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

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 This chapter can pretty much be summed up that James White is criticizing the King James for using archaic or outdated language.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