Hey, everybody. Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful War Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona,
continuing my response to the King James only controversy by Dr. James White.
Today, I'm in Chapter 9, Problems in the KJV.
This chapter can pretty much be summed up that James White is criticizing the
King James for using archaic or outdated language. Sometimes
he characterizes this as mistakes or errors in the King James,
and other times he just says that the language is archaic, it's hard
to understand, it's obscure. But when
he says it's an error, it usually comes down to him just
not understanding the archaic language in the King James. And I'm going to go
through the whole chapter and show the different examples and demonstrate that.
But first, I want to point you to another video I did. Five years ago, I did a little
10-minute video called, What's the Big Deal About Dr. James White?
And I encourage you to watch that video. I don't want to restate everything here
that I said in that video, but I demonstrated that a lot of the words that James
White claims are archaic are not archaic at all,
and he thinks they're archaic simply because he's mispronouncing them. So I show a video where
he's mispronouncing these words, and then it's no wonder that nobody's heard of him because
he's just not familiar with them, so he's pronouncing them wrong.
So just because he's not familiar with a word doesn't mean that it's
archaic, okay? Some words in the King James are for sure
archaic, but other words are just
not known to James White, and that doesn't make them archaic. Now,
should the King James be updated to
modern language? This is what a lot of people will ask.
Now, I am against updating the King James
into our 2019 vernacular, and I'll tell you why.
It's simply because we can trust the King James. We can rely
on it. It stood the test of time. It has borne fruit for
400 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it,
and so because it is trustworthy, it's reliable, we can
count on it. I'm not for updating it, okay? Now,
that being said, could the King James theoretically be updated
into modern language without corrupting it, and it would still
be God's perfect word? Of course. You could translate the Bible into
any language, and it's still God's word if it's properly translated.
So, you could take the King James, which is translated in
modern English, 1611, which is known as modern English,
and you could bring it into the contemporary English of 2019
and still have a pure Bible. But here's what I've noticed.
Whenever people claim to do that, and whenever King James Bibles
come on the market that have supposedly been updated into the modern vernacular,
it doesn't even take more than a few minutes
to find places where they have completely changed the meaning
and just completely gone off the deep end with their update.
So, yeah, theoretically, you could bring the King James into
our modern vernacular without corrupting it, but it just seems like
whenever people claim to be doing that, they're corrupting it. So,
if some new edition of the King James came out that altered
the wording, we'd have to sit there and go over 31,000 verses with a
fine-tooth comb to try to make sure that everything was on the
up and up, and it just isn't worth it. The King James is a
great Bible. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And people can still understand it
today. I mean, my children grew up with it. I grew up with it as a child. And not
only that, when we evangelize, we use the King James Bible to preach
the gospel of Christ to people of all ages, and they're able to understand, for all
have sinned and come short of the glory of God. They're able to understand, for the wages of sin
is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ the Lord. And there are
passages in the King James that are difficult or archaic. Well,
that's where preaching comes in to expound and explain those things.
But I would also point out that the modern versions are also filled
with difficult passages, sentences that are very hard to
understand, very difficult vocabulary, and you
could point to just as many difficult words in the NIV as you
can in the King James. In fact, later in this video, I'm going to do that. I'm going to point out
difficult language in the modern versions. Parts of the Bible are easy.
Parts of the Bible are hard. The King James is the word of God
without error, so we should just be thankful for it,
preach it, use it, read it. We don't need a new one. The language has not
changed dramatically enough since 1611 to warrant a new Bible.
One thing I love about the King James is that it's so easy to tell it apart from the modern
versions, so when I win someone to Christ, I can just
right away ask them what kind of a Bible they have or if they have a Bible, and if
they say, oh, I already have a Bible, then I ask them, does your Bible say
thee and thou? And if it does, 99% of the
time, it's a King James. So that's just a good quick check whether they
have the right Bible, because if they don't, then I'm going to give them a Bible. But if they already have
a Bible, I just ask them, does it say thee and thou? And if they say, yes, it does,
then I say, okay, great. Sounds like you got a King James. You're good to go. I tell them
where to start reading. Okay, so let's dig into the chapter, though,
about the problems in the King James.
So it says in Mark 6.20 in the King James,
For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and unholy,
and observed him. And when he heard him, he did many things and heard
gladly. New American Standard, For Herod was afraid of John,
knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe.
And when he heard him, he was very perplexed,
but he used to enjoy listening to him. So the difference that James White is pointing out
here is between the King James, he observed him,
and the New American Standard, he kept him safe. Well, the word
observe has an archaic meaning of watching
over and keeping safe, right? Because putting someone under
observation is that you're watching them carefully, right? So observe
can mean to watch over someone, to look out
for them, and that's what this archaic wording means.
On the next page, King James, Mark 9.18,
And wheresoever he taketh him, he tareth him, and he fometh,
and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away.
And I spake to thy disciples, that they should cast him out, and they
could not. So this guy is demon possessed, and the demon is
tearing him, he's foaming, he's gnashing with his teeth,
and pining away.
This is the part that James White is taking issue with, the pining away.
Well, the New American Standard says, it dashes him to the ground,
he foams at the mouth, and grinds his teeth, and stiffens out.
So King James, pineth away, New American Standard,
stiffens out. Here's what James White says,
It's difficult to get stiffens out, or becomes rigid, from
pineth away. The King James rendering is less than
adequate in comparison with the modern translations. So he's saying
that he likes the modern translation a lot better. Let me give you some other verses in the New Testament
that use the same Greek word there that is translated as
pineth away. Matthew 13 6, And when the sun was up, they were
scorched, and because they had no root, they withered away.
That's that same Greek root as where we got pineth away.
Matthew 21 19, And presently the fig tree
withered away. Matthew 21 20, And when the disciples saw it,
they marveled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away?
Mark 3 1, And he entered again into the synagogue, and there
was a man there which had a withered hand.
Mark 3 3, And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand,
stand forth. The withered there is from the same verb.
Mark 4 6, And when the sun was up, it was scorched, and because it had no
root, it withered away. Mark 5 29,
straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up.
Same Greek word. Mark 9 18, And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him, and he fometh,
and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away. That's the one that we just talked about.
And in the morning, Mark 11 20, As they passed by,
they saw the fig tree dried up. Okay, Mark 11 21,
again, refers to the fig tree being withered away. Luke 8
verse 6, And some fell upon a rock, and as soon as it was sprung up, it
withered away, because it lacked moisture.
