Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe,
Arizona. This is part 3 in a video series responding to the King James only
controversy by Dr. James White. This chapter 3 is called Starting at the
Beginning. Now in this chapter he just lays down a lot of basic principles and
he even says on the second page of the chapter that you may want to just skip
this chapter. He says if you're already familiar with such issues as the
languages in which the Bible was first written, the types of manuscripts that
Christians used, basic errors that people make with hand copying documents and the
like, you may wish to move on to chapter 4. Okay, it's a pretty long chapter though
and he starts out by kind of just insulting people that are King James
only. He says the KJV only controversy plays upon the fact that most Christians
today are more than slightly fuzzy on the particulars of how we got the Bible,
how it was passed down through the years and how it has been translated
into the English language. So James White always likes to act like he's so smart
and everybody else is so dumb and people that are King James only aren't smart
and blah blah blah. So obviously that's not really an argument. So he gets into
the biblical languages. He explains that the Bible was originally written in
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and that you know barely any chapters were written in
Aramaic. So we're predominantly talking about Hebrew and Greek. Then on page 44
he again talks about how Greek far exceeds English in its ability to convey
intricate meanings and delicate turns of thought. I disagree with that. English is
a very expressive language. It's very unequivocal, very clear. It's every bit as
clear as Greek and so I don't agree with him on that. But anyway then he gets
into this part on disputes over translation and he makes a very
important point here when he talks about how there are two different issues at
work here. In fact I did a whole sermon on this recently. It was called Two
Problems with the Modern Versions and number one is textual disputes and
number two translation disputes. So when we talk about the differences between
the King James Bible and the ESV for example or whatever the modern version
there are two different issues at play here. There's the textual issue and
there's the translation issue. So sometimes these versions read
differently because they're coming from a different text. Sometimes they read
differently because they're just translated differently. For example when
you have the new versions leaving out entire verses like Acts 8 37 or 1 John
5 7 that's obviously not a translation difference. That's a difference in the
underlying text. But then when you have and he gives some examples here
I'll just use his examples. For example John 6 47 in the King James says verily
verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Whereas the
modern translations will say truly truly I say to you he who believes has eternal
life. So what's missing? The King James says he that believeth on me has
everlasting life. The new versions just say he that believes has everlasting
life. So you know believes anything right? So anyway this is a textual difference
obviously. The underlying Greek text of the modern versions leaves out on me
whereas the textus receptus has the on me. Then he gives another example John
336 this is a translation dispute. It says in the King James he that believeth
on the Sun hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Sun shall not see
life but the wrath of God abideth on him. So the New American Standard you know
representing the modern versions says he who believes in the Sun has eternal life
but he who does not obey the Sun shall not see life but the wrath of God abides
on him. So one of them says that you're not saved because you don't believe and
the other one says you're not saved because you don't obey. Alright that's a
pretty big difference that's an important difference and of course the
King James is right and the modern versions are wrong. Salvation is by faith
alone and it's not believing that causes people to be unsaved but here's the
thing they're both translating from the same underlying Greek text it's that one
of them is translating it wrongly as he that does not obey because the problem
with that is that that makes it sound like you have to do works to be saved
you have to obey Christ you have to keep the commandments and do the good things
that he tells you to do and not do the bad things that he tells you not to do
when in reality the only thing you have to do to be saved is believe. What must I
do to be saved? And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be
saved. By the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. The
Bible defines the works of the law as obeying the commandments even negative
commandments not doing bad things is the works of the law you can prove that by
comparing Scripture in Galatians with Deuteronomy I'm not going to go into
that I've done sermons on that and then there are good works which are the good
things that Christ tells us to do and neither of them are required for
salvation okay faith is required for salvation so those are examples of a
textual dispute in John 6 47 and a translation dispute in John 3 36 so the
modern versions are filled with problems not just because of bad text but also
just garbage translation okay now then he goes into the issue of methods of
translation in verse 46 and he explains that no translation is completely formal
I'm quoting here even translations considered formal such as the KJV new
