(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, concluding my 10-part response to the King James only controversy by Dr. James White. We are in the last chapter, Chapter 10, Questions and Answers, and this chapter covers a whole variety of subjects because it's just a list of questions and answers, and we're going to go through each of them in this video. First question, doesn't Psalm 12 verses 6 and 7 promise that God will preserve his words? The King James reads, The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. The NIV on the other hand says, The words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever. So in the NIV, it takes away the preservation of God's Word, and just mentions that, you know, we will be kept safe from those kind of people. So it's just a completely different passage saying something completely different. Now, he starts out in his answer by saying, Well, first, where does Psalm 12 say that the words of the Lord refer to the King James version of the Bible? Of course, it doesn't. But the point being made by King James only, as myself included, is that God has promised to preserve his word from generation to generation. Meaning that in the 20th century, God's Word existed. In the 19th century, in the 18th century, in the 17th century, God's Word was being read, preached. You know, from the time of Christ until now, God's Word has endured. And the reason that's important to the King James only argument is that it's important to the textus receptus argument, the received text argument. We don't believe that we have to dig in the earth to try to find God's Word. So something that was dug up in the 1800s or the 1900s, and they're saying, Well, this is older and more reliable, so this is God's Word. You know, we're not going to go with that because we believe God's Word has been preserved. So it doesn't have to be unearthed or dug up. God's Word would not be buried for over a thousand years and have to be dug up by an archaeologist. And, oh, let's all change our Bibles because we found these new findings. No, we believe in that which has been passed down. Okay, the received text, the King James Bible, the traditional text. And so we believe God has preserved his Word, and it's been passed down to us today as English speakers in the form of the King James Version. And so we believe that the Greek textus receptus has been preserved, whereas these new things that are being dug up that are supposedly older and more reliable cannot be God's Word because they weren't preserved. I don't consider preservation if it's buried for over a thousand years and then dug up. It was buried. It's not what God passed down or allowed to go from generation to generation. So that's the point that's being made. But then, at the end of his answer, he says, well, finally, noting the NIV translation, it is quite possible that verse 7 does not refer back to the words of the Lord in verse 6. So, he doesn't even know. You know, the question was, let me read the question again. Doesn't Psalm 12, 6, and 7 promise that God will preserve his words? Now, if that question were asked to me, I would say, yes, it does. Yes. Psalm 12, verses 6 and 7, promises that God will preserve his words. James White's answer is, I don't know. His answer is, you know, the King James says this, the NIV says this, he shows both side by side, and then he basically says, well, you know what, it's possible that verse 7 is referring to the words of the Lord, and it's possible that it isn't. He doesn't know. So, his answer to the first question in his Q&A section is, I don't know. I don't know why he would pick this as the first question he answers when his answer is, I don't know. But that's his answer, basically. And it's kind of a silly thing to make a big deal about and put this as your first question. You know, because whatever people put first, that's their priority. Why start with this? Why lead with this in the Q&A? Especially in light of the fact that there are a whole bunch of other verses on the preservation of God's word. It's not like we need Psalm 12, verses 6 and 7, to tell us that it's preserved. How about, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. How about, the grass withereth and the flower fadeth, but the word of our God endureth forever. How about, it's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So, it's not like this is the only verse on preservation. He doesn't even know the answer. He just sows doubt and confusion in the reader's mind. This Q&A section is off to a rough start. Let's get to the next question. Modern versions have copyrights. You can't copyright God's word. The KJV has no copyright. Doesn't this prove the KJV is the best? Now, my answer to this is that that alone, no, that alone does not prove that the KJV is the best. The fact that modern versions have copyrights is wrong. Now, the King James had something similar to a copyright when it was first printed because it had this cum privilegeo. And, you know, technically the KJV belongs to the English crown he points to. And so the British government technically has the copyright on it. And in the United States, there's no copyright on it. But none of that's relevant. So, you know, the answer to this question, does that prove the KJV is the best? No, it doesn't. That alone does not prove anything. Except it does prove the fact that there's a motive for modern versions to change God's word because they can copyright it. And I think James White would agree with this. In fact, you know, when I interviewed him for our film, New World Order Bible Versions, he agreed with the fact that