John 15 6, If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth
as a branch, and is withered. James 1 11, For the sun
is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the
grass. 1 Peter 1 24, The grass
withereth. Okay, so you're getting the idea here as I go down through
these scriptures, and we see that this Greek
word that's translated as pineth away in the King James
is also referring to withering away
or plant life drying up, fading
away, withering away. Okay, now here's
the dictionary definition for the English term pine away.
This is from dictionary.com. Pine away
means to become ill, feeble,
or thin. Okay, so pining away is becoming ill,
feeble, or thin. We see that all these other
verses are about something withering away. So what the
King James is expressing here is that when this guy
is demon possessed, he foameth and gnasheth with his teeth,
and then it says he pineth away. So what's
going on is it tears him, he gnashes with his teeth, foams at the
mouth, and then he basically just goes, ugh,
right, and just becomes weak and just feeble
and exhausted. So he just basically collapses.
That's what I've always taken away from this pining away.
And that's what the English definition fits, and then that fits
the way that Greek word is translated elsewhere in the Bible.
The New American Standard says, well, you know, he stiffens out.
Yeah, that is something different, but I don't think it's saying that
he tears him, foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and then just
gets stiff. I think he more just collapses. It's actually the opposite.
Okay, King James is right here. He fades
away, he withers away, he pines away, he's collapsing
in exhaustion. Okay, that's the English definition of the word
pine away. Okay, then he points out Luke 18.
12, King James, I fast twice in the week. I give tithes of all that I
possess. New American Standard, I fast twice a week. I pay
tithes of all that I get. And again, he's just failing to
understand the archaic usage, the way it's being said here, tithes of
all that I possess, that I take possession of, is what
that would mean. Then a little bit lower on, he shows Acts 5.30.
Now this one's a big deal to James White because just recently in the
past few weeks, people sent me some videos where
James White was responding to some of my videos about his book,
and he seemed to really be taking issue with Acts
5 as like this big smoking gun of an error in the King James.
Okay, so here's what it says in the King James,
and God, excuse me, the God of our fathers
raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Okay, the New King James says,
the God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you had put to death
by hanging him on a cross. So
what he's saying here is that, you know, they didn't
kill him and then put him on the cross. You know, he died on the cross.
He says, Peter did not say that the Jews had slain Jesus
and then hung him on a tree. They put the Lord to death by hanging
him on a tree. It's difficult to see where the King James derived
its translation, as there is no and in the text to separate
slew and hanged on a tree. Again, he is just failing to understand
the English language. Okay, the word and
is frequently used in the Bible, frequently used in our
English language and in Greek and other languages, not always
to separate two things that are different from one another, but to
restate the same thing. And I already went over this in my last video, but for
example, the Bible talks about God and the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Is that two different people? You know, when it says God
and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? No, because it's just a
restatement of the same person. Okay, it would be like
if I said, you know, my wife and
friend. Okay, I'm basically referring to the same person
as my wife, my friend, okay,
my beloved, my wife and beloved,
my beloved and my wife. I could still be referring to the same person, folks,
and this is all throughout the Bible, God and the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
So, when the Bible says, you slew him and hanged him
on a tree, that's basically talking about the same event,
that they did both of those things to Christ. Okay,
it's not saying that they happened in succession. So, he's just failing to understand
the English language. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus
whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Did they slay him? Yes. Did they hang him on a tree? Yes.
Those are both the same thing, folks, and again, he's just failing to
understand the English there. James 3, 2, for in many things
we offend all. New American Standard, for we all stumble in
many ways. Let's see, 1 Corinthians 4, 4,
for I know nothing by myself. New American Standard, for I am
conscious of nothing against myself. Hebrews
9, 7, but into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not
without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people.
So, errors of the people in the New American Standard, it says,
the sins of the people committed in ignorance.
Now, again, he acts like, well, error is hard to understand
or it's not hard to understand at all because if somebody goes out
and intentionally commits a sin,
you wouldn't call that an error, would you? An error implies
that they did something by mistake. They didn't mean to do it, but
they committed an error. They erred, right? So, the King
James is offering a good translation there with error
and it's not archaic at all. Then we
get into this one in Isaiah 65
11. The King James says, but ye are they
that forsake the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that
prepare a table for that troop, and
that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
Okay. Now, the New King James says, but
you are those who forsake the Lord, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare
a table for Gad, so that troop is replaced with
Gad, and who furnish the drink offering for
Mani. Okay. So, King James says that troop and that number.
New King James says Gad and Mani. Okay.
New American Standard, who set a table for fortune
and who fill cups with mixed wine for
destiny. Here's what James White says about this. Readers of the AV
might be left wondering just what troop and what number is
being referred to, especially when it is plain that the people of Israel
are preparing a sacrificial meal and making a drink offering to this number and to
this troop, unless they happen to have the 1611
marginal reading that indicates the original Hebrew terms translated number and
troop were Gad and Mani. Okay. So, he's basically saying
you know, how in the world are people going to understand this in the King James? Well,
and where did the King James even get this? Well,
the word Gad means troop. Okay.
For example, let me give you some scriptures on this.
In Genesis chapter 30 verse 11, and Leah said
a troop cometh, and she called his name
Gad. Okay. And then, Genesis 49, when Jacob is
blessing the 12 tribes, Gad, a troop,
shall overcome him, but he shall overcome at the last. So, basically
the King James is just translating these Hebrew words into English, what they
mean. Okay. So, they mean troop and
number. Okay. Whereas the new King James is leaving them
untranslated, transliterated as God and
Mani, and then the New American Standard is basically
doing historical research and deciding that
actually what's being referred to is the goddess of fortune
and the goddess of destiny. So, anyway, the King James
is not wrong here to translate these two words with
their literal meaning and to leave it up to the reader to
interpret the passage. Obviously, it's an obscure passage, but it's an obscure passage in any
Bible. If you were reading this in the New King James or the New American Standard,
you would still not necessarily just read over this and
understand it clearly because it's an obscure passage and different people have different opinions about what
this could mean. And James White's opinion and the New American Standard's opinion
is not the only valid opinion here. So, the King James is not wrong
here to translate it in that way. 1 Kings
10, 28, Solomon had brought out of Egypt
horses and linen yarn. The king's merchants
received the linen yarn at a price. And then the New American Standard
says, also Solomon's import of horses was from Egypt and Kew
and the king's merchants procured them from Kew
for a price. So, the New American Standard thinks that Kew is a place
whereas the King James translators believed that Kew was an
item that was being purchased, which was linen yarn, that he's
purchasing horses and linen yarn, which makes sense because
of course, Egypt is a place where plant-based textiles
would have been produced. So, you know, again, I believe
the King James is right. I'm going to trust the King James over the New American Standard.
