All right, testing one, two, three.
Jump on the internet and make sure you can hear me.
Hey, everybody.
Past Steven Anderson here.
I hope that you can hear me out there.
All right, testing one, two, three.
All right, it's working.
Very good.
Give me one second as I set this up.
Everything good?
All right.
Thanks, everybody, for joining us.
Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faith Forward Baptist Church.
We've got Pastor Jason Robinson coming on.
We've got Pastor Bruce Mejia coming on.
And we're going to be talking about the King James Bible
tonight.
And we're going to go over your questions.
So there's a little section here for Q&A.
You can also be in the chat.
And you can just discuss things over there.
But there's a special Q&A to put your questions in so that we
can answer those as they come in.
And let me just see why Pastor Mejia and Robinson are not
here yet.
Just want to make sure we can get them on here.
But the Q&A is a good place to put your questions.
And I've already got a question.
Let me just go ahead and answer it.
Will there be a recording, or will you upload this to YouTube?
We're actually live streaming it to YouTube right now.
And so it's definitely being recorded.
There he is.
All right, Pastor Robinson, do you copy?
I do copy.
Can you hear me?
Yep, how you doing, man?
Doing good.
Hey, I got to mess around with a little bit of this technical
stuff.
So do you want to just start us off
by just giving some thoughts on the King James Bible issue?
What does it mean to be King James only?
Yeah, yeah, that's fine.
So basically, being King James only,
we basically believe that that's the only English version
of the Bible that we use, and that we believe
it's perfect and without error.
We don't negate the actual Greek and Hebrew of the originals.
We believe that they're both perfect.
And so the King James Bible is the only Bible that we read
and that we preach from.
And so when I think of King James only,
I think of people that believe that we
have a perfect Bible in English without error,
and that you don't need to go back to the Greek or Hebrew
to know what the Bible says.
And we reject all the new versions
of the Bible in English.
And so all the new versions have errors,
or they're either translated wrong,
or they're coming from a corrupt text.
Exactly, because there are two issues at play here.
There's the textual issue, and then there's
the translation issue.
Of course, the King James Bible is
from the traditional text of scripture, the received text,
that which has been used for centuries.
And then you've got the critical text,
which is a newer text.
It's constantly changing.
It was brought out first in the 1800s,
and it's supposedly based on older and better manuscripts.
But of course, the so-called older and better
manuscripts that the critical text is based on
are manuscripts that were in disuse.
So you have millions of Christians
using the traditional text, and then all of a sudden,
you find in a monastery in Egypt Sinaiticus,
and you find Vaticanus.
I wonder where they found that, Vaticanus.
And these were texts that had fallen out of use
because they're wrong, because they're garbage,
because they are not the texts that God preserved.
And the new versions are based on these wrong texts.
And it's not just, of course, those two,
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
It's also all kinds of other archaeological findings
that they found throughout the 1800s and 1900s.
But to me, this issue of the text behind the King James
Bible is just a really simple issue,
because either God preserved his word or he didn't.
Either God preserved his word, or he
allowed the true word of God to be hidden and concealed
until the 1800s or even the 1900s.
Isn't that absurd to think that the correct Bible was just
discovered in the 20th century?
Yeah, and that would go against scripture.
You think of Psalm 12, where it says
that he'll preserve his words from this generation forever.
It says, thou shalt keep them.
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
And so, yeah, I mean, there has to be an unbroken chain
of God's word for that to be true.
And that's what would have to happen
if the critical text supersedes the received text, or what
we'd call the Texas Receptus.
Then you'd have to say that there
was this broken chain of having the word of God.
And so we don't believe that.
That's why we hold to the Texas Receptus.
And that's a big issue, because that's the New Testament.
And that's where a lot of the questions come in,
as far as when you're dealing with these critical text
people.
But it's interesting.
I don't know how far you want to get into it,
but how they use the Septuagint when
it comes to the Old Testament.
And the fact that they deviate from the Hebrew,
because there's not really that much of a,
I mean, I'm sure there is an argument on Hebrew text,
to a certain extent.
But that's pretty, you know.
There's almost no issue with the Hebrew text.
Like, the Hebrew text is settled.
The Hebrew text is a settled, traditional Hebrew text.
It's that they're not using the Hebrew text.
And they're translating instead from the Greek Septuagint.
So it's a translation of a translation.
And the Greek Septuagint has all kinds of problems.
And by the way, if the Septuagint is so wonderful,
how come the modern versions don't translate
the whole Old Testament from it?
Because it would be so messed up that no one would buy it.
So therefore, they mainly use the Hebrew Masoretic text.
But then, in certain places, they'll
deviate from the original Hebrew,
because they believe that the Hebrew is corrupt.
They believe that God did not preserve
the Hebrew Old Testament.
So they have to go with the Septuagint
to somehow make repairs in certain places.
Right.
Yeah, I've been reading part of the Septuagint,
or I've been reading some of the Septuagint
just to kind of see,
well, first of all, to get vocabulary.
Because it is obviously an older writing in Greek,
but it's definitely interesting.
The places where we usually go to in the Old Testament
to show the perversion of the new versions,
I purposely am like, okay, I wonder if that's how it says
in the Septuagint, and like nine times out of 10,
like they're pulling it from the Septuagint.
That's where the corruption's coming from.
Yeah, exactly.
Coming from the Septuagint.
Right.
Yeah, and I just read the book of Job in the Septuagint,
and literally, there are hundreds of lines.
Not hundreds of words, hundreds of lines
of the book of Job that are completely missing
in the Septuagint, just gone.
And so that's what I'm saying.
If you actually translated the Septuagint Old Testament
into English, people would freak out
because it would be such a mutilated Old Testament.
The same thing with the New Testament,
you know, with the critical text,
because they're missing like whole chapters,
you know, like they're missing like half of Mark 16
and just other places as well.
Yeah, and what's funny is that all these people
who are giving us the NIV, the ESV,
none of them believes that Mark 16, 9 through 20
is original, none of them believes that John 753
through 811 is original, but yet they print it anyway
because they know that if they don't print the Bible
with the story of the woman taking it adultery,
nobody will buy it.
If they print a Bible that stops in Mark 16, 8,
nobody will buy it.
So they're hypocrites because they print things
in the ESV and NIV that they don't believe in.
And that's why you have preachers like John MacArthur,
John Piper, James White, getting up and saying,
oh, Mark 16, 9 through 20 is not scripture.
And John 753 to 811 is not scripture,
but it's printed in every Bible.
Right.
Because they wanna sell it.
Because God's people know that those are part of the Bible,
that those scriptures need to be there.
Yep.
Yeah, and the Septuagint is even way more mutilated.
Like I said, I mean, half the story of David and Goliath
is gone in the Septuagint.
You got Methuselah living a hundred years after the flood.
So he's basically treading water through the global flood
and he's still alive, even though he's not on the ark.
You've got half the David and Goliath story gone,
hundreds of lines from the book of Job are removed.
I mean, the book of Judges has dramatic differences.
It's just, it goes on and on.
I think I read part of Job,
at least the first two chapters.
Does it not say,
and it's been a little while since I've read it,
but does it not say angels instead of sons of God
in the Septuagint?
Oh yeah, that's where that comes from too.
And that's, because I remember reading through it,
I'm like, no, that's where they get it.
You know, because it's obviously not in the Hebrew, so.
Yeah, basically in the New Testament,
the corruption of the New Testament text
comes from the Alexandrian manuscripts of the New Testament.
And then the Old Testament corruption
comes from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And so those are the two bad guys.
So there's the textual issue,
but then there's also a translation issue
because you have some other versions
because people say like, well, you know,
why are you King James only?
Why don't you just be Textus Receptus only?
But here's the problem with that.
If you look at the modern versions
that are translated from the Textus Receptus,
you pretty much got the New King James
and you've got the MEV or the Modern English Version.
But if you look at those two versions,
they're filled with all the same garbage
as the NIV or the ESV, just bad translations.
Like I just made a video like a week ago
about how they take the Greek word,
decidemonia, which literally means
being terrified of demons or dreading demons.
And they literally translate that as very religious.
When the King James Bible correctly translates it
as superstitious, too superstitious.
Or the actual word is decidemonasterous,
comes from decidemonia, which is,
you know, superstition, the noun.
So basically, you know, so Paul,
when he's talking about being scared of demons,
oh, you're so religious, you're so scared of demons,
that's so wonderful.
Because, oh, you made this altar to one unknown God
in case you missed one.
That's like the definition of superstition.
Like, oh, I'm so scared that I missed a God,
I better just make an extra altar just to cover it.
And that's the kind of junk you're gonna find
in the New King James and the MEV and-
Even in modern Greek, that's the word for superstition.
You know, that hasn't, I mean,
if you were just to look it up on Google Translate,
you know, that's what it is.
But even the word for religious, you know,
in James 1 is what the modern Greek word would be for,
I think it's threskos, if I'm saying that right.
But anyway, yeah, I actually just watched that video
because it popped up and I'm like,
how did I not see this one?
Because I'm like a strict follower of your,
I think it's like math geek or something like that.
Where you-
It doesn't say geek, okay, it's called math, science, Greek.
Not geek, Greek, right?
Get it right.
Maybe I just wanted to read what I wanted to read.
Pastor Mejia, how you doing?
Good, I'm doing great.
What's up, give us some thoughts about,
when you're done making fun of me,
give us some thoughts about the King James Bible issue.
Hey, Pastor Aniston is a math geek though.
He can geek out on math, so that's kind of-
I'll own being a geek too.
So, but yeah, you're right though.
I didn't get that R in there.
Yeah, I mean, it's great.
I agree with everything you guys are saying.
I mean, the whole issue,
especially when it comes to like the King James
and the modern version,
spills over even to the Spanish versions of the Bible.
And you see a lot of the same mistakes
being made in the 1960.
I mean, the 1960 is basically your equivalent
to a new King James and somewhat even of an ESV.
And you'll see the same exact wording that they use,
like with 1 Peter 2, 2 and different portions like that.
I've even seen like Jude 22,
the way it's worded in the 1960,
it's worded the same way
in the modern versions of the Bible.
So they'll say like, those who doubt convince them.
And I think it's the ESV who like renders it that way.
Don't quote me on that,
but they have some like weird translation like that as well.
It's because of the underlying Greek texts
that they're using for that.
Yeah, so it's kind of amazing to me
when people claim to be King James,
but then they choose the 1960 in Spanish.
And it's literally worse than the new King James
because the new King James is pretty much
from the Texas Receptus in the New Testament,
like 99.999%.
There's a couple of places where it's hard to believe
that they're translating the TR,
but it's supposedly from the TR in the New Testament.
But yet, you know, the 1960s even,
and the new King James, a horrible translation
that I would never even begin to recommend.
But yet, the 1960s even worse
because it's even deviating openly
from the Texas Receptus and going with the critical text,
the Western type stuff.
And so it's just, you know,
anybody who actually knows Spanish
and says that the 1960s, the King James equivalent,
is just, they're just lying.
I mean, it takes like five minutes
to figure out that that's not true.
I mean, it's almost like the chapter has a difference.
Whereas you get an old Spanish Bible
and it's tracking with the King James chapter.
And it's no coincidence that like the 1960
also like removes hell in the New Testament,
just like the modern versions of the Bible do too,
because obviously they have the same agenda.
They're translating from the same Greek text there.
And, you know, and they have that.
And obviously, you know, it's the appropriate Greek word,
but not for Spanish and not for English.
And, you know, we don't like,
I'm a fluent Spanish speaker,
but we don't say, we don't call hell this,
we don't call hell say old, you know,
and your average Spanish speaker
doesn't even know what that is.
Just like your average English speaker
wouldn't know what that is in English as well.
So you have like, I mean,
my text verse that I always go to debunk that
is 1 Peter 2, two,
as newborn babies desire,
the sincere make of the world that you may grow thereby.
And then in 1916, a lot of these English modern versions,
it'll say, grow into salvation,
which you won't find that in the Texas Receptus.
I can't think of the word that you have for grow
in the Texas Receptus,
but in the corrupt text,
it says like something like sotirios,
which obviously sotirios is referring to salvation, right?
They add that to that.
It adds that idea of growing into salvation,
which is ridiculous because if you're a babe in Christ,
you're already saved.
Right.
You're growing as a Christian,
but you're not growing into being saved
because that would be works-based salvation.
Yeah, you read the Bible to grow in grace
and then the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
You don't read the Bible so you can be saved
in the sense of like, you're being constantly saved.
You're just kind of working on your salvation kind of thing,
which is the insinuation there, so.
All right, so I really love this polling option.
So I'm gonna, I'm about to do a poll right here
about which Spanish Bible is the best one
for people who are Spanish speakers.
You can answer this.
You know, what you consider to be the best,
you know, Spanish version.
Because a lot of people just,
they come up with this bizarre idea
where when we say that we're King James only,
they're like, well, what about people
who speak other languages?
Well, you know, obviously we're talking about English.
Obviously we're not expecting people.
Yeah, we're not Ruckmanites.
We're not expecting people who, you know,
don't speak English to use the King James.
We're not saying, hey,
everybody needs to learn English or something.
I mean, that's just, this is-
So are we allowed to vote on this or what?
Yeah, if it popped up on your screen, then you vote.
Damn.
So.
Submit.
Yeah, I mean, it's just, it's so ridiculous
when they think that we're saying that, you know,
it has to be the English King James or something.
Because it's like Pastor Robinson said, you know,
we believe that the original Greek and Hebrew
are also authoritative.
The original Greek that was translated into English,
if, look, if the Greek New Testament isn't perfect,
how can the King James be perfect
when it's translated from that?
And if the Masoretic Hebrew text isn't perfect,
how can the KJV be perfect?
How can you take on something that's not perfect
and then translate it and now you have a perfect Bible?
That's ridiculous.
It's nonsense.
Or how can you believe,
how can you believe that the King James was translated
from the Texas Receptus and then turn around and say
that you could use the King James to correct
the Greek Texas Receptus,
if that's where it was translated from, you know?
Yeah, it's bizarre, AZ.
But these guys, they believe that,
they believe that God re-inspired the Bible in 1611,
that basically holy translators of God translated
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
And that is not true.
Obviously God's providence and God's hand
was in the process to make sure it got done right.
But you know, I feel like God's hand is on my ministry.
God's hand is on me when I'm preaching.
I'm led of the Spirit on a weekly basis.
But does that mean that what I speak
is like a revelation from God?
Absolutely not, unless I'm quoting the Bible.
And so the translators were not inspired
in the way that the biblical authors were inspired.
Right.
You know, it was inspired in Greek and Hebrew,
and it was accurately translated into English.
So yes, the King James Bible's inspired
because it derives its inspiration
from the original document that it was translated from.
Not because it got re-inspired.
Yeah.
You know, and to add to what you're saying
about how people think that when we're King James only,
we're saying, well, it was only in the English.
You know, that's the only place you can have it.
No, that's what Ruckmanites believe.
But they're actually the ones putting God in the box
because we're saying it can be in any language.
You know, we can have God's word in any language.
And they're saying, no,
you got to go back to the Greek and Hebrew.
So they're the ones that are really putting God in a box
and saying, well, he can only speak Greek,
Hebrew, and Aramaic apparently,
and that it can't be actually perfect
or anything like that in other languages.
So it's funny how that works.
You know, when the people that are actually King James only
actually believe that they can be in any language.
Well, I mean, don't we have the example
in Acts chapter two of, you know, the disciples speaking?
I mean, they're being inspired,
they're preaching the word of God,
but it's the word of God in different languages.
You know, they're here, the Parthenians and Medes,
Elamites, dwellers of Mesopotamia, and so on,
like different languages that are being spoken
and it's all the word of God.
Right.
So.
So I'm looking at the poll results and, you know,
our listeners passed the test
because there was only one really wrong answer here.
You know, and it got zero votes.
All right.
So that's, we're doing good.
Cause it, cause honestly, you know,
I wouldn't fight anybody on any of the other four options,
you know, whether they're using the 1569, 1602,
Reina Blair Gomez, Reina Blair Puerto Ficada.
I mean, those are all, you know, good translations.
