If you were hoping that there was going to be a whole room full of King James Only advocates, it's not been my experience in my life that that that would take place. Just briefly, I was raised, say, in the General Association of Regular Baptists, in the Pentecostal Baptist tradition. I was not raised King James only. Certainly, that was my first Bibles, and a lot of my first Bible I ever read through was a New Schofield reference edition. Oxford, well, that was a great Bible. The leather on that is still good, even after all these years. So I'm familiar with the mindset, and it was very early. I was still in high school when I first encountered it. the King James Only movement. I remember my parents talking about going back to Tennessee Temple. I had a relative that taught there, and they were talking about church splits over the King James Only issue and stuff, and I started thinking about things like that back then, and as soon as I started in college and started studying Greek, I started corresponding with some of the leaders of the movement and things like that. But it was not until 1994 that one of our volunteers with the ministry heard a woman on a local Christian radio station, and she called me and said, you've got to call in and listen to this. So I turned on the radio, and the woman was named Gail Ripplinger. And Gail Ripplinger wrote a book called New Age Bible Versions. How many of you have seen New Age Bible Versions? Not very many, that's interesting. And the book was really making the rounds, and I called the guy at the station, and I said, man, you've got to have somebody on to give you the side, because he was obviously on her side. And he said, well, she said that no one will debate her, but she also said that she won't debate anyone who hasn't read her book, and the book is 700 pages long. And so I said, well, I'll debate her. I'll read the book. And so I went by the station, picked up a copy of the book, And if any of you have heard the result of debate, it was the last time that Gail Riplinger ever did a debate with anyone. Ever since then, she has made sure that there are only pre-screened questions that she wrote, because it was fascinating. I don't have this in the presentation. I do have one quote from her, but she had something in the book called acrostic algebra. Acrostic algebra, any math people in here? Ever heard of acrostic algebra? Yeah, neither have I. Neither have anybody else. And what she did is she took NASV and NIV and AV and then she subtracted the letters out and the last letters that were left were SIN, S-I-N. And this proves that the NASV and the NIV are the same, because it's obvious. And so, during the debate on the radio station, I pointed out to her that everywhere else in her book, she had referred to the NASB, because that is the official designation we use here. Bible, that's the actual name, is NASB. But that was the only place where she used NASB. Now, we all know that if she had used NASB, you would have ended up with something like Simba, or something like that. So, I asked her, if you call it NASB everywhere else in your book, except there, why would you do that? Her answer was, because that's what the Lord calls it. Oh, okay. And so when I asked her, well, where did you get a cross-fit algebra? God gave it to me. It's really hard to do a meaningful debate with people who talk to God and get all their answers just directly from God. But everyone can see that there was really no consistency in this whole stuff. And so what happened was I had written a bunch of notes for the radio program, and I put them together in a booklet. And my dad worked at a large little Baptist church in a print shop, and so he was allowed to print stuff for me, and so he'd print out these booklets, and bookstores all across the United States started contacting us. We need this stuff. We're getting hit with this book all the time. And so I'd already written a few books. I'd written Letters to a Mormon Elder, and The Fatal Flaw in Roman Catholicism, and stuff like that. And so I was talking to my editor at Bethany House, and he said, sounds like there's a book there. And so I wrote The King James Only Controversy in four months. in 1994. And what most people don't know is I also typeset the book. Because in 1994, Bethany House could not do the biblical language stuff. And so they literally bought a 1000 DPI Lasermaster printer for me. We couldn't afford anything like that. And as I would send out copies of that book for review, and there are corrections we've made, I did all that work myself. I typeset that entire book. That was a labor of love, believe me. We even sent a copy to Gayle Roecklinger, because we said, you're mentioned in here, there's a chapter where I talk about your arguments. And so we want to be fair, if there's anything you'd like to say. She, of course, didn't respond to me, but she did write to Bethany House Publishers saying that she would sue them if they published a book. And that actually delayed the book a little bit, because they're like, we've never done anything like this before. Has anybody threatened us in that way? They ran by the attorneys. The attorneys said, well, let her sue. And of course, she never did. But that was the kind of response that you got from those folks. The book has had a huge impact. Interestingly enough, it is my biggest-selling book over all these years. It's still in print. It came out in 1994. It's in the second edition. And it's primarily used by schools, English-speaking schools, to introduce people to the subject of textual criticism. It also obviously has a pastoral bent to it as well, because once the book came out, I started getting letters from all sorts of people saying, oh, I wish we'd had this book five years ago. My church split about this, or I had to come home from the mission field because of this. Oh, if we just had this information then, et cetera, et cetera. So, that launched me into this area. Now, I can't point you to a whole bunch of debates on this subject, because it's next to impossible to get the advocates of King-Chantillyism to debate. If you want to see what happens when that does happen, the 1995 John Ankerberg series, it was an eight-show series that we recorded in Nashville. And that's fascinating. I have hair and round glasses, which is sort of the way things were in 1995, I guess. It was already thin enough, I should have gotten rid of it even back then, to be honest with you, but the hair, I mean. But that was a fascinating encounter, and I think you can really get an idea of where the various King James Only guys are coming from in that. that particular encounter. And then I did a debate with Jack Mormon in London in 2011, and that's available on YouTube, and I think that was a very, very useful one. I've done a few radio encounters, but that's about it. You can't get the big guys, the big guns to come out and do debates, because fundamentally, King James onlyism requires you to use one standard for the King James. and another standard for every other translation of the Bible, whether it was done before or after the King James. And so in a debate, where you have to do cross-examination, that doesn't hold up real well. And so that's one of the reasons I think they don't do that kind of thing. So I want to start off with a little bit of