Okay, here's another good one. 1 Chronicles 5, 26
the King James says, and the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of
Pol, king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-Pileser,
king of Assyria, and he carried them away.
New American Standard says, so the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pol, king
of Assyria, even the spirit of Tilgath-Pileser,
king of Assyria, and he carried them away into exile. And he's pointing out the fact
that Tilgath-Pileser and Pol are the same person.
So, he's claiming that the King James is wrong for saying and
here, you know, for saying Pol and.
But again, this goes back to a common error in James White's book
that I've already pointed to multiple times of not understanding
that the word and frequently is a restatement of
the same thing, not connecting to different things.
So, if you read the verse carefully in the King James, it says, and the God of Israel
stirred up the spirit of Pol, king of Assyria, and the spirit of
Tilgath-Pileser, king of Assyria, and he carried them away. So, notice
that the singular personal pronoun he is referencing back
to Pol and Tilgath-Pileser because it's one person.
And just as when the Bible says God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we're not talking
about two different people, nor here are we talking about two different people.
Is the New American Standard clearer here
when it says even? Yes, the New American Standard is
clearer here. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.
They're both saying the same thing. Both and and even here
are both correct, okay, because they're both getting at the same meaning.
And I'm not going to throw out the King James because it uses a little
bit of archaic language and then embrace the dunghill
of the New American Standard, which blasphemes the Lord,
omits entire verses, corrupts doctrine, and is a perversion
of God's word, as I've demonstrated in many other videos up to this point.
Isaiah 13-15, the King James says, Everyone that
is found shall be thrust through, and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall
by the sword. New American Standard, anyone who is found will be thrust through,
and anyone who is captured will fall by
the sword. Acts 9
7, the King James says, And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
And then in the King James in Acts 22, 9, it says,
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they
heard not the voice of him that spake to me. Now, James White
is pointing this out and saying that this is a contradiction in the King James version between
Acts 9 and Acts 22.
Because it says right here in the first instance,
Acts 9, 7, that the men that were with him heard a
voice. And then down here, he says
that they heard not the voice of him that spake with me.
Guess what? Those things are both true. That's not a contradiction. Because
hearing a voice is not the same as hearing
the voice of him that spake to me. Okay, so did the
people that were with him hear a voice? Yes. Did the people who were
with him hear the voice that spake to him? No. They heard
a different voice. It's not that complicated, folks. But, you know, he points
this out and says that this is a contradiction.
Because, really, they heard the voice, but they didn't understand the voice, according to the
New American Standard. I'm not buying it. Okay, so
he then points out the fact that the King James will often translate the
same Greek word or phrase in multiple ways in the English.
And he points out the classic example here where
the Greek phrase oophonepsis is
either rendered as thou shalt do no murder or thou
shalt not kill. And he's saying, look, in the Greek it's the exact same phrase.
Why would the King James be inconsistent by
quoting it two different ways? Well,
this is simply because there's more than one way to skin a cat. Both of those translations are correct.
So, they choose to do it one way in one place and one way in the other place.
Now, he tries to make it out that it's because the King James translators were working in these
separate committees and that, you know, that's why it's so inconsistent.
That is not true. They interacted with one another.
If you actually read the process of how the translation was done, there was a lot of
interaction and cross-referencing and
cross-checking between the translators. And there were whole committees that
just went through and put the thing into a uniform
translation. So, it's not an oversight.
This is done intentionally. They intentionally did it as
thou shalt not kill and thou shalt do no murder. And this is
something that you'll find in other translations of the Bible as well. For example, you know, if you ever
read Tyndale's New Testament, boy, he does this
all the time. Like, for example, in Revelation 2 and 3
when it talks about, you know, to the angel of the church of Ephesus
right, to the angel of the church of Smyrna right, to the angel of the church of Pergamos right,
he translates that word angel.
He translates it different ways almost every time.
He'll say, the angel of the church of Ephesus, the
tidings bringer of Smyrna, the guy who brings
the message to Pergamos. Okay? Because he wants people to understand
what the word angel means. Okay? Now, obviously
that seems odd to us, the way that we think in 2019
to translate things that way, but, you know, there are a lot of things
from the 16th and 17th century that would seem odd
to us because we just have a different way of doing things in 2019.
For example, you know, we have a correct spelling
for every word and then if you spell it differently, you're spelling it
wrong. You know, there's one right way to spell it and a bunch of wrong ways. Whereas back in
those days, they would spell words different ways as an art form.
And if you read Tyndale's New Testament, you'll see where he spelled the
same word three different ways on the same page. Okay?
Not because he's just a horrible speller, but because they would use spelling as an art
form. And because they wanted it to look good on the page, so
they would spell things differently in different situations. And so
Tyndale translating the word angel
in different ways to help you understand what it means
is, I think, another example of like what the King James is doing
here, helping you to understand that when God says thou shalt not kill,
he doesn't mean that you can never
end the life of any living thing. That would be like you can't kill a tree or you
can't kill a cow or something or you can't execute a criminal.
Obviously, when he says thou shalt not kill, he's referring to murder.
That's what he's referring to. So you say, well, why not just get rid of the phrase
thou shalt not kill then? Why not just switch it to murder? Since that's what
God means. Since that's what God's talking about. Well,
because of the fact that thou shalt not kill has a certain
ring to it. It has power to it. It's iconic. And so
we don't want to get rid of that because it's powerful. Okay? Now you say, well,
what's that supposed to mean? It's aesthetic because the King James is not just an
accurate translation. It's a beautiful translation. Now,
of course, the editors of the New American Standard, NIV,
the Living Bible, they don't understand this because their Bibles sound like garbage.
If you read a passage from the New American Standard, it is bad
literature. The NIV is bad literature. It
sounds like junk. The King James is not just accurate. It's beautiful.