I mean, they're not, it's the 1960 that is just so bad,
you know.
And it's the one that's the most prevalent
in independent fundamental Baptist churches.
That's the one you'll most commonly find being used
in King James only churches.
It's a shame.
Unfortunately.
Yeah.
There's a question here.
I think it's a good one that to talk about
on the chat here.
I think it's Peter James, it's Peter Jay anyway,
but it says, what are some principles that KJV
only people need to understand to stop them
from going into extreme false doctrine about the KJV?
And to me, when I think about that,
when I think about people that go to Ruckman Knight is,
you know, like they go too far with it.
I think you have to be in reality, right?
You have to understand that, okay, well,
if it's translated from a Greek text,
you can't just like imagine that there's a Greek text
out there that matches what you think it should be.
You know what I mean?
Like there's a reality that this is the Greek text they had.
This is the Hebrew text that they had.
And then you have the King James that you believe
is perfect and they both have to work, you know,
for you to say, okay, the King James Bible is perfect.
This is perfect.
How does that work?
And when you realize, okay, they're both perfect.
Then you can realize, okay,
there's some dynamic equivalence, okay.
They use some idioms, you know,
they, you know, in the translation process.
I think when you take that out and you say, okay,
the King James Bible is perfect.
The Greek must match it perfectly to the T word for word.
That's where people get into false doctrine.
They get into Ruckmanism because they're going in
with this false premise of it has to be this way,
instead of just looking at both,
here's reality and how does it both fit?
I don't know, what do you guys think about that?
Yeah, I agree 100%.
You know, I think a lot of times if people aren't careful,
they strain out of that and swallow a camel.
And I think one of the reasons for that is because
they don't understand how languages work
and how things cannot be translated word for word
into a different language.
And anybody who speaks just two languages
knows that for a fact.
And they know that, you know, a sentence can be said,
a statement can be made in English.
And if we want that translated into Spanish,
Spanish might have an idiom that expresses
that same exact concept.
And it wouldn't necessarily make sense word for word
in Spanish if we were to translate it.
And so sometimes you have to do that.
And so to say that it has to be word for word,
I mean, then you have like an NIV,
then you have an ESP
because some of these are like transliterated versions
and it just sounds hard.
It sounds like you basically use Google Translate
to translate the word of God.
And that's why it sounds horrible.
Yeah, sometimes they're too literal
where it sounds weird because it doesn't sound natural.
So speaking of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
So some guy was on my Facebook today telling me,
oh, the King James has all these errors.
And when I asked him to actually produce an error,
that's the error that he came up with.
He said, the King James is wrong
when it says strain at a gnat.
And I've heard this a bunch of times.
I don't know if you guys have heard it,
but they say, what it actually should say
is strain out a gnat.
And people always bring this up as like,
this is a big error in the King James,
strain at versus strain out.
But here's what's so dumb about this.
First of all, if you look it up in the Greek New Testament,
it doesn't say out or at, it doesn't have either of those.
It basically just says they strain the gnat
or they strain the camel.
But stop and think about this for a second.
Does that even change the meaning at all?
Like whether you're straining at the gnat
or straining out the gnat,
either way, here's what Christ is saying.
There's something really small
that you guys don't wanna swallow,
that you just can't handle some little problem
or some little thing that you find anomalous,
but yet you're willing to swallow
this giant ridiculous thing
that the Pharisees are teaching you.
So basically either way, whether it's strain out a gnat
or strain at a gnat, it's like,
you don't wanna swallow the gnat,
but you're willing to swallow the camel.
So what in the world is the difference?
It's so funny how the modern version crowd,
they always fixate on these nothing burgers,
like strain out instead of strain out,
these meaningless differences.
Meanwhile, the NIVs attacking the virgin birth,
attacking the eternal sonship of Christ,
attacking the Trinity, attacking salvation,
messing up the doctrine of hell,
and they're worried about strain at a gnat
versus strain out a gnat,
when I can't even figure out like
what the meaning would be different
as far as like applying that verse.
Like what different doctrine would you get
from those two different expressions?
That's like saying, when it says eat it up,
you're like, well, you don't wanna eat it up.
It goes down.
Yeah.
Oh, man.
So yeah, that's crazy.
I've actually never heard that.
I've never heard, but man,
that talk about strain at a gnat.
They say like, well, strain out the gnat,
it's talking about like,
there's a little gnat floating in their drink
and they like strain it out.
Oh, good.
Like I'm sure that these people 2,000 years ago,
they have like this little metal mesh strainer.
Right, they're straining out the hole.
They're pouring the drink through a little strainer.
And then they're like,
versus strain out would be like,
you're doing it with your throat.
But here's the thing,
whether you're straining it out with a little metal strainer
or whether you're straining it with your throat,
either way, you're like,
I don't wanna swallow this gnat,
but I'm willing to swallow the camel.
That's what Jesus is saying.
There's no difference in doctrine.
You don't walk away.
So basically, yeah,
somebody can get up and try to sound smart and say,
well, unfortunately the King James is wrong.
It's actually strain out than that.
And they could go into some big made up story about,
you know, fishing gnats out in class.
But at the end of the day,
there's no difference in the actual meaning
of what Jesus is saying.
There's no difference in doctrine.
It's a total nothing burger.
And that's what the new version crowd wants to talk about.
James White gets all excited about Revelation 16, five,
total nothing burger, Ephesians three, nine,
total nothing burger.
Meanwhile, the new versions are taken out
Mark 16, nine through 20.
John seven, they're taking out 12 verses.
They're taking out John 7, 53 to 8, 11.
They're taking out 1 John 5, seven.
They're taking out Acts 8, 37,
things that actually affect doctrine
that actually impact the meaning.
Not just these vain janglings.
Like the whole Matthew 27, 44 thing, right?
About casting the same in their teeth,
where it's just like the meaning is there.
And that's a great way to explain in English what it means,
even though it's not word for word,
exactly what you see in the Texas Receptus.
Yeah. Or God forbid, you know, me and it'll.
Yeah.
I think everybody knows what that means now.
Yeah.
Because that's strange.
Yeah.
That is an example.
I think there's a bunch of means on that.
Yeah. I just saw another example.
The other day in 2 John,
I was reading the Greek New Testament and he said,
I trust to come unto you that we may speak face to face
that our joy may be full.
And in Greek, it basically said that we may speak mouth.
Yeah.
So that's not a literal word for word translation,
but you know, face to face sounds better than mouth to mouth
and it's the exact same meaning.
Yeah.
And you know, go ahead.
Well, you know, I read through Hebrews,
which is one of the harder books in Greek.
You know, when I got done with Hebrews, I'm like, thank God.
That was not like a literal, like word for word,
because you know, when I read through it, I was like,
I had Hebrews memorized, you know,
and I'm going through this.
So I knew what the verses should say in English
and I'm reading through it and I'm like, this is hard.
Whereas you go to John, it's like, it's a lot of times,
it'll will be word for word.
You know, it's just like just very simple grammar
and all that, but you don't want it to be like that.
You don't want it to be this word for word,
everything literal.
And then, like you said, you know, idioms,
I think you use this, or we probably all use this,
you know, raining cats and dogs.
You know, we know what that means.
We know what that means.
It's pouring hard, you know,
but if you just transliterated that in some other language,
it'd be like, what is going on?
Yeah, I remember like one time,
I remember one time, like, because my brother,
he speaks Spanish fluently,
but he would always try to like translate idioms
from English into Spanish when he was talking to my mom.
And, you know, one time he told my mom in Spanish,
he says,
Estas brincando la pistola,
which means you're jumping the gun.
You know what I mean?
You're just jumping the gun.
But in Spanish, it just sounds ridiculous.
You know what I mean?
And my mom was like, what are you trying to say?
I'm jumping a what?
Like, it doesn't make any sense, you know.
You can't translate like idioms from a different language.
And so, or sometimes you have to create an idiom
from a different language in order for it to make sense
or something, you know.
A lot of people that'll point to that as a mistake
in the King James,
just because they didn't translate it super literal, right?
I mean, it's just like, that's not a mistake.
It's just, they put it into our English vernacular
as it sounds better, you know,
instead of being all wooden.
Yeah, you know what?
You hit on this first, because I just watched that video
where you were in Acts there.
But when I read through Acts, Areopagus, you know,
and it says Areopagus in one place.
It said Areopagus,
but then there's a place where it says Mars Hill
and it's Areopagool, or it's Eri-ool.
Yeah, because it's basically,
it's basically Mars Hill and Aries.
Aries is Mars.
Right, and they do that same thing with Diana.
Agos, yeah.
Yeah, because Diana is like Artemis or something like that.
And so, you know, people could point at that and say,
well, you know, they should have just transliterated
the Greek, you know, God there,
but you're in the Roman Empire when this, you know,
when it was written.
So obviously, you know, the translators took that,
the lead there and said, hey, you know,
we're gonna use the Roman equivalent
because it's an equivalent, you know,
like when you look up those gods, it's the same god.
Yeah, and it's kind of interesting.
It's kind of interesting
how the King James Bible translators consistently use
the Roman names of the gods instead of the Greek names,
which the original Greek text uses the Greek names
for the gods, obviously.
Like if you're reading the New Testament in Greek,
it's gonna talk about Ares, Zeus, Hermes, and Artemis.
Whereas when you read the King James,
it talks about Mars, Jupiter, Mercury.
It uses all the Roman names.
And the only thing I can think of as to why that is,
it must just be that in 1611 England,
people were probably more familiar with the Roman versions
than the Greek versions.
So they're probably just making it easy for the people,
you know, in 1611 England to understand.
You see what I'm saying?
Because like, maybe they're more likely to know
who Diana is versus Artemis, and it's the same person.
Right.
So, hey, it looks like we got Pastor Jimenez here.
How you doing, Brother Jimenez?
Good. How are you guys?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we can hear you great.
Tell us about the King James.
I've been listening for like three minutes
and we've been hearing him before I came on,
and I do whatever he says.
Can you, is he quiet to everyone or just quiet to me?
Yeah, it was like loud at first, but then it got quiet.
Loud when you first talked, now you got quiet.
So can you put it right up to your mouth or something?
Wow.
I don't know.
I don't want it to be like that
after the tribulation scene on my lips.
That was a great scene.
So yeah, put it all the way up to your mouth.
Okay.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I want you to lift up your voice like a trumpet.
And tell us what you believe about the King James Bible.
Are you able to hear me?
Yes.
All right.
I believe the King James Bible is God's word.
It's perfect.
It's inspired.
Hello, everybody.
Pastor Robinson, Pastor Mejia, good to see you.
Pastor Mejia, long time no see.
I was gonna say the same thing.
Long time no see.
He was here a couple of days ago.
Yeah.
So I had a good time at First Works.
And yeah, I'm not sure where you guys
are at in the conversation,
but King James Bible is obviously God's word,
inerrant, inspired, preserved, all of it.
So what is something in the modern versions
that you'd point to as being just really damning,
something that you wouldn't want people
to use modern versions because of fill in the blank?
Well, obviously, with the modern Bible versions,
the problem is the attacks on the doctrine.
We can find lots of silly things
that are inaccurate or incorrect,
but that's not really the main problem.
Obviously, that's a problem.
When you've got verses that are attacking salvation,
making salvation hard and difficult,
when you've got verses that are attacking the deity of Christ,
when you've got verses that are attacking major doctrines,
that's where we wanna focus on.
And what I found is a lot of times
when you're talking to people,
because people walk into our churches a lot of times
and they don't know anything about the King James issue
or that there's a problem with modern Bible versions.
And one of the most powerful things in my opinion
is to just show them where verses are missing.
And it's easy to do it like an ax gate
where you just take them through verse by verse
the passage and a lot of times just when they notice that,
whoa, there's just a verse missing here.
That's really eye-opening to people.
And then of course you wanna show them
that it's not just a verse missing,
but it's a verse that changes
the entire meaning of the passage
because now you're attacking salvation at that point
when you remove that verse.
So that's where I like to focus on the King James issue
and especially when we're comparing it
to the problems with the modern Bible versions.
Are you guys still able to hear me?
I'm in a car right now traveling back from Tahoe.
We were doing a Landmarks episode.
We recorded two episodes for Landmarks season two in Tahoe.
Nice, awesome.
Yeah, so brother Oliver is driving me right now.
So here's a question that somebody gave me
on Facebook a little bit earlier.
I'm gonna say hi there.
Somebody asked me this question
a little bit earlier on Facebook.
I'm gonna read it and then I'm gonna give my answer.
It says, I have a question.
I do use a KJV myself.
My question is this.
When evangelizing people who are not comfortable
with KJV English, would God be angry
if I chose a version that they are comfortable with
to show them what God has to say about salvation?
Does God expect English speaking people
to only use the KJV or may we use an ESV
and not fear God's wrath?
Now, first of all, I would never use the ESV
because God is definitely angry
about people who change His word
because it says in Revelation chapter 22,
these horrible curses about anyone who would add to
or remove from God's word.
So obviously the ESV is a wicked version
that corrupts God's word in a bunch of places.
So I wouldn't use it.
But the reason I wanted to answer this question
is because I had a situation similar
to this come up actually,
where there was a guy in my church,
he wanted to witness to a family member
and his family member was Catholic.
And they would not listen to anything out of the King James.
They said it had to be from a Catholic Bible, okay?
So what I actually did for this guy was,
I loaned him a Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible,
which is the one that came out
around the time of the King James actually.
And what I did is I went through the Douay-Rheims
and I found as many salvation verses as I could
that were the same as the King James,
that didn't change anything.
And I underlined him.
Now, there were a lot of salvation verses that I looked up
that said something different than the King James,
but there were a whole bunch of salvation verses
that were the same as far as their meaning.
They might've said eternal instead of everlasting,
or they might've just said something
that meant the exact same thing,
but they were the same in essence.
And so I underlined all those verses and I said,
look, just give your dad the gospel
using all these verses that I've underlined
because then he's basically getting the King James
without even knowing it because basically,
it's all the same stuff.
So what do you guys think about that?
Yeah, I like that.
Also, when I go out soloing, for example,
when I read off a verse in the King James Bible,
a lot of times I'll say,
he that believes on the sun has everlasting light.
And, you know, it's-
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
You know, it's, but it's one of those things
that it's almost just like natural to just put it in there.
Now I understand what you're saying.
Like this person's like literally saying,
I don't want to see it from the King James.
I want to see it from the Catholic Bible.
And I think that's what you said makes sense.
But if you have it memorized,
you could always slip that in there.
You know what I mean?
Like if you're, let's say you read it there
and be like, yeah, you know,
and you read that and you're like,
but you know, he that believes on the sun
has everlasting light.
He that believes on the sun has everlasting life.
You know, you're getting the King James in there.
But yeah, I wouldn't want to read a verse.
I wouldn't want to read verse though
that was completely opposite what it's saying.
But I think that gets into the idea.
Can you add an S on the end of believe
or does it have to have a TH?
Well, maybe it's the same.
Well, how did that seem?
Did he say with an S or with a TH?
Yeah, it's like, if there's a verse in the Douay-Rheims
that says something different than the King James,
that's actually substantially different.
Like it actually has a different meaning.
Then that's not God's word.
You know, if it means something different.
But obviously there are verse,
because people always ask like,
can you get saved from a modern version?
You can get saved if the verse is saying
the same thing as the King James.
If it says the exact same thing.
If it says something different though,
then I would say no.
It can't be saved from a lie
or from something masquerading as God's word.
But if the verses say the same thing,
the problem is though,
if you look up a lot of salvation verses in the NIV,
a lot of them are going to be different
and a lot of them are going to be corrupted.
Yeah, and I think the case that you're talking about
is kind of unique because someone's basically saying,
I don't want to see the King James.
But when people say,
well, I think people can get saved from that.
The thing that I'm thinking of is
why are you playing games with this?
Like, if you know the King James,
without a doubt is going to get someone saved,
would you go up and just be like,
I'm going to try this out and see if this works.
You know, it's like, why would you play that game?
You know, you're dealing with someone's soul.
And so it really angers me when you get Baptists
that are saying, well, I'm going to go take the NIV.
It's like, why are you playing with their soul?
Would you do that with your family member?