historical material from the King James translators themselves. OK. I don't need it. Oh! Well, okay. Now this may explode in my hand and kill me. Oh yeah, look at that. Okay, this is about the brightness. You know, I almost got in trouble at an airport in Germany for having one that was that bright. They almost didn't let me on the plane because it was that bright. But this will work, so if you weren't here last night, I did inform folks that if you fall asleep during my presentation, I will take this super bright green laser, and I will shoot it in your mouth. Your eyes will glow. I'll take a picture and post it. Well, I can post it on Facebook, can't I? Facebook's dead. We'll put it on Twitter. But thank you very, very much. I will definitely utilize that as best I can this year. So I love lasers anyways. Lasers have always fascinated me from the time I was a kid. I've wanted those things. Anyhow, all right. What I want to do is give you some historical material, thank you, from the translators of the King James Version of the Bible. Because the last people who would ever be King James-only-ness were the men who produced it. That's the fascinating thing to recognize, is that the men who produced it would be absolutely mortified by what has been done with their translation in the King James Movement. Which, by the way, goes back to a Seventh-day Adventist in the early 1930s. That's as far back as it goes. That's its origin. And so, certainly there were people who argued about the best text to be translated and things like that before that period of time. But as far as any type of elevation of the translation itself, to where it becomes literally the synonym for the Word of God. It is less than 100 years in its existence. So, the KJV translators face the same arguments that are hurled against the godly men who worked on the NASB or NIB. Wasn't the KJV good enough for you? Why prepare a new translation? Here is their reply. This is the King James translators themselves. from 1611. Many men's mouths have been opened a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the translations so long in hand. It did take them seven years to do it. Or rather perusals of translations made before and asked, what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment? Hath the church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? That is, do we condemn the ancient? In no case. But after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God. As if he said, being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent and the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to God's church, lest I should seem to labor in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in them, although ancient, above that which is in them. Thus, Saint Jerome may be thought to speak. They quoted Jerome a lot. Regarding their reliance upon the use of many English translations that preceded their work, because remember, the King James is not the first English translation. The Puritans loved the Geneva translation. The Pilgrims that came over to this nation would not even bring the King James with them. They detested it. They instead brought the Geneva Bible with them. And King James didn't like the Geneva Bible, because the Geneva Bible contained notes that limited the authority of kings, and referred to tyrants, and things like that. So, regarding their reliance upon and use of the many English translations that preceded their work, the translator said, yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be wiser, so, if we, building upon their foundation that went before us, and being halted by their labors, to endeavor to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us. They, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us." And so they acknowledge their indebtedness to those that came before them. Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not just so to be accepted against, and hath been our endeavor, that are marks. We were using stuff that came before us. The KGB translators had a very different view of the use of Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible than King James only is due. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where through the olive branches emptied themselves into the gold. St. Augustine called them precedent, or original language of St. Jerome, fountains. The same St. Jerome affirmed that as the credit of the old books, he meaneth of the Old Testament. is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the new by the Greek tongue. He meaneth by the original Greek. You will find King James only, as he will constantly ridicule you if you make reference to the original languages, which the King James translators did over and over again. Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out. They said, now the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession, for we have seen none of theirs, and the whole Bible is yet referring to the Roman Catholics, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. And so they affirmed that even the meanest translation, that is the most basic translation of the Bible in English, contains the Word of God and is the Word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttered in Parliament, being translated with French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. So in other words, translations can continue to communicate the intention of the original. That was what the King James translators believed. Did the KGB translators use the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like? Well certainly, here's what they said. Neither do we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch. Neither do we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered. But having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no recoach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have, at length, in the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the word to that past that you see. Some for adventure. would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin. The original King James. And most of the people today are certainly not reading the original King James. They're not reading the 1611. They're reading what's called the 1769 Blaney Revision. But if you find an old style King James, you will find all sorts of notes in the margins. There were thousands of them. And so some fur adventure would have no variety of sentences to be set in the margin, because there were places where it said, or this, or translated this way, or maybe this way. lest the authority of the scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound at this point. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that preemptorily. These men were scholars of the Bible, and they knew the danger of people taking a particular phrase and reading a meaning into it that the original did not actually convey. And this is what exactly they're saying. And that, unfortunately, is what happens in King James Onlyism all the time. Therefore, as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures. I can't tell you how many times I've seen King James Onlyism. mock the idea of comparing translations so you can have a better idea of what the original is, if you don't have access to the original language. We have so many fine English translations comparing them. Oh, that's just terrible. That's not what the King James translators believe. They believe just the opposite. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear must means do good, yea, is necessary as we are persuaded. For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left, even the judgment of the judicious questionable can be no less than presumption. Wow, that is a good warning for any interpreter, but especially those who utilize the King James the way they do. So there's just some quotations, just to give you an idea of the facts. The King James translators themselves would not be King James onlyists. That should cause you to go, why would that be? Well, a lot of King James translators, there's different kinds of King James onlyists today. There is King James preferred people, and that's fine. If that's what you were raised with, that's what I was raised with. If that's something, if it communicates to you better, great, fine, wonderful. If you want to be preferred, that's fine. Most of those folks will compare the translations and really don't fit into the King James only movement. Once you get into the King James only movement, if you really want to define it, you ask someone, is there any place where the King James version could be improved? Now, the translators believed, yes. The translators knew that there would be translations after their own, and that there would be improvements, and so on and so forth. But when you ask someone, is there anywhere in the King James that could be rendered better? If they say no, then they are definitely King James only. So, a lot of King James owners really detest the New King James, because it's based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts. And so it reads very much the same, but because it's so close, there is a real detestation for it. And then you can actually get into, I think, clearly cultic King James-only-ism, where this becomes a central tenet of the faith itself, where your very salvation is dependent upon how you view the King James Version of the Bible. And I've met many of these folks. Some of you may remember the old Jack Chick tracks, the old Jack Chick comic books. Remember any of those? I was sent to the principal in fourth grade for passing out Jack Chick tracks on the playground. Okay? And so I'm a fourth grader. I'm nine years old. And I think I was nine years old. And so I had never been sent to the principal before. I was the guy in high school who never got a demerit. I was never tardy for class. I was that guy. I was also class evaluatorian and never got a B. So I was that guy too. Sorry, if you hate people like that. Shame on you. Anyway, and so I had never been sent to the principal before. And so I walk into his office. And he's sitting there behind his desk, and so I just walk up to his desk and hand him the jack-jack-jack. He thought that was interesting. I remember he told me, you just can't force anyone to take one. And I was one of the smallest kids in my class. I was sitting there wondering, how could I force anyone to take one anyway? But anyway, can you imagine what would happen if I did that today? But jack-jack, remember, those are the cartoon tracks. And one of my accomplishments in life is I have gone from being sent to the principal for passing out Jack Chick tracks to having written the King James only controversy and being identified by Jack Chick as the Antichrist. So that is quite a distance to go, honestly, in one life. But he passed out, he also made comic books. about Alberto Rivera, who was a former Roman Catholic priest, so they're anti-Catholic common folks. And I heard that Rivera was speaking at a church in Phoenix. I drove by it just recently. And so I and a friend went to hear what he had to say, and we were surprised that it was not, it was a non-Trinitarian church. It was an apostolic oneness church, which I found very odd. But afterwards, we met him, and he was, about the atoll. And I introduced myself, and no one at this point in time knew who in the world I was. And I've got my New American Standard Bible in my hand. And he says, what Bible is that? I said, it's the NASB Open Bible. And he says, does it have 1 John 5, 7 in it? We're going to talk about that later on. And I knew what he was talking about. And I said, no. He says, you're going to hell. You're going to hell. So, I've had many a person determine my spiritual state, not on my defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, my belief in the resurrection of Christ, the defense of the atonement of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or any of those things, but does the Bible you're carrying and you're defending contain the reading of the King James Version. It is really the fundamental issue. And so there are King James-onlyists who, for example, do not believe the Greek or the Hebrew is relevant. They believe that the Bible was, in essence, retranslated between 1604 and 1611, and that the translation in English is the standard. This was represented by Sam Gipp on the Engelberg show, if you want to go back and look at that from 95. And so, it is the final authority, it is the final form of the Word of God. And it is the Word of God, even more than what was written in the ancient times, and cannot be corrected as a result. That becomes the cultic kind of King James only. So, as I said, I am real popular amongst the Team James Olius. Anybody remember Tex Mars? Tex Mars is a fascinating guy. I did a radio debate with DA Waite on a radio station in Texas in 90, I think it was before the Angry Birds show, so it was probably 94, 93, 94, somewhere in there. Anyway, Tex Mars called in, and that was a fascinating encounter. I think it's, I'm pretty sure it's on Sermon Audio someplace. I think it's on our website somewhere. James White, a boastful King James Bible opponent, continues on his baseless crusade to bash King James-only believers. It makes for a rather sad spectacle to observe critics of the King James Bible, like Mr. White, humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God. I am praying you will be given a repentant heart and know the great damage he is doing the kingdom of our Savior. Elsewhere, Mars calls me a servant of Satan and a devil." So there isn't really, there's no political correctness here. Gail Ripplinger, author of New Age Biodivergence, calls White a rude, crude heretic and a serial soul killer. Now, when you say serial soul killer, a lot of folks get confused as to which serial you're talking about. I've had people very confused. Is that life serial? Is that meat-eating serial? As in repetitively. Serial soul killer. And she actually put out a book about me that was filled with the most amazing attempts at poetry. White Swappers, White's White Lies. She just really liked to use the term white and put it into every combination she possibly could. Sometimes, honestly, dealing with this whole thing has felt like I was back on the fourth grade playground. where everybody always used your name and, you know, tried to insult you using your name. You know, White the Weakling or something like that. And it's just astonishing. It really is astonishing. But then, let's go ahead and come up to the modern period and your own fine little town here. Because as some of you know, we had hoped that instead of only one person two people, because I invited Dr. Douglas Stauffer to debate me on the issue of the King James, because he's written at least one book on the subject. And I first encountered him in 2006. At that time, I had challenged him to back up some of the things he had said. He never responded to anything that I said. But then I didn't hear anything about him for a very long period of time, and thanks to Twitter, someone posted some materials from Facebook where he was doing a series in his study school class about me. And one of the things he claimed was that because of his books, I had changed the King James Only Conference. Now this was news to me because I had not read any of these books. And so when I obtained the book and started looking at it, I was just astonished at what I was reading. The main thing that he said was that he had refuted me in regards to Titus 2.13. Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1 are places where the King James does not render the underlying Greek text with enough clarity for you to see that these passages teach the deity of Christ. I think that's an important issue. I have defended those translations with Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians, you know, across the nation, really the globe. And so, it was an important subject. His arguments were completely vacuous, lacked any meaning to them whatsoever. And so I contacted him, and I said, hey, I'm going to G3. I'm only going to be four and a half hours away from where you are there in Niceville. And so I'd be happy to come down. And this is what I said. I said, I'd be happy to come down, pay my own way, put myself up. Of course, I've got an RV. That's how you do it. No honorarium, no cost to you. We can do the debate at your church, so you don't have to worry about trying to find another location, there's no costs involved. I want to remove any impediments, because all I want to do is, and in fact, if what you want to do is we just do Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1, that's fine with me. So I wanted to make it as easy as possible. The guy's been doing Bible studies about me, saying that I'm in it for the money, and I'm a false teacher. So there's no preparation before you got all your notes. I'm the one that's traveling, so my disadvantage. Let's do it. Well, I wrote, and then eventually I called. And it took weeks before finally I got a phone call from him. And he was telling me how very, very busy he is, and he needed to pray about it to get peace about it, and things like that. To make a long story short, I'm up here alone, even though I would imagine the church is probably within a five-minute drive of here one way or another. And so some of the things that he has said, just very briefly to give you an idea, because we will be looking at Titus 2.13, 2 Peter 1.1. The self-proclaimed scholars of today seem to have no problem with these alterations. Now, catch something. Throughout all King James-only writing and speaking, the King James is the standard. Therefore, anything that's different from the King James is an alteration. Something's been removed. Something's been added. It is the standard. They can never defend why it's the standard. That's where they start. That's the beginning of their reasoning process, is the King James is the standard. So they don't think historically. They don't think back to the early councils of the church. They don't think back to when the church was dealing with the deity of Christ or the relationship with the Father, Son, and Spirit. They didn't have any King James Bibles back then, obviously. And they don't think about the fact that the King James is a part of a number of translations that came out in that particular time period. And so, it's the standard. And so notice, no problem with these alterations. In other words, if a modern translation differs at all from the King James, it's altered the Word of God, because that's your standard. James White is a prime example of a Bible, quote, scholar, end quote, who believes that the oldest manuscripts are the best simply because of their supposed antiquity. Now let me stop and say, that's simply not true. And anyone who's read my book knows that's not true. I have a rather full discussion of why I do think a manuscript that's only 100 years removed from the original should carry more weight than one that's 1,000 years removed from the original. But I also talk about, for example, manuscripts 1739 and 1881, which are manuscript manuscripts from around the year 1000, that we know were copied from second century manuscripts. So they actually have great weight. So I talk about all those things, but the assumption when people are quoting someone like me is that their people are not going to check out their citations, aren't going to check out their revisions. He states, quote, most scholars today in opposition to KJV-only advocates would see the Alexandrian text type as representing an earlier and hence more accurate form of text than the Byzantine text type. And then I discussed why that is, that the Byzantine text type shows evidence of conflating earlier readings and so on and so forth. Of course, he has swallowed Satan's plan completely. So, if you have any other viewpoint than their own, that's just Satan's plan. It's not that there could be an argument there. They're not interested in hearing what the argument is. They have their conclusions, and there you go. Here's a few other quotes from this book. A few pages later, Mr. White's attack on God's word concerning this passage continues. That's about Titus 2.13. So, I'm saying, as we will see, that the King James translators did not render Titus 2.13, which should be translated, Our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. They have Our Great God and Our Savior, Jesus Christ, which allows for a distinction where there is no distinction in the original language. Both God and Savior are being applied to Jesus in Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1. The rule of Greek grammar that says that was not identified until hundreds of years after the King James was translated. So I'm not faulting the King James translators. They were especially expert in Latin, but the Latin article and the Greek article are very, very different. And this has to do with the use of the article in the Greek language. And so all I'm saying is, that our modern translations give us a better understanding of what was being communicated by the Apostle Paul in Titus 2.13. But notice the language. That is an attack on God's Word. That's not a historical discussion of, and by the way, every King James translator would have gone, no it's not, what are you talking about? That's not a topic. They had these types of discussions all the time. They would never ever accept anything. But again, when you start with the idea, the Word of God alone equals the King James Bible alone. That's your starting point. You don't defend that, you just start there. That's where you get this, my attack on God's Word. So what I'm doing is I'm discussing Greek syntax in defense of the deity of Christ, and that's an attack on God's Word. That's the mindset that you have. I would be a hypocritical, deluded liar if I made such a ridiculous claim and expected everyone to believe me. Welcome to the world of James White. This was