You could make a perfect, pure
English translation of the Bible with no mistakes in it that says exactly
what the Greek says, but you could do it in such a way where it
has no style, where it's not beautiful. It doesn't
sound good. The King James is not just accurate, but it also
is beautiful and it sounds good. Okay? So,
using different words in different places, he brings this up a lot, you know, that
the King James doesn't translate consistently. It's because the King James
is going for beauty and style and
art in addition to being accurate. And I love the King James for that.
I'm glad the King James cares so much about style and aesthetic. You know, for
example, why do they take the same Greek word,
pnevma, and either translate it as ghost or
spirit? You've got the Holy Ghost. You've got the Holy Spirit. Well, in the Greek, it's the exact same term.
Pnevma is translated as ghost or spirit. Why?
Because of style. Because the King James is using a
variety of words to be beautiful. Now, some people have
falsely come to the conclusion that there's some difference between Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit.
There is no difference. It's just two different styles. Or how about everlasting
and eternal? Some people have come up with goofy distinctions between everlasting
and eternal. They both mean the same thing, folks. They're identical. And they both come from the same
Greek word. It's just the King James
uses style and euphony and poetic devices
because there is more than one way to translate things accurately.
Everlasting and eternal are both equally accurate.
Just like I showed you that, you know, the New American Standard saying
even instead of and, they're both accurate. And right here, when
he shows this chart of, you know, the Greek term
euphonypsis, and here the King James says, Thou shalt do no murder.
The NIV says do not murder. Thou shalt not kill.
Do not murder. Is the NIV here wrong when it says do not murder? No.
They're both right because guess what? These both mean the exact same thing. They both
mean the same thing. This is not a problem in the King James.
It's just that the King James has a different style. And that's okay.
It uses a style where it uses a variety
of words instead of just consistently using the same word. And that's okay.
Folks, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
There's not only one right translation if they both mean the same thing.
You know, for example, the Tyndale New Testament
in Matthew chapter 5 says, See that the wife
fear her husband. The King James says, See that the wife
reverence her husband. Now look, I think that the King James
is better when it says, See that the wife reverence her husband.
I think that that's a more appropriate word. But was the
Tyndale New Testament wrong when it said, See that the wife
fear her husband? No. Because that is a perfectly legitimate
translation of the Greek term there to say fear her husband
versus reverence her husband. That's what reverence is referring to.
That's what reverence means. And if you study the word reverence
you'll see it coupled with fear in many places like we should serve the Lord with
reverence and godly fear. But I think reverence is a more
appropriate word to describe the husband-wife relationship
than fear. So it's not a question of right versus wrong.
It's a question of good, better, and best.
But what the new versions do is not only do they lack style
not only do they sound like junk, but they make
translations that are just flat out wrong. They corrupt the text.
They blaspheme the Lord. They remove and add
to God's word and those who have made them are consequently damned.
But let's move forward here. He points out a
well-known problem in the King James Version is found
in Acts chapter 19 verse 2. The King James says
he said unto them, Had ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
And they said unto him, We've not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
The New American Standard says he said to them, Did you receive the Holy
Spirit when you believed? And they said to him, No, we've not even
heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. So he's taking issue with the fact
that the King James says did you receive the Holy Ghost since you believed
whereas he thinks it should say when you believed. Now let me read his
comments. The King James Version has Paul asking the disciples in
Ephesus if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed. That
is subsequent to the act of believing. All modern
translations, however, translate when you believed. The difference
is not a slight one. Entire theologies of a second reception of the Holy Spirit
have been based upon this rendering by the King James.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by how
one translates this passage. Isn't that funny since James White says over and over
again that the changes in the modern versions don't affect doctrine?
He's always saying the changes in the modern versions do not affect doctrine. In fact,
he just said it within the last week or two. He stated that
if you apply the same hermeneutic
to the King James and the NIV, you're going to walk away with
all the same doctrine if you apply the same hermeneutic. Well, really, because he says here
that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by
how one translates this passage. So which one is it, James White? Do
the modern translations affect doctrine or not affect doctrine?
Now, he claims that entire
theologies are based on this idea of, you know, receiving the Holy Ghost
since you believed in Acts chapter 19, verse 2.
Well, that's funny because in Acts chapter 8, verse
17, people who were already saved and baptized, here's what it says about
them in Acts 8, 17, then laid they their hands on them and they
received the Holy Ghost. So here we have in Acts 8, 17, people
receiving the Holy Ghost subsequent to the
act of believing. And he talks about here, you know, these whole
theologies about a second reception of the Holy Ghost.
Well, guess what? There is a second reception of the Holy Ghost because
remember, after Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he met with the
apostles in the upper room and he breathed on them and said,
receive ye the Holy Ghost. So the disciples
received the Holy Ghost in the upper room with Jesus.
But then after that, he told them, wait for the promise
of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost in not many days.
Hence, he told them to wait in Jerusalem until they
would be endued with power from on high. And so,
yes, they did receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the
upper room when he breathed on them and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost.
But they did not receive the Holy Ghost upon them or the filling
of the Holy Spirit or the power of the Holy Ghost upon them or the baptism
of the Holy Spirit until later in Acts chapter 2. And that's what we see in Acts
8, verse 7, when these guys are saved and baptized
and then the laying on of hands causes them to receive the Holy Ghost.
Folks, the moment that those people got saved, even before they got baptized,
the moment they got saved, they were indwelled by the Holy Ghost.
So, they had already received the Holy Ghost in the sense of being indwelled by the Holy Ghost.
But then, afterward, through the laying on of the hands of the apostles,
they were filled by the Holy Ghost. They had
the power of the Holy Ghost upon them. It was a second reception of the Holy Ghost.
And here's the thing about that. All throughout the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit
comes upon people temporarily. David said, take not thy Holy
Spirit from me. Saul had the Holy Spirit upon him and then removed
from him. Right? Okay. Well, that's different than the
New Testament indwelling of the Holy Spirit that every believer has.
But guess what? The New Testament indwelling of the Holy Spirit did not replace
the Old Testament Holy Ghost upon you. It is an
adjunct to it. In fact, I just did a whole sermon on this doctrine
recently. Let me just give you the title of the sermon if you're interested in seeing
that subject fully expounded from the Bible. And I will show you beyond
any shadow of a doubt that there is a difference between the indwelling of the Holy
Spirit that happens when a person gets saved and having
the Holy Ghost upon you in power, the fullness of the Holy Spirit. God commands
us, be filled with the Spirit. Obviously, that's not automatic
or he wouldn't need to command us to do it.