You know, if you're going to go up to your family member
and give them the gospel, would you say,
I'm going to try out the NIV and see if it works?
Or would you say, no, I know the King James works.
That's what I'm definitely going to use.
So, but I agree with you.
Obviously there's verses in the new King James
that say exactly the same thing.
So if you were just to read that off,
then of course, you know,
then that would get someone saved.
But why would you play that game?
You're giving them,
you're giving them the King James at that point.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Look, I, in my preaching for the last 15 years
and in my soul winning for the last 22 years,
when I'm preaching the gospel to somebody at the door,
I will often turn the THs into Ss
just to make it easier for them to understand.
But according to these bozos,
Patrick Boyle, Joe Major, Michael Johnson,
then it's a corruption of God's word
to change the TH into an S.
I mean, that's just insane.
I mean, that's what gives King James only a bad name.
That kind of insanity that says that, you know,
you can't even change a TH to an S
or that we have to keep the spellings the same
or this nonsense.
Let's hear from Pastor Jimenez while he's still got signal
because he might lose signal.
Yeah, I mean, I think I agree 100%.
You know, and like Pastor Robinson said,
obviously.
All right, we've already lost him, folks.
The situation is kind of what you got.
And we lost him, what's that?
We can't hear you.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, we can't.
You can't hear me?
Well.
Hey, I...
Can you hear me?
We've got a great freeze frame of your face
with some slow-mo going on and everything.
So, hey, just tune in later
when you get a better signal,
like when you get to civilization,
just tune in a little later
and hear from you because it's pretty rough right now.
Good to see you though.
Or just stay on and hang out,
but we'd love to hear from you more
once you get to a city or something
because I know you're in the woods.
He's in the wilderness.
So, hey, let's tackle some more of these questions, huh?
We've got a big full Q&A here.
So some of these are irrelevant.
So I'm deleting all the ones
that are not about the King James issue
because that's all we're talking about.
Okay, so I'll give you guys this question.
What if a church is KJV preferred
and the pastor preaches from the KJV
but the church doesn't reject other translations?
Any thoughts, guys?
I don't like it.
So I've seen churches like that.
And every single time that you have a church
where a pastor says, we use the King James,
but it's not, they'll basically say it's not perfect.
You know, if they're not gonna reject the new versions,
then it's usually they're gonna correct
the King James at some point.
So, yeah, I think they're gonna downplay it.
Or they don't think it's a big issue.
And so it's something that to me,
just from my experience of being at churches
where they're not like saying we are King James only,
it always comes down to they're gonna correct it somehow.
There's some mistake here or there.
And even in King James only churches,
they say, well, in the Greek,
let's go back to the Greek
and they'll try to redefine it a little bit.
They may not say there's a mistake.
So once you get outside the King James only realm,
you're really getting into water
where people are just ready to openly
make up whatever they want.
That's just my experience on that.
All right, so we got a bunch of other questions here.
Let's see here.
Somebody asked if the 1611 KJV
by local church Bible publishers
and the old Schofield 1909,
are these Bibles okay to use?
Are they both okay to use?
And I would say, yeah,
those are definitely both okay to use.
And here's the thing.
Some people get really stressed out
about like which publisher their KJV came from.
Look folks, as long as you're not on the new King James,
as long as you have a King James Bible, it's fine.
Okay, it doesn't matter if it's Cambridge, Oxford,
it doesn't really matter
because the King James is the King James
and the minutia that people argue about these things
is meaningless.
So you don't have to worry about
whether you have a 1611 King James, 1769 King James
or whether it came from this publisher or that publisher
because they all say the same thing
as long as you don't have the new King James.
If you have an old King James, you're good to go.
And when people try to point out these differences
between the Oxford and the Cambridge,
none of them make any difference in meaning
it's a nothing burger.
So I just wanted to mention that.
What else we got here?
Okay, I am KJV only
and believe the KJV is preserved word for word,
but how exactly are the other versions translated?
It's obviously not the Greek, correct?
Well, here's the thing.
The new versions are translating
from a corrupted Greek text called the critical text.
Whereas the King James is translated
from the traditional Greek text.
In the Old Testament, the King James is translated
from the original Hebrew.
Whereas the new versions are translated partially
from the original Hebrew
and partially from the Greek Septuagint
which is not a reliable translation at all.
And by the way, the reason why the modern versions
have to keep changing is because of the fact
that the Greek text that underlies them keeps changing.
So right now the Greek critical text,
the Nestle-Aland Greek text is just coming out
I believe the 29th edition.
And in fact, the 29th edition
has made some serious changes to the text.
And this just came out.
So no English translations will have reflected this yet
but they're gonna have to reflect it in the future.
I don't know if you understand what I'm saying
but basically like as the Greek text changes
then the English changes like lag behind, right?
So they're overhauling right now.
The entire Greek New Testament is being overhauled
with this new method called CBGM,
the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.
So in the latest edition of the Greek New Testament
they've applied this brand new textual criticism method
to the books from James to Jude, okay?
And then they're gonna apply it to other parts
of the New Testament and then they're gonna have to come out
with a 30th edition, 31st edition, 32nd edition.
Just to give you guys a little taste of what's coming
let me tell you one of the changes
in the brand new Greek critical text that just came out,
okay, 2 Peter 3.10, all right?
Give me one second to find it
if you guys wanna pull it up on your end.
I'm gonna look it up in my King James Bible here
but in 2 Peter 3.10 and this is brand new folks
so this isn't gonna be reflected
in any of your English Bibles yet
but because this is in the new Greek text
they're gonna come out with a new ESV
that's gonna have this and all the versions
will slowly filter this in.
So 2 Peter 3.10 in the King James Bible it says,
"'But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night
in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.
The earth also in the works that are therein
shall be burned up.'"
Okay, so the earth also in the works that are therein
shall be burned up.
So this is what the ESV says.
The ESV says,
"'The heavens will pass away with a roar
and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved.'"
And this is the key part.
"'And the earth and the works that are done on it
will be exposed.'"
Okay, so notice that the King James says,
"'The earth also in the works that are therein
shall be burned up.'"
Whereas the ESV says,
"'The earth and the works that are done on it
will be exposed.'"
So if you look in the bad Greek text,
the Westcott and Hoard text or the critical text,
it basically literally says,
"'The works that are done on it will be found.'"
So there's a footnote in the ESV
that says, Greek here actually says found.
But it doesn't really make any sense to say,
"'The earth also in the works that are on it will be found.'"
The King James says, "'It's gonna be burned up.'"
Which makes sense, fits the context.
The ESV is saying,
"'They're gonna be found, but that sounds dumb,
so maybe it just means they're gonna be exposed.'"
You know, it said found, they're gonna be exposed.
Okay, but now this new Greek text
that just came out 29th edition,
I believe it's the 29th.
I can't keep up, you know, they keep coming out with them.
They add the word not now in the Greek text.
They just added the Greek particle ook, which means not.
So now the new one is gonna be,
the works also that are done on it will,
instead of will be exposed,
now they're not gonna be exposed.
So the Greek text is now changing to the opposite.
So they're not gonna be able to translate it
as exposed anymore.
That's not gonna make any sense.
So now they're gonna translate it, I guess,
as the earth and the works that are done on it
will not be found.
So notice how the King James has burned up.
The new versions are switching back and forth
from it's gonna be found, it's not gonna be found,
it's gonna be exposed, it's not gonna be exposed.
I mean, there's just a little change coming to the Bible,
just putting in the word not,
and just making the verse say the opposite.
No big deal, nothing to see here.
And it's funny how they claim that none of these changes
will affect doctrine,
but wouldn't this affect your end times doctrine
if you're trying to understand the day of the Lord?
And we all have our own views on eschatology
and end times prophecy.
According to my view,
the day of the Lord is the same day as the rapture.
It's the day when the sun and moon are darkened.
And it's the day when fire and brimstone
is rained upon this earth.
The seventh seal is open, the trumpet,
the first trumpet sounds and you've got fire and brimstone
and all the grass is burned up
and all the third part of the trees are burned.
And so the earth also in the works that are done in it
are gonna be exposed.
No, no, they're gonna be burned up.
That's according to what I would understand of end times.
But here's the thing, according to this,
the works that are done in it will be exposed,
but now they're not gonna be found.
So if the earth is not gonna be found,
then now you'd be associating with the day of the Lord
with like the earth disappearing or ceasing to exist
or not being found.
Like I can't find the earth, where's earth?
I can't find it.
Whereas Ecclesiastes says the earth abideth forever.
I mean, do you guys have any thoughts
about this new change that's coming?
So let me ask you this, where did they find that uke at?
You know, like where did they,
did they just plug it in or did they find something?
Here's the best part.
No Greek manuscript says uke there, none, zero, none.
So they're just inserting it.
This is what it's called.
It's called a conjectural emendation
where they're conjecturing, we think,
because they're looking at this thing of the earth
also in the works that are done on it
will be found and it makes no sense.
So they just are guessing, well, it should say not found.
So what they have is they have some versions
in other languages.
They have some ancient translations in other languages
that have the word not.
They found some evidence in languages other than Greek
for the word not, but they don't have any Greek manuscripts
that say not there,
but they're adding the word not to the Greek text.
But you have to understand these people don't believe
that God has preserved the Greek New Testament.
Right.
They believe that it's been corrupted.
And they actually, if you read quotes from them,
they'll basically say things like,
we'll never know when it's right.
Like we'll never know exactly what the authors wrote.
You would almost say that like they're ever learning
and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
That is perfect.
Ever correcting the text and never able to come
to a settled Greek text, 29th edition.
And is the 29th edition none?
Nope, because they've only applied CBGM to James DeJude.
Okay, well, James DeJude, what do we get?
Tell them what they get, folks.
You get to add the word not into 2 Peter 3.10
with no Greek text to back it up.
Think about that.
That's the, yeah, when you were talking about that,
I was like, how, I mean, they just inserted it, you know,
but it's funny because, you know, they,
so they're just literally finding some other language
that has not, and then they're just like,
yeah, that's probably what it was.
We just haven't found the text yet.
Think about it, because they're using a Greek text
that has the Greek word for found instead of burned up.
It makes no sense to say, yeah, you know,
it's gonna be burned up, it's gonna be dissolved,
and the earth is gonna be found.
It's like, well, we already found it.
We're on earth right now, so why don't you find earth?
So then they're like, oh, well, maybe it's gonna be exposed,
except that guess what?
That Greek word doesn't mean exposed.
That's why they have to put a footnote that says,
well, the Greek says found here.
Well, then why don't you just translate the Greek, you bozo,
instead of giving us exposed?
But then they're like, no, that doesn't make sense.
Oh, I get it, it's not found.
Or you could just go with the traditional text,
it's burned up, right?
No issue.
You know, I think people don't,
if people realize their thought process with translating,
which your interview with James White, you know,
is one I've watched a few times,
just because it goes into the idea
that they go with the stranger meaning, you know,
and you've talked about this before.
When they look at a passage, they're like,
well, this has to be right
because it doesn't make any sense, you know?
And it's like, it's backwards
the way you would normally think.
And they're like, well, that's probably the right ones.
And that's why they picked the critical text
because like, well, that doesn't make any sense.
So that's probably what it is.
And that their thinking is,
well, the scribe is gonna try to make it simpler.
And they're assuming that the person that made the mistake
is the person making that,
the simpler reading is the mistake
because everybody knows that if it's really complicated,
people are gonna try to make it simpler
and not gonna make it more complicated.
Or you just have a big dunce
that is writing down the Bible and writing stupid stuff
and corrupting the word of God.
So it's just this faulty logic that they're using
throughout the whole translation process
on top of everything, so.
No, they literally, they actually spell that out.
They say the difficult reading is to be preferred.
And when they say the difficult reading is to be preferred,
here's what they mean.
The one that sounds weird
and doesn't seem to make sense,
that's probably the right one
because why would anyone change it to this weird reading?
You know, they would see the weird reading and fix it
and make it say something normal.
But here's another option
is that maybe the person who was copying
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus didn't even speak Greek.
So they put in certain gibberish weird things
that don't make sense,
or maybe they were just sloppy and messed up.
But think about what you're doing to the text.
You end up massacring the text
when you have this attitude,
go with the more difficult reading.
So then you get weird readings like only begotten God
in John chapter one, verse 18,
instead of only begotten son,
because only begotten son sounds normal.
Oh, let's go with the one that sounds weird, begotten God.
Let's go with that.
That's literally one of the rules of textual criticism.
It's interesting because the Bible says
that the common people heard him gladly
and common people are not necessarily people
who are scholars or would go for a difficult
or would understand difficult passages, difficult sayings,
but those are the ones who are open to the word of God.
And it's interesting because even with like the 1960,
one of the editors specifically said
that they were looking to make radical changes
within that translation.
And the reason for this,
because they wanted to make a Bible
that was for scholars by scholars.
So it's like, they want the difficult passages.
They want the passage to say something
very difficult to understand so they can be the mediator
or the one who's translated for the congregation
or the preacher who's understanding these dark parables.
And you have to go to them to understand what it's saying
instead of actually understanding it for yourself.
So it kind of like fits their little agenda they got going
where it's like, we don't wanna make it simple
to understand, we wanna make it difficult
so that they have to come to us
in order to explain what it actually means.
Yeah, and take that contrast
to what the King James translators say,
just read the translators to the readers.
And the whole point of why they said we need
this translation is because they wanna put it
in the vulgar tongue, which meaning the common tongue
so that it's not like this sealed book,
the way they talked about it, like this unknown tongue
if you will, is what they say in the letter.
And that's exactly right because what was going on
at the time in 1611 and in the reformation,
all that stuff that was going on is the Catholic church
was basically keeping people blinded by having it in Latin.
People didn't understand Latin or wasn't speaking Latin.
So the same type of thing is going on today
and they're using an unknown tongue and saying,
well, we gotta go back to the Greek.
Most people don't speak Greek.
So yeah, even in the translation,
they're using this weird, yeah, I agree with you.
It's just this idea of like, we're in this ivory tower,
you can't touch us and you know what?
You need to come to me to know what's really up, so.
Yeah, and actually I could be thinking about it too.
I don't know, can you guys hear me?
Yeah, we can. Yeah.
Yeah, and it's funny, they accuse us
of trying to make it hard for people
by telling them to read the King James
because the King James is a little bit more difficult
than say an NIV or something.
They'll accuse us of making it hard for people,
but they're telling people that you have to read it
in Greek and Hebrew to get the true meaning.
So what's harder, learning some of the old vocabulary
in the KJV or learning Greek and Hebrew?
But they know that nobody's actually gonna go out
and learn Greek and Hebrew.
So it allows them to be, like you said, that mediator
that basically they will go back to the Greek,
they will go back to the Hebrew
and tell you what it really says.
And you poor little idiot, you can read your NIV
and it's filled with errors
and we know it's filled with errors,
but we'll break it down to you.
And doesn't it give them room to like,
obviously like create weird doctrines as well?
Because like, if you think about
the King James uses hell consistently
and obviously there's variations of how
the King James will describe hell,
like lake of fire or the darkness,
but always in context, we know what it means.
But you think of like what Second Peter chapter two
in Greek, it uses the word Tartarus, right?
Which actually means hell.
And it's just that Peter's using a higher form of Greek.
And that's not a word that you'll necessarily find
anywhere else in the Greek New Testament
other than there in Second Peter.
But yet the King James translators chose to use hell
because of the fact that it's simple to understand
that that's exactly what he's talking about.
But then you have people who use that and say,
well, in the Greek, it actually says Tartarus,
therefore it's like a different compartment or something.
Yeah, I heard people say
it was like a special part of hell or something.
Really just in Greek mythology,
Tartarus and Hades are the same place
because in Greek mythology,
Hades is actually a person, not a place.
The place is actually Tartarus
and then Hades is the person,
but it becomes known as like the house of Hades
or the dwelling of Hades.
And then eventually the place
becomes known as Hades eventually.
But how about hell and the bottomless pit?
I mean, it's the same place,
but obviously two different.
You're like, well, that's not the same place
because it's different words.
You go there after you die, it's hot, you burn.
So the word works fine.