there are too many translations in English. And that the motive behind making all these various translations is money. The love of money is that people want to make money by copywriting new translations and making a buck off it. And so often when you go to the store, you'll find a King James for five dollars. And then the identical Bible, same leather, same paper, same binding will be six dollars in the NIV or the ESV or whatever. It'll be like a dollar more, two dollars more because they have to pay royalties to the copyright owner. I think that that's wrong to copyright God's word. I'm against copyrights in general. I don't think anything should be copyrighted. And so feel free to take any of my videos from my YouTube channel and use them for whatever you like. Everything I do is public domain as far as I'm concerned. So I don't even believe in copyrights or intellectual property. But it seems especially wicked to copyright God's word. But that doesn't prove anything. You know, people are going to try to profit from God's word. They're bad people. OK, so let's move on to the next point. They're bad people. OK, so let's move on to the next point. Question, weren't Westcott and Hort occultists, evil men, heretics, closet Roman Catholics and so forth? So he basically goes into the fact that, hey, Westcott and Hort have problems. Yeah, they had some false doctrine, but they weren't perfect. But neither was Erasmus. Neither was Stephanus. You know, neither were the King James translators perfect in their doctrine or their lifestyles or their practice. So that doesn't prove anything. And you know what? On some level, I agree with them on that point that the ad hominem argument against them isn't the strongest argument. I would just point to the garbage text that they produced, the wicked, perverted Westcott and Hort Greek text. And I would rather just look at the text that they produced and show what garbage it is than to focus on who the person was that compiled it. You know, it's Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that are the bad guys, not necessarily Westcott and Hort who just compiled Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Although I do believe Westcott and Hort were bad guys, very bad guys. But it's, you know, I don't want to emphasize that. I don't think that that's the big issue. So I tend to kind of agree with him in general on that point. Okay, next. I've heard that there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee. Is this true? And he talks about Virginia Mallincott being involved and he tries to downplay her involvement. Like, oh, she wasn't really that involved. Well, listen to this quote about her involvement. Virginia Mallincott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. And so this is constantly what NIV apologists will do. They'll try to downplay Virginia Mallincott, this filthy sodomite who was involved in the NIV translation by saying, oh, she was only showing how to do a style. Well, I guess that's why the NIV has such a faggoty style. Style is pretty important, my friend. And so the fact that this lesbian is being consulted on the style, that's just as bad as if she were consulted on something else. And look, the reason that King James Onlyists are bringing this up in the first place is because of the fact that the NIV will remove the word sodomite and replace it with a male prostitute or a shrine prostitute. So there does seem to be an agenda there of glossing this over. Now, I've done a YouTube video about three or four months ago called The Word Sodomite in the KJV. So if you want to understand the rationale behind the translation of the English word sodomite from the original Hebrew, then please watch that video that I did a few months ago, The Word Sodomite in the English KJV. I'm not going to go into that in this video. But there was another guy named Woodstra that was a male homosexual that was involved in translating the NIV. But again, I don't think that that's really the biggest reason why the NIV is so bad. All you have to do is look at the NIV itself. The proof is in the pudding. Put the King James next to the NIV, and you'll see that the NIV is garbage from a literature standpoint. The style is garbage, and it contradicts itself. It's like a butter knife compared to the two-edged sword of the KJV, and it's filled with omissions, additions, false doctrine, heresy, blasphemy, etc. But the fact that these two sodomites are involved in translating it, that's obviously another mark against it. Now, he brings this up, of course, at the bottom of page 300. Scholars who are not involved in the entire Bible translation issue have noted that many facts point to the conclusion that King James himself was a homosexual. This is the stupidest thing in the world. There's no evidence that King James was a homo. Zero. Now, this is just a rumor that people love to spout all over the internet about King James being a homo. If you actually look at the evidence, which I have, I've read several books on the life of King James. I've examined the evidence. I'm interested in history. When you read up on it, if you look at the evidence, it's like, oh, he had this really close male friend or something. It's so weak. There's no evidence of him being a homo. He was married and he was a normal guy from all accounts. But there's a homo agenda out there to try to just take characters from history and say that they're all homos. They just try to go back and scour through history and in any way that they can try to construe any historical figure as being a homo, they want to do that. They just want to make any