And remember, in this passage in Acts 8 17, it calls
that receiving the Holy Ghost. It says they laid their hands on them and they
received the Holy Ghost. This is after they'd already been saved and baptized.
Let me see if I can find you the sermon here. Okay. It's from October 21st
of 2018. It's a very recent sermon. It's called The Holy Spirit in
the Old Testament and New Testament. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and New
Testament. I encourage you to check out that sermon and learn about the
Holy Spirit. Now, I looked up this verse in the Greek New Testament,
Acts chapter 19 verse 2, and
from what I know of Greek and reading it, I can easily see
how this could either be translated as
have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed or did you receive the Holy Spirit
when you believed. Now, these are two different things. Okay. But just
at a glance, I could see where both sides are coming from,
but I believe that the King James is right and I believe that the New American Standard is
wrong here. I think, first of all, just looking at the passage in
Greek and seeing how the King James translated it, I
can totally see where they got that translation and I believe that they're right
based upon my knowledge of Greek, but also just putting it within the
context of the book of Acts, I think that
the King James rendering of this in light of verses like Acts
8.17 and other stories throughout the book of Acts actually makes more sense.
So, he's kind of out to lunch to act like this is the only verse
that teaches this second reception of the Holy Spirit
and it's kind of funny how he says that the doctrine
of the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by how one translates this passage when he
claims in other places that there's no doctrinal difference between the King James
and the NIV. Alright, let's move on. Genesis
50 verse 20, King James, but as for you,
you thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good.
New American Standard, as for you, you meant evil against me, but
God meant it for good. So, he's saying that people aren't going to understand the
parallel. What kind of an idiot would not understand the parallel?
You thought evil against me, but God meant it for good. Just because
he used a different word thought and meant, he's claiming that people are going to
be too dumb to see the parallel. I'm pretty sure people are smart enough when they
repeat. As for me, you thought evil against me, but
God meant it unto good. Everybody walks away from this and says, hey, they meant it for evil,
God meant it for good. So, you say, well, why not say it that way? Because
the King James stylistically does not like to repeat the
same word over and over again. So, instead of saying meant, meant,
it says you thought evil against me, but God meant it under
good. They both mean the same thing. Okay, meant
comes from the word for mentality, same root word,
right? Mind, what you're thinking, what you meant,
okay? So, the King James is
using two different words because of style. It's sort of like
in Hebrews 1-1 when the Bible says, God who at sundry times and
in divers manners. You know, the word divers is used all throughout the King James.
Sundry is only used once, okay? And the reason why
it's used there is just so that it doesn't say God who at
divers times and in divers manners. It's just providing a little
bit of euphony, a little bit of poetry, sundry times,
divers manners. And don't tell me sundry is archaic because I was just at the
airport and they had a whole section on the wall at an airport in the United States
that said sundries. And it was where you got like deodorant,
a toothbrush, aspirin, it just was
just various divers things, sundry items.
So, that's not an archaic word. It's just a lot of people have a small
vocabulary, okay? But that doesn't mean that it's archaic.
So, this is another example of the King James being more poetic
and sounding better and not repeating the same word.
I'm not much of a writer. I'm more of a verbal communicator, okay?
But whenever I do write and even when I
verbally communicate, I try really hard to not use the same word over and over again
because it sounds dumb in my opinion when you're writing
and you just keep using the same word. So, when I was
in school learning how to write, they would say, hey, you already used that word in the first sentence.
Use a different word in the second sentence. Use a synonym.
Grab the thesaurus and find a different word. That's what the King James is constantly doing.
He considers this a big problem. Folks, what's the title of the
chapter, folks? Problems in the KJV.
Houston, we have a problem.
Look how hard the King James is to understand here.
As for you, you thought evil against me. Oh, what a big problem.
But it's funny how the new versions removing hell
from the Old Testament completely, that's not a problem for James White.
James White's fine with 54 mentions of hell in the King James
in the NIV. No mention of hell in the Old Testament
in the NIV. That's no problem. But oh, oh, oh,
thought and meant? Folks, they strain
at a gnat and they swallow a camel.
So, wow, these are some big problems. Folks, you've been watching this
video now for 42 minutes. Have you seen
any big problems in the King James? These aren't problems.
They're not a big deal. They're just these little nitpicky things where he thinks
things are hard to understand or archaic. Look at the
problems in the modern versions. Watch our film New World Order Bible Versions
and then, you know, let's see who's got problems. Boy, the NIV's got the
problems. Okay, names also cause no end
of difficulty for the KJV reader. I mean, you poor
KJV readers with all this difficulty about names
but listen to these really difficult names.
I mean, how are we ever going to manage with a King James?
Sheth and Seth. Pua and
Pua. Kis and Kish. Agar
and Hagar. Jeremiah, Jeremiah's, and Jeremy.
Enos, Enosh. Hinok, Enoch.
Jared, Jared. Noe, Noah. Jonah,
Jonah, and Jonas. Whatever shall we do?
How are we going to figure out that Jonah and Jonas are the same person?
Folks, this isn't hard, okay?
And I'm going to explain why this matters but it says
Balak and Balak. One has a C and one has a K.
Sarah and Sarah. One has an H on the end. The other one doesn't.
These are some serious problems in the KJV, aren't they?
Gideon and Gideon.
Elijah and Elias. Korah and Korah.
Elisha and Elisias. Hosea and Ozaiah.
Isaiah, Esaias, and
And then he puts this here, E-S-A-Y.
I'd like to know where he's getting that from because I've been
reading the King James Bible my entire life and I've never seen that spelling there.
E-S-A-Y. I don't know what. Please enlighten us, James White.
He claims Esaias, Isaiah, and Esai.
A-S-A. But no, I've never seen that. But it is
Esaias and Isaiah. Hezekiah and Ezekiel.
Zechariah and Zechariah. Judas, Judah, Judah,
and Jude. Zerah and Zerah and Zerah.
Just three different spellings pronounced the same. Marcus and Mark. Lucas and Luke.
Timothy and Timotheus. And Jesus and Joshua.
Both for the Old Testament character, Acts 7.
45 and Hebrews 4.8.
See this list of names that he has here? This is actually another reason why the King James is so much better.