I'm gonna rapid fire go through some of these questions
because we have so many questions.
I wanna actually answer people's questions.
Do any newer versions alter
any of the reprobate doctrine passages from the KJV?
I don't think that they necessarily do too much.
Like as far as even the modern versions
as corrupt as they are,
are still gonna pretty much say the same thing
in Leviticus 2013, as far as putting them to death.
I don't really know if they would change Romans one.
I mean, you guys happen to know off the top of your head
what they do or just one of you guys,
can one of you guys just look it up maybe?
And brother Robinson,
you wanna just look up Romans one and the ESV and IV
and see if they change the reprobate passage.
Yeah, let me grab my ESV off the shelf.
I do know this is that obviously
that people have different interpretations
of like first Corinthians six, nine.
Yeah.
But the new versions,
obviously the King James says effeminate,
nor effeminate nor abuses of themselves with mankind,
referring to those who won't inherit the kingdom of God.
You have nor effeminate comma,
nor abuses of themselves with mankind comma.
And the new versions of the Bible
will often just completely omit effeminate
and remove abuses of themselves with mankind
and will put like homosexuals,
they'll put sodomites
or they'll put men who have sex with men.
They'll just completely translate it like that.
And then they'll put the footnote
and they'll say that the Greek says like,
that's what it's stating like a sodomite
or something like that.
Well, the thing about that is that
you have two different terms there.
Right.
Okay.
You have malakis.
Yeah, and the thing about,
and here's the thing,
even people who don't speak Greek,
they might've heard this slang,
calling somebody a malaka.
You know, that's like Greek people's favorite insult
is to call them a malaka.
But what that word actually literally means,
you know, malakos means soft.
Right.
In fact, even if you're just learning modern Greek
and you just learn the words for like hard, soft,
just on Rosetta Stone, Duolingo, whatever,
that's the word you're gonna learn.
And in that context,
it's talking about people who are effeminate
because dudes who are soft,
a soft dude is effeminate.
So it makes sense that that's why that word means that.
And then the other word,
you know, is obviously a complicated issue
that we don't have time to go into
all the ramifications of the word.
But even the word effeminate,
like, cause I've heard people say like,
yeah, but they'll say like
a lot of the newer versions of the Bible will say that
effeminate, malakis basically means
that the passive partner in a homosexual relationship,
which obviously is nonsense because
if you can compare,
you can look in the Greek New Testament
and see that Matthew 11, 28,
when talking about those who wear soft clothing,
it says malakis.
Same word.
Same word, yeah.
So they're just kind of like inserting that.
I think that one's really clear.
The abuse of themselves with mankind is a difficult word
because it's not found anywhere outside the New Testament
as far as like any ancient witnesses.
Like we can't find it in like ancient Greek literature,
you know, from something before the time of Christ
that could tell us, you know, more insight on that.
And there are lots of different views and opinions
of that term, abuses of themselves with mankind.
The only other time you'll see is in 1 Timothy chapter one.
But the word that the King James does as effeminate
is clear-cut.
The King James is dead on, it's for sure, right?
And being effeminate doesn't make you a homo.
Right.
Because there are a lot of effeminates who are straight,
but they're just a metro.
They're just a girly-mon.
Did you find anything there, Brother Robinson?
So I got, I pulled up Romans 1 and I have,
I'm not muted, right?
Okay.
So it says in Romans 1, 28, it says,
furthermore, just as they did not like,
I can't have them like quoting it now,
furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile
to retain the knowledge of God.
So God gave them over to a depraved mind
so that they do what ought not to be done.
Yeah, so they have ruined the reprobate doctrine
because being depraved is not the same as being reprobate.
Reprobate means rejected,
whereas depraved just means super wicked.
So that's not the same thing.
So yeah.
They do the same thing.
Well, so in 2 Timothy where it says,
reprobate concerning the faith,
it says, they are men of depraved minds
who as far as the faith is concerned are rejected.
Now it says, always learning,
but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
I don't know.
But I've never looked at it.
I've never looked at these.
I'm just kind of pulling them up.
Yeah, you're just checking it out on the fly.
Anyway, let's move on from that
because Leviticus 20, 13 is clear in every version,
even in the bad versions
about what should happen to those kinds of people.
And we don't want to go too far off
in the reprobate doctrine
because we want to stay on topic of King James onlyism.
Yeah.
What else we got here?
Isn't the KJV written at a ninth grade reading level?
Those things about reading level,
it depends on how you calculate that
because people will claim different things
about the reading level.
But I think that the King James
is easy enough for people to read.
That's all that matters.
And so children read it, teenagers read it.
And if it's too hard for you,
then you need to get smarter
and not for us to dumb down the Bible.
You just need to learn new words.
You need to study it to show yourself proof.
And the whole purpose of preaching
is for us to break it down to people
and make it easier for them.
Okay, red letter edition.
I don't like it because then the editor
is making a judgment call about when Jesus is talking
and when he isn't.
I'd rather just leave that up to the reader
and put everything in black text.
I don't like the red letter edition.
I mean, I don't hate it,
but I'm not a fan.
What happened to the Bibles prior to the KJV?
The Bishop's Bible.
How many changes were done to the prior Bibles?
Well, here's what happened to the Bibles before the KJV.
Everybody stopped using them
because the KJV was so much better.
The Bishop's Bible is a great Bible.
The Bishop's Bible, it was not a bad version at all.
It's just that it was the rough draft
and the King James is the final draft.
Another person asked the question,
what about people who want to use the Geneva
or they want to use a Tyndale or they want to...
Hey, if you want to use a Tyndale or Geneva or something,
I mean, it's not a horrible Bible or anything.
I mean, it's a good Bible.
It's not like the NIV or the ESV that are just bad,
but why would you want to move backwards?
Those are rough drafts.
Tyndale's one guy who's running for his life
and he gave us an awesome rough draft,
but then people came in and perfected it
and then you get the experts to come in,
54 experts to dial it in and get it perfect.
Why would we want to go back to the rough draft?
Even if it's not bad,
even if it was a Bible that God used
while they were tuning it in,
I mean, what's the point in going backwards, right?
That's actually a trend now that I've seen a lot
is just people using,
like the Geneva Bible has become like a pretty popular
Bible for people to use for some reason.
Things like a trendy thing.
And then somebody said on here,
the changes that Patrick Boyle talked about
happened between 1611, 1769, and 1900,
and he's using a 1769 or 1900.
So even by his own standard,
he's using a corrupted version.
LOL, am I right?
And you're absolutely right because Michael Johnson
got up and said, you can't change the spellings.
Well, then how do you explain the fact
that the King James Bible that Michael Johnson's using
is not spelled the same way as the 1611 edition?
It doesn't have the same punctuation as the 1611 edition.
It doesn't have the same capitalization
as the 1611 edition.
And it does make spelling changes like it changes,
dids, you'll have changes like didst versus didst.
Like D-I-D-S-T versus D-I-D-D-E-S-T.
According to them, that's a corruption of God's word
to change that kind of stuff.
So yeah, if they're gonna be that superstitious
about spellings and the T-H can't become an S,
then yeah, that wouldn't even make sense
to use a 1769 then.
And the thing is, Brother Mejia, you speak Spanish
and you know that the T-H and the S sound
get changed around all the time.
If you ever listen to someone from Spain,
don't they pronounce every S like a T-H in Spain?
Yep, Spain or even Argentina.
Demonstrate that, demonstrate some Spanish
with that T-H sound.
Put me on the spot, let me think.
I gotta switch my brain to Spanish mode.
Like if something's dirty, it'd be sucio.
Yeah, I didn't say sucio, yeah, yeah, sucio.
What's another word?
Whereas you would say sucio.
Right.
They would say sucio.
Right.
You know, or salvados instead of salvados.
So can't you see how the T-H and the S
could kind of swap over time in English
where like a T-H could become an S in English
just over time?
Well, just look at Mike Tyson.
That should tell you enough right there
that you can go from an S to a T-H.
And then what was that?
You didn't have to go to Spanish for that.
Just stay in English and go to Mike Tyson.
Yeah.
Go from a Y sound to a J sound.
Like you've heard people say Spanish
and they say like Joe soy.
Yeah, Joe soy.
That's like Argentinians as well, yep.
Everybody, I thought J was, you know,
does this new construct
and no one ever made that sound ever.
Well, hey, I mean, even like people who speak Spanish
and they try to say yes in English.
Jess, I've heard them say Jess.
Yes.
Yep.
Yeah, so, you know, people freak out about Jesus
starting with a J.
Whereas if you look at the 1611 edition,
it starts with an I.
It's I-E-S-U-S or even I-E-S-V-S.
Mm-hmm.
But it's still being pronounced like a J back then.
But here's the thing, you know,
that's gonna change over time
or like Yehova versus Jehovah.
People get all hung up on Jehovah versus Yehova.
But at the end of the day,
the J and the Y sound are almost,
your mouth is in almost the exact same position
when you say Yeh-jah.
And of course, Spanish is a perfect example
where both of those get swapped
and T-Hs and Ss get swapped.
It's just the way language works.
Language evolves and you can't stop it from evolving.
It's evolving right now
and you cannot stop it from evolving.
Some languages don't have the same
like amount of synonyms as other languages.
Like in Spanish, there's only eterno.
You don't have everlasting and eternal.
You just have eterno.
And then, you know, in English you have,
just and righteous.
Whereas in Spanish, you only have justo.
There's only one word for that.
We don't necessarily have a word righteous.
The word righteous would be justo, just like justice.
So.
Yeah, and you know, going back to the name of Jesus too,
you know, in Greek, it could be ezus,
it could be ezun, it could be ezu,
depending on how it's used in the sentence.
So people get stuck on this whole idea of like,
well, it's gotta be those letters and that.
It's like, well, in Greek,
they would have a hard time-
It's not the same number of letters
in depending on the sentence.
Yeah.
It's like superstition.
Like it's a magic word.
Like superstition, instead of being in the name Jesus,
whether you say Jesus or Jesus, right?
I mean, yeah, superstitious.
Were we gonna say Brother Mia?
Oh no, I was saying that they would have a hard time
just reading through the Greek New Testament
because the Greek New Testament changes
the spelling of names all the time
because of the case endings and all that.
So everything's constantly changing.
Yeah, so then somebody asked,
have there been other English versions of the Bible
to come out since the KJV
other than the New King James
that came from the Textus Receptus
and what is wrong with them?
Well, the answer to that is yes,
there is what's called the Modern English Version or the MEV
and if you wanna know what's wrong with it,
pretty much everything that's wrong with the New King James
is pretty much all gonna be wrong in the MEV
because it has the same type of a translation philosophy,
it seems like, same kind of junk
and they've been Judaized in their translation philosophy,
heavily influenced by Judaism
because Old Testament scholarship
is dominated by Judaism now in academia
instead of a Christian perspective,
we're going to the Jews to interpret them through us
and also just all the same garbage
in a lot of these Bible lexicons
is gonna make it into the MEV and the New King James
where instead of these translators
actually mastering the Greek language
and reading all the Greek literature for themselves,
they rely on the lexicon, the training wheels,
the cheat sheet and what happens is
that's why they all put the same wrong translation
like for example, where they translate
what should be superstition as religion,
too superstitious, very religious,
how do they all make that same mistake?
Because they're all looking at the same lexicon that says,
oh, this is religion in a good way
but when you actually do the research
and actually read the pertinent Greek literature,
you find out that they're totally wrong
and the King James translators
had actually read the Iliad and the Odyssey,
I think that if you handed
most of these modern Bible translators
a copy of the Iliad or the Odyssey,
they wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it,
these so-called Greek scholars,
yet in the ancient world, little children,
that's how they were taught to read
with the Iliad and the Odyssey.
So, how can you sit there
and just only study this tiny narrow part of the Greek
and then you're supposedly an expert
when you haven't even studied classical Greek,
you haven't even studied modern Greek,
you haven't even studied Byzantine Greek,
you haven't studied Homeric Greek,
you just only know what the Bible seminary has told you
and guess what?
They make a lot of mistakes.
The King James translators knew all the Greek literature.
You read their biographies,
you read the story of their lives,
they were reading all of the classical Greek literature
and they also spoke modern Greek
and they understood the whole scope of the language
at a much broader understanding
than these guys who know how to translate out of a lexicon.
That's what's going on.
Yeah, just think about someone that speaks the language.
There's intuitive, like that sounds right
or that is the way it's supposed to be.
And if you're reading all that different literature,
you're gonna almost get this broad spectrum
of like this is the way the language is supposed to sound.
This is how it's supposed to flow.
This is what, this word would never mean this
in this situation because you're using it
in this light over here
and you don't get that just from reading a dictionary.
You know what I mean?
That's like saying like, hand me an English dictionary
and then tell me you know how to speak English.
You know what I mean?
No, you learn by interacting, by speaking the language,
by reading and all that.
So yeah, that's a big problem for sure with their approach.
Yep.
Okay, so here's something I wanna address
in the Q&A over here
and you guys have access to the Q&A too, right?
You guys should be able to do that.
If you wanna pull anything out of there
and talk about anything you're welcome to.
But I'm looking at one that says,
can you explain 2 Kings 826 and 2 Chronicles 22 too?
People who are against the KJV point out this error.
Now look, I'm not gonna take the time
to expound that particular passage.
Obviously I could, I've done it many times before
and we could talk all day long about so-called discrepancies
in the Old Testament like this,
but I have the same answer for all of them, okay?
Your issue is not with the KJV,
your issue is with the underlying Hebrew text, okay?
Because all the King James is doing with these,
like with these numbers,
like when numbers don't seem to add up,
that's what the Hebrew says.
So here's what your King James Bible is doing.
It's translating the Hebrew into English.
Now I don't know about you,
but I don't want my translator to fix problems in the text.
You know, if that's what the Hebrew says,
just put the Hebrew into English
and let me figure it out, okay?
But what the modern versions will do,
they'll see numbers that don't seem to add up
and they'll just change them.
They'll just make it add up, they'll just fix it.
So, you know, it's so funny when people will try
to make this as a point against the King James,
like, well, look at this error in the King James.
How can it be an error in the King James
when the King James has translated
what the Hebrew text says?
If you're claiming that it's wrong,
you're not saying the King James is wrong,
you're saying that the Hebrew is wrong
because that is what the Hebrew text says.
Now, I for one believe Jesus, when he said,
"'Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass,
"'one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law
"'till all be fulfilled.'"
I believe that the Hebrew text has been preserved by God.
I don't believe it has errors in it.
So I'm glad that the King James translators
didn't fix errors, but instead what they did
was just give us the Hebrew into English.
And guess what?
These can be explained.
They're not errors.
They're just different perspectives on things.
And again, you know, I could sit here
and expound this one example.
Somebody will just pull out another example,
pull out another example.
There's answers for all of these.
But again, don't use this against the King James
because guess what?
The King James is simply translating what the Hebrew says.
So your problem is with the Hebrew Bible.
And you know what?
If you have a problem with the Hebrew Bible,
I guess you have a problem with Jesus
who told you that it's preserved.
Yeah, I think it's great that like the King James Bible,
the translators, when they translated the Bible,
they kept those, you know, those passages that you read
in the King James that seemed to be very obscure.
That's exactly how it is in the original language.
So they kept, they basically kept the obscurity
or the difficulty of that passage in that language
to English from Greek or Hebrew.
And the ones that were plain, they put it as plain.
So they weren't putting their own agenda
and you know, trying to correct the Greek
or correct the Hebrew.
If it was difficult to understand
in the Greek New Testament, you know,
it's gonna be difficult to understand in English as well.
Because that's how God wanted it.
Yeah, if it's difficult in Greek,
should we make it easy in English?
Right.
If it's difficult in Hebrew,
shouldn't it be difficult in English?
Some things in the Bible easy,
some things in the Bible are hard.
All that matters is does it reflect the original?
Yeah.
That's why like when people try to go back to the Greek
to understand a passage, it's like,
you don't really, you don't really need it
because you're gonna find the same exact thing.
Same problem.
The problem or anomaly in English,
you're gonna find that same problem or anomaly
in Greek or Hebrew because it's just,
folks, when you're reading the King James,
you're reading what the original says.