famous person from the past out to be a homo because they just want to advance their homo agenda like, hey, look at all these cool people from history that are homos. Or they want to attack the King James by saying that the man King James, who, by the way, had nothing to do with the translation, that he was a sodomite. It's false. It's not true. It's just a fabrication. If you examine all the evidence, you'll see that it's a very weak argument. Okay, next question. You seem to feel that the plain language used by Dr. Ruckman and other defenders of the KJV is unscriptural and simply is wrong for a Christian minister. But the prophets of old spoke in strong terms, as did the Lord and the apostles. Why shouldn't brother Ruckman speak in the same way? First of all, I believe that Peter Ruckman is a false prophet. I believe he's burning in hell. I don't even believe that he's even saved. I believe he's a very wicked person. I wouldn't even call him brother Ruckman. And as far as his caustic and abrasive tone, I do think that he was over the top in just being obnoxious, being a jerk. And so I'm not going to defend his behavior at all. And I believe he's a damnable heretic with all kinds of false doctrine. And I don't have time to go into that in this video. But in general, the questions asking about, you know, preachers using strong language, harsh language, plain language. Okay, so here's James White's answer to this. Brother Ruckman is not the Lord or an apostle or a prophet. Now, this is a stupid answer. Okay, because right here, the question is, well, isn't this how Jesus and the apostles and the prophets preached? Why can't we preach that way? And he says, well, you know, that's because we're not the Lord. We're not a prophet. We're not a prophet. This is just such a dumb argument. I've heard this so many times. When you point out prophets of God using strong language or apostles in the New Testament using strong language. Yeah, but you're not the apostle Paul. You're not Peter. You're not Isaiah. That is a dumb argument, folks, because God has all that preaching in the Bible to teach us how to preach. I mean, how am I supposed to learn how to preach? I'm supposed to look at the preachers in the Bible that were inspired by God, that were used by God, and I'm supposed to use them as role models. My role models are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. My role models are Peter, James, John, and so forth. So to sit there and say, oh, well, you're not them. They have the right to preach hard, but you don't. It's just all these watered down preachers. They get up and preach like a wet spaghetti noodle, and then they basically want to hide behind. Oh, well, we're just being gentle. We're just being meek and kind and soft and loving. Whereas, you know, the prophets, well, you know, God let them do that, but he didn't tell us to do that. Folks, we are to preach like Jesus preached. We are to preach like Peter, James, and John preached, like Isaiah, Jeremiah preached. And so this is a ridiculous argument to say, well, you're not them. Well, I know I'm not them, but, you know, I want to try to be like them since they're my heroes, since they're my role models that God gave me as a preacher. But he says, the Bible tells us how we are supposed to respond to those who contradict us. And then he goes to 2 Timothy 2 24, and the servant of the Lord must not strive. Now, what does strive mean? Strive means to fight or to argue, right? He says, the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient in meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who were taken captive by him at his will. And then he says after this, blustery words and insulting invective are for those who have little substance to back up their position. Well, did Jesus have little substance to back up his position? When he said, you serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell, your whited sepulchers? Oh, King Herod said that? Well, go tell that fox, X, Y, and Z. Look, James White's answer is like, well, Jesus can talk that way, but you can't. He left us an example that we should follow in his steps. Well, the apostles can rebuke people and call them sons of the devil. And Paul can say, you son of the devil, we not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord, but we can't talk that way. Again, that's a ridiculous argument. But he says here, blustery words and insulting invective are for those who have little substance to back up their position. What he's failing to differentiate between is preaching and our interactions with people one on one. Okay, so when we stand up and preach, we're going to preach hard as God's ministers. I want to get up and preach like Matthew 23. Read Matthew 23 and see how Jesus preaches. He preaches hard. He's calling names. He's ripping face. I'm going to preach that way. I think it's an example. And we could go to many passages in the prophets of the Old Testament. You say, well, he's God, though. Okay, but you could go to the human preachers where God inspired them to rip face just as hard or even harder than Matthew 23. But what he's failing to understand is the difference between that and having a discussion with someone, having a conversation with someone. You know, if I am actually sitting down and having a conversation with someone, the last thing I want to do is strive with that person. Argue with that person. Debate with that person. Contend with that person. I don't want to do that. Why? Because that is not profitable. It's vain. It's unprofitable. It's a waste of time. Now, look, I go out and knock doors every single