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...
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 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 is 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's only in the English, you know?
That's the only place you can have it.
That's what Ruckmanites believe.
But they're actually the ones putting God in the box, because we're saying it could
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 it 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.