where I had said at the beginning of my book, this book is not against the King James Bible. Because it's not. It was against King James-onlyism. But in their mind, that's the same thing. It's not the same thing. If you can't differentiate between the two, you're not thinking rationally, but that's where they are. And so, from his perspective, you're a hypocritical, deluded liar. I'm a hypocritical, deluded liar, if I may state that. Don't miss this point, because Mr. White's house of cards comes tumbling down based on the outcome of this single verse. Titus 2.13 again. He placed all of his eggs in this one spiritual basket, and they all just cracked, leaving him with egg on his face. This is the mess created by the modern versions and supported by dishonest Bible critics like Mr. White. Mr. White says, the modern texts contain a very clear testimony to the deity of Christ. Once again, his virulent attack upon the Word of God is unsubstantiated and blinds his objectivity. I was talking there. about a chart that I'll show you later on, where I compare some of the key places where the term Theos, God, is used of Jesus. And the reality is, the modern translations are clearer in their testimony to the use of God of Jesus than the King James. It's a fact, but you'll notice his virulent attack against the Word of God, which, translated into rational thought, is his disagreement with King James only. Clearly showing his true colors, Mr. White attacks the foundation for the King James Bible in his concluding comments concerning this passage. That was in reference to what manuscripts were used by the King James translators, as I mentioned last night. They didn't use manuscripts. They used printed editions of the Greek New Testament in their particular work. The inferior manuscripts to which Mr. White refers are those used by the churches for centuries and known as the Received Texts, Textus Receptus. We'll talk about why they've been used for centuries. In their place, he elevates two Roman Catholic texts that have thousands of difference between themselves, sheer lunacy and blatant hypocrisy. The real problem is anyone who's read the book knows that I do not elevate. Roman Catholic texts. Neither Sinaiticus Vaticanus or quote-unquote Roman Catholic texts. In the first place, they were written long before Roman Catholicism came to existence, so they can't be Roman Catholic texts. King James-only folks in church history don't mix very well at all. They have a very odd, odd take on church history. And each one has sort of a different take. But everybody knows that I do not do that. I do not make them the standard in the book. There's a large level of dishonesty there. Mr. White believes the Westcott and Hort Greek text with the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as their primary basis are the most reliable manuscripts. Again, anyone who's read my book knows that's just simply completely untrue. I mean, it's just a falsehood. I can show you page after page where I criticize Westcott and Hort and criticize Westcott and Hort reading and so on and so forth, but this is in the King James Only world, so go ahead and take a shot at them and all as well. Last ones, because there's a 2013 update here. Mr. White, using his late 20th century revisionist pseudo-intellectualism, arrogantly calls into question Dean Bergen's contemporaneous account, never trust a biased view of history motivated by pride and driven by arrogance. This is in reference to the finding of Codex Sinaiticus. I've done a lot of work on that, in fact did a debate against a King James only advocate a couple of years ago on their accusation, Simonides' accusation that he had made up Sinaiticus. I just, just the pseudo-intellectualism, pride, arrogance, they seem to be able to read your heart from afar and come to these conclusions. And then, here is the claim, 2013 update, after Mr. White was confronted with the information contained in this chapter, I would love to know when that happened. I would love to know how I was confronted. with the information contained in this chapter, because I wasn't. Along with the entirety of this book, he has continued to ignore the truth and state that the Gramble-Sharpe rule would have changed the outcome of the translating the Word of God into English. For this reason, it is safe to say that Mr. White is heretically expounding falsehoods that will one day soon be called into judgment, pray that he will repent of the error of his ways, and not allow his pride to stop him from turning under the tree. So I'm not a Christian. I'm a heretic. And I'm a heretic, because he says he's refuted Granville Sharpe's rule, even though the point is, get his book. Feel free to read it. I do not believe the man can re-agree. I do not believe he can read Greek. He does not even try to argue the grammar of chart construction from the language itself. And I think that's one of the main reasons I'm up here alone, is because if he had been here this evening, we would have found out whether he could read the language or not. I've been teaching it since 1986, somewhere. Yeah, I think 1986. So yeah, I think that was what the problem is. All right, so, but don't they have a point? Let's make sure we recognize their arguments. For example, key text they love to use, 1 Timothy 3.16. King James Version says, without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh. But the NASB says, by common confession, great is the mystery of godliness. He who was revealed in the flesh. King James says God is an antithesis of God. It's just a reference to Jesus. And ESV says he who. So is the NIV and the ESV as well. So you will find King James only us will preach entire sermons about how this shows that the translators of each of these modern versions don't believe in the deity of Christ. They're trying to hide the deity of Christ. They're trying to take it out of the Bible. And if you don't know anything about how the Bible came to be, it can be a strong argument. Then their books will be filled with charts like this. So notice, I'll use my super duper eye-burning green one here. Here's just a few. I mean, you can do pages of these. The modern versions. He, King James, Jesus. The Lord, the Lord Jesus. Jesus, Jesus Christ. Christ, Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ. In each one of these, the King James has a longer, fuller, and some people would say much more respectful reference. to Jesus. Now some of you are sitting there going, yeah, but even the King James has just one word, Jesus, so why would this be superior to that if that's superior to that? How does that work? I mean, are you really saying that every single reference to Jesus in the scriptures should be the glorious Lord Jesus Christ, every single time, every conversation between the apostles and Jesus. The apostles said, the glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Is that what you're saying it should be? Some people would say, well, yeah. Now, for the most of you, how many of you were not here last evening? Oh, okay, wow. All right, well, okay. If you were, you don't get to play this game, okay? Because you already know what this is about. But here's a test for all the folks using an NIV or ESV. So if you got an NIV or ESV, who has an ESV? Who was not here last night? All right, okay. Grab your ESV and look up John 5, 4. The Gospel of John, chapter 5, verse 4. And all of you who were here last night are going, we're on the inside of this one. That's right. Test for all the folks using NIV-DSV, don't think there's real much of a difference. Think your translation's just easier to read. OK, let's say you were sitting in your front room with a Mormon missionary. And he takes out his Bible, the King James Version, and asks you to read with him from John chapter 5, verse 4. Go ahead, look it up, what will you do? All right, ready? You have your mouth wide open. Why is your mouth wide open? Uh-oh. There is no John 5-4, is there? Is there a 5-5? Yes, sir. Is there a 5-3? Yes. Uh-huh, but there's no 5-4. It's at the bottom of the page. It's in the little teeny tiny notes down there. It's so small, I can't see it anymore anyways, but I know it's there. So if you have an NIV or an ESV, your verse numeration goes from 5-3 to 5-5. 