KJV and NASB contain dynamic translations for at times there is
simply no way to make sense of an entirely literal translation now he is
right about this okay he explains that when it comes to translation there are
literal methods and then dynamic equivalence methods now here's where a
lot of King James onlius have been wrong over the years okay they know that the
new versions are wrong they know they're bad but sometimes they don't know
exactly why or what's wrong with them and so sometimes what you'll hear King
James only people say is well you know the King James is a word-for-word
translation and it's very literal whereas the new versions are just these
really loose translations dynamic equivalence and they they they act like
dynamic equivalence is bad and literal is good well they're wrong about that
because of course as dr. white pointed out here the King James uses dynamic
equivalence in many places and the modern versions are literal in many
places in fact many times the modern versions are too literal and that's
sometimes why they sound so stupid you know when you listen to the modern
versions he have told the Oh human one you know they they call you human one
instead of man they get so clinical and so literal in their translation that
they sound wooden and and and awkward and they're bad translations so the King
James is not this super literal word-for-word translation that a lot of
people believe it is now it obviously is accurate you know and it is correctly
translating what's there I believe it's perfect it's excellent but it's not
word-for-word because a word-for-word translation is a garbage translation
okay if you want a word-for-word translation just type a bunch of stuff
into Google Translate and and look how ugly it comes back at you when it just
translates word-for-word okay now I've actually worked as a translator my wife
has worked as a translator and when you're doing translation the way you can
tell that it's a good translation is that if someone read the finished
product they wouldn't even know it's a translation okay have you ever gotten
the instructions for something and you read them and you just knew right away
this was not originally written in English okay why because it's a it's a
garbage translation a good translation is one where you read it and you would
think it was originally written in that language and that's how the King James
is when you read the King James it's so good you would think that the Bible was
originally written in English in fact people often make fun of people who are
King James or children growing up thinking that the Bible was written in
English but that's actually just a testament to how good the translation is
that children think that the King James is written in English or I'm sorry
children of course the King James but children think that the Bible was
originally written in English because the King James is just that good I know
when I was a little toddler and a small child you know I thought that God and
everybody in heaven speaks English and that you know the Jesus walked the earth
speaking English because it's that good well you wouldn't think that reading
these modern versions they're so awkward and and wooden and sometimes overly
literal so don't fall into the trap of thinking that the King James is this
really literal translation and that the problem with the modern versions is that
they're not literal enough that's not the problem with the modern versions
okay the problem with the modern versions is that number one they're
based on corrupted manuscripts and number two they contain a lot of bad
translation and when we say bad translation it's not because it's
dynamic equivalents necessarily although that's sometimes an issue but it's
influenced by scholarship of wicked people heretics apostates and just
Christ rejecting Jews I mean let me just give you an example okay like for
example when you're reading the Old Testament the King James it talks about
being clean versus unclean okay I mean that's pretty straightforward right
what's clean mean it means that it's not dirty what's unclean mean it means that
it's dirty so the Bible talks about being clean versus being unclean okay
well modern scholarship of the Jews and so forth they believe in a thing called
ritual impurity and they say oh well when it says clean and unclean that
doesn't really mean you know clean and dirty it actually is talking about being
ritually impure and so some of these modern translations will literally have
a leper walking through the city and instead of yelling unclean they're
lowing ritually impure or ritually impure that's ridiculous okay and it's
based on Christ rejecting Judaism's inability to understand God's Word okay
Jews can't understand the Bible they have the veil over their eyes as it says
in 2nd Corinthians chapter 3 so they have come up with this bizarre concept
that unclean has nothing to do with sanitation that's what they think okay
when in reality the Bible has all these wonderful teachings about sanitation
about how we should use running water and if somebody's sick wash the sheets
wash the bed wash the house wash your clothes wash your body God's teaching us
how to be sanitary they say oh this has nothing to do with that they try to
claim that leprosy back then wasn't even contagious and that you know God just
has them saying ritually impure because it's ritual impurity nothing to do with
spreading germs or sanitation look they just don't want to give God credit for
being so ahead of his time in the Bible and having all these wonderful teachings
on cleanliness and sanitation that were way ahead of their time so the Jews want
