All right, now as we've defined the course, this is in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James Version. This is a topic that in some ways ought to be joyous for us, but yet a topic that unfortunately tends to raise controversy. Here is a version of the Word of God that is 400 years old. Is it just a relic that we are to acknowledge? That we are to give our salute to for the way God has used it over these many years? Or does it still have relevance for us and use for us in the day in which we live? I think there's no question that the publication of the King James Version in 1611 was the most significant event in the history of printing, and certainly in the history of both English and American literature. Even apart from the spiritual contributions, and obviously there are many, this is the Bible, this is the Word of God, and the spiritual contributions obviously are at the very top of the list of our considerations and our concerns. But even apart from the spiritual contributions that have accompanied the spread and the use of the English Bible, the King James Version, over these 400 years, the contributions and the influence to the English language and culture are absolutely profound. It's often been remarked in our study of the Reformation how Luther's translation of the German Bible, defined in many ways the very course of the German language and in many ways that can be said for the use of the authorized version, the King James Version as well. So literary wonder and without question I think the most single influential book in the history of the English language. Many of the common phrases that we hear even in secular context have their origin in the authorized version. Labor of love, my brother's keeper, this is a scapegoat, there's a fly in the ointment, the powers that be, and we can go on and on. The number of phrases that are just part of our jargon that really have come into the language through the influence the King James Version. Someone has said, I've not done this myself, but I read somewhere that in Bartlett's list of famous quotations, that if you collected all of the terms and phrases and idioms that have come into the English language via the King James Version, that would comprise about 200 pages of Bartlett's famous quotations. Now, not all in one place obviously, but it just demonstrates that I say even apart from the spiritual influence, the influence on culture, the influence on language really is absolutely profound. Now, I'm concerned obviously with the use of the authorized version in the church, in the modern church, modern individuals, Christians, Is it a relic or is it still relevant? And what I want to do in this first period and what I will be doing in this first session is giving some general very basic reasons why I would argue for the continued use of the authorized version in our places of public worship particularly. And after I'm finished we'll have a little break and then Charlie will come and give a little history of the english bible showing how the authorized version in many ways is the climactic fruit of the whole policy of the reformation to bring the bible into the hands of God's people but there are some very practical reasons there are practical reasons and we're going to be looking at this really from two broad perspectives I'm going to be looking first of all at some pragmatic reasons for maintaining the use of the authorized version. And then we're going to be looking at some technical reasons. Now, I'm going to warn you up front that some of the things that I deal with here are going to be relatively technical. But I think there are things that are essential. I will not go into a lot of detail. But I think it is important for us all to realize that there are substantial, logical reasons for maintaining and continuing the use of the authorized version. Pragmatic, but also technical. Here we're going to be looking at issues of sexual criticism. And some people think that's a dirty word. Or two dirty words. It's not. It's not. If we understand the nature of inspiration and we're going to be talking about the doctrine of inspiration and the implications of that, the nature of preservation, how has God preserved his word, textual criticism is going to be a welcome discipline, a welcome exercise for those of us that have a high view of the inspiration and the preservation of the word of God. But I want us to look at it from what I believe to be the proper perspective. We're going to be looking at translation issues. We're talking about translation techniques and translation philosophies. How do we go from the original Greek and Hebrew Aramaic text into the English? What is the procedure? What is the philosophy of translation? And again, it can be technical, but we'll try to deal with it in such a way that I trust it will be understandable. But there are things that I think if you know it's going to increase your confidence and your understanding of what we have in the English Bible and particularly our focus here upon the Authorized Version and celebrating the great history and the great tradition that God has given to us. Now it is the policy. Let me just begin by reminding you what the policy is of the free church the free church has a policy and this has recently been adopted in print for the first time at the last presbytery meeting i've been working for some time on the directory of worship and at the last presbytery meeting we had a final approval of the directory of worship and in one section this will be made available here to you all if you want it in due course. But one part deals with the constituent parts of public worship. And one of the constituent parts of public worship in historic Protestant worship involves the reading of scripture. And one of the paragraphs that I have here is this, that adopting and maintaining a standard English translation for use in all services of