It's why I love the King James. Why are the names different from Old to
New Testament? Well, one of the wonderful things about this is it helps
people who haven't studied any history or haven't studied
anything about where the Bible came from, it helps them to see that the
Bible is written in two different languages. It helps them to observe
that fact as they see the language change over time. They can see the names change.
But also, the fact that the Old Testament character
Joshua is called Jesus in the New Testament is very
helpful because when you see that connection that
Jesus and Joshua have the same name, then that helps you to see all these
wonderful parallels between Jesus and Joshua. You get a great
doctrine from that. Because Jesus is a lot like
Joshua. There are all kinds of parallels between the two. Just as
Joshua picks up after Moses dies,
Jesus brings in the New Testament. Moses brought in the Old Testament.
I'm not going to go on and on about that, but I'm preaching a
sermon tomorrow called Jesus in the Book of Joshua. So, I'm going to be going into
those parallels in my sermon tomorrow, because I don't want to steal my own thunder here.
But, when you read an NIV
it just calls him Joshua in the New Testament. Even though the New Testament text
spells it Jesus and basically calls him Jesus,
you know, by the King James just
rendering that in its Greek form directly into
English instead of saying, well, we know he's talking about Joshua, so let's just put Joshua here.
I like the fact that the King James puts it as Jesus so that we can see those
parallels in Hebrews 4, verse 8 and Acts 7.
Now, what if a new version said Joshua there? Does that mean that the new version
is wrong to put Joshua there? No, because it's the
same person that's being referred to. It's just that the King James is better
when it says Jesus and Elias and Elisias
and Esaias. I like it the way that the King James does it because
it reminds us that the Bible is written in Greek in the New Testament and Hebrew in the Old Testament.
The only name, he doesn't even
bring this up in this whole chapter, I don't think, unless
well, yeah, he doesn't bring this up, but the only really
interesting name change that I found in my study
of the Greek New Testament is that I noticed right away
that Diana of the Ephesians, when you read it in the Greek New Testament
it doesn't say Diana, it says Artemis. But if you research that, you'll find
that the Greek goddess Artemis is the same person
as the Roman goddess Diana, so basically
the King James translation chose to put Diana there. I guess because
maybe the intended audience is more familiar with Roman
gods and goddesses than Greek, so they render Artemis as Diana.
So, Elias,
Elijah, Jesus, Joshua, these are just the same names in multiple
languages. Artemis and Diana, same person.
I don't know why he's making such a big deal about this. This is really silly to make a big
deal about this when anybody can tell that these are the same people, and when you
read the context on the two mentions of Jesus in Acts 7.45 and Hebrews 4.8
it's clearly referring to Joshua and it really opens up
a whole lens of Bible interpretation
when you put those two names together.
So then he says in page 289 of his book
at the bottom, a more serious example is the KJV's use of God forbid
throughout Paul's epistles. Example, Romans 3, 4,
6, 31, Romans 6, 2, and 5,
Romans 7, 7, and 13, Romans 9, 14,
11, 1, 11, 11, etc. The Greek text
says nowhere has the word God in any of these passages. Instead, Paul is providing a very
strong statement of denial. May it never be or by no means.
And while God forbid surely is a strong negative statement, it is hardly an accurate
translation of the Greek phrase Paul uses with such frequency.
Surely if a modern translation used a similar phrase, KJV only advocates
would jump on it immediately and with unparalleled fervor.
So here he's saying that the King James says God forbid and it doesn't
say God in the original. It just basically says may it never be.
Well, in this case, the King James using dynamic equivalents,
which there's nothing wrong with that. If you use formal equivalents
all the time or literal word for word translation, you're not going to get the best
translation. The best translation of that Greek expression
is God forbid because when we say God
forbid, that's the negative statement that has the appropriate
force, the appropriate strength that
the King James translators felt best rendered this expression
of hey, let it never be so, okay. So
if you actually went through Romans and replaced God forbid
with may it never be by no means, you're really
just again messing up the style. King James
is art. King James has great style.
And so if you have two phrases that both mean the same thing, use the one
that captures the mood and feeling and style of the original.
That is what a great translator does.
Then we've got, oh man, this whole
Passover Easter thing. This is just based on ignorance.
James White loves to accuse King James only of
ignorance. Well, now let me point out the ignorance of
King James White on the term Easter.
He says here,
some KJV only advocates have attempted to defend the anachronistic
Easter at Acts 12.4, even using this
as God's providential guidance of the King James translators.
The argument is that the days of Unleavened Bride blah blah blah, and he goes into a
dumb argument that's used by Sam Gipp, the
King James only advocate, where he tries to claim that Easter is a pagan holiday
and that the text there is referring to a pagan holiday
called Easter. That's what Sam Gipp teaches. It's demonstrably
false. Okay, and I'm going to prove it false right now.
Here's the deal, folks. All of the modern versions say
Passover in Acts 12.4. If you get the context,
Passover is what is being referred to. Sam Gipp
is totally off the deep end on this.
Easter in Acts 12.4 simply means
Passover, okay? All the
modern versions have Passover. If you read a Bible in pretty much any
other language, it's going to say the word for Passover
in that language. So why does the King James say Easter here? Now,
on one side, you have James White saying, well, the King James is wrong to say Easter
and saying it's anachronistic, meaning that basically they're taking a
word or a concept from their time and applying it to the Bible.
It's not anachronistic. It's not wrong.
And then on the other side, you have Sam Gipp
saying, oh, well, yeah, I was supposed to say Easter because it's this other pagan holiday.
No, no. Folks, they're both wrong. Both sides
are wrong here, okay? This is not hard to prove, and in fact,
anyone who actually researches this will inevitably
come to the conclusion that I'm right about this,
that Easter means Passover in Acts 12.4, and it's not wrong.
Now, let me prove this to you beyond any shadow of a doubt. If I go back to Tyndale's
New Testament translation, which came from the early
16th century, okay? So we're talking about
almost a century earlier, Tyndale
started translating the Greek New Testament
into modern English. Listen to some
verses from the Tyndale New Testament, which uses the word Easter
23 times. Let me back up and say that again.
Don't miss this, folks. The Tyndale New Testament
uses the word Easter, and it's from the early
16th century. It used the term Easter
23 times. Listen to these verses.
Matthew 26-2, I'm reading from the Tyndale New Testament, the predecessor
of the King James, the grandfather of the King James Version.