to take away God's glory and just say oh it's a ritual impurity those are the
kind of ideas that make their way into the modern versions okay where you'll
change uncleanness to ritual impurity or something like that and that's just one
example we going on on and on with just a bad scholarship and bad translations
and doctrinal bias of wicked people that gets into these new versions okay like
changing not believing to not obeying okay so you know he's right to point out
that there are two issues at work here textual problems and translation problems
and then also he's right to point out that this isn't about literal versus
dynamic equivalence because you know the King James uses both the NIV uses
both the ESV uses both and sometimes dynamic equivalence is better than
literal okay because a good translation captures not word for word but it
captures the spirit of the original the feeling of the original the it gets the
word for word sometimes or when possible but often it's thought for thought okay
but you know God says don't add or remove a word okay but obviously when
you go from language to language there are gonna be words added and removed
which is why there are words in italics but but you're not removing the
substance of anything you're not removing any meaning okay obviously when
you translate into another language you can't go word for word if you did it
would be a horrible translation it would sound horrible and it would not make
sense okay so he goes through and gives some examples of that of the King James
using dynamic equivalence which I I agree you know the King James is right
to do a dynamic reading in certain places then he gets into a discussion on
textual criticism now he's basically just explaining what textual criticism
is and he's saying a lot of people just don't like that it has the word
criticism in it like we're criticizing the Bible or criticizing text he
explains that's not what it means textual criticism means deciding which
text is right and which one is wrong you know deciding which text we're gonna use
in the Greek and which text we're gonna use in Hebrew now why are we as King
James only is against textual criticism well the reason why is that we believe
in staying with the traditional text that has been passed down not changing
the Bible to go with modern discoveries okay so that what the textual criticism
does is it digs up something new in the 20th century and then changes the Bible
to go with that new discovery you know it discovers new manuscripts in the
1800s Sinaiticus Vaticanus right and then it changes our Bible to match those
new discoveries well again I will never believe that the true Bible was buried
under the earth for centuries okay so if it's something that was buried for over
a thousand years it can't be the true Word of God because we believe that God
preserved his word and that people have constantly been copying preaching reading
using God's Word and so textual criticism is constantly digging up new
scraps of paper and changing the Bible because they're they're constantly
trying to get the Bible closer to what it actually was written you know they're
they're constantly trying to bring the text closer to what the Apostles
actually wrote we believe that we already have what the Apostles actually
wrote we believe we've had it for the last couple thousand years so we don't
need to go digging it up somewhere we already have it okay so that's the
problem that we have with so-called textual criticism okay and he goes on to
talk about you know his favorite manuscript Sinaiticus and and you know
we'll get into that more later in the book but he praises it and shows a
picture of it and it's the single greatest example of an unsealed text
yada yada yada more pictures of Sinaiticus then he has a section called to
err is human and he basically just explains the fact that you know all
handwritten Bibles are going to have mistakes in them they're gonna have just
human error scribal errors what we would call today a typo okay and it's
not just handwritten manuscripts that have typos printed Bibles have typos too
in fact every Bible that I've ever owned if you if I've read it long enough I
have found at least one typo in it in fact I was just preaching less than two
weeks ago and I was preaching out of 2nd Corinthians chapter 1 and I came to a
verse that says Dominion and I had memorized this verse in the past and I
knew it said Dominion but I looked down at my Bible and my Bible said domination
and so I kind of stuttered and stammered but I wasn't really feeling well that
day and I wasn't really thinking clearly so I just trusted what was written on
the page and I started saying domination so for the next like three or four
minutes in my sermon as I'm preaching I kept saying domination over and over
again when it should have been Dominion but it was because my Bible had a typo
in it where it said domination instead of Dominion you know if you read the
Bible long enough you'll find typos in virtually every Bible just a letter will
be missing or a one line of text will be repeated twice or something like that so
you know yes to err is human and every Bible is gonna have typos in it or
especially when you're doing it by hand they're gonna be mistakes so he explains
that concept which is an obvious concept then he has a section called thousands
and thousands of variants okay and he rightfully explains in here that the
number of textual variants is a little bit exaggerated okay he says here and
I'm gonna read the paragraph here it says next we must emphasize that 99% of
the four hundred thousand variations are irrelevant to the proper translation