week. For over 20 years, I've gone out and knocked on doors every single week trying to get people saved. Just preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, asking people, do you know for sure if you die today, you go to heaven and going through the gospel with people. When people begin to argue with me, I just tell them, hey, have a great day. You know, I don't want to argue with you. You know, have a good one. See you later. God bless you. And I've walked away and had people, you know, following me down the street. I'm not done talking to you. I want to keep that, you know, and they'll just argue with you all day. Okay. I don't want to go out and argue with Mormons. Argue with Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible says a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such as subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself. So I don't want to sit here and argue with cult members and unsaved people. You know, I'm going to tell them the truth. I'm going to speak the truth to them. But if they want to contend or strive or argue, you know, I just want to move on. And I try to leave on a positive note, like, hey, God bless you. I don't, you know, I'm going to go and take off, but hey, God bless you. Have a good day. I try to leave on a positive note, but I'm not going to argue with them. I'll give people one chance. And if they reject what I show them from the word of God, I show them another clear scripture. If they reject that, it's like, hey, God bless you. Have a good day. See you later. I'm out of here. That's what second Timothy is teaching here. When he says the servant, the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men apt to teach patient in meekness, instructing those that oppose themselves. What does he say? You know, they're only opposing you. They're opposing themselves, right? If God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil who are taken captive by him and his will. What he's saying here is that, you know, when you're out evangelizing and you run into people that are mixed up in a false doctrine, they're not your enemy. They are victims of the devil. They've been ensnared by the devil. And you want to help those people. You're not there to fight with them. And I'm constantly trying to teach people. Don't get in a fight when you're out evangelizing. Don't argue. Don't contend. Don't debate. You know, preach the gospel to those who are willing to hear. And if people reject it, then you just shake the dust off your feet and move on. It's that simple. So that's what's being taught here. And, you know, even when I'm talking to a brother in Christ, you know, I was on an airplane a couple days ago and I was seated next to a gentleman who was already saved. And he had a book in his hand that was this kind of Zionist, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish type of a book. And, you know, we got to talking a little bit. And I very gently, very kindly, very meekly showed him some scripture on the fact that the Jews are not God's chosen people. And that, you know, they've been replaced by Christians in the New Testament. That we as believers in Christ are God's chosen people. And that, you know, the Jews are under God's wrath. And that if they don't have the Son, they don't have the Father. And, you know, I went through and showed him all this. But I was very gentle and kind and nice about it. And even though he strongly disagreed with me and was, you know, saying a lot of things I didn't agree with, we were able to have a nice civil discussion. I think that's always the best way to talk about the Bible with somebody is to have a civil discussion. On the other hand, this guy right here, James White, you know what he's the most famous for? He's famous for debate. This is what he does for a living. He is a debater. He goes to hundreds of debates. This guy loves arguing. Okay. This is what he is constantly challenging this person to a debate and challenging that person to a debate. Okay. I don't believe that debates are profitable. I don't think that they're a good way to learn. I think that they're unprofitable in vain. Strife, contention, debate are bad things, in my opinion. Now, a lot of people say, oh, you know, you debated James White. I've never debated anyone in my life in any kind of a formal setting. Have I gotten in arguments with people? Yeah. But virtually every time I got in an argument or a debate with someone, I typically regretted it 100% of the time because somebody got my goad and got me into an argument and got me into a fight, but I try to avoid fights and debates as much as I can because they're unprofitable in vain. I did not debate James White. Okay. James White has never invited me to debate him. He's never challenged me to a debate. If he did, I would turn him down because I don't do debates. Now, I interviewed James White for my film, New World Order Bible Versions. Okay. And we uploaded that entire interview unedited to YouTube. And the purpose of that interview was to get footage for our documentary, New World Order Bible Versions, which we did. Mission accomplished. And so in that video, we were able to include James White because we did that interview. And I was not trying to prove James White wrong in that interview. I was just trying to get the footage that I wanted for my film. And I was doing an interview. Now, in that interview, we actually agree on a lot. In fact, at one point in the interview, he even says, hey, are we agreeing on too much? Because this guy is so used to just debate and strife and contention that he thinks there's something