You know that after two days shall be Easter, and the Son of Man shall be
delivered to be crucified. Matthew 26-18, and he
said, Go into the city unto such a man, and say to him, The Master saith, My time is
at hand. I will keep my Easter at thy house with my
disciples. Mark 14-1, After two days followed, Easter,
and the days of sweet bread. So what we clearly see here is that
the Tyndale New Testament is using the word Easter
23 times to refer to
the Passover. Why would the Tyndale Bible use
the term Easter 23 times to refer to the Passover?
Simply because when the Tyndale Bible was translated,
that was the only English word
for Passover was Easter. Now,
William Tyndale invented the word Passover.
Okay? So before William Tyndale was born, there was no
such English word, Passover. The English word for Passover was
Easter. So when William Tyndale translated the New Testament,
he's using the word that everybody knows, Easter, Easter, Easter, Easter.
He invented the word Passover, and when he translated
Exodus, he uses the word Passover.
And so in a Tyndale Bible and subsequent Bibles,
there's a mix of the word Passover and Easter, because Easter
was the word for Passover in English before William Tyndale,
and then Tyndale comes along and invents a new word, Passover.
So both words are there. The brand new word that people don't know,
Passover, and the old word that everybody knows,
Easter. So because you have both of these words side by side, they're both
used in the Bible so that people can get a chance to figure out what they mean.
Remember how I talked about earlier in the video that sometimes
these translators back then would use a variety of words to help people learn words,
to help people learn what it means by thou shalt not kill, thou shalt do
no murder, or angel, messenger, tidings bringer,
et cetera. So what we see here is that the old
word Easter and the new word Passover both existed
for a while, and then over time Passover completely replaced
the old word Easter in regard to the biblical
feast, the 14th day of the first month.
Now, we can trace this. We start out with the Tyndale Bible
using Easter 23 times in the New Testament. As you go
down through the Matthew Bible, the Great Bible, Coverdale
Bible, they keep using Easter less and Passover
more. By the time you get to the Bishop's Bible of 1569,
the word Easter is only used twice. The rest
is Passover. I believe it's Luke 22 one and Acts 12 four.
Then by the time you get to the King James, you only have Easter being
used once. So it's not that the King James just did this crazy,
anachronistic thing by just sticking the word Easter
in the text in Acts 12 four. No, folks,
you have to get it in its context of starting out being used
23 times in Tyndale, going down to 12 times, 10 times,
2 times, 1 time. So
1 times survives showing us that the English word Easter
used to mean Passover. So what we have in Acts 12 four
is just an archaic use of the word Easter. That's all.
It's not a mistake. It's not an error. It's just 1611
English versus 2019 English. Back then, Easter still meant
Passover. So what you have is Sam Gipp
being completely wrong by claiming that Easter in Acts 12 four is a
pagan holiday. The context clearly spells out it's referring to Passover.
Every Bible in the world says Passover there, okay, in
whatever that language uses the word for Passover. Easter means
Passover. But James White's wrong by calling this an anachronism.
He just doesn't understand that the word Easter in
the 16th century and into the early 17th century
meant Passover back then. So again, like I said, a lot
of these so-called errors, mistakes, problems in the KJV just come from
James White being ignorant of archaic usage of words.
Alright, let's keep going. Now,
on the next page, he brings this up
in Acts 19 37.
He says, a similar anachronistic translation is found
at Acts 19 37, for ye have brought hither these men which are
neither robbers of churches nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
New American Standard, for you have brought these men here who are neither robbers
of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess. Again, there really is
no question about the Greek terms proper translation, he says. This is an example
of the KJV translators falling into a bit of anachronism
using a familiar term to them, churches, rather than the term that would accurately
reflect what was originally written. Now, on this page,
he is using the word anachronism correctly.
Now, calling Acts 12 for anachronistic is just showing
his ignorance of the history of the word Easter and the
history of the translations in English. So, that's just ridiculous. But, look, where he's wrong
he's wrong, and where he's right, he's right. Okay? I'm not here to
just say that everything James White says is wrong, because when he's wrong, he's wrong.
When he's right, he's right. And, in fact, he is right to call
this an anachronism in Acts 19
37, because what the KJV translators are doing
is basically using a modern term,
you know, modern to them, what people around them would understand
to translate an ancient concept. So, basically, he's
saying here that you've brought together these men which are neither robbers of
churches nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. The New American Senate
has robbers of temples. Is the New American Senate wrong to say robbers of temples?
No. Because, obviously, when it says here robbers of churches, that's what it's
talking about. Okay? Now, this is not a
problem in the King James or an error or a mistake in the King
James. It's just a different choice of words to
express the same thing. Now, you know, my wife is
a native Hungarian speaker. Okay? Now, she's forgot
a lot of her Hungarian because she only spoke Hungarian up to the age of eight, and then she switched to
German when she moved to Germany. So, my wife and I
speak German with one another every single day
frequently because we don't want the kids to understand what we're saying. So,
that's like our secret language. But, a couple of my
kids have learned German. So, now, we have a problem where when we
want to communicate about something that's private and we speak German,
we see little kids smirking and understanding what we're saying. So,
when we have to go into deep cover, we go into Hungarian.
And, Hungarian is probably one of the hardest
languages in the world. And, I've tried over the years
to learn Hungarian. I've studied a lot of Hungarian, but like
I don't know if I'm ever going to get to the finish line when it comes to Hungarian because it's just super
hard. Okay? Some books even say it's the hardest language for an
English speaker. So, I don't know a ton of
Hungarian, but, you know, I do know some Hungarian and my wife
and I, we talk to each other in broken Hungarian from time to time
when we don't want people to understand us. Well, the
Hungarian word for church that most people use, the most
common word for church in Hungarian is templom.
T-E-M-P-L-O-M. So, you can see how
these two words have been connected throughout history. The word templom
and the word church. So, you can see how King James
has robbers of churches. The New American Standard has robbers of temples. Now, which
one is clearer? Well, the New American Standard is definitely
clearer. Okay? Which one is more accurate?
I believe that they both are accurate,
but obviously the New American Standard is clearer and more literal here.
With what the text is saying in Greek, the New American Standard is being more
literal. But, does that make the King James wrong? No.
Because robbers of churches here is being
spoken by this pagan guy and it's obviously referring
to people who would steal from the building, not from the people. And we know
that the word church, biblically, is an assembly
of people, a congregation, ecclesia, but
the word church is often used
in vernacular to be the building. You know, hey, there's a church on that corner.