public worship will contribute to the decency and order required for worship that would otherwise suffer if multiple versions were in use. Without prejudice, here's an important statement, that without prejudice to other faithful translations, the authorized version of the Bible should be used in all worship services. Then a statement about missionary situations and so forth. Here's our policy, that in public worship, in all of our public worship, We are going to use the standardized version, authorized version for all of our public worship. Now why? And much of what I want to deal with in this class is why that's our policy. Why after 400 years when there is so many other options, so many other options. I don't know how many versions, English versions there are out there. They're all over the place. And it's something that has happened, really, in part, in my generation. I remember when I was in grad school, New American Standard Version comes out. And then it's not long after that, then the NIV, and then we have the ESV, and we have Good News for a Modern Man, and we have... And the English versions just keep piling up, piling up, piling up, and piling up. I don't know how many we have. I don't know how many we have, different values, some from different perspectives. But they're all out there. They're all out there. And we are in a day when there are many evangelical and conservative and historically fundamental churches that are setting the authorized version aside and using other of the more modern English translations. So why in light of all this out there are we hanging on to something that is 400 years old and I think there are reasons pragmatically and technically why I want that to be in a day when so much of public worship is defined by pressures from popular culture I think it's imperative to promote and maintain in our worship a distinction and a dignity and a reverence that directs our minds and our hearts to the majesty and the uniqueness of our God. And the beauty and the elegance of the Authorized Version, not to speak of the translation accuracy, I think contributes to our perceiving that matchlessness of God's Word and to our worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness. There are solid reasons in regard to the text, in regard to the translation, in regard to tradition, even in some reformed circles. Interestingly enough, and I'm happy to say that, that in some reformed circles there is a growing move back to the use of the authorized version and maintaining that in their worship. So I want to focus on the solid arguments rather than emotional rhetoric in defense of the authorized version. I can defend the solid arguments. I must confess and I'll say something more about that in these introductory comments. There's some of the rhetoric that is used in defense of the authorized version that I cannot defend. That I cannot defend and I find personally embarrassing and we want to avoid those. Now, pragmatic reasons. Let me list a few. There's an aid to worship. The reading of the scripture is an essential and component part of public worship. It is God speaking to us. And there's so much of contemporary worship that is humanized, that is brought down to common level. There's something about God speaking to us that ought to generate a fear, that ought to generate a reverence, that ought to generate a submissiveness you remember when the Lord spoke to the people at Mount Sinai there at Exodus chapter 19 when the Lord spoke and it appears that in a very real and a very audible way the Lord spoke to that nation gathered at the foot of Mount Sinai having been delivered out of Egypt now coming into that place where God was going to enter into national covenant with them but God spoke to them and the people feared and the people trembled and as it were they couldn't take it because of the majesty and the awe of that word of God that came to them now I say that ought to be the way we respond every time we hear the word of God we have in our public worship that time set aside for just the reading and one of the things that I address in the directory of worship here that there is to be a public reading of the scripture without comment without exposition to the place for preaching that comes but just the hearing of the Word of God and I'm recommending in the directory of worship that it is That could be done by ministers in the normal flow of the worship service to contribute to that dignity and that solemnity of the Word of God. And the language, I say, the language of the Authorized Version creates a dignity that I would argue contributes to worshiping God in the beauty of holiness. Worship is not to be common it's not to be profane. A couple years ago, not too long ago, I don't know when it was, a couple years ago I think it was, I was doing a Bible conference up in Minneapolis, north of Minneapolis, St. Cloud actually, and when I got there I found that the people in the pew were using multiple versions. Some had English Standard Version, some had the New International Version, some had New American Standard Version. There were various versions, no consistency in the congregation. I preached using the authorized version. And I had several people come to me after a message saying, you know when you read the Bible, it sounded so much like the Bible. It sounded so much like the Bible. Well, there you go. There you go. There's something about it. There's something about it that contributes to the dignity and the solemnity and the majesty of worship. Now, the biggest argument that we are going to hear against using the authorized version is that the modern versions have made English more contemporary King James Version is more difficult to understand than modern English versions. I can't deny. I can't deny that in the authorized version there are outdated words. There are words that are used in common speech today that are different than