wrong with the interview if we're agreeing. But actually, James White and I agreed on a lot in that particular interview because of the questions that were being asked and because of the subject matter. Okay. So we were agreeing on a lot of things. We were talking about a lot of things. I was asking him, what about this? What about that? Now, at some points in the conversation, we argued a little bit, but I felt that we kept it very civil and that it didn't descend into any kind of a, you know, food fight or anything like that. Now, I would like to point you to a video that's a really good example of dialogue that's not strife, contention and debate. And there's a video where I'm interviewing a transhumanist atheist. Okay, so you can look up Pastor Anderson interviews transhumanist atheist. Folks, it's a really interesting video. It's a really interesting conversation about transhumanism and, you know, atheism versus believing the Bible. And you know what? This guy believes way different than me. He's this long haired atheist and he's sitting there talking to Pastor Anderson about transhumanism and God and the Bible and everything like that. And you know what? It's a very civil discussion. We're friendly. You know, I'm conceding good points that he makes. He concedes good points that I make. We're able to have dialogue. Folks, that's educational. That's healthy. That's helpful. Debating, strife, contention. These are things to be avoided. That's what's being taught here in 2 Timothy chapter 2 that we should gently, meekly try to teach people that are unsaved and get them saved. Okay, folks, you want to see an example of me demonstrating that? Come out knocking doors with me. I go out door knocking every single week. Hundreds and hundreds of people have gone out with me as a silent partner and they would attest the fact that I was nice to people. Now, I'm guilty. I have lost my temper a few times, but 99.9% of the time I'm friendly, gentle, nice, meek and I walk away from arguments. Okay. Whereas I have lost my temper a few times at some Jehovah's Witness or Mormon or Seventh-day Adventist. I always regretted it afterward, getting into a big argument or shouting match or whatever. So that's different than getting up and preaching. Okay. And again, we see this in the Bible. Men of God get up and preach. They rip on the Pharisees. They rip on the Sadducees. They rip on the worshipers of Baal. They rip on people that are corrupting God's word. And so should we rip some face. Well, don't call names though. Oh, names like Viper, serpent, white at Sepulcher. Of course, we're going to call some names. Okay. Well, but don't name the names of the false teachers. Oh, you mean like Alexander, Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenaeus, Alexander the coppersmith. Look, I'm going to follow the examples of the prophets and apostles. It's silly to say that we don't have the right to do that. Anyway, I spent a little too much time on that point. So let's move on. Question. Doesn't the fact that God has blessed the KJV more than any other English translation prove that we should continue to use it as our only translation? Well, that question is flawed because God has not blessed the KJV more than any other English translation. Okay. Because that's to imply that God has somewhat blessed some of the modern translations. The King James version is the only translation that's widely in print in modern times that God has blessed. God hasn't blessed the new King James at all. God has not blessed the NIV at all. God has not blessed the ESV at all. God has not blessed the new American standard at all. So it's not that the King James Bible has been blessed more. It's that the King James Bible has been blessed period. Now, God did bless translations before the King James. Like he blessed the Tyndale New Testament. He blessed the Bishop's Bible, etc. Because those were good Bibles, albeit not perfect. They were rough drafts. The King James perfected it. But, you know, yeah, God blessed good Bibles. God's not going to bless a corrupt piece of garbage like the ESV or the new American standard or the NIV. And look at the fruit of these modern versions. Ever since these modern versions have gotten popular, Christianity in general, evangelical Christianity in America has gone down the toilet. Show me a church that uses the NIV or the ESV that has right doctrine. It doesn't exist. Okay? Every church that is a soul winning church, preaching hard, right gospel, right doctrine is a King James Bible preaching church period. So the fruit of these new versions is garbage because they're garbage. So I take issue with that particular question. He says, God has indeed blessed the KJV. But then he says, you know, God bless the new American standard. God bless the NIV. I beg to differ because NIV churches are liberal, watered down, garbage churches. Okay, next question. Aren't you saying that we all have to know Greek and Hebrew to really know God's word? No, I'm not. That's what he says. Now, let me say this. This particular question, I'm giving him the green light here on this particular question. I actually agree with his answer on this question. Here's how James White answers this question. Are you saying that we have to know Greek and Hebrew to really know God's word? No, I'm not. I agree with James White. We don't have to know Greek and Hebrew to really know God's word. I've insisted throughout this work that English speaking people today have access to the best translations that have ever existed. And that by diligent comparison of these translations, any English speaking person can study