and understanding of the Greek text even the most liberal textual critic agrees
here unlike in the English language differences in word order especially in
Greek often are completely irrelevant in fact in Greek one can say the same thing
in more than a dozen different ways using differences and word order cases
etc combine this with differences in spelling and other minor variations and
the number of meaningful New Testament variants drops to a more realistic
number of 4,000 this represents about 2.9 percent of the text or one meaningful
variant every three pages or so of the New Testament okay so what he's saying
here is that when people try to talk about just how there are just so many
different variations in the text often what they're referring to is something
as simple as a misspelling and you know the word misspelling is not even
accurate because today in 2019 there's a right and a wrong way to spell every
word I mean every word has a right spelling and most of the time there's
only one right way to spell a word whereas in the olden times people didn't
really care about spelling if you read Tyndale's New Testament he spells the
same word three different ways on one page okay why because part of it was
just how it looked they just thought that it would look better sometimes to
make the lines longer or shorter or how they fit on the page so sometimes
they'll use one spelling to make the word a little longer just just to look
good on the page sometimes they use a shorter spelling so it was like an art
form for them spelling was like an art where they would just use different
spellings depending on how they wanted it to look like a poetic use of spelling
okay so in the olden times spelling was not as fixed and rigid as it is right
now so two manuscripts will have different spelling and people claim oh
it's a variant it's different punctuation word order and in Greek the
word order typically doesn't matter as much as it does in English where we have
to have things in a certain order in Greek you can move things around and
there's no meaningful difference so the vast majority of textual variants are
meaningless they have no relevance at all okay and by the way let me just stop
and say this people who attack the King James say oh well the King James version
of 1611 is totally different than the modern King James that's not true
because there is no meaningful change between the 1611 edition and the 1769
edition that we use today typically if you buy King James today use the 1769
edition there's no meaningful difference folks it is the same words now the
spellings are different the punctuation is different and there are typos that
have been corrected because the original 1611 had typos because every Bible has
typos right so typos were corrected spellings punctuation capitalizations
were changed but there is no meaningful change from 1611 to 1769 so the King
James is the King James folks now if you get a new King James it is dramatically
changed and it's complete garbage but I've even seen a new King James at the
store that lied and said oh this is just the fifth in a series of revisions to
the King James you know the King James been revised four times this is the
fifth one yeah except the first four were spellings punctuation and
capitalization they didn't actually change the words okay so anyway he's
just explaining that most textual variants they're meaningless and when
people try to say oh the textus receptus they're all these variants between
different editions of the textus receptus it's this kind of meaningless
stuff typically the vast majority of it is spelling punctuation capitalization
word order and other things that don't matter okay so anyway he says that you
know it's really only 2.9 percent of the text that's different or one
meaningful variant every three pages or so in the New Testament now so he's
saying you know when you read the New Testament it's only every three pages
that there's a meaningful difference in the modern versions text versus the King
James text well first of all that's not quite true that it's a little bit more
than that but even if that's let's just say that's all it is okay well if you
have a major difference every three pages and if the differences affect
doctrine which they do you know that's a lot of problems because the New
Testament has a lot of pages right you know I've got a typical Greek New
Testament here and it's got 480 pages so if there's a meaningful difference every
three pages then we're talking about 160 meaningful differences okay but he's
saying well you know ninety seven point one percent of its right on well that's
not good enough you know it's got to be ninety nine it's got to be ninety nine
point forty four as the old ivory commercial said you know ninety seven
percent is just not gonna cut it and then he goes into an example of a
difference you know that that is let's see does he consider this a meaningful
difference all right here we go okay he says this is not a meaningful difference
okay first John 3 1 King James behold the met what manner of love the father
had bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God therefore the
world knoweth us not because it knew him not the ESV says see what kind of love
the Father has given to us that we should be called the children of God and
so we are the reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him
first of all the ESV sounds lame but it also adds this phrase and so we are so
the King James says that we should be called the sons of God the ESV says that
we should be called the children of God and so we are okay now obviously the ESV