Or, hey, they just bought a new church. You hear people say that all the time.
Now, I typically would say the church building, but a lot of people just say
the church and they're referring to the structure of the building. And so, we're constantly teaching people,
hey, the church isn't the building. You say, well, then why is the King James calling
the building the church? It's a pagan guy
talking, so it really doesn't matter. This pagan guy is saying, hey, these people
aren't robbers of churches. They're not blasphemers of your
goddess, so let them alone. So, obviously, robbers of churches
was a thing. That was probably something in 1611
that was a crime that was on the books. So, basically, the King James translators
are taking the term in Greek that would literally be a
temple robber, okay, and they're basically just using
a term that the people of their day are going to understand. So, they're basically using dynamic
equivalents to basically say robbers of churches
instead of temple robbers, okay, because in 1611,
temple robbers wasn't a thing in England and robbers
of churches was. So, you know, I don't take issue with him saying that this
is anachronistic, but I don't think this is a problem. I don't think that the King James
is wrong here. I think there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think that
this accurately expresses what's happening if you
understand the meaning of the word church in this
context to refer to the building, okay, which
this pagan guy, he's calling, you know, the building
a church or whatever. Well, guess what? People call
buildings churches every single day in 2019 all the time.
So, basically, this is taking Greek word and putting it into
wording that people of the time are going to understand. So,
anyway, I'm not losing any sleep over Acts 19, 37.
Then he goes on on page 293
to criticize the King James use of the term fetched a compass,
and he claims that, you know, nobody's going to know what that means.
Well, again, if you read these three verses in context, it's easy to tell what
fetched a compass means. The new versions say turned about, made a
circuit, or sailed around. I gotta hurry
because this video is getting kind of long, but he goes through and points
out Song of Solomon, the voice of the turtle is heard
in our land. And I remember as a kid reading about the
turtles and, you know, wondering
for a minute when I read about turtles in the King James if we were talking about
the animal in a shell. But if you
actually get the context, you'll figure out that there's the turtle dove and that whenever the
King James says turtle, it's short for turtle dove. And since the
King James uses the word turtle dove over and over again, even
just as a small boy, I figured out that a turtle in the Bible
is a turtle dove. I got that it was a bird. And so,
big problem in the King James. So then he has this list of words in the King James
that are archaic. Chambering, champagne, charger,
cheryl, sealed, circumspect, clouded upon
their feet, cockatrice, callips, confection, coats,
covert, hoist, wimple, stomacher, wot,
wist, whiz, want, surety ship,
sackbutt, scull, scrabbled. I like
the fact that scrabble is in the Bible. I like scrabble.
Roller, muffler, froward, brigandine, immerse,
blanes, crookbacked, descry, fanners, fellows,
uh, glied, glistering,
tabergin, implead, kneesing, nighter,
tabret, wen. Okay? Additional examples include quit you like
men, superfluity of naughtiness,
he who now letteth will let. Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leezing. Nevertheless
even him, Solomon, did outlandish women cause the sin.
Solomon loved many strange women. The ships of Tarshish did sing in thy
market. We do you the wit of the grace of God. So he says,
you know, strange women, well, if you study the Bible, strange means
foreign. That's obvious from the context. Outlandish means
from another land, from another country, on and on. So it's easy to just
make a list of archaic words in the King James and say, hey, look how hard these are.
Well, I agree those are hard words. The King James has some archaic language in it,
but I'd rather have a perfect, accurate,
100% right Bible that's produced good fruit
that is the Word of God preserved in the English
language that has some archaic language and then maybe I just have to grab a dictionary every once
in a while and look up a word than to have some corrupt
modern garbage that omits entire verses.
And not only that, let's look at some archaic words in the NIV. You know, it's easy to just
throw a list of hard words at us in the King James.
Here's a list of hard words in the NIV.
How about this word, abutted. In the King James
it says over against, armlets. King James says
chains, blustering. King James says strong,
brood. King James says children,
burnished. King James says polished. The King James has a hard
word, the sardine stone, so the NIV makes it easier with carnelian.
That's not any easier, is it? We've got
colonnade in the NIV. Isn't that a hard word? King James
has porch, cores, filigree,
gadfly. King James has destruction,
goyim. King James has nations.
We've got the hupo, the ibex.
We've got the lapis lazuli. We've got
all kinds of hard words in the King James. The negev.
King James has south, awful. King James has dung,
parapet. King James has battlement,
pinions. King James has wing, porphyry. We've got
King James having red, portent in the NIV.
King James has wonder, portico. King James
has porch, poultice. King James has
lump, praetorium. King James has common
hall. And so, if we go through
the NIV, we can find hard words like reeked,
repointing, reposes. Now, I'm not saying I don't know what
these words mean. I do, but they're, you know, they're hard words.
The King James has hard words. The NIV has hard words.
Systrums, where the King James has cornets.
Stadia, King James has the English word furlongs.
Wadi, King James says river.
NIV has wadi, wadi.
And so, you know, you can pull the same number
and point out a bunch of archaic words or difficult words
or, you know, uncommon words in the NIV just
like you could in the King James. So, these are
according to James White, the problems in the King James.
Well, it's like the old saying goes, if all of our problems were hung on a line,
you'd take yours and I'd take mine. You know, I'll take the
problems in the KJV any day of the week, which
basically, all the problems that he showed can all be boiled down to one thing.
Archaic language. It's the whole chapter, folks. Just archaic
language. I would take the archaic language of the King James and
know that the King James is tried, tested, true, preserved,
accurate, the word of God without error. I'll take that
any day of the week than having a Bible that I can
understand in the modern language that is just
filled with just error, blasphemy, false doctrine,
and outright lies. So, I'll take the problems in the KJV
any day over the problems in the modern version. And let me say this,
the King James is the word of God without error. The King James
has no error in it. It might have passages that are unclear,
but they are still saying in English
what the Greek is saying, and so you can read the King James Bible and know
that you are getting exactly what God has spoken, okay?
Rendered into your English language. The King James, the word of God without
error. And the only problem with it is just archaic language
and I don't think it's much of a problem. Anyway, we only got one more chapter left
to go in this book, which is chapter number 10, which is a pretty
interesting chapter because it's the question and answer. So, there's going to be a lot of things
covered in chapter 10. God bless you. Have a great day.