It's a, you know, look,
I've read the Greek New Testament many, many times
and it says the same thing as the English, folks.
There's no surprises or, you know,
just whoa, look at this.
It all, you know, now I've seen the light.
It's the same stuff, folks.
And guess what?
Ask people who are learning Greek,
ask them what the easiest book is
when they're learning Greek.
You know what they're gonna tell you?
John.
John, Revelation.
Yeah, Revelation.
And ask them what the hardest book they're gonna tell you.
Hebrews.
It's Luke, it's Acts, it's Hebrews.
Well, guess what?
Guess what it is in English too?
What are the hardest books in English?
Luke, Acts and Hebrews.
Second Corinthians is hard in English.
Second Corinthians is hard in Greek.
Okay.
Easy books in English.
Gospel of Mark.
Gospel of Matthew.
Gospel of John.
Guess what?
Those are easy in Greek too.
So the stuff that's easy in Greek is easy in English.
Easy in Hebrew is easy in English.
Hey, that's the way it should be.
But the NIV just wants to make everything easy
so when they come to a difficult passage
that's hard to understand, they'll just dumb it down,
simplify it and make it easy.
And then everybody's like, oh great, I can understand it.
Yeah, except now you're not getting
what the text actually said.
Right.
Yeah, I agree.
I'm going my second time through the New Testament
and yeah, it says the same thing.
Obviously it's different language, but you know,
I had always said, you know,
I believe that the King James Bible is perfect.
Now I know it, at least in the New Testament.
Because it's one of those things that obviously
you can just take it by faith.
You know, that God preserved his word.
We have it, the fruits and the pudding.
But you know what?
It actually is, it is saying the same thing.
There's no like magic tricks going on there.
We're not just trying to hide something
just because we want to be King James only.
There is a question here.
I wanted to address is why is Jehovah sometimes
translated to the all caps Lord in the KJV Old Testament
and sometimes is kept as Jehovah.
And you guys can jump in on this too.
But I know, reading through the Greek New Testament,
there's a verse where it's being quoted
from the Old Testament where it says,
"'The Lord said unto my Lord,
"'Sit down on my right hand until I make
"'thine enemies thy footstool.'"
And in the Old Testament, you have like a right hand
singular Lord, if you want, pardon me on that.
But then you have Jehovah.
And the Greek underlying text
just uses the same word for both.
And so I believe they followed suit with what the writers
of the New Testament used for that all caps Lord
in the Old Testament.
That's what I believe they did.
And because that's not a translation,
that's literally what they, you know,
the holy man of God that's spake by the Holy Ghost
or moved by the Holy Ghost wrote down Lord
for the all caps, you know, Jehovah, if you will.
So I don't know if you guys have thoughts on that.
Yeah, I mean, basically saying that they did it sometimes
is an understatement because the four letter name of God
in the Old Testament, sometimes called the tetragrammaton,
you know, you think of Tetris.
In the game Tetris, everything's based on the number four,
all the blocks that come down the stream, you know,
are four blocks and you get four lines to make a Tetris.
Well, tetra means four, grammaton means letter.
So the four letter name of God is the most common noun
in the Bible, it's used like 7,000 times.
And virtually every time the King James translators
just translated as Lord in all caps.
But seven times they leave it as either Jehovah
or the shortened version, they translate one time as jaw.
So you have Jehovah sprinkling of times,
but usually it's the Lord and you hit the nail on the head.
The reason why they did it that way
is because in the Greek New Testament,
the tetragrammaton's never used.
Every time the New Testament quotes an Old Testament passage
that uses the four letter name of God,
it just says the Lord.
It says the Greek word obviously is okyrios,
but it uses the word for Lord.
So if that's good enough for the apostles and Jesus
to say Lord, then that's good enough
for the King James translators to say Lord.
Now, why did they leave it in a couple places?
Like why did they leave it in Exodus 6, 4,
or in the book of Psalms, his name alone is Jehovah,
or, you know, I think that they just left it in a few times
just so that people could see what it looks like, I think,
as far as just pepper it in there a few times.
I think that Exodus 6 would sound a little strange
if they just said, you know, by my name of the Lord,
was I not known unto them?
Because he was known unto them by the name of the Lord
with the lower case, Adonai.
So, you know, I think that they just peppered it in
for that reason.
If you read the old reign of Alera,
it just says like 7,000 times in the Old Testament,
heo va, heo va, heo va.
I like it better.
I think it's more correct,
even though you can't really necessarily say
that it's wrong, because obviously that is Jehovah,
but the King James is superior by saying the Lord,
because like you said, they're following suit
of what Jesus and the apostles did.
When Jesus and the apostles quote the Old Testament
into a European language, Greek, they say Lord.
So, you know, the King James is doing the same thing.
And then somebody said,
what are your thoughts on the King James 21st century
or the easy to read King James?
You know, I don't trust these
because it seems like whenever somebody pulls
one of these out, I can't really speak to these
in particular, because I haven't gone over them
with a fine tooth comb.
It seems like whenever people try to update the King James
and modernize the language,
that there's always something squirrely that they do.
And it's just, ain't nobody got time
to go through the whole thing
and figure out what they changed.
You know, the King James is reliable
because we've had 400 years to look at it with a microscope.
And so we know that it's right.
It stood the test of time.
It's tried and true.
Whereas if something new comes out,
you know, easy to read King James, 21st century King James.
In theory, if it actually didn't change any meanings,
then I would say it's fine.
You know, if it just modernized the language
and Pastor Jimenez said the same thing
in New World Order Bible versions.
People act like Pastor Anderson's changing his view
on the King James.
Pastor Jimenez stood up in New World Order Bible versions
in 2014 and said, hey, if all the new King James did
was just only update the language,
then there'd be no issue.
We wouldn't even care.
We wouldn't even be talking about it.
You remember that?
Yeah.
Hey, and can you blame us for having trust issues
on them messing with the Bible?
Exactly.
You know, when you think about all of these other versions
that are out there, could you, oh yeah, no,
I think they'll do it right this time.
You know, I got a bridge to sell you,
you know, when it comes to that.
Not worth it to start messing with it
because the thing is, you know,
the people that are updating the language,
they might just think they're updating the language
and they might accidentally change something
because they're not an expert in Greek.
They're not an expert in Hebrew.
Maybe they're not even an expert in English
or the English of 1611.
They could inadvertently introduce error.
And so the King James ain't broke, so don't fix it.
Just leave it the way it is.
It's fine.
Now here's the thing, 200 years from now or something,
500 years from now, if the language changes dramatically
and it gets to where people can't understand
the King James anymore,
then you're gonna have to update it,
lest we be like Catholics or something, you know,
doing it in Latin when everybody speaks Spanish.
You know, once Latin had turned
into a totally different language, Spanish,
you gotta translate it into Spanish.
So 500 years from now, if our current English,
you know, is not even close to the King James,
then you'd have to update it at that point.
Okay, but it may never get to that point
because first of all, Christ may return before that,
or it seems like technology has possibly kind of locked in
the language a little more so it's not really changing much
because you know what I'm saying?
Like English isn't changing as rapidly as it used to.
So the King James will probably do us all the way
until Jesus comes.
But what do you think about that?
Yeah, I obviously agree with you.
I personally don't believe we'll get that far.
You know, I'm not saying that,
and I'm not saying that Jesus is gonna come back in our day,
but you know, I more so believe you will.
You know, like I'm just in that impression,
like, hey, you know, it's gonna happen in my lifetime.
And that's the way I live, you know,
like thinking, hey, it's gonna be in my day,
I'm gonna live that way.
But I, yeah, but I agree with you.
Obviously, if our language is deteriorated
to the point where, you know, no one speaks it,
or it's just so foreign, you know,
to what the King James is and you'd have to change it.
But.
Let me just, and let me just correct you
on the use of the word deteriorate
because changes in language
are not necessarily a deterioration.
You know what I mean?
Cause like we, here's what we think.
Whenever languages change, we think it's deteriorating.
And that's how people have looked at it throughout history.
But sometimes it's just a change.
It doesn't have to be worse
because you know what I mean?
Like it doesn't necessarily.
I guess it depends if you're talking about like,
if we're gonna go to text language in urban dictionary,
you know, when it comes to it.
But we would never translate the Bible into text language.
Right.
Even if everybody was talking in text language,
would we do a Bible like that?
No way.
But you know, there could be other changes in the language
that are not, I'm not saying, I'm just saying,
sometimes they change, not necessarily deteriorate,
just change.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Well, no, I agree.
But I'm more so thinking on an extreme level,
but I don't think it would ever happen.
Like, I don't think it'd ever go to that
to where people are literally just talking
like a bunch of babies
and they can't like pronounce anything or.
They could, but even if they did,
you wouldn't put the Bible into that.
No, no.
Well, you couldn't.
You couldn't.
I don't believe you could anyway.
You know, it just wouldn't be possible.
But I'm saying, is Spanish a deterioration of Latin?
No, it's just Latin changed.
Right.
That's all I'm pointing out.
I'm just trying to, I just want to point out
that kind of difference there.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
Because we tend to think the way we talk right now is right.
And if anything changes, it's a bad change.
But can language really be better or worse morally?
Or is language just language?
Like, does it really, you know what I mean?
Like.
Yeah, I guess the way I was thinking of it
is not necessarily the language itself,
but more so the intelligence of the people
and what they use of that language.
Meaning like when you think of vocabulary
and the fact that, you know,
a lot of people don't have a higher vocabulary
than maybe what the average person had back in the day.
It's not that the language itself is like falling apart,
but just people aren't using,
they're not taking advantage of the vocabulary they have,
I guess is what I'm saying.
You know, so the words start not being used anymore
because people are just aren't,
they're using such a small amount of vocabulary
compared to what they used to.
Well, I guess what I'm saying is that
it might not be that their vocabulary
is always getting smaller.
It might be that they stop using one word
and start using another word.
Yeah.
And it's not really necessarily worse or better.
It's just different.
I'm saying it's worse.
No, I'm just kidding.
If you're talking about,
well, that's cause you live in West Virginia.
Frequently your people butcher the language.
Hey, you know, according to some people
that we speak the closest to the Elizabethan language,
you know, we're saying y'all, like y'all.
Well, the thing is-
I get what you're saying though.
Yeah, well, I'm saying,
I'm not talking about a dumbing down
because you can never dumb down the Bible.
The Bible is not a dumb book.
You can't dumb it down.
But what I'm saying is that
some words just change meaning over time.
And look, let's face it.
There are some words in the King James that are archaic.
It's way less than people say.
People exaggerate how many words are archaic
because you can look them all up in the dictionary
and they're all there.
Yeah.
Even in just a desk size dictionary.
You don't even need the big dictionary.
The little pocket size, desk size,
usually will have all the King James words.
But some of the words are legitimately archaic words
that have changed in meaning.
Like for example, nephew,
the word nephew in 1 Timothy 5
is not what we mean by nephew.
It's actually a grandson
because the nephew used to mean
what we think of as grandson.
So it's not that our language deteriorated.
It's just that a word changed.
But there are really very few examples like that
where someone would actually
possibly misunderstand something.
Like shambles, what's bought in the shambles.
You know, you usually think of shambles
as being like everything's falling apart.
But yeah, I agree.
Again, dictionary.com,
definition number one of shambles is a meat market.
But the thing is,
that's what I'm talking about.
Like if several hundred years from now,
lots more words changed in meaning
and it just started getting so different.
Not even close to that
because the King James Bible is very understandable
in 2021.
Oh, it's not how we talk.
Yeah, but we can still understand.
Like none of us probably uses the word serpent.
You know, if we're out hiking,
we don't talk about a serpent.
I say danger noodle, so.
But the point is you know,
we're not gonna say serpent,
but we all know what serpent means.
Right.
We won't say like behold.
When's comest thou, my brother?
But we still understand it.
Right.
Well, and two, the literature compared to the way
you talk too.
Here's a question from the chat.
What's the deal with Erasmus rushing Revelation, James White?
You know, it's so dumb for James White
to continually harp on Erasmus rushing to publish.
Okay, let's give James White that.
Let's just buy into James White's idea here
that Erasmus rushed to get his Greek New Testament
out the door.
Here's what's so dumb about that.
That was in 1517.
Okay, right.
So, or it was around that time.
Erasmus is coming out with stuff in the teens and twenties.
The King James Bible is translated in 16,
it was published in 1611.
So let's say Erasmus rushed and was sloppy.
Well, guess what?
He had time to come out with a bunch of other additions
that were not rushed and the King James Bible translators
were primarily using Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament.
So was Beza's 1598 New Testament rushed?
No.
So you have like literally 80, you know, 70 years,
80 years going by from Erasmus's rushed Greek New Testament
to the King James translators.
There was plenty of time for Erasmus himself
and Stephanus and Beza to fix all the problems in it
and get it right by 1598 so that the King James translators
could start translating in 1604.
So they're translating in 1604.
Why does it matter that something that came out
in the early 1500s was rushed?
Yeah.
80 years of rush?
Yeah, it's a strong, I was reading too where Erasmus,
you know, it talks about Erasmus doing that,
but then it says Erasmus, you know,
like the later additions he had, you know,
more to work with and, you know,
like revised it and everything.
But like you said, I mean,
even if you were to look up the TR
that you would get off the shelf,
like from the Trinitarian Bible Society,
it says this is the Beza and Stephanus, you know,
like this is a, you know,
basically that's what you're reading
is the Beza and Stephanus additions.
But yeah, not to knock Erasmus or anything like that,
but yeah, it's so, so dumb to bring that up.
Yeah, okay.
It says here, does the fact that Beza is Calvinist
make his Textus Receptus not reliable?
Well, Erasmus is Catholic.
Okay.
Beza is Calvinist.
And what about the King James translators?
I mean, there are a bunch of Anglicans,
a lot of them are Puritans,
a lot of them are Church of England.
Some of them, I don't even think were even believing
that the Bible was necessarily even the word of God.
You know, some of them were just super intellectual,
expert Greek translators.
And then obviously most of them were either
some kind of a minister or some kind of a pastor or preacher,
but I mean, some of these guys are just experts.
And so to be honest,
I don't really care what they believed as long as that,
cause all I want to know is what does the Hebrew say?
Give me the Hebrew in English.
Give me the Greek in English.
I'd rather have 54 super experts translating it
without a theological agenda than, you know,
having a fundamental Baptist translate it
who barely knows the language.
Yep.
You know what I mean?
So.
Well, it's not like, you know,
God couldn't use an unsaved person to do something, right?
I mean, he couldn't use a Balaam to prophesy, you know,
like the idea that it has to be a saved person
that's translating it is just, you know, ridiculous.
So, I mean, I'm not saying there's no one saved
in that group, but you know.
But here's the thing about it is that
this is what it says in Greek translated into English.
You have to be saved to just translate
one language to another.
I mean, couldn't you be an expert in language
and just train?
Cause I don't really want their theological interpretation.
And that's part of the genius of the King James Bible
is that he had the Puritans and the Church of England guys
who were opposed to each other doctrinally,
both working on it because then basically
they're kind of a watchdog on each other,
making sure the Puritans don't slip in their bias,
making sure Church of England doesn't, you know,
slip in their bias, getting, you know, different people.
Like if I ever translated a Bible version
into a foreign language, you know,
let's say I wanted to work on a translation into German
or something like that, you know,
I would definitely want to run that translation
by people who didn't believe like me,
just so that they could basically,
I would want people of other denominations
to try to find mistakes in what I've done,
because maybe I'm too biased.
So I would want to like, at least hear what they have to say.
Yeah, you understand what I'm saying?
Because like, because here's the thing,
translating the Bible shouldn't be a private interpretation
based on your doctrine.
I wouldn't want to create some fundamental
Baptist Bible version that really just hammers
the doctrines that I like, you know,
I want one that just reflects what the original says.
Yeah.
You see what I'm saying?
Yeah, I've actually, you know, even asked the opinion
on someone that's not saved on English grammar.
And meaning, you know, I'm looking at a passage
in the Bible and I'm saying, you know, what, you know,
like grammatically, you know, how would this read?
You know, for example, they don't have a dog in the fight.