what they meant in the days of the translators of the Authorized Version. Let your conversation behold. When I hear conversation, I think of verbal communication between people. But that word has nothing to do with verbal communication. It speaks of one's behavior, one's manner of life. That's to behold. Other words, I say, and we can multiply them, that indeed are outdated. There is, if I can put it in these terms, There is in the Bible a jargon. There is a biblical jargon. But that ought not put us off. That ought not put us off. It doesn't put us off in every other area where jargon is necessary. Now I am not, and if I ever am, You'll know that something has happened to my head that has made me go bonkers. I have nothing to do with Facebook. Nothing to do with it. But I hear a lot of people that do. And they talk about a wall. What's on your wall? I don't understand what that means until I'm explained that's what you put on your little... Why don't you say what's on your computer screen? Call it a wall. Post it. It's a jargon. And you people that are involved in that stuff understand exactly what it means. No problem. No problem. You like baseball? You like baseball? You know, you hear a baseball announcer and here's a guy at the plate and the pitcher throws him four pitches that aren't quite where they ought to be, and the announcer says, oh, he drew a walk! He drew a walk? How do you draw a walk? How do you draw a walk? But if you know baseball, there's a jargon that is absolutely understandable, no big deal. No big deal. So there is a jargon, there is a biblical jargon, that if we are familiar with the Bible, And part of the difficulty is that we blow it off before we become familiar and take the time to become familiar with it. If we read it and become familiar with the context, it's not as difficult as we sometimes want to make it to be. You know, we'll be talking in sum about the septagen. You know what the septagen is? LXA. When I put LXX, I'm talking about the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Greek translation. It's the Greek Old Testament. It was a translation of the Hebrew Aramaic scriptures. The Septuagint was the Bible. The Septuagint was the Bible of the early church. The apostles quoted in the New Testament when the Old Testament is quoted almost invariably, not always, but almost invariably the Septuagint was the version that they quoted. Now the Septuagint is a mixed translation. I did my dissertation on examining the translation philosophies and techniques of the Septuagint. insomnia, and you want something to read to put you to sleep, read my dissertation. Philosophy and translation techniques of the Septuagint. Some of it is very good, some of it is very bad. But even some of the very bad ones, bad places, are quoted in the New Testament. But what I'm saying here is the Septuagint, the Septuagint, Greek, translating Hebrew, very often would use Greek terms in relating a Hebrew concept that was foreign to that Greek word. And if a Greek reader without the biblical context, if a Greek reader without the biblical context would read the word that the Septuagint had, he would misunderstand it. He would misunderstand it. A Greek word took on a completely different Greek meaning, influenced more by the Hebrew concept, but that jargon now developed a Christian jargon in the early church. So there's nothing new here. There's nothing new here. And we should not just blow off and reject this old version just because there are some old words. I would argue therefore that it is It is the best liturgical text. It's the best liturgical text version, translation, that is available, that contributes to the dignity and the reverence of worship that I think stands it apart from the culture of the day. Now I would say that The needs of the sanctuary are not the same as the needs of the classroom. Understand what I'm saying? The needs of the sanctuary are not the same as the needs of the classroom. I look at other versions all the time. I look at the Greek text all the time. I look at the Hebrew text all the time. And by looking at these, it identifies places where interpretation issues may exist or whatever. It can be very helpful. But I say the need of the classroom is not the same as that of the sanctuary. In the sanctuary where we are combining ourselves together, we are seeking to have a unity in the public worship, this, I say, is the, I believe, the best liturgical version. Even some of the archaic stuff, even some of the archaic stuff in the A-B. Get used to it. It can be very helpful. You know, you get going with all of the thous and the these. Alright? The thous and the these. Arcade. We don't talk that way anymore. That is not part of modern speech. But even seeing that from the standpoint of study can be very helpful. Now, you know what thou and thee is, right? It's the second person pronoun. In English, we use you. We use you for the second person pronoun. Bob, if I talk about you, I talk about you. If I talk about you and Gladys, it's you. Both of you. You. We don't make a distinction in modern English in the use of you whether something is singular or whether it's plural. But the thou and the thee and the yee is a way of making a distinction between a singular and a plural idea. Now that's all it is. That is all it is. I reject the idea, and I want us to avoid the idea, hang on to that please, avoid the idea that the Thou and the These are evidences of reverence or respect. They weren't. In the day in which they were used, the Thou's and the These were not indications of being respectful to the person that you were talking to. Thou drunkard! Ye hypocrites! That wasn't to show reverence to those people. It was to indicate I'm talking to one or I'm talking to more than one. It was not a sign of reverence. Not a sign of respect. It was simply a grammatical issue that these and the thous were a grammatical phenomenon to indicate something being singular or plural. Now that can be helpful in interpretation. I think of the text there in Isaiah chapter 7. Remember the virgin birth prophecy given to Ahaz in that context. Ahaz is about to do something very foolish. in entering into an alliance with the Assyrians. And Isaiah comes and warns him against that. And in warning Ahaz against that foolish move, the Lord tells Ahaz, Isaiah tells Ahaz before the Lord, the Lord says, ask a sign. You ask a sign. And he addresses Ahaz very specifically. Ask to sign heaven, earth, it doesn't matter. I'll do something to show you the validity of what I'm telling you. Ahaz gets very pious and rejects that. He rejects that. And then the Lord says, alright, fine. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin will conceive and bear a son. And people come and they start wrestling now, how could that be a sign to Ahaz? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It misses the point. The first sign was given to Ahaz singular. The sign of the virgin birth was not given to Ahaz, singular, it was given to you, plural. A whole different implication. So I'm saying even looking at the these and the thousand, the e's and the u's in a study procedure helps me to understand something in the text that otherwise if I were just reading you in English, I would not see. Now, even the English doesn't even the English doesn't I identify everything that the Hebrew does because Hebrew can actually tell me what the gender is as well. I know whether it's you boy or you girl in Hebrew but I can't even the these and the vows don't identify the gender so it can't do everything but it does indicate singular and plural for me and that can be very helpful. So when I see that archaic language when I see that archaic language specified here particularly in the these and the vows Don't infuse it with a meaning that's not there. Because once you infuse the Bible with a meaning that wasn't intended, you're doing, you know, that's a mistake. That's an error. That's an error. I want the text to say what it says. Now this can be very helpful. And I'll be honest with you. When I pray publicly, and when I pray privately, I do not use these in vows. And here's why. Here's why. At one time I did, I tried to. And I found myself in public praying, getting absolutely tongue-tied and flabbergasted, thinking, well, if I say thee, what's my verb? And I was more concerned about grammar, and nothing is worse, I'll tell you the truth, than inconsistent, if you're going to do it, do it and do it right. Alright? But don't use the archaic pronoun and a modern verb. And I found myself wrestling in my head with grammar, making sure I was getting it right, and I lost, this is crazy. The Lord says, Abba Father, I can pray in my own language. Pray in my own language. And I've been accused. I've been accused of trying to undermine the use of the authorized version by the way I pray. Come on. You're infusing the text with a meaning that is not there when you do that. But let's take advantage of that. Let's take advantage of that and not make it say something that it doesn't say. the italicized words in the author. That's a great thing. A lot of the modern versions don't use italicized words. The italicized words are what? The translator's way of saying, hey, that word's not in the original. That word is not in the original, so we're putting it there to kind of smooth things out. Kind of smooth things out, but it's not in the original, so the translators are giving the indication and giving the clue, hey, This is not the same authority as the stuff that's not in my palisades. So that, I say, is a very helpful thing. Have the chapter and verse divisions. Charlie may talk about that. Geneva Bible, Charlie, am I right? Geneva Bible the first to actually implement and use the chapter verse divisions that we're so accustomed to. That's a great thing. And the King James Version has carried that on as most modern versions do as well. But that didn't come into being until the 13th century or so. I'm out of my league now when I start talking about dates, but I think that's right, 13th century. We have the verse and chapter division. Well, that's very helpful. The use of capital letters that the Authorized Version does for Spirit, for God, that can be a helpful interpretive thing. And we'll say more about that. in due course. So pragmatic. These aren't doctrinal issues here but very pragmatic practical reasons why I think the authorized version still holds its own and still makes a contribution for modern use both in the pulpit and in private study as well. Now the technical issues and I'm just introducing it now I say we're going to spend a great deal of time here talking about these various issues. Text issues. And to understand the text issues, issues of text, I'm talking now about what the version was translated from. What was the version translated from? You want a German term? Verlage. The text from which it was translated. What was that text? What was that text? And my argument, and we'll be talking about this, that the text from which the authorized version was translated is the best ecclesiastical text, the most true to preservation text that we have. And it's the text that really spawned and was used in the Reformation, the Dutch Reformation, the German Reformation, the English Reformation churches. This is the text, the prologue of the Greek Hebrew text that was used. Now understanding that, and here's where we're going to get into the issues of inspiration. I think much of the difficulty and many of the foolish arguments that I have heard in defending the Authorized Version comes from some very scary views and fallacious views of what Biblical inspiration is. So I want to talk about inspiration. I'll give a full lecture on it, but I want to establish and make sure that we understand what the Bible teaches about itself in regard to its