5-4 is missing. And so if the King James is your standard, because it has 5-4, and this is the text about an angel coming down and destroying the waters, and the first person out of the water would be healed of whatever disease they had. This is a description of the pool there in John Chuck's font. If the Mormon missionary is reading from that, and you don't even have it in your Bible, there's an issue, isn't there? So we'll talk about it. But defenders of the modern translations amount without their arguments as well. There are many issues one can raise looking at the KJV. Let's look at a few examples. First, remember the appearance of God in 1 Timothy 3.16 in the KJV. So they're saying, see, Jesus called God in 1 Timothy 3.16 in the King James, and it's not in your translations. That means your translations are denying the deity of Christ. Well, let's look at this. John 1.18, King James Version says, no man has seen God in any time. The only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. But the NRSV reads, no one has ever seen God. It is God, the only son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. Now, other translations will say the unique God, The only begotten God, but modern translations will use the term God of Jesus. In John 118, the King James and New King James do not. Now, if you were here last night, you know why that is. It's because of the underlying Greek text. But if you're using King James-only thinking, then this means the King James translators don't believe in the idea of Christ trying to hide it, right? And the modern translators believe in it, and they're trying to promote it. That's the reasoning you used before. Why wouldn't you use that reasoning now? Key primary thing to remember. King James onlyists do not use the same standards as the King James they use for any other translation, either before or after the King James. That, on any logical, rational level, is the ultimate reputation of the system. If you can't use the same standards, and let me give you an example. I have debated Muslims all over the world. I have stood in one of the largest mosques in South Africa and defended the deity of Christ. I've debated Muslim apologists at Pakistan University in South Africa, in London, in places in Australia. And I have said over and over again, we must use the same standard in criticizing the Quran that is used in criticizing the Bible. And Muslims don't do that. They will use a different standard to defend the Quran than they use to attack the New Testament. And I say, you have to have even scales. You have to have equal scales. So I won't use some of the arguments that some of my friends will use against the Qur'an, because I know they're inconsistent with the way that we have to defend the Bible. I seek to have standards that are consistent. That's the only way you can define truthfulness. King James only has had no concept of that whatsoever. I've not met a single King James onlyist ever in my lifetime that even tried to do that. Not once. Not once. And I can simply say to you, go ahead and talk to a few and find out if I'm not telling you the truth. My book actually came out in 95, so I've been doing this for a while. And I've got a lot of experience. In the same way, the KJV agrees with the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation in not having a reference of prayer to Christ in John 14, 14. Modern translations agree that here the Lord speaks of prayer to himself, while the KJV lacks the word me in the phrase, if you ask me anything in my name. So, in talking about after he's gone back into the presence of the Father, in the NASV it says, if you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. What's the only way you can ask Jesus, now that he's gone back into the presence of the Father, anything in his name? By prayer. Look at the KJV. If you ask anything in my name. Not ask me. If you ask anything in my name. So you don't have a reference to prayer to Jesus. This is about 1440. This is one of the references of prayer to Christ that demonstrates this deity. I've used it many times talking to Jehovah's Witnesses. The King James agrees. That must be the King James translators don't believe in the deity of Christ, right? By their standard, yes. By the rational standard, that's absolutely absurd. But, there you go. Now compare the KJV and Revelation 1A. KJV says, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. This is Jesus speaking. But the New American Standard says, I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty. And what's fascinating is what you'll see. is that when you point these things out to a true blue King James audience, they will attack these texts as having anything to do with the deity of Christ. They would rather have fewer texts teaching the deity of Christ than have any problem with the King James Version of the Bible. That's been my experience over and over and over again. Now, we saw this one last night, so stick with me on this one. How's this for a conspiracy? The NASV of 1 John 3 says, see how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we would be called the children of God, and such we are. But the King James Version. Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. No affirmation that we are. And such we are is not there. What happened to adoption of sons? Do the KJV translators not believe in it? And see, as soon as you get into this, well, if it's different, then this must mean something about the translators. You have left the realm of objectivity and history. You've left the realm of objectivity and history. There are fundamental answers to these questions that do not require conspiracy theories. Unless you're KJV. But in reality, there's some conspiracy involved on either side. There are symbological reasons why there are differences in translations. Unfortunately, few people take the time to learn the backgrounds of the Bible. Hence, they are easily misled and upset by variations that are perfectly understandable and do not indicate any kind of evil intention or corruption. Let's look at some of the passages cited above and see. Let's start with 1 Timothy 3.16. One of the favorite patches of KJV Advocates is to understand why modern translations differ from the KJV and KJV. We need to know something about the text from which these translations came, the KJV and NKJV. The New Testaments are based upon a 16th