They don't have like some theological, you know,
reasoning of why they'd say that.
I'm just like, just grammatically,
what do you see there, you know?
Question, you're not trying to get their doctrine
or theology, obviously the text is spiritually discerned.
So you're not trying to get an unsaved interpretation
of the theology or the doctrine, but just asking them,
hey, what tense is this verb?
Or, you know, those kinds of thoughts.
What that being said, like obviously,
one of my favorite Bible versions to use in Spanish
is the Gomez, but he obviously is the one
who basically translated that.
Well, how would you answer that if someone were to come up
with that and say, well, you know,
he is an independent fundamental Baptist.
He's the one who translated it.
So do you think he put his bias, was he biased, you know,
in his interpretation of it based upon his religious
background, his denomination, what would you say?
I, you know, I don't know enough about,
I don't know enough about it because it's possible.
You know, I don't know if he put any kind of a bias in there.
I would say that the King James Bible is superior
to the reign of Larry Gomez because of the fact
that it was put together by more experts,
it's put together by 54 experts versus Gomez.
You know, I don't know how many people he got involved.
I don't know his level of expertise in Greek and Hebrew.
So I don't really know enough about it.
I mean, I've read the Old Testament cover to cover
in the reign of Larry Gomez.
And I'm just reading the New Testament
and the reign of Larry Gomez right now, cover to cover.
And so for me, the jury is still kind of out on that.
I, you know, I can't really give a critique of it
because I don't know enough about it.
But I would say that, you know,
when you have one guy working on something,
it's gonna be more biased than when you have 54 guys
working on something.
And when, and if you have few people working on it,
I think you should still get input from outsiders.
It doesn't mean you're gonna go with what they say,
but I would want, if I were doing a translation,
I would want it to be scrutinized by as many people
with as many different beliefs,
just to try to show me where I'm wrong, grammatically,
where I'm putting in my own bias.
Because sometimes it's hard for us to see those things
about ourself, but a third party could point that out.
Of, hey, you're trying to make this fit your agenda
when here's what the Greek text says.
You see what I'm saying?
And how about this too?
You know, at work, for example,
I'll design a building and I have all these drawings.
There's a lot of times where you're staring at something
and you're missing a big piece,
but you've been staring at it so long,
you're just not seeing it, right?
And what we do a lot of times is we have a couple of people
that'll just look over it.
You know, they're not even involved in it.
They have no idea what, you know,
like they're not thinking about the project
and then they'll look over it and they'll be like,
oh, you missed this over here.
What's going on right here?
Or you need to put this in here.
I'm like, good night.
How in the world I missed that?
And I just did that today.
And I'm like, I didn't put like a base plate size
on like a column or something like that.
And I'm like, how did I not see that?
It's so simple.
So there's things like that to where
just having multiple people working on something
to where it's not that you don't know how to do it.
It's not that you're not smart enough to do it.
It's just that, you know, that's a big undertaking.
You know, that's a big project to be just solo.
And I'm not here to like say that it's bad, you know,
obviously, you know, or to downplay him
or anything like that.
But I'm just saying, you know,
when you had the King James translators,
you had those checks and balances, even outside of bias,
just the idea of like missing something
just from human error.
Plus I don't even know, I'm not even saying
that the Gomez Bible was a solo thing.
Cause I don't know, for all I know,
he might've got lots of people's input and tons of people.
I'm sure he did get other people's input.
So I, you know, I can't really,
but I just can't really speak intelligently about that.
Cause I don't really know the whole process that went in.
I'm pretty sure there's a whole book about,
isn't there a book about how Gomez did it or something?
I thought there was a book explaining the translation.
And so I've never read that book.
So I don't really know what went into
the reign of Lara Gomez, but I know that from what I've read
it's a good Spanish Bible, you know,
but look, here's the thing in the future,
I personally might be involved in some Bible translations
into other languages someday,
because I'm studying tons of Greek and Hebrew,
and I've studied a lot of modern languages.
And I've thought a lot about this
because if I ever do work on something, you know,
let's say if I work on a project to produce
a better German Bible or, you know,
some other language or something,
if I ever worked on a Bible translation, you know,
what I would want to do is kind of take advantage
of the internet, take advantage of the hive mind.
And I thought about this, you know,
if I translated something,
I would put it online as a rough draft
and invite people to send me criticisms of it,
because that way you can get a lot more eyes on it,
you know, critiquing it.
And I know Gomez's translation originally came out in 2004
and then a whole bunch of people sent him
the problems that they found,
and then he corrected them for the 2010.
So yeah, I like the fact that the King James Bible
was translated by 54 people from different backgrounds,
different areas of expertise,
because you're just getting more eyes on it.
You're gonna find the mistakes
and kind of checks and balances and, you know,
watch each other.
So I don't know if you guys have heard this one.
Have you heard people where they try to say,
and stuff like this is just dumb,
but they try to say, oh,
King James changed the name of the book of James
so that it would be his name.
Have you heard that?
I have never heard that.
Well, because obviously in the original Greek,
it's basically Jacob.
Jacobos.
It's basically Jacob, and in English it's James.
But what's so dumb about that is that like, you know,
for example, like I've got the Tyndale New Testament here
from the year 1534.
So this is way before James was even born.
And it's right here, you know, the Epistle of James.
Boom.
That has nothing to do with King James.
That person had already been called James in English
for hundreds of years before King James was even born.
It's just that a lot of names,
when they get translated, they change.
Some names stay the same.
Like, they're pretty similar.
You know, like John becomes Juan in Spanish.
But if you think about it, like Steven becomes Esteban.
And yeah, it's a little different.
But then if you put my name into Hungarian,
it becomes Istvan.
That's pretty different.
Istvan is pretty different than Steven.
Even in Spanish, you have Jacobo,
and then you have Santiago,
which is dramatically different from James.
It sounds nothing like James,
or it doesn't sound anything like Jacobo.
Yeah, it doesn't sound like Jacob or James.
It's just in Spanish,
the Book of James is called the Book of Santiago.
Right.
I'm glad it's James, because I just named my son James.
Yeah, but some people,
they just repeat ignorant things
without even doing a little research.
That's like Easter, you know, that's a great,
Tyndale Bible's a great one to prove that one, too.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, here, let me, in fact,
let me read you some verses from the Tyndale Bible.
Here's some verses from the Tyndale Bible.
Matthew 26, verse two.
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, one.
After two days followed Easter.
And we can go on and on.
It says Easter lamb in 1 Corinthians five.
Luke 3, 41.
And his father and mother went to Jerusalem every year
at the feast of Easter.
Now, that's no good,
because they're calling Joseph Jesus' father in that one.
Glad the King James fixed that one.
But my point is, obviously,
Easter used to mean Passover in English,
because, I mean, how can you deny it?
You think they're talking about pagan holiday
when it says, you know, make ready the Easter lamb,
and the Jews, there was a pan, 23 times.
But what's funny is that Tyndale
is the one who invented the word Passover.
So when he, the first thing he translated
is the New Testament.
So he just used the common English word for that,
which is Easter.
But then when he went back and translated
the books of Moses, he invented the word Passover
when he translated Exodus.
And then that became the preferred word.
So by the time the King James came out,
most people were using Passover.
But there's still that one remnant of Easter in Acts 12.
Can you look up what it says in James 2, 2
in the Tyndale Bible?
The bishops' Bible uses the word Easter twice.
The King James uses it once.
The Matthew Bible, I think,
uses it like 15 times or something.
So it was a period of transition, you know?
The old word was Easter.
The new word was Passover.
And the King James came out
while it was still kind of switching over.
That's why the King James ends up using both.
James 2, 2?
Yes.
Actually, you know, I don't have to look it up online.
I got a hard copy here too.
Wow.
Where are you looking at up online?
I usually go to Bible Gateway, but...
Tyndale New Testament online.
Oh, okay.
Bible...
That makes sense.
I could just Google it.
Yeah, bible.schools.com.
Okay, so this is the Tyndale New Testament.
James 2, 2.
If they're come into your company,
a man in a golden ring and in goodly apparel,
and they're come in also a poor man in vile raiment.
That's good.
The company, King James puts assembly.
I just remember someone telling me,
because in the Greek it says, synagogue.
Yeah.
It's a synagogue.
It's a synagogue, you know?
That word is used so much in the Greek New Testament.
Anybody who says that doesn't know any Greek,
because how many times is the word synagogue
used in the New Testament to not talk about a synagogue?
The word synagogue.
But here's what they do.
They go to their strong concordance,
and oh, every single time it's synagogue,
except this one time,
because they're only looking up the noun.
If you look up the verb,
every time it's gathering, gathering, gathering,
every time you see the word gather,
it's always synago and ero.
Maybe if you just broke that word up,
it's very simple what it means in Greek too.
Hey, listen, guys, I gotta take a quick break.
Keep going though, guys, okay?
I'm gonna go use the restroom, take a quick break.
So I'm just gonna turn it over to you guys.
I'll be back in a minute.
Okay.
Keep on going, and then when I get back,
if you need a break, take it.
I'm just eating.
I wanna be eating right about now.
So one of these questions on here was
the best book to learn the history of Bible translation.
There's a, what's that guy's name, Lance, that,
there's a book called
King James, the Bible and His Translators.
And it's a really, I forget what his first name is,
but I'm pretty sure his last name's Lance.
But it's a really good abridged version of the subject.
Okay, so if you want just kind of like.
Let me see.
Yeah, I think I have two somewhere.
Unless I let someone borrow it.
Yeah, his name is Lawrence Vance.
Lawrence Vance.
So Lawrence Vance, he has some other books too, but.
They're right here.
Yeah, that's the one.
King James, His Bible and The Translators.
And so that one right there, it's a short read.
It's not, you know, there's some drier parts, I guess,
but that one kind of goes through who King James was
because there's a lot of misinformation on him nowadays.
It kind of like tear him down.
And then just going into the different,
it goes into the whole history of the other versions
before the King James.
So it doesn't just hit the ones that are from the TR.
It also hits the ones that came from like
the Latin Vulgate.
So yeah, like the Dewey Reams,
but there's other ones in there.
And so it goes through all the early English translations
and then it goes into the translators themselves,
you know, who they were and just the rules
that were set out.
And the really cool thing about that book
is it really shows you that King James,
he had these rules set out, you know,
that you have to use these versions of the English,
you know, like the bishops and the Tyndale
and just different versions, you know,
that came before it that you had to compare it to that.
And here's, you know, here's the guidelines, you know,
so he had like all these guidelines
that basically had these checks and balances and everything.
And so another question on here was dealing with, you know,
why it was called the King James, you know,
why they called it King James or why that stuck.
I mean, it was originally called the authorized version,
but it was addressed to King James.
I mean, in the very beginning you have this,
the translators to the King, if you will,
then you had the translators to the reader,
but King James is the one that authorized the translation.
You know, he's the one that basically had made that happen.
And so, you know, it just makes sense.
I mean, but I mean, even if you think about it,
I mean, a lot of times you put a name on something
based off what it's associated to.
So, but I don't know what your thoughts are on that
as far as why they would name it that,
or what's your go-to as far as a book
or, you know, studying subject.
Well, that's one of them,
the King James, his Bible and his translators.
I don't really have any other books other than that.
There's some that are very like,
I don't wanna say they're biased towards the King James,
which they're good,
but there's a lot of other ones that are written by,
I guess you could say people who are just not King James,
but they just have done the study on them
and have researched King James and the translators.
I think those books are really good.
Yeah, I have a,
They have an unbiased opinion about it.
There's a book called God's Secretaries,
and that'll give you,
if you wanna get just a secular history perspective,
because the thing is,
if you're only listening to people that are King James only,
obviously they're gonna be strongly biased
toward the King James version,
which, amen, I mean,
we're all biased toward the King James version
because we love it.
But if you wanna kind of just take a step back
and just kind of get a third party history,
secular historical source,
then God's Secretaries is a paperback book,
a few hundred pages, really easy to read.
And obviously I'm not saying everything in it is gospel
because it's coming from a worldly perspective,
but I think it's good sometimes to listen to things
that are outside of our little group,
outside of our little circle,
because otherwise you're only getting one side.
And so if you really wanna understand a subject,
it's good to sometimes hear from both sides,
especially when it comes to history,
because history is open to interpretation.
And when it comes to the Bible, it's black and white.
The Word of God is settled in heaven
and we've got it in our hand.
The Word is nigh us, even in our mouth and in our heart.
But when it comes to history,
there's a lot of interpretation, a lot of bias.
And so I think it's good to read a few different sources
and not to just only read books about the history
from King James Onlyists.
And it's even more powerful
when you hear somebody who's not a King James Onlyist,
who's not even writing from a Christian perspective,
and they're confirming to you
how the translators are just such experts
and they know so much and they do such a good job.
You know what I'm saying?
It's a powerful testimony
when it's even coming from the world,
when even the world is telling you
these guys are expert first-class scholars.
So I really enjoyed the book, God's Secretaries.
It had a few things in it that I would point to
as being in error or incorrect,
but in general, it really will give you the picture
and it'll increase your appreciation for the King James.
Yeah, there's a lot of things that I've just read online.
Just to be honest with you,
Wikipedia will lead you to different sources
and stuff like that.
Dealing with the text, for example,
like when you dive into the majority text,
what is the majority text?
Because even that book, that Lawrence Vance book,
it doesn't dive that deep into that type of stuff.
I mean, it's very basic.
And so you can get into the weeds with all this stuff.
And I agree with you.
A lot of times I'll read a Wikipedia page,
which obviously is not Fundamental Baptist,
and just see what they have to say.
And a lot of times you'll see there's definitely a bias.
Whoever's writing that has a strong bias against us
or against King James only-ism or the TR,
but kind of comparing all those together
and just seeing what's the truth, what's bias.
There's one book I read, which I would never recommend,
but when I first got saved was Al Lacy's book,
Can You Trust Your Bible?
And Al Lacy's book was kind of like
Gail Ripplinger, pretty much.
I mean, as far as getting into the Ruckmanite issue with it
and going too far with it.
So those were like the first things I read.
And then I had to dial that back and be like,
okay, that doesn't match up with what's in reality.
But that was extremely biased on the issue.
Yeah, and people talk smack about Wikipedia,
but I'm actually a big fan of Wikipedia
because the problem with using Wikipedia as a source
is when you just blindly trust what Wikipedia is telling you.
The good thing about Wikipedia though,
is that if you scroll down to the bottom of the page,
it gives you all the sources.
So Wikipedia can get you started on a subject,
give you the basics,
but you just don't blindly believe it.
You go down to the bottom of the page
and you look up those sources,
and then that's where you'll find actual reliable sources
and original sources.
And so Wikipedia is a great tool
as long as you use it properly
and not just treat it as gospel without fact-checking.
So, yeah.
Hey, can I show you guys something that's pretty funny?
This is going back to what I was saying about
the whole gather and assembly thing.
Matthew 626 says,
"'Behold the fowls of the air,
"'for they sow not, neither do they reap,
"'nor gather into barns.'"
And in Greek, it says,
ude synagoosin.
So it's just like, according to that logic,
the fowls are Jews, you know?
Because they're-
Yeah, the fowls are not in synagogue.
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
They're synagoguing into the barns.
Yeah, because basically,
and just to explain what Pastor Mejia is talking about here
is that in James, it says,
if they're come unto your assembly,
a man with a gold ring and goodly apparel,
and people will try to say that it should say
if they come into your synagogue.
It's like a Hebrew roots Judaizing thing.
And so Pastor Mejia is pointing out the fact
that that word, synago,
is used just about birds gathering.
It's not just always meaning synagogue.
But this is the danger of people going back to the Greek
when they don't know Greek.
If a word looks like something,
they just think that that must be what it means.
Like, oh, that looks like synagogue.
Oh, you know, when I look at this world that,
but here's an example I like to use
to show how stupid that is,
is the example of in Jude,
when they go after strange flesh, okay?
The word for strange is hetero.
It's like, so it's like-
Yeah.
So they're going after heterosarx, strange what?
I mean, it's like, that just shows the stupidity
of thinking that you can just look at a Greek word,
use your understanding of an English word
that comes from it.