inspiration. And that inspiration is going to lead then to the issues of preservation. How is that inspired text preserved? And my contention is going to be that inspiration guarantees and inspiration demands preservation. Inspiration guarantees and demands preservation. But the question still, And you understand, let me back up and pause here I should say. The statement that I just made, anyone that is orthodox will make that statement. Anyone that is orthodox will make that statement. That inspiration leads to preservation. The question for us is how was it preserved? How and where was it preserved? And there we are going to have some differing opinions. among those that are conservative, those that are orthodox, those that love God, those that believe in inspiration. There are going to be differing opinions as to how it was preserved. And I want to be very careful. I want to be very careful when I deal with those that answer that question differently than I, that I don't say bad things about them that aren't justified. You know, I've done this with my students very often. You know, here's the Bible. Here's the Bible. I believe whatever the Bible says is true. I believe whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone that is saved will make that statement. I believe that whatever the Bible says is true. Now, second question, what does the Bible say? What does the Bible say? And now we enter into the issues of interpretation. And there are things that I have to interpret. I have to interpret. And while every believer, while every believer says that whatever the Bible says is true, not every believer interprets things the same way. There are different issues of interpretation over various, over various doctrines. That's why we have Calvinists and Arminians. That's why we have covenant theologians and dispensationalists. That's why we have this and that. That's why some of you believe this about baptism, somebody else believes that about baptism. We have different interpretations. But all of us would argue, no matter what our interpretation, the Bible is true. Whatever the Bible says is true. But here's my interpretation. But, I have the conviction, and this leads then to the conviction. I have the conviction that my interpretation is right. I have that conviction. And so do you. So do you. Anyone would be a rare fool to take an interpretation knowingly and purposefully being wrong. I don't come to an interpretation of the past and say, I'm right so often. Let me show people I'm human and I'll take a wrong interpretation just to show I'm fallible. No. I'm telling you right now that I believe that every one of my interpretation of the Bible is right. I believe with all my heart. Or I'd be a fool for believing it. I'd be a fool for believing it. And that means if you disagree with me, I'm sorry. But if you disagree with me, what does that mean? I think you're wrong. I think you are wrong. But if you're convinced, what do you think? You think I'm wrong. Fine. Fine. Have the conviction. Now, that conviction then leads to my ethic, to my behavior, to my practice. And there needs to be a line of development from the Bible to my ethic, to my practice. I ought to be able to defend and support how I act, how I behave in the light of my interpretation of the Bible, which I believe is invariably and infallibly true. So I live my life, hopefully. I ought to live your life, hopefully. No. But here's the problem. You have some people that will come to their interpretation. And say, because you don't believe my interpretation, their conclusion is, hey, you don't believe the Bible. You don't believe the Bible. Or they'll even come to this level, because you don't practice something the way I practice it. You don't believe the Bible. It is arrogant. It is foolish. It is sectarian. And sectarianism is sin. But we'll develop that some other day. I want to be careful. I say every Bible believer is going to say the Bible is inspired. And inspiration involves preservation. We all say that. But there are going to be differing opinions as to how that preservation and where that preservation is to be found. Different practice, if you will. But I have heard some of these people that look at those that hold a different view than I do and say, you people don't believe in inspiration. Be careful. You want to be careful. I want to be convinced and I want to live my conscience in the light of what I believe, but I'm not going to accuse those that don't hold my particular practice as being unbelievers. or as being liberal, or being God-haters, or being... you see? But, unfortunately, it happens. So I want us to get a good orthodox view. I've got a lecture I'll give probably next week on the presuppositions that I have as I come to the Bible. I have presuppositions. And everybody does. And these presuppositions that I have about the Bible before I ever open it are going to dictate much of what I'm going to argue. My first presupposition is the Bible is true. The Bible is true. Whatever the Bible says is true. That's my first presupposition and we'll go on from there but that's Lord willing next week. So we're going to deal with that doctrinal issue of inspiration and see then the various arguments for preservation leading then to the text. Now one of the reasons then when we talk about the text One of the reasons then that I am going to argue technically for the use of the authorized version is because I believe it is based upon a text tradition that is, that represents, that is the preserved word. And we'll talk about how I come to that conclusion. I want us to see the arguments of coming to that conclusion. The ecclesiastical text. The text that I believe represents, declares for us, the preserved word. And of all of the modern versions, and here's the thing, of all of the modern English versions that are out there, they are all based, with the exception of the New King James