century Greek text known today as the Textus Receptus. Modern translations are based upon the Nessia Holland Greek text of this century. So if you go to Well, in London you have something called the Trinitarian Bible Society, and they published a little blue case-bound New Testament, Greek New Testament, which most King James only advocates would understand to be the Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus is a Latin phrase that means received text. It was first used in an advertisement to sell the book in 1633 by the Elzinger brothers. Back then, believe it or not, you advertised in Latin. It wouldn't work very well today, but everybody could read it back then. That's how much better educated, to be honest with you, most people were in that century than we are today. Most of them were not monolingual. And so, textus receptus just simply meant the received text. The text of Ecclesiastes represents what is called the Byzantine family of manuscripts. These manuscripts constitute about four-fifths of the ancient Greek text in our possession, yet the majority of them come from the 10th to the 15th centuries. So they're basically more than a millennium removed from the originals. That is, they represent the later ecclesiastical text rather than the more primitive text of the first century. This is the majority text, though the Texas Receptives differs in over 1,800 places from the majority text type. So if you do the majority text thing where you just count the manuscripts, and we talked about this last night, the TR disagrees with that methodology over 1,800 places in the New Testament. I showed you this last night, but this is now a little more relevant. So you have The Alexandria manuscripts have got Byzantine manuscripts. These are the centuries. You can see in the early period, these earlier manuscripts predominate, and then the Byzantine starts becoming predominant in the 9th century as these decline. And so the majority text early on was obviously not the Byzantine manuscripts. And we saw this last night as well. But this gives you an idea, starting here in the ninth, here in the 10th century, these are your Byzantine manuscripts primarily. And they all come in a much, much later period of time. Let's remember one thing. What happens, oh, here's a quiz for you. Let's see if y'all are still awake. Let's see if y'all are still awake. What happens right here that is very important in history? in the 8th century, so that would be right there. What major world event that changes the very face of Europe and North Africa? Who dies in 632? Muhammad. So what is 632 to 732? It's the century of Muslim expansion. Islam expands all across North Africa, across into Spain, Portugal, what we would call today, all the way up to the Holy Land, out toward India. Only Constantinople holds out and keeps Islam coming from that direction into Europe. For 100 years, they cannot be stopped. But then they're stopped in 732 at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel. That has a huge impact upon the copying of the New Testament. All of North Africa was a Christian place. Where did Augustine live? Where did Athanasius live? Where did Cyprian live? All of North Africa. What is North Africa today? It's Muslim. And so that's gonna impact your copying of manuscripts, isn't it? Yeah, you bet. So major, major important stuff happens there. And so the Byzantine text comes out of Byzantium, that is Istanbul, Constantinople. and where these other manuscripts were predominant, become Muslim. That's going to impact their transmission over time. So, here's an example of the style of the early manuscripts of the New Testament. I mentioned to everybody last night that for the first 900 years, you had long lines of capital letters with outspaces between words and no punctuation. That's what you have to read when you're reading the early manuscripts of the New Testament. That's what they look like. Around the 9th century, the minuscule text became predominant, which is very similar to our modern text. So here you have capital letters, space between words. There's no punctuation in that. And certainly the diacritical marks, accenting marks, and things like that come along at a later point in time. They're not a part of the original manuscripts. And the minuscules, you can see they start right here. And they are Byzantine manuscripts as well. So, the Texas Receptus was created by the work of a Roman Catholic priest and scholar. He was called the Prince of the Humanists. Humanists did not mean back then what it means today. The humanists, their saying was ad fontes, to the sources. Go back to the Greek, go back to the Hebrew, don't just rely upon medieval commentators and stuff like that. Their humanism would eventually lead to our humanism today, but we need to keep things in order. His name was Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed and published the first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516. And notice I said printed and published. There was one that was printed before his. The Competentium Polyglot by Carter Jimenez had been printed before his. But back then, if you're going to publish something, you had to get papal approval. And you want to talk about bureaucracy and red tape and slow? It had been printed, and it was sitting in a warehouse, and would be sitting in a warehouse for years. So Erasmus beat him to printing and publication, not by getting approval from the Pope, but by dedicating the volume to the Pope. That's how you do it. I'll dedicate it to him and hope he doesn't burn me to the stake for having done that. And that's what he did. So the first edition came out in 1516. Some of you may be well aware of it. That was extremely important. Why? Because one of those first editions was purchased It was a diagram. It had the Greek on one side and the Latin on the other. And that first edition was used by a monk in Wittenberg, at the University of Wittenberg, by the name of Martin Luther. And it was by looking at that text that he recognized that the Latin, poenitentium agitate, do penance. You look over at the other side, the Greek says, metanoiate, repent, not the same thing. the light started to dawn in his world, because he had Erasmus, his Greek contestant, which is fascinating, because what then is the first printed debate of the Reformation? Who is it between? Erasmus and Luther, on the bondage of the will. 10 years later. Fascinating that that would be the case. The third edition of his text was particularly influential. A total of five editions came from him. So there's five editions of Erasmus. Then you have Stephanus' 1550 edition, which I own one of. And it's a 1550, so it's 400 some odd years old. It was donated, don't worry. We're not rolling that kind of money. But it is worth about $40,000. So I sometimes carry it with me. I've had it rebalanced, so it may not be worth as much, because it covered fall off, so I wanted to protect the tax. But I had Jeffrey Rice remind me. And it's beautiful. I mean, it's awesome. I should have brought it with me, but. In this humidity, I'm not sure I would have, that probably wouldn't have been a good idea. I've just not felt humidity like this in a long time. Anyways, Stephanus is 1550, and Beza is 1598. Theodore Beza was Calvin's successor at Geneva. Stephanus was Calvin's