and know God's word. Now, obviously, I would disagree with that because I believe that we have access to the King James, which is why we don't need the Greek and Hebrew. He's saying, hey, we have access to the NIV and the new American standard, so we don't need the Greek and Hebrew. Okay, so that's the only thing I take issue with in that paragraph. Let's get to the rest of his answer because he says a lot of good things in the rest of his answer. At the same time, I am inveterately opposed to the anti-intellectualism that has become part of the tradition of American fundamentalism. Amen to that. I agree with James White here that there is anti-intellectualism that has become a part of the tradition of American fundamentalism. You know what? That's a problem. It's real. And I agree with James White because many fundamental Baptists or other fundamentalist Christians, they almost take pride in their anti-intellectualism. They act like being ignorant is like a badge or something. They almost brag about being simple, being country folk, not being intellectual. In fact, I've sat in fundamental Baptist churches and had them preach against me. And they mocked it, calling it being a deeper lifer. And they would make fun of and criticize people for going deep in their study of God's word. That's sad, you know, but I'm willing to admit the problems within the fundamental Baptist movement. And I'm trying to be a good influence and change the independent fundamental Baptist movement away from anti-intellectualism. And look, I'm not saying that all independent fundamental Baptists are guilty of this. But it's a thing amongst fundamental Baptists. Now, there are many, many hundreds of independent fundamental Baptists that are very intellectual, that are godly men who are smart men. And there are independent fundamental Baptist preachers out there that are smarter than I am. And that's great. But there is a problem with guys who are anti-intellectual and almost bragging about how stupid and uneducated they are. And telling people, you know, read the book of John. And when you're done reading John, read Proverbs. And when you're done reading Proverbs, read John again. I mean, that's just, come on folks. We need to read the whole Bible and we need to study to show ourselves approved. And I think that we should know math and English and science and history and everything else. We should be intelligent. Okay. Now, he says, there's no inconsistency between Christian piety and a well-trained mind. I say, amen to that. There should be a desire on the part of many believers to be as prepared as possible to be students of God's word. Our local Bible colleges should have many applicants seeking Greek or Hebrew language education. Considering the things on which we spend our time, the hours many of us spend sitting before a TV comes to mind, the pursuit of the biblical languages would be a far more normal thing. I agree. I think it's great to learn Greek and Hebrew. I think it's great to learn Spanish and German and any other language too. I mean, I think that education, learning, being intellectual, being smart, studying is a great use of your time. And not only that, but it'll keep you from getting memory disorders as you get older. There have been all kinds of studies to show that a well-trained, well-exercised mind will be more immune from things like Alzheimer's and so forth. So, you know, if you want to be sharp into your old age, man, train your mind. Be smart. And obviously the smarter we are, the more intelligent we are, the more we study, the more we're going to be equipped to serve God. There's always a prepared place for a prepared person. No matter what foreign language you learn, if you learn it, God will lead you to be able to use that language. You know, you'll be able to preach the word of God in that language someday or somehow use that language in your service for God. Plus, learning any foreign language helps you understand English better. Now, I'm also all for learning biblical Greek and Hebrew because I think that reading the Bible in the original Greek can be a rewarding experience. You know, just like when you read the Bible in English, you learn things. Well, you know, you read the Bible in Greek, different things are going to jump out at you. Okay, look, I like to read the Bible in Spanish. I like to read the Bible in German. I've read the Bible cover to cover in both. And when I read the Bible in Spanish, different things jump out at me. And then I go to my King James and it's like, wow, that was there all along. But I didn't notice it until I read that verse in Spanish. So reading the Bible in a variety of languages is very helpful. And especially if you're reading it in the original Greek, you know that the version is right because it's the original, right? So, you know, you don't have to worry about the translation because it's not translated. So reading the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew, I'm for it. I'm for studying those languages. Here's what I'm against. I'm against a bunch of bozos and James White agrees with me on this. I'm against a bunch of bozos getting up and saying, well, if you go back to the Greek in this verse, it actually says it. And they don't even know the language. They haven't studied the language. They've never even read the Greek New Testament one time. And they're going to get up and tell you what the Greek really means. They don't even know Jack. They're just quoting a commentary. Okay. And, you know, that's what I'm against. I'm against this. And I'm also against getting up in sermons and saying, well, here's