You could even get the opposite meaning there.
Yeah.
Certainly weren't going after hetero stuff.
Yeah, because like, heteros means like other,
a lot of times they're like-
It means different, other, strange, you know?
Yeah.
So that's an example.
Or here's an example from the Hebrew.
You know, when God says that he's gonna make
of Abraham a great nation,
he basically says he's gonna make him a great goy,
because the word goy means nation.
So define irony,
Abraham's gonna be made into a great goy.
Yeah.
Goyim is the Hebrew word for nations.
And it's often translated Gentiles.
You'll see that nations and Gentiles
are often used interchangeably in scripture.
And so when we hear the English word goyim, or goy,
not that it's English, but you know what I mean.
Yeah.
When they talk about the goyim,
you know, we would think that that's just for sure
like a non-Jew, but really goy just means nation.
So you have the nation of Israel,
because goy just means nation.
Yeah.
Those are called false friends.
When you think you know what a word means,
because it sounds like,
so like in Spanish, like what does effectivo mean?
Effectivo is money.
It's cash.
So, but-
Yeah, cash, right.
Yeah, it's specifically cash.
Yeah, effectivo is actual cash,
but basically like-
Like effective.
You would just think that only means effective.
Or like embarazada.
Yeah.
I mean, you're pregnant,
but it's like,
it sounds like you're being embarrassed or something.
Yeah.
Or like another one, like in German, there's a word gift.
Gift.
Gift means poison.
Oh, man.
So you might see words like that
and think you know what they mean,
but they mean something different.
Yeah.
So it's the same way in Greek.
You know, you could see things in Greek
and like, for example, you know,
you could see Hades and think like,
oh, I know what Hades is,
because you might have an English understanding of Hades,
but in scripture, Hades is being used to refer to hell.
And so the King James is right to say hell.
You know, oh, but the Greek says Hades.
Yeah, but it's not the English word Hades.
It's the Greek word Hades, okay?
Yeah.
How is it being used in the New Testament?
Or, you know, there are a lot of just funny things
when you're reading in Greek,
like the word for naked is gymnos,
which gymnos is where we get our word like gymnastics,
because the Greeks would exercise naked.
So that's, you know, it's weird how words evolve like that,
where we would get that word.
Or like one of my favorite words
in the whole New Testament,
it's only used one time in the New Testament
is where Jesus says,
neither be ye of a doubtful mind.
And in Greek, when he says, don't be of a doubtful mind,
he says, I believe it's me, meteorizes.
Like, like, and that's where we get like meteorology,
like is to be like of a doubtful mind.
And I'm thinking to myself, like, is that why the weatherman,
I guess that's why the weatherman gets it wrong.
So like, you know, when you see a word like that,
meteorizes, it doesn't have anything to do with meteors
or the weather, you know,
it's telling you not to be of a doubtful mind.
Yeah.
It's like, because sometimes when,
when words come from Greek and English, they can change.
And then people will read it backward.
Like for example, when Rick Warren said like,
oh, if you go back to the Greek,
when it says we're God's workmanship,
it actually says we're God's poem.
Just because the word for workmanship
sounds like poem in English.
He thinks like, oh, look, it looks like poem.
Yeah, we're God's poem.
So this is the, this is the danger of going back
to the Greek when you don't even know Greek
and you're just looking at what words look like.
Oh, that sounds like this English word.
And then it's, oh, that sounds like synagogue.
So that must be a synagogue.
Right.
You know what I'm saying?
Right?
Yeah.
What was that one word?
You remember it's in, in first Timothy chapter three,
it's what's the Greek word that it used.
It used it for like filthy lucre,
but it was like escros or something like that.
Yeah, escro cardia is like greedy of filth,
being greedy of filthy lucre.
Yeah.
Gross is the filthy part.
It's like filthy gain or.
Yeah.
And like in Spanish, you would say like,
for something that's filthy,
you would say it's ask it also.
Yeah.
So that's, that's a Spanish word that,
that evolved from a Greek word.
And in this case, it kind of means a similar thing.
Cause I isn't Oscar also like disgusting.
Yeah.
Or yeah, filthy disgusting.
So, so, so in that case, in that case, it's actually,
you know, fairly accurate,
but sometimes when words come over, they,
they change them being like, let me give you an example.
Like how about the Greek word?
Asbestos.
Okay.
Which was where we get asbestos, right?
So if you're reading the Greek new Testament,
when he talks about unquenchable fire in Mark chapter nine,
it's topierto asbestos.
So it's the unquenchable is, is asbestos.
But, but think about what do we mean
when we talk about asbestos?
It's the exact opposite.
Cause in English, asbestos is something that doesn't burn.
And in the Greek new Testament,
asbestos means you can't stop it from burning.
You see what I mean?
So, you know, if you were just some bozo,
who's going to go back to the Greek and you're like, well,
you know, when the Bible talks about unquenchable fire,
if you actually look it up in the Greek,
it's actually asbestos.
So, you know, it's actually not gonna burn.
You see what I'm saying?
Yeah.
And even in English, it's sometimes like that, you know,
like suffer the little children,
obviously doesn't mean like to make them suffer.
So allow them, you know.
Yeah. Or think about the word fast,
like fast can either mean you're moving quickly
or it can mean you're not moving at all.
Like buying them fast, fasten your seatbelt.
So we're about to work.
What's that?
Like the word fly or flight.
Sometimes it's talking about fleeing and people, people,
well, I pray that your flight be not in the winter to like,
yeah, we're talking about airplanes back there.
It's a prophecy, prophetic in the end.
That's right.
But that goes,
that's the danger of people who don't know Greek,
who want to tell you what the Greek says.
They don't know the language.
And look, folks, you don't need to learn Greek.
You don't need to learn Hebrew.
You've got the King James version.
Yeah.
And look, I would never be down on someone
for not knowing Greek or talk down to them
or act like they don't know the Bible
because you can fully know the Bible.
If you just have a King James Bible,
you could serve God your whole life with that.
And you're not lacking anything.
You are thoroughly furnished onto all good works,
but just don't tell us what the Greek says.
Just shut up about it if you haven't studied.
Yeah.
I mean, it's that simple.
Like it's okay not to know Greek.
Just shut up about it if you don't know about it though.
And don't try to tell us,
Oh, well actually the King James translated this wrong.
The Greek really says this
and you don't even know the alphabet in Greek.
It's absurd.
You know, he's telling you to learn Greek,
but don't criticize the King James
and tell us what the Greek says
when you literally don't even know the alphabet.
You literally haven't even read the text one time
and you're gonna tell us what it means.
It's stupid.
Like there was a guy today saying to me like,
well, I studied Greek in Bible college.
In fact, I can almost sight read it.
Like in the King James, you know,
gets all this stuff wrong.
And I'm thinking to myself,
so you have 54 scholars who translate the King James
who are all experts in Greek, experts.
They could pick up the Iliad and the Odyssey.
They can pick up Sophocles
and they can pick up the Septuagint, the New Testament
and they can sight read all of it.
You can almost sight read one book almost,
but you know more than them.
Well, then it wasn't James White
like appalled that you claimed
that you've read the Greek New Testament cover to cover.
And he was just like, he thought that was so ridiculous
cause he felt like no one's ever done that.
This is what he said.
He's like, he's claiming a really high level of knowledge.
Because I said that I'd read it cover to cover twice.
He's like, he's claiming a really high level.
You know, folks, something's wrong
when people think they're reading
the Greek New Testament twice is a high level,
not a high level folks.
Because a high level would be to read it many, many times
and to read lots of other Greek literature
and to read the Septuagint cover to cover.
That's a high level.
Okay, reading the Greek New Testament twice,
that's a beginner.
Okay, great.
But to these guys,
that shows you how unqualified they are
that they think reading it cover to cover once or twice
is like they've arrived or something.
Yeah, and I've read it once
and I'm going through it the second time,
but I do not feel like an expert on the subject.
You know, it's like now I'm reading it the second time
and I'm like, I feel like I'm not completely lost,
you know, like going through it
and I'm like understanding more and all that.
But to think reading it once or twice
that you're just like, all right,
time to go translate a Bible from the Greek,
like that would be ridiculous
to think of something like that.
It almost sounds like he's never even read it
cover to cover, you know?
Yeah.
I wouldn't be surprised.
And then I wanted to touch on something else
that you hear a lot.
People say, oh, King James only is a cult.
That's a cult.
Somebody said that to me today.
That's a cult like doctrine to be King James only.
So I wanted to address a couple of things about that
is that first of all,
they don't even know the definition of the word cult
because a cult is when you're following one person,
you know, you're wrapped up in like a cult of personality
around a person.
Like we think of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union
that's called a cult of personality.
Or you think of the Mormons,
it was a cult around Joseph Smith.
There's a cult around Brigham Young, okay?
You think of the Seventh-day Adventists,
it's a cult around LNG White.
You think of the Branch Davidians,
it's a cult following David Koresh.
That's a cult.
Okay, and then there's the biggest cult in the world,
which is following, you know, the Pope basically,
like it's that he's somehow the final authority.
But, you know, there are cults around people.
There could be a cult following of like a rock star
or a politician or-
Or even a film.
They'll use that term for like films.
Like there's a cult film because it's-
Yeah, a cult classic.
Yeah.
Or there's kind of a Trump cult, if you think about it.
People kind of worshiping Trump
and really going berserk for Trump.
That's kind of a cult following.
So this is what's so stupid to say that about the King James
is that no one does that with King James.
I've been, you know, around King James churches
my entire life.
I've never seen anybody say,
we gotta get our doctrine from King James.
Or, well, what did King James believe about that?
I've never seen anybody even care
what King James thought about it, number one.
But number two, if you look at cults,
they have like these other texts that are unique to them.
Like the Book of Mormon is unique to Mormons.
You know, the Seventh-day Adventists
have the writings of LNG White.
You know, the Jehovah's Witnesses
have the New World Translation.
That's a cult because they're the only ones who do it.
The King James is the number one
most best-selling book in the history of mankind.
It's the best-selling Bible translation
in the history of mankind, you know, overall.
And it's the most read Bible version today in 2021.
It's the most preached Bible version in 2021.
How is that a cult thing?
It's the main Bible.
It's the number one Bible.
And so we're just saying, stick with it.
Don't get off on these other goofball translations.
How could that be a cult?
Who are we following in this King James only cult?
Who's our guy?
Who is it?
Is it King James?
Because I don't think any of us care
what King James believed.
I've never heard anybody invoke him
as any kind of an authority on any of our beliefs.
Have you?
I've just heard people try to tear him down
to somehow legitimize the Bible,
but that's about it, you know.
I've never seen anybody have a cult following around him.
And if we're being accused of having a cult following
around the word of God, well, we're guilty
because yeah, it's a cult of Jesus.
Jesus is our cult leader then.
It's like, think about how stupid that sounds
because you can't point to any other person
that we're following besides Jesus and his word.
So how is that a cult?
You're basically calling Christianity a cult.
I think a lot of times people who will say that,
like KGB onlys are just, they're a cult.
They're actually using like Ruckmanism as an example.
Then obviously we wouldn't consider them to be KGB onlys
because they have this weird interpretation,
but they probably see something like that,
which that would be considered kind of like a cult
because they follow the writings and teachings
of Peter Ruckman and his interpretation
of the King James Bible.
That's probably what they're looking at when they say that.
Or judging us based upon the Ruckmanites.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Somebody asked a question,
do you guys believe that King James himself is saved?
I don't know enough about him.
I would say off the cuff, yes,
probably he was saved based on what I've seen,
but I don't know enough about him
and it's really not relevant to me.
He was used by God.
He wasn't even a translator of the text,
but he was used by God to authorize it
and get the ball rolling.
And so I hope as many people are in heaven as possible.
I'd rather get there and have extra people there
than like more than I thought, than less than I thought.
So hopefully he's up there, right, man?
Yeah.
Okay, somebody asked the question,
what's the difference between the Ben Asher
and Ben Chaim Masoretic text, Old Testaments?
Here's the thing, the difference in Hebrew texts
is a nothing burger because the Hebrew text
is, we talked about this a little earlier,
it's pretty much settled.
So the problem with the modern versions
isn't that they're using the wrong Hebrew texts,
it's that they're not using the Hebrew texts at all.
It's that they'll go with a Greek text
of the Old Testament in some places.
So if we could just get them to always use the Hebrew,
the difference between Ben Asher and Ben Chaim
is not gonna be, it's not like the New Testament
where you have these dramatic differences
between Greek texts.
And by the way, let me just point this out too.
People will try to claim like,
oh, there's all these discrepancies
between these editions of the Textus Receptus.
You gotta be careful with some of these stats
that people will throw at you.
Oh, 150 differences between these two editions
of the Textus Receptus because they'll count
as a difference two words that are spelled differently,
even if they're the same exact word.
If it's spelled different or if you just swapped two words,
like if you just change the word order
and it doesn't change the meaning at all,
they'll call that a difference.
And some of the things people say are just stupid.
Like somebody today is like,
oh, well the King James Bible has been changed 100,000,
there's over 100,000 changes since 1611.
It's like there's only 31,000 verses.
Are you saying there's three changes for verse?
These people are bizarre.
Like every verse has three mistakes in it,
according to them.
It's like Scott, 20,000 mistakes.
Yeah, 20,000 mistakes.
So every three verses you have two mistakes.
So basically Jesus wept,
how many mistakes does Jesus wept have?
Five?
How many mistakes are in Genesis 1, 1?
Seven?
These people are, it's insane.
And thank God for the replica of the King James.
We got the museum quality replica in our church auditorium.
Anybody can go compare it to their King James
anytime they want and see that it says the same thing.
Oh, but it's a different font.
So maybe they can count that as 31,000 changes
cause the font.
It's absurd.
Strong names.
Yeah, and these differences in the Greek text,
who cares how it's, if a spelling is different
or if a word order is different?
Because in Greek word order usually doesn't mean much
because of the it's inflected.
So you can put, you know, what, oh, Jesus Christ
instead of Christ Jesus, that's different.
That's what they'll say.
Wow, so different.
That's deceptive.
Yeah.
Yeah, cause you know, you get into people who are like,
which KJV, which TR?
It's just, it becomes a really silly argument.
Yeah.
And I think people too, you know,
when you deal with the majority text or the received text,
the idea of King James only is the fact that there's,
and I think we touched on this at the very beginning,
but the fact that God's word,
there's an unbroken chain of God's word.
It's not been under a rock.
So, you know, we're not saying like the King James,
like that's when the Bible came to be,
there was still the Bible before that.
You know, before there was English, you know,
before there was the English translation,
there was a Bible that was around
and it's the critical text people.
It's all those that have the new versions that are saying,
well, no, you know, that was buried under a rock
in 380 or whatever.
No, we believe it was in Greek before that,
or even in other languages before that.
But, you know, that's the big thing to me
is the fact that God said he preserves word
from this generation forever.
That leaves all these other versions out in the snow,
in my opinion, because they're all coming from a Greek text
that was buried under a rock.
And you expect me to believe that God left his word
buried under a rock for, you know, over a thousand years.
And then we finally got it in 1800s.
And, you know, thank God for Westcott and Hort, you know?
So it's just, that to me is like, you know,
you gotta reconcile the fact is God's word right
when it says that he's gonna preserve his word
from this generation forever or not, so.
All right, I'm gonna rapid fire answer some questions
from the Q and A.
Was the Septuagint used at all in the KJV?
There is nothing in the KJV Old Testament
that is not translated from the original Hebrew.
That was in the rules to the translators,
original Hebrew in the Old Testament,
original Greek in the New Testament.
People will come up with this false claim
that the King James translates the Latin Vulgate.
That is not true.
Now, sometimes the KJV is gonna agree
with the Latin Vulgate.
When they're both translating the same Hebrew text,
of course they're gonna agree in many, many places
because they're both translating the same Hebrew,
but the King James is never translated
from the Vulgate period.
And it's never translated from the Septuagint
unlike all the modern versions which do translate
from the Septuagint in the Old Testament.
So they might've looked at the Septuagint just to get ideas,
but in the end, they always translated the Hebrew text, okay?