is the one that's wrong here you say why is that well because the King James is
the standard but I digress well it says in verse 2 beloved now are we the sons
of God so you already get that from verse 2 anyway that we were not just
called the sons of God but we are the sons of God you get from verse 2 but
he's saying you know that this addition in the ESV is not a meaningful addition
and I would say that you know it doesn't change any doctrine this particular
example doesn't change any doctrine or affect anything but it's still adding
something to the text that shouldn't be there and the Bible says add thou not
unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar so even though this
is not meaningful according to him I would say it is meaningful because it
does change the meaning because it added a phrase it doesn't affect doctrine but
I would call that a meaningful change because he added a sentence that isn't
in the original so it does change the meaning okay even though it doesn't
affect doctrine those are two different things then a little bit later on he
quotes the great scholar dr. AT Robertson whose familiarity with the most intimate
details of the Greek text is abundantly verified by his massive 1454 page a
grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research
indicated that areas of real concern regarding textual variants amount to a
thousandth part of the entire text so James White said first that it's about
3% of the text but then he quotes this great scholar is so intimate with the
Greek his 1454 page book proves it this guy claims oh no the the real concern is
only a thousandth part of the text well that's not 3% that would be 0.1% so this
guy's claiming that only 1,000th of the text is really a meaningful variant okay
let's stop and examine that claim okay well there are 7,957 verses in the New
Testament let's just round that off and say that there are about 8,000 verses in
the New Testament so according to him it's only one in a thousand okay well
then there should only be eight problems in the whole New Testament right well
here's the problem with that there are 16 entire verses removed from the modern
versions because of textual variants so just alone the entire verses that are
removed there are 16 so how is that 1 1 thousandth when there are only 8,000
verses that should only be eight problems well there's 16 whole verses
and there are hundreds of other meaningful changes okay the 3% figure is
a lot closer to the truth than this bozo claiming well you know don't there's
nothing to see here folks don't worry about all these missing verses don't
worry about all these differences in doctrine entire phrases entire sentence
is removed you know it's it's like one out of a thousand verses that's wrong
no this guy is is full of baloney no no one could actually say that it's one in
a thousand meaningful textual variants that's why you know white has to say oh
he has to like praise this guy and give all his qualifications because what he's
about to say is so stupid that it's only one out of a thousand that's so
demonstrably false when there are 16 entire verses removed in the modern
version not only that forget just in the modern versions the Westcott and Hort
text Sinaiticus Vaticanus they also remove what 12 entire verses from the
end of the book of Mark so mark 16 9 through 20 is gone well there's 12 more
gigantic huge problems entire verses missing but I guess according to this
dr. AT Robertson those don't matter those 12 verses being chopped out or how
about the section in John chapter 7 verse 53 to John chapter 8 verse 11 12
verses more removed so that's 24 verses plus the 16 that are actually removed
from the modern versions so you have 40 entire verse omissions and there are way
more than that folks I'm just bringing up some examples but he's trying to
claim there's only eight meaningful differences in the whole New Testament
that should cause us concern no there's a lot of problems it's it's more like a
few hundred okay so why does he even quote that bozo he contradicts what he
just said on the previous page about saying it's about 3% then he quotes this
bozo and try say well it's not even that it's like one out of a thousand that's
ridiculous any anybody could prove that wrong easily and then he says the
reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different
New Testament manuscripts would not fundamentally alter the message of the
scriptures so what James White says over and over again is that the changes in
the modern versions don't affect doctrine if we took the the most
different manuscripts it still doesn't affect doctrine and of course we
demonstrated over and over again in our film New World Order Bible versions that
the changes in the modern versions do affect doctrine they affect salvation
they affect doctrines regarding hell and the Trinity and all kinds of different
things okay so then on page 70 he starts to get into the different text types and
families so when we look at the almost 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament and when we say manuscript we mean a handwritten document like Spanish
mono is hand right manually written written by hand manuscripts so almost
6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and they're divided into four
different families of manuscripts or text types okay so text type number one
is the Alexandrian text type found in most papyri and in the great unseal
codexes Aleph and B also known as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus text type number
two is the Western text type found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations
into other languages especially Latin number three is the Byzantine text type
found in the vast majority of later unseal and minuscule manuscripts and
number four the Caesarean text type disputed by some found in papyrus 45 and
family one abbreviated f1 okay so he breaks it into these text types and then
he says the two ends of the spectrum so to speak are the Alexandrian and the
Byzantine okay those are the two extremes well here's the thing the King
James Version is based on the Byzantine text type the modern versions are based
on the Alexandrian text type and these are as he says the two extremes now what
is Alexandria Alexandria is a city in Egypt and it shouldn't really surprise
us that all of these wicked Bible versions are coming from Egyptian
manuscripts because of the fact that Egypt in the Bible is a place that
spiritually symbolizes that which is wicked in Revelation chapter 11 it talks
about that city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where also our
Lord was crucified they're always go down into Egypt and Egypt represents the
world it represents sin it represents wickedness and so forth so that's where
the modern version text type is coming from Alexandria Egypt okay the Byzantine
text type is the one underlying the King James he says here most scholars today
in opposition to KJV only ISM would see the Alexandrian as representing an
earlier and hence more accurate form of text than the Byzantine text type so why
is it that James White and other so-called scholars favor the
Alexandrian text type the answer is because they have some very extremely
old examples of the Alexandrian text time they have these very old papyrus
fragments of little scraps of a verse here verse there or sometimes you know
larger portions from Egypt and then they also have their beloved Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus which by the way are from the 4th century AD so they say well these
are older and more reliable well the 4th century AD is several hundred years
after the fact folks so that's plenty of time for them to be corrupted and
changed so this is a philosophical difference between King James only and
the textual criticism crowd what's the fundamental difference I keep coming
back to this folks the fundamental difference is that we believe in the
received text that was passed down to us they believe in digging up something
that's been buried for over a thousand years and changing the Bible based on
new findings that they just dug up recently okay so because they say well
this is older older does not necessarily mean better or more reliable just
because it's from 300 years after the time of the Apostles versus 700 years
after the time of the Apostles folks that's still way later okay it makes
more sense to believe that the one that God has used over the years that's been
copied and preached and read and used and it's been used to win people the
Lord for centuries is the right Bible not the one that had to be dug up by an
archaeologist in the 19th century or even the 20th century okay the true
Bible was not buried folks I'll never believe that it's nonsense so you know
the King James only crowd promotes the Byzantine text type the Alexandrian text
type is promoted by the modern version crowd there they're the spiritual Egypt
folks with their Egyptian corrupted Bible okay on page 72 he says the
Byzantine text type represents the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts
available to us today so the vast majority of manuscripts are the
Byzantine text type the one that lines up with the King James it's this small
minority of Egyptian garbage that the modern versions are based on okay page
73 says another common kjv only claim is that the Alexandrian texts have been
corrupted by heretics they point to men like origin who did things and believed
things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual
yeah you can say that again since origin cut his own nuts off okay but I digress
origin of course was just a complete heretic wicked person who castrated
himself and and believed all kinds of goofy crazy things and wicked things and
and and yeah he was a Bible corruptor he is behind a lot of the corruption in the
modern versions and other heretics like him corrupted the Bible whether they did
it on purpose or not maybe they were demon-possessed when they did it but the
devil's behind it folks and the devil used wicked men like origin to corrupt
the Bible okay verse page 74 he talks about the fact that the Byzantine text
type is fuller or longer than other text types and that this is taken as evidence
of a later origin so they're claiming that the Byzantine text type is later
and less reliable because it's it's fuller it's longer so they think things
have been added to it whereas we would say that the Alexandrian text have
omitted things they've removed things these guys believe it's more likely that
stuff was added then removed okay which obviously they're wrong he talks about
on page 76 expansion of piety that basically people were just adding words
to the Bible in order to give God more glory so you know if it says Jesus
they'll put Lord Jesus if it says Jesus Christ they'll put Lord Jesus Christ you
know if it says Lord they'll put you know Lord Jesus Christ or what you know
that they're expanding it to give more glory whereas we that are of the King
James only persuasion would say that the Alexandrian text are omitting titles
they're getting sloppy and omitting titles and and and taking up because if
you look at the modern versions versus the King James they omit Lord scores of