Version, they are all based upon a different textual tradition. And that's one of the reasons, while technically I want to argue for the maintaining of the Authorized Version. The only modern version I'm aware of, I could be wrong here, the only modern version I'm aware of that is based on the same text tradition as the King James Version is the New King James Version. All the others, all the others are based on a different text tradition, particularly going to be an issue in the New Testament that I want to address. We'll talk about textual criticism. I'll do it in a way that I hope is understandable. I've taught it to graduate students, and they seem to understand it. So if they do, then that's the test, right? That's the test. Anybody can, if my students can understand it. We'll look at it in a very simplistic way, but I want us to get the picture as to why I believe the AB represents the best text. And then the other issue concerns I say the translation philosophy, translation techniques. How do we get... Here's the original language. Here's the original language. How do we get from the original language to the target language? I'll call it the target language or the receptor language, whatever it is. How do I get from the original language to the target language? Certain things you've got to know. Certain things you've got to know. Number one, you've got to know the original language. And you've got to know it very well. You have to know its idioms, you have to know its vocabulary, you have to know its syntax, its grammar, you have to know the original language. But you have to know the target language very well as well. Now, I'm not being arrogant here, please understand. I know a lot about a little and very little about a lot. I'm basically an idiot once you get me outside of my little sphere. But what my sphere is, I pretty much know what I'm talking about. I've been messing with Hebrew and Greek for, it's scary, the percentage of my life, how much I've been working with these languages. I've taught Hebrew, I've taught Greek for well over Two-thirds of my life. Two-thirds of my life I've been teaching this stuff. So I know a little bit about the language. But as well as I know Hebrew, as well as I know Hebrew, I could not translate Hebrew into Spanish. Couldn't do it. Could not do it. Because I don't know Spanish. I don't know Spanish. To be a translator you have to know the original language very well and you have to know the target language very well. And Charlie may get into this and I'll talk about it more later, but the translators of the Authorized Version were scholars. They were the scholars of their day. The scholars of their day. Do I know more about Hebrew than they did? In some ways, probably, because we have other stuff that's been discovered since then in terms of cognate languages and whatever. But they knew it. They knew it. And they knew the English language. They have the qualifications of what constitutes a good translator. And the way that they did it, and I say we'll talk about the different techniques of translation, literal translations, Dynamic equivalence, boy there's a dirty word that you hear sometimes. Dynamic equivalence. But I'll show you that the authorized version is filled with dynamic equivalence. Because that's the way that things have to be translated sometimes. They used what was the best means to accomplish the purpose of conveying that message of the original into the tongue of the target language. So I want to talk about the technicalities of translation and that will be That will be exciting. That will be exciting at least from this side of the desk. And I hope it will be. So there's going to be some technical stuff. So stay with me. I'll deal with it in a way where I'm not going to make you translate or anything. But I want us to see what's involved here. And when we see everything that's involved in regard to the technical reasons why we use the authorized version still. I hope it will give us a greater foundation for what we're going to argue that we keep on doing. Now, let me finish up a few thoughts here and then I'll turn it over to Charlie for a history of the English Bible leading up to the Authorized Version, King James Version. Not all advocates Not all advocates of preserving and maintaining the King James Version are on the same page. There are basically five categories. We have what I'll call an extreme KJV only argument. You have those that argue that the King James translators were inspired. That they were inspired. So that the King James version contains even new revelation. Some claiming that even the Hebrew and the Greek text can be corrected from the authorized version. You have those that argue that. I submit that that is an unorthodox view of inspiration. An unorthodox view of inspiration. It opens up the whole door. I'm a cessationist in regard to revelation. But once you have inspiration continuing after the close of the canon, you have the whole possibility of the new revelation and that opens up a can of worms that I want nothing to do with. but I'm not sure they see the implication of that, but that indeed is what it is. Then we'll call just the, not extreme, but the King James only group that contend that the King James Version as a translation is inspired and inerrant. And they argue that it is the only inspired Bible. That the King James Version is the only inspired Bible. And I think this too represents a view that is unorthodox in regard to inspiration. And once we understand what inspiration involves and what translation involves, I think you'll see the difficulty with that view. There is another view that argues on the basis of the Textus Receptus. I'll be talking about the Textus Receptus. Latin expression here for received text. The received text. The received text is the printed Greek edition that was in use when the authorized Persian translators translated. That was