So, basically, being King James, 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 so, 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.
Yeah, exactly, because, you know, 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.
You know, 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,
you know, I wonder where they found that, right, 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.
I mean, 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.
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 like
Hebrew text, you know, 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.
Right.
So it's a translation of a translation, right?
And the Greek Septuagint has all kinds of problems.
And so, right.
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 some of the Septuagint just to kind of see, well, first of all, to
get vocabulary, you know, because it is, you know, obviously in older writing in Greek,
but it's definitely interesting.
You know, the places where we usually go to in the Old Testament to show like 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 ten, like they're pulling it from the Septuagint.
That's where the corruption is coming from.
Yeah, exactly.
The Septuagint.
Right.
Yeah, and it's fine.
I just read the book of Job and 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
an 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, because they want to sell it.
Because God's people know that those are part of the Bible, that those scriptures need to
be there.
Yeah.
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 100 years after the flood, so he's basically treading water,
you know, through the global flood, and he's still alive, even though he's not on the
ark.
You've got, you know, half the David and Goliath story gone, hundreds of lines from the book
of Job are removed.
I mean, it's just, 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, disidemonia,
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.
Yeah.
The actual word is disidemonasterous, comes from disidemonia, which is, you know, superstition,
the noun.
Right.
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 going to find in the New King James, in the MEV.
And even in modern, 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 thriskos, if I'm saying that right, but.
Thank you.