times they omit Jesus scores of times they omit Christ scores of times so
they're constantly downgrading the title whereas the King James has it intact the
textual critics will say well no no this is an expansion these terms are
being added so he explains that and then he has a section at the end called a
final word on the New Testament text he says KJV only advocates are quick to
assert that those who do not join them in making the King James Version the
final authority in all things do not believe in the preservation of Scripture
and yet that is what we're saying because James White doesn't believe in
the preservation of Scripture he thinks that we have to keep digging up new
things to try to somehow reconstruct what the Bible said when the Apostles
wrote it I mean if we dig up something tomorrow that scholars date and test and
say this is older and more reliable some papyrus is found James White will
literally change his Bible to match that papyrus I mean that they'll they'll
come out with a new edition of his Greek New Testament folks so yeah how can you
say you believe in the preservation of Scripture when you want to change
Scripture based on findings in the 19th and 20th century and even the 21st
century they're ready to change it again folks well you know you keep using that
word preservation I don't think it means what you think it means you know if the
if the Bible's been preserved unto us we don't have to go dig it out of a hole
somewhere and find something new to somehow reconstruct the original when we
see how God led his people to recognize the canon of Scripture the listing of
the books that were inspired over against those books that were not we
note that he did not therein engage in any celestial fireworks no angels showed
up with golden tablets marked divine index instead God worked with his
people over time leading them to recognize what he had already done
through the act of inspiration the same is true regarding the protection and
preservation of the biblical text now I agree with that right there he's saying
right there look how do we know which books are part of the Bible and which
ones aren't because God's people can recognize what is inspired from what is
not inspired okay I believe that okay that's why I believe the King James
because the Holy Spirit tells me that the King James is the Word of God when I
hear the King James Version the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that
that's the Word of God I hear the voice of the shepherd I recognize the voice of
the shepherd and when I read the Apocrypha that's not the voice of the
shepherd when I read the Book of Mormon or the Quran or the Tao Te Ching it says
that's the voice of strangers but when you read the Bible it's the voice of the
shepherd when you read the Gospel of Thomas the Book of Enoch it's garbage
the Holy Spirit will not testify unto you those things when you read the King
James Bible God speaks to your heart and you know that it's the Word of God okay
so you know he's acknowledging the fact that that God leads us but yet when I
told James White that the reason I believe the King James Bible is that you
know it's the boy I recognize the voice of the shepherd and that the new versions
are false because you know I hear them and I can tell that they're false
because the Holy Spirit guides me into all truth you know he acted like that's
a ridiculous reason he didn't accept that reason okay but yet in his book
here he explains well that's how we knew which books are right and which ones
aren't the Holy Spirit's guidance well you know it's kind of a double standard
here because he says that God leads his people to recognize what he's already
done through the act of inspiration so how do we know the King James is
inspired because we read it and it has the power of God it's the Bible that has
power it's the Bible that gets the job done what's the fruit of these modern
versions a bunch of liberalism and garbage and lame watered-down churches
look all the best churches are preaching out of the King James folks best
according to who best according to the Holy Spirit friend and if you are
sincere the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth and when you read the
King James Bible the Holy Spirit will speak to you and you will hear the voice
of the shepherd whereas these modern versions are the voice of a stranger
okay and so after that part he then has a 10 page section that's kind of not
relevant it's something that was added in this edition it's not in the original
1995 edition of the book he added this for 2009 and basically he's just
explaining that he's better at debating Muslims because he's not King James only
you know that's what he wants to explain how he's so good at debating these
Muslims and how King James only is they're not gonna be able to debate the
Muslims you know I don't want to debate the Muslims I want to preach the gospel
to Muslims and you know debating people doesn't get him saved I mean arguing
with Muslims isn't what gets them saved folks you got to preach them the gospel
it's the power of God's Word and the power of the gospel story that's gonna
bring salvation it's not a bunch of archaeology and textual criticism that
stuff just doesn't win people to Christ folks so anyway that's chapter 3 in the
book and again it was a chapter that he even said you could skip because it's
just a lot of basic things about the authorship and transmission of the text
so in the next video we'll get into chapter 4 called putting it together
where we get into a lot more specific things between the King James and the
modern versions God bless you have a great day