Another question is translating the KJV to another language
by a person who knows nothing about Greek and Hebrew okay?
Or does a Bible version in any language
have to be from the originals?
I would say that if that's all they've got
in that language, if a language doesn't have a Bible
and some guy translates it from English, well, great,
that's better than nothing, but in a perfect world,
you should translate from the Hebrew and the Greek.
But if all you've got is a translation from Spanish
or a translation from English, well, hey,
that's a good start, that's a start.
Just like Wycliffe kind of got a start
by translating the Latin Vulgate into English,
at least he's getting something into English,
but you really wanna do like Tyndale
and go back to the Greek and Hebrew
and go to the original languages.
So you guys have any thoughts on those?
Yeah, I agree, and I think we touched on that too
with the idioms and the dynamic equivalence,
and that's why you would wanna go back
to the Greek and Hebrew, because you wanna make sure
you're not taking it, basically you're not gonna,
you're gonna have the clear source from the very beginning
going into the other language, so.
Like sometimes the Spanish is more word for word
like the Greek, just because Spanish and Greek
are closer together than English and Greek as languages.
So it wouldn't really make any sense
to go from Greek to English to Spanish.
It'd be a lot easier and you could be even more accurate
by just translating directly from Greek to Spanish,
cut out the middleman, because English is gonna take it
a little bit further away idiomatically.
You're still gonna get the same meanings,
but you'd rather, you know, go straight from Greek.
You know, like, for example, here's a perfect example.
You know, Jesus walking on the water,
and in the Greek, they thought that he was a phandasma,
okay, which the King James says
they thought that it was a spirit, okay.
So a phandasma, but in Spanish,
you actually have the word phantasma,
and the word phantasma means the exact same thing
as the Greek word phandasma.
So what would be better if you were translating
into Spanish, you could say,
they thought he was an espiritu.
If you were translating from English into Spanish,
you'd say they thought it was an espiritu.
But if you were translating directly from Greek
into Spanish, you'd say they thought it was a phantasma,
and which one's better?
Obviously, which one's more right on in Spanish
would be to come straight from Greek into Spanish.
So it's literally the exact same word.
But the Ruckmanites would be like,
no, it needs to say espiritu,
even though spirit and ghost mean the same thing,
because phantasma is ghost in Spanish,
but it's the scary kind of ghost.
In Acts 21, 38, you have, you know,
they're talking to Paul, and they're basically saying
how he was with the 4,000 men in the wilderness
who were murderers.
In Greek, it says sicario.
And in Spanish, it actually translates exactly the same
as sicario, and even, you know, today,
that's the word they use for like an assassin
or something like that, you know?
So they didn't even change it at all.
But I mean, we wouldn't, we don't have a word like that.
It's similar to Greek, so we just, you know,
the King James is translated as murders,
which is exactly what it is.
But we don't have a word like that stems from sicario.
Like, I don't know of an English word
that means like sicario,
that means like an assassin or a murderer.
Is the Catholic Bible better or worse than the NIV?
I mean, I would say modern Catholic Bibles
are as bad as the NIV,
but the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
is not even close to being as bad as the NIV.
Like the Douay, the NIV is way worse
than the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
But modern Catholic Bibles are probably as bad
as the NIV or worse.
And keep in mind, Catholic Bibles aren't typically
translated from the Greek and Hebrew.
They're typically translated from the Latin Vulgate.
So, all right, let's see.
I'm just going through these Q and A's trying to,
there's so many, there's 59 in there right now.
We've answered like 40,
trying to get to as many as we can.
I saw on Wikipedia that the KJV translated
from other sources other than the Greek and Hebrew.
That is a lie.
It's false, it's historically inaccurate,
and it can be demonstrated to be inaccurate.
Give me any verse you want to,
and I will demonstrate to you that it is translated
from the original Hebrew and Greek.
So that's just a complete myth and it's false.
Another person said, well, what, you know,
can you point to a pure Bible version
before the King James or, you know,
where were the good Bible versions?
The fact is that scriptures from before 1611,
99.9% of them are gone because books don't last.
Paper doesn't last, scrolls don't last.
So 99.99% of books from the ancient world have not survived.
So we don't really know what's out there.
There are tons and tons of Bible versions
that have been lost forever,
but the word of God has been preserved.
You know, we have it today.
We have an accurate Greek text.
We have an accurate Hebrew text.
We have an accurate English Bible.
And there were all kinds of good Bible versions
that we could point to in languages that we don't understand
like, you know, the Georgian and the Armenian
and the Syriac and stuff.
You know, obviously we haven't learned all those languages
and read all those translations.
And I'm sure there are tons more in other languages
that are just gone.
So, but I will promise you one thing.
The word of God has always been preserved
in every generation.
It's always been out there.
It's been kept pure in all ages
as the reformed confessional people would say.
And that's true.
It's been kept pure in all ages.
And so, you know, and it's kind of like this too.
Wouldn't we say there's been an unbroken chain
of saved Christians?
Yep, definitely.
Or do we buy into this doctrine that says,
oh, everybody was Catholic.
And then the Protestant Reformation happened.
No, we believe that there's always been people
getting dunked under water after believing in Christ.
Well, Judas got so many people saved.
So I guess it's possible, right?
Yeah.
But the point is, you know,
there's always been saved people.
There's always been people getting dunked under water,
saved converts.
There's all, but here's the thing.
Some people will be like, well, yeah,
well point me to a Bible believing church in the 1100s.
I don't know, who knows?
We don't have, it hasn't been preserved.
Point me to the right Bible in the 1100s.
It's like, you'd have to get in a time machine to do that.
But don't we believe by faith
that there were saved people in the 1100s?
And we believe by faith that the word of God was out there.
It was being precious, being circulated.
So where was it at?
It was somewhere.
We don't know, but it was there.
Just like I can't name for you
every Bible believing preacher
from John the Baptist until now
to prove that it's an unbroken chain.
But the Bible does say that, you know,
that the righteousness of God
is revealed from faith to faith.
And so I, you know, obviously I believe, I agree with you.
It's just as much as a saved person
is begetting another saved person.
You gotta have the word of God
because faith comes by hearing and hearing
by the word of God.
So how could you be revealed from faith to faith
if you don't, and if faith comes by hearing
and hearing by the word of God,
then the word of God had to be there for that to happen.
So.
Okay, somebody asked a question.
I'm aware it's called Codex Vaticanus.
How is it connected to the Vatican?
So the number one most important manuscript
to modern Bible translators is Codex Vaticanus.
Like that is the one that has the most influence
on modern versions.
It's also sometimes called Codex B.
Codex B or Codex Vaticanus is the corrupt Greek text
most responsible for the corruption in the modern versions.
And the reason it's called Vaticanus
is because it's located in the Vatican's library.
It was found in the Vatican's archives.
It's something that they had tucked away
that was basically made publicly available
and printed in the 1800s so that scholars could study it
and start to use it and be influenced by it.
Whereas before the 1800s,
it was a text that was not having an influence
on Bible translations.
And it wasn't being copied and used and translated.
It was something that the Vatican had tucked away.
And in the 1800s, it becomes mass distributed
and published and widely available.
And it starts to have an influence
along with Codex Sinaiticus,
which is found in a monastery in Egypt in the Sinai.
Those two texts who don't even agree with each other
by the way, in many multitudes of places
became the basis of the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
And they're majorly influential in the Nestle Alonde
and the United Bible Societies wrong Greek texts.
And these two documents, I liked the Bible verses said,
the two witnesses get up to testify against Jesus
and they couldn't even agree with each other.
These are the two evil witnesses against the word of God.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and their testimony
does not agree with one another.
I love that.
I never heard, I never thought of that,
but that is a great analogy.
Like false witnesses against Jesus.
These are the false words and they don't agree.
Okay, I am KJV only and believe the preserved word,
but how exactly are the other versions translated?
It's obviously not the Greek, correct?
We already talked about that one earlier.
Okay, we already talked about this one
cause I'm trying to mark these as already finished.
Do you know why Genesis 1, 1 in the KJV
uses heaven singular, but in the Spanish
Reina Bolera, pre-servada,
I don't know if they mean purificada.
Probably.
Unless there's another one called the pre-servada,
but maybe there is, uses los cielos plural.
I assume it's because it's like how we use skies
in English, even though it's singular
to refer to its size and enormity.
Here's what's going on.
It's one of those things where the Hebrew word there,
shamaim, is basically, it's a word that is structurally
a plural word, but it can be used in a singular manner,
like with a singular verb,
sort of like even the word for God elohim,
which also has that plural em ending,
but yet it's used with a singular verb.
So it can be, it's just God, singular, singular verb.
It's grammatically used in a singular way,
but it's morphology is plural.
So the Hebrew word for heaven is the same way.
Shamaim, basically that I'm ending is,
it sounds dual or sounds plural in Hebrew.
And because there's no verb associated with it,
in verse one, just by looking at it in Hebrew,
it's kind of impossible to tell if it's singular or plural.
So you kinda, it's a little bit of an interpretation there,
whether to put it as heaven or heavens.
And is there really a difference
between heaven and heavens?
It's kind of a matter of opinion,
but I'm just explaining why there's a discrepancy there.
I believe that the King James is accurate to say heaven
because personally, I believe in Genesis 1.1
what's being created is the place where God lives,
not the sky, because the sky is not created until day two
with the firmament.
So to me, if you put heavens in Genesis 1.1,
it would sound like God's creating the earth and the sky.
Because when I hear heavens,
I don't think of the place God lives, I think of the sky.
Whereas I believe the thing that's being created
in verse one is the heaven where God lives.
So, but as far as grammatically,
the word could go either way.
So that's why you see some Bibles do heaven,
some do heavens.
Grammatically it can go either way,
but I think it makes more sense for it to be heaven.
So I think that's why the King James is right.
So you guys can jump in if you wanna add anything or.
Did the ASV revised version prompt the KJV only movement?
Well, obviously bad versions prompted KJV only-ism.
You didn't need, you didn't used to need KJV only-ism
cause everybody just used the King James.
But when bad versions come out, you gotta fight it.
I'm gonna read these so you guys can jump in
and say whatever, if you have anything on your mind.
Keep reading these.
I think I'm gonna call it a night.
Yeah, yeah, we went kind of long.
I'm just, I just get fired up about this stuff.
I just wanna just.
Amen.
Keep going.
Well, God bless you, man.
Thanks for coming on.
Yeah, thanks for having me on.
Pastor Robinson, you have a good night.
Yeah, you too.
I'll be heading out here soon too.
Stay safe.
See you guys.
Yep, God bless you.
See you later.
Would you say that most Ruckmanites believe
that the King James Bible deviates from the TBR?
If so, what misconceptions make them think this?
Yes, they do think that.
And it's because people publish these lists of discrepancies
between the King James and the TBR
and they're totally bogus.
One time I sat down with Gale Riplinger's list
of 50 some discrepancies.
And I had that list, Greek New Testament and King James.
I looked up all of them and they were all bogus
except two out of 54 or whatever.
I found two that were legit.
One of them was the amen missing
at the end of the book of Ephesians.
So I just pulled out my Greek New Testament
just wrote the word amin and it was fixed.
And then one of them says,
it's word of God instead of word of the Lord.
So both of them are just completely meaningless.
They don't change any meaning between the,
is there some difference between the word of God
or the word of the Lord?
Well, I'm sure according to a Ruckmanite,
there's a difference because they think the kingdom of God
and the kingdom of heaven are totally different.
So word of God, word of the Lord, add an amen.
It's two typos, no big deal.
Everything else was a fraud.
But they don't expect you to actually look them up.
They just expect you to just take their word for it.
If you do some fact checking on Gale Riplinger,
you're gonna find a lot of inaccuracy in her work period.
She's a bold faced liar in her work a lot.
She'll misquote people and twist things.
And yeah, it's, I do not-
Was it you that showed the ellipses
or were you going through a James White's book
where it was talking about Gale Rippling
or quoting somebody and there was like five ellipses?
Still, Gale Rippling will quote someone
and put like two words, dot, dot, dot,
three words, dot, dot, dot, two words,
and make them say something that they didn't even say.
Right.
It's absurd.
So,
all right.
I'm just seeing if there's any really good questions
that we, sorry that we don't have time
to get to all of them, folks.
One says, what's the controversy about 1st John 5-7?
I mean, obviously that's a textual issue with the,
I mean, I don't know if you wanna get into the weeds
on the fact of why they think it's not there,
but I don't really care
why they don't think it's in their text.
Yeah, I mean, there's lots of evidence
for 1st John 5-7.
There's a difference between the majority Greek text
and the Textus Receptus.
Usually those end up being the same thing,
but there are places where the Textus Receptus
does not follow the majority.
And the philosophy behind the majority text
is that they only look at the Greek evidence.
Whereas the Textus Receptus also looks at evidence
in other languages.
So you have 1st John 5-7
not being in the majority of Greek texts,
but it's in thousands and thousands and thousands
of Latin texts, it's in other languages.
And you have writers quoting 1st John 5-7
all the way back,
because people will be like,
there's no Greek text of 1st John 5-7
before whatever year they claim,
the year 1300 or the year 1100 or the year 1500 or whatever.
But the thing is, depending on what claim they're making,
but you can find 1st John 5-7 quoted by preachers
that are preaching from 1st John 5-7
or hymns that are using 1st John 5-7.
So that's evidence that it was there.
Here's what's so funny.
John Chrysostom, preacher from around 1600 years ago,
John Chrysostom preached verse by verse
through lots of the New Testament.
And so there's a lot of stuff that they're saying,
oh, the oldest stuff says it's not,
there's no Greek manuscript from back then that says it.
But yet when John Chrysostom is preaching verse by verse,
if you look at what he's preaching,
he's going with Texas Receptus stuff.
And so shouldn't that count as evidence of,
that should count as evidence from the 4th century AD,
4th century AD, this verse was there,
this wording was there,
because John Chrysostom is preaching through it
verse by verse and he reads it.
But they don't always take that evidence into account.
Yeah.
Because they don't consider that a Greek manuscript.
But if a guy's preaching through the Bible
and he uses a verse, then it had to,
he can't use it if it isn't there.
Well, they just added not to a verse
earlier we're talking about, so.
This is true.
Yeah.
Yes.
All right.
Yeah, I'm getting a little burned out myself,
but hey, I appreciate everybody tuning in.
And I hope that this was helpful.
I hope that they got something out of this
and that you'll be able to answer the bozos
who come up with all the disinformation
and they lie about the King James Bible
and they try to twist what King James only-ism stands for.
This was just kind of an informal thing.
We're just kind of chit-chatting and talking about stuff
and answering questions.
But I hope that you gleaned from it.
I hope that you learned something tonight
and gained from it.
And I hope you understand where we're coming from
as being King James only, what that means to us.
Any closing thoughts?
Yeah, just the fact that,
hey, we have a perfect Bible in English.
It's the King James Bible.
And I believe God blesses your study.
And you're gonna learn so much about the Bible
if you just trust the Bible.
If you just trust that the King James Bible is perfect
and stop thinking that there's a mistake here or there
and just trust in it and you'll learn a lot.
Because there's a lot of times you think it's a mistake,
it's actually not.
It's actually gonna teach you something about some doctrine
or whatever.
And the fact that we have it in English,
you should take advantage of it
and start reading it, read it a lot.
Yeah, and if you get the ESV,
it's gonna change every couple of years.
Yeah.
And they claimed recently the ESV is done changing.
Now they've said, nope, we're gonna change it again.
People thought the ESV was done changing.
They're changing it again, my friend.
And as the Greek Nestle-Aland 29th edition
gives way to the 30th edition, 31st edition.
And these are already planned.
There's for sure gonna be a 30th,
for sure gonna be a 31st, for sure gonna be a 32nd.
They're already planning it.
They're redoing the entire Greek New Testament.
And then they're gonna have to redo the ESV to reflect that.
And it never ends.
It goes on and on.
The King James Bible has stayed the same for 400 plus years.
It's gonna say the same thing 20 years from now.
Get out of the Bible of the Month Club and get on the rock.
That it's accurate.
It's the traditional preserved text.
Amen.
Well, have a good night, Pastor.
Thanks for inviting me on.