
Again, this is extremely logical, folks.
If the KJV is what God said and somebody comes up with a book that says something completely different, they can't both be what God said.
For example, if the King James Bible says, of some have compassion making a difference, and then the NIV says, be merciful to those that doubt, those are two completely different things.
Of some have compassion making a difference, be merciful to those that doubt.
Two completely different statements.
That shows that he is basically teaching that in English, it's not God's inspired word.
Well, we believe it is.
And we would point to a King James and say, here it is.
You can hold it in your hand.
Now he goes on to explain how because the King James is considered the word of God by King James only advocates, amen, that it becomes the standard by which all other Bibles are tested.
And he goes on and on like, you know, why is it the standard?
You know, who says that's the standard?
He says it's perfectly logical to ask, this is on page 27, why should I use it as the standard by which I am to test all others?
You know why the King James is the standard? Because it's the standard.
And you say, well, what are you talking about?
Look, even the world knows it's the standard.
In fact, this week, there was an article in the New York Times about some Jew that just completed his brand new translation of the Old Testament that he's been working on for decades.
Some Christ rejecting Jew put out his translation of the Old Testament.
And the headline says that this guy puts out an Old Testament to rival the King James.
So in 2019, when a brand new translation comes out, the New York Times says, oh, this will give the King James a run for its money.
Why? Because the New York Times knows that the King James is the standard.
I mean, you know, I didn't plan on doing this, but I'm just going to type into the dictionary, what does the word standard mean?
Okay, so I'm just typing standard into the dictionary.
Something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison, an approved model.
Definition number three, a ruler principle that is used as a basis for judgment.
So de facto, the King James is the standard.
Even the New York Times uses it as the standard.
All modern versions when they come out are compared to the King James.
Okay, why? Because the King James is the standard.
Now they can come out with their English standard version, but just by putting standard in the name doesn't make it the standard.
The new American standard.
Oh yeah, really? The new American standard was such a standard that it's not even popular anymore.
Because they've quit using the new American standard and they've gone over to the ESV, the English standard version.
They put standard in the name because they want it to be the standard, but the King James is the standard.
Okay, now look, if it was the only English Bible used for many decades as God's work went forward full speed ahead.
Well, you know, it's not surprising that it's the standard by which the new Johnny come lately Bibles, copyright 1995, copyright 2011, copyright 1984.
Of course they're going to be judged by the one from 1611.
And if we believe that it's the perfect word of God, which we do, of course we're going to use it as the standard.
So we look at other things as changes, omissions, and deletions. Amen.
Okay, so I gotta hurry up and finish here.
Then group number five, he says, is the KJV as New Revelation.
And this is basically the idiotic group of ruck tards, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp.
Just these intellectually bankrupt bozos who basically make King James onlyism look bad.
And just completely poison the well for intelligent King James only believers.
Because they actually believe that God somehow supernaturally revealed new things to the King James translators and that the English is actually superior to the underlying Greek.
And that basically we could use the English to correct the Greek and that the Greek is not preserved and that the Hebrew is not preserved.
Only the King James is preserved and that, you know, it contains new revelations, advanced revelation.
So that's why he calls group five the KJV as New Revelation.
And then it says at the bottom of page 27 here, basically they believe God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, rendering it in the English language.
And of course he's right to condemn this group because it's stupid. It's a false doctrine. They're wrong.
And so, you know, I have no beef with what he has to say about group number five.
So again, you know, group one, KJV is the best. Obviously they're too weak on the King James.
The textual argument, group two, while they have a great argument, you know, they're still too weak.
Okay. Group three, receive text only. You're getting warmer, right? That's a great start.
Okay. You know, I agree with them.
Group four, though, is where you actually believe right.
That, you know, and again, he even says right at the top of the page there that most King James only advocates would fall into this group.
Amen. So, you know, most King James only advocates are in the right place. Group four.
And then group five, the KJV as New Revelation. That's your Ruckmanite bizarro faction.
And so I'm not going to defend those bozos.
All right. Then at the end of chapter one, he has a section called the role of Christian freedom.
And he says that it's, you know, fellowship should never be based upon the English translation one carries in studies.
He's saying, you know, you should never separate from people based on what translation they use.
And it should not be the test of fellowship. We should have the Christian freedom to use whatever the translation.
Folks, that is ridiculous because if the Bible is the foundation for everything we believe,
that's like saying, hey, just use whatever foundation you want.
You know, as long as you build the right building, use whatever foundation you want.
Well, no, folks, the foundation is the most important part.
And there's no way that you're going to have unity with people who have a totally different Bible version.
And you know what? People like Dr. White are constantly trying to say that, you know,
these changes don't affect doctrine and there's no meaningful doctrinal difference between versions.
That's funny because there are a whole bunch of doctrines that King James only believers believe
that when you go down to the churches that use liberal versions, they don't believe those things.
Okay. I mean, we could go on and on about changes that affect doctrine.
And I'm not going to spend the time to do it in this video because, you know,
I'm trying to get through this book chapter by chapter. I don't want to make this a marathon.
But, you know, there's so many meaningful differences. Like, for example, in the King James,
it says that straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it.
Straight is the gate. Straight means narrow. Narrow is the way that leads to life.
What does that mean? Few there be that find it.
It's in response to his apostles having had asked him, you know, are there few that be saved?
And, of course, the answer is that the majority is going to hell and that few are saved.
Okay. Whereas in the modern versions, even the new King James will say,
oh, difficult is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it.
Look, salvation is not difficult. Okay. Jesus did the hard part when he died on the cross.
Salvation is easy. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.
But if you have one of these modern versions, it says difficult is the way. Okay.
And this is just one example. I could spend hours giving you doctrinal differences.
You know, the King James says it's hard for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.
That same verse in the NIV and other modern versions, I believe it's Mark 10 24 off the top of my head,
it says, you know, it's just hard to enter the kingdom of God.
How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.
No, it's not hard. It's only hard for those who trust in riches.
It's not difficult. It is narrow, meaning that there are few.
And look, examples abound. But fellowship, he says, should never be based on an English translation.
I'll say the exact opposite. That is the number one most important test of fellowship.
The number one. If somebody is using a perverted Bible version,
whether it be the ESV, the NIV or the New American Standard,
I can have no fellowship with that person because there's no way we're going to be able to believe the same things
or even have fellowship or communion around God's word when we have these totally different Bibles.
I have the right Bible. They have a corrupt Bible. Can two walk together except they be agreed?
Absolutely not. And so King James only ism is the most important test of fellowship in 2019.
Because the word of God has been replaced with an imposter.
We can't just sit back and allow that and just try to get along with people who have a completely different corrupt Bible.
It's just not going to happen. Anyway, folks, tune into the next video for chapter two in Dr. James White's book,
The King James Only Controversy. I covered in this video the substance of the introduction and chapter one.
I'm trying not to leave anything out as far as the points that he makes and refuting the points.
I'm going to do the best I can to do that with the rest of the book as well.
God bless you. Have a great day.