what the Greek says. Look, I don't go back to the Greek in my preaching. I don't go back to the Hebrew in my preaching because of the fact that I don't want to make people rely on me or trust me since they don't know Greek and Hebrew in the audience. That I'm not going to speak to them from the Greek and Hebrew because then they're just trusting me. And too many preachers have abused this and they've gotten up and lied and claimed that the Greek said something it doesn't say because they're just repeating some commentary. So I don't go back to the Greek in my preaching. I'm not going to in the future because it is just not the right way to preach. I believe that we should preach to an English speaking audience in English. Okay. But that being said, I love reading the Greek New Testament in my own personal study for personal enrichment. Okay. And I enjoy studying the Hebrew as well. But taking that into the pulpit. And again, I'm not going to go into that because I don't want to go on too many tangents in this video. But I did do a full sermon called going back to the Greek and I explain why I don't do that. Please close the door, son. So let me go on with his answer here. God is not honored by sloppy preaching and shallow interpretation of the Bible. Inconsistency in proclaiming his truth does not bring him glory. Those who take pride in their lack of scholarship should rethink their priorities. Amen and amen to that. You know, these bunch of guys, they know all about football, but they don't know much about the Bible or foreign languages or mathematics or grammar or whatever. That's not something to be proud of being a simple country boy. Look, I'm not against you being a country boy, but why don't you be a country boy who gets some smarts and studies to show himself approved. And look, everybody's not going to be an intellectual. And I don't think everybody needs to be an intellectual. And God can greatly use the foolish things of this world to confound the wise and he can use simple people to confound the wise. But simple people do not belong in the pulpit. Okay, so I think it's fine for Joe church member to lack scholarship and lack knowledge. And I think he should be trying to get smarter. I think everyone should be trying to increase knowledge. The Bible tells us to increase knowledge, to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And obviously Proverbs is all about seeking knowledge and how only idiots and fools, you know, despise wisdom and instruction. So it's okay for someone to be simple, but it's not okay for a pastor to be simple. It's not okay for a pastor to be dumb. God bless righteous people that are dumb, but they should not be behind the pulpit. Being a pastor is not for everyone. And being a pastor requires you to be an intelligent person. If someone's not intelligent, I don't want them to be my pastor. So basically, his answer on this is great. I agree with what he's saying here. A lot of great things. The next question is, isn't the term KJV only or KJV only-ism insulting or inaccurate? I don't believe it's either. I think it's a great term. I call myself King James only. So that's the end of the list of questions in his original book. But what I have here in my hand is an updated edition. I believe it's from 2009. So it has a bonus question. And the question that was added in this later edition is, doesn't the presence of textual variation preclude the possibility of inspiration? He says, in essence, this is the KJV only objection in a nutshell. The desire for a perfect Bible produced on the Xerox of heaven or repeatedly spit out through the error-checking celestial supercomputer is strong indeed. So he's basically saying, doesn't the presence of textual variation preclude the possibility of inspiration? What he's saying is, doesn't the fact that two Bibles have two verses that are saying something completely different from one another? That's what he means by textual variation. Wouldn't that mean that God didn't inspire the Bible? Now, it's kind of a weird question. It's kind of weird the way he worded that. But I will say this, it does preclude the possibility of God inspiring both. I mean, if you have two Bibles that say something totally different from one another, God couldn't have inspired both. Only one of them could be inspired by God. I mean, I think that's pretty obvious. But then he goes into the fact that, you know, KJV only is just they really want a perfect Bible produced on the Xerox of heaven. Well, can you believe those darn King James only-ists that they want a perfect Bible? Now, listen to what he says on page 132 of the book. He says, the desire for absolute certainty in all matters plainly lies behind basically King James only-ism. It is argued that unless we embrace the KJV as our final authority, we have no final authority at all. And hence, all is subjectivity and uncertainty. People do not want subjectivity, but they desire certainty and clarity. So we must hold to the traditional text. Well, the reason that KJV only-ists argue that is because that's true that KJV only-ists have certainty by saying the King James Bible is our final authority. It's the word of God in the English language. It's our final authority of faith and practice. We believe it's without error. It's the rock on which we stand. He says, well, you know, but you guys are saying that if we're not King James only, we have no authority. Everything's uncertainty and subjectivity. Okay, well, then what's your authority, James White? The Nestle-Allen 27th edition or the Nestle-Allen 28th edition? I guarantee you that he disagrees with some of the readings in the 28th edition. I'm sure the 28th edition disagrees with the 27th edition, which disagrees with the 25th edition, which disagrees with the 24th edition, and so forth. So James White doesn't have a final authority on what the text says. It's subjectivity. In fact, if you look at, you know, him saying one thing 10 years ago versus what he says now, sometimes he'll go with one textual variant in this video. And then over here, he says, no, actually, that's not what the Bible says. You know, the Bible says this. Now, look, I hate it when people take stuff that I said 10 years ago and throw it in my face. Okay. Because of the fact that obviously we go through life and we learn and we grow and we gain knowledge. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that he says that the Bible says something over here 10 years ago. And then 10 years later, the Bible says something different. Now, look, my opinions have changed over the last 10 years. Okay. My preaching has changed over the last 10 years. Not a lot, not majorly, but there are little changes. Why? Because you learn, you grow. We're not perfect. We're constantly learning. You know, when the Bible's changing from one year to the next. Yeah, that's a big problem. And, you know, there is no final authority if we don't have the Bible as our final authority. And when he says the Bible is his final authority, the Bible is this shifting, changing thing to him because of the fact that it's subjectively based on which textual variant we're going to go with today. Which textual variant we're going to go with this week. Now, he says, this argument is extremely powerful and should not be underestimated. Many people fulfill their longing for certainty in religious matters by swearing allegiance to a particular leader or system. For example, many Roman Catholics find the idea of an infallible pope very comforting. For when things get confusing, they can always turn to a source of absolute authority. In a similar way, many Mormons look to their prophet and apostles in Salt Lake City and Jehovah's Witnesses look to the governing body at Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn. Others find a TV preacher or evangelist and without stating it in so many words, invest him or her with some level of infallible religious authority. The fact that groups offering this kind of trust us and we'll give you absolute certainty in all religious matters system continue to attract followers should tell us that the lure of complete certainty is strong indeed. Folks, are you listening to what he's saying? So he's comparing people like me who say the Bible is my final authority and I want a perfect, pure Bible. Every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God and I've got the King James Bible and this is a perfect Bible in my language and this is what I'm going to base everything on. I'm going to spend my life and ministry following this book, the Holy Bible, the King James Bible. Four hundred years later, it's the rock on which we stand. He's comparing that to somebody who makes the pope their final authority. Did you hear that? Oh, that's like the Mormons. They want their apostle to be the authority. Oh, that's like the Jehovah's Witnesses where the Watchtowers are. Oh, that's like people who make a TV preacher their authority. No, it's not James White. It's like people making the Bible their authority. Okay. Yeah, we want to have the Bible as our final authority, not some Dr. Egghead in a university who's going to tell us, well, you know, actually, if we look up the oldest manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, you know, here's what the Bible really is. It's constantly changing the Bible and telling us that portions of the Bible are not original and picking it apart. Folks, yeah, we want certainty. You know why human beings have that desire for certainty is because God gave them that desire for certainty. There's nothing wrong with wanting to stand on a firm foundation, a rock, and not be standing on the shifting sands. Hey, I have built my house upon a rock, the King James Bible, the word of God in the English language. That's the rock on which I stand. James White is standing on the shifting sands of textual criticism. The King James has been a rock for the last 400 years, and it's building upon the rock of the Textus Receptus, which goes all the way back to the apostles. And James White is on the shifting sands of archaeology, scholarship, and textual criticism. And so for him to compare that to the Catholics making the Pope their authority, it just shows that he doesn't understand what it means to have the Bible as your final authority. He wants to have scholarship and archaeology and textual criticism be the final authority. You say, no, no, he makes the Bible the authority. Really, which Bible? Because he uses textual criticism and scholarship and archaeology to correct the Bible. So that's his final authority. Okay, the King James Bible is my final authority. That's the rock on which I stand. We've reached the end of the book, folks. I hope you've enjoyed this response, this 10-part series. If this is the first video you've watched, well, then you are doing things in the wrong order. So go back to the beginning and watch chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. I hope this has been helpful, informative, educational. To those out there who are already King James only, I hope it's been a help. And to those who've been big fans of James White's book, I hope that you will reconsider and see the error of your ways. God bless you and thank you for watching.