the New Testament that they had. It's an edition. I've got a sheet that you have in your folder that I will talk about in due course. making sure that we understand the terms. And part of the confusion that I hear in this argument is people don't know what they're talking about in terms of even the terms. They'll talk about addition as though it were a version and a version as though it were a manuscript. We want to make sure our terms are defined or we're going to be extremely, extremely confused. An addition is a printed text, a published text. The Textus Receptus was the printed edition that the authorized version used and it represents in the text in the New Testament behind what we have in the authorized version. Now there are different degrees of claiming its superiority and we'll be talking about that in due course. A fourth view is the logical view and this is going to be my view. I made up this term for it. the logical view. I'm going to contend that the King James Version is based on the Bext text tradition and reflects an accurate translation philosophy. It maintains an orthodox view of inspiration and a logical view of how the text is preserved. I can defend I can defend and I do defend the use of the authorized version on this level. For good and solid reasons. You have a fifth category of people that just prefer it. They just like it. Without thinking about why. And I salute them because there is something likeable about it. But just a preference. Now how do we deal with it? How do we deal with those that don't agree with it? How do we deal with those that don't agree with us? How do we deal with the issue of other versions? We can call them names. And unfortunately that's usually what is done by some of those extreme views particularly. They call people names. They question motives. And they speculate concerning conspiracies and cults and hidden agendas that are coming from the pit that are trying to undermine the Word of God. I don't need to do that. Here's my contention, that I can defend, I can defend the use of the Authorized Version without breaking the Ninth Commandment. I can defend the use of the Authorized Version without breaking the Ninth Commandment. You read what the larger catechism, you read your larger catechism on the sins that are prohibited in the Ninth Commandment, giving false evidence. That's breaking the 9th commandment. Concealing the truth. That's breaking the 9th commandment. Misconstructing intentions. Breaking the 9th commandment. And I say many of the arguments that I have heard over the years in defense of the authorized version are transgressions of the 9th commandment. And I'm not going to go there. I'm not going to go there. There are good, positive... You know how sick and tired you get at election time, right? With all the negative ads, right? And one politician can only make himself look good by making somebody else look bad. I don't have to make the authorized version look good by jumping on people who don't use it. I don't have to do that. It stands on its own. It stands on its own. And for good and solid reasons. I may be guilty of other things, but in this regard, I'm not going to break the Ninth Commandment. I'm not going to use fear and emotional rhetoric. I'm not going to use fear and emotional rhetoric. I've been told, you know, I've been told that all these other versions are designed to destroy the faith of God's people. That's why they're there, to destroy faith. I've been told that we don't want to tell our people. We don't want our people, talking about you people, we don't want to let our people know anything about this because They can't handle it. They can't handle it. There are those out there that think you people can't handle it. I believe you can handle it. I believe you can handle it. If we understand the principles and the foundations of what the doctrine is and how it plays out, we can handle it. That's Rome's tactic. I don't want to be guilty of what Rome does and say there is something that people can't handle so let's just keep that from them. You can handle it. You can handle it. The best argument for this is not being ignorant. It gets me for my upbringing when I always say ignorant instead of ignorant. being ignorant over the issue. It's not the defense. It's not the best defense. The best way to keep this in use is just to ignore it. Faith is never afraid of facts. Faith is not afraid of facts. I want us to look at the facts, put it in the proper perspective, and elevate the AV to the place that it deserves and continue to use it And I trust that by what we do here in these regards will help us to that end. Alright, those are just some introductory comments on where I'm going to go. Alright, so next week we'll be dealing with presuppositions. Then we'll be looking at the issues of inspiration, the doctrine that is foundational to our understanding of what happens in any version, any translation, any Greek text or Hebrew text that I use. and then ultimately the translation philosophies. I hope this will be profitable. If you have questions, please feel free to ask me. The only thing, I'll probably have to repeat the question for this thing, but we'll try to get it answered. Any questions before I shut this down, take a little break, and then we'll come back? Are you happy? Okay. And your formulation of a policy by the denomination, do you use the word should be used in the services? Should be used in all services, but should in the sense that, you know, that's what our policy is. I would be more comfortable with shall be used. Well, hey, I'm all for your comfort. I'll run up by an English person. See, shall shall be used. I think we think we wrestled with that. The term should have to see you're you're you're you're closer to the you're you're closer to the four hundred year thing back there. You see. Oh, I didn't put it. Very good. Very good. All right, take a little break.