printer. So, Erasmus is Roman Catholic, but these guys are all Reformed, they're all Calvinists. onlyists are rabidly anti-Calvinist. They think Calvinists are just. So the vast majority of the King James translators were Calvinists. The people who made all the texts except Erasmus were Calvinists. But anyway, there you go. So there you have the additions that came from Erasmus to Thomas Bateson. And those are the ones that were used by the King James translators in their translating their text between 1604 and 1611. So, those, when you take, remember I told you about the little blue case-bound version that they think is the Texas Receptus today? That's actually Scribner's text. Scribner, in the 19th century, took all those printed editions from Erasmus and Stephanus and Basil, okay? And then he asked a question. What was the final decision of the King James translators? Because they were broken up into committees. So there was a committee that worked on the Gospels, a committee that worked on Revelation, and so on and so forth. And they didn't necessarily communicate with each other really well. It's not like they would whip out their cell phone and go, how did you guys do this one? Oh, okay, we'll do it that way too. Couldn't do it that way. So there are inconsistencies in the King James to how they do things. So, for example, in Matthew, I think it is, they translate the Greek phrase, ouf on eusais, as thou shalt not kill. But in Paul, in Romans, it's you shall not murder. Now, in most modern translations, they're going to render it the same way, because there's going to be one committee that's going to sort of go over things and make sure there's consistency at the end. But there wasn't in the King James, and so there are inconsistencies in the translation. And so, what Scribner does is he goes, I want to create a Greek text that actually reflects the textual choices made by the King James translators. So it's actually a Greek text based upon an English translation. There is no manuscript in the world that reads this way. Not a single one. So what Scribner does is he goes back, and he looks at what the King James translators chose as their reading. Sometimes it was from Erasmus, sometimes it was from Stephanus, most of the time it was from Basil. They relied mostly upon Basil. And he created Greek text that represents the textual choices of the King James translators. There are thousands of young men running around learning Greek and preaching from this, thinking this is somehow the Textus Receptus, the received text that God has preserved, when it's actually a Greek text based upon an English translation. Fascinating. But that's where the Textus Receptus comes from. Now, modern texts are based upon an eclectic text that draws from a wider variety of sources in the TR. When Erasmus did his first edition in 1516, he did it very quickly. He said it was precipitated rather than edited. His printer, John Froben, knew that Cardinal Jimenez had already printed his. He wanted to get his out first. So he's really pushing Erasmus, get it done, get it done, get it done. Erasmus is really disappointed at how many Greek manuscripts he found at the University of Basel. He moved to Basel, Switzerland, thinking they'd have a lot. They didn't. You know how many manuscripts he used? About six. And the oldest was from 1,000 years after Christ, and he didn't trust that one anyways. His text represents the text from around the year 1400. And when he came to the book of Revelation, he could not find a single manuscript of Revelation. Couldn't find any. And so he had a friend that had a Latin commentary on Revelation that contained the Greek text in it. And so he borrowed that, extracted the Greek text from the Latin commentary, and then found out that the last few pages of the book were missing. So he didn't have Revelation chapter 22. And his printer's going, come on, come on, come on. Erasmus had very little respect for the Book of Revelation. He really didn't think it was written. So he really didn't put a lot of effort into this. And so what he does is he says, all right, I can't find a manuscript. So he back translates from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. for the last six verses of Revelation chapter 22. Now, he does a pretty decent job, but in the process, he comes up with readings that no Christian had ever seen in the book of Revelation. Those are still the readings of T.R. today, and they are still the readings of King James Version of the Bible to this day. Interesting, huh? So, the modern texts that we have today, like the Nestle-UBS 434, as I had here last night, of the current ECM, draw from a wider variety of sources of the TR, including manuscripts unknown the days of Erasmus, obviously. Some of the papyri manuscripts used in modernness, the Alan 27th edition, Alan 28th edition, date to as early as AD 125, which we saw last evening. But these different sources, being more primitive, do not show the effect of long-term transcription seen in Byzantine text, and hence are not as full as the TR. What do I mean by full? Remember that? Charnock put up the tendency of scribes were to expand titles, for example. So he becomes Jesus, Lord becomes Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus becomes Lord Jesus Christ. This was an expansion of piety. And I had a really good illustration of this, oh, probably 40 years ago now. Well, maybe 38, but I was doing one of the first radio programs I ever did on this subject. And this sweet little old lady called me. And she said, I really appreciate what you're saying and how you want to reach out to the Mormons, and this is wonderful, and this is great, but you keep saying Jesus. And I just think it would be better if you said the Lord Jesus Christ. You see, it's the idea of piety, that that somehow is better, that shows more respect. Now, there are many places in the King James Version of the Bible where Jesus is just Jesus. Or sometimes it just simply says he. So it's not pious to expand upon that, but people think it is. And so you see this in the Byzantine texts and in the later texts. When we speak of textual differences between the TR and the modern text, we need to immediately emphasize something that is often lost in this debate. There is no doctrine of the Christian faith that is based upon any single text. And no doctrine of the faith is changed or altered by any variation of the text. If, and I have challenged King James Omnius for decades now to debate this The same rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA, now 28th edition. The results will be the same. The variations do not change the message. If you use solid hermeneutical principles of interpretation on the TR or the Nessie-Alan text, you're going to get the same faith. They don't believe that. They don't believe that for a second. That's because they don't use consistent hermeneutical methodology ever. is not something that they are overly concerned about. So here's an idea, this sort of gives you how things are related. You've got the Byzantine tradition over here, you've got the Alexandrian tradition over here, you've got the Latin Vulgate up here. You can sort of, Byzantine tradition to the Texas Receptus, there's a little influence from the Latin Vulgate, King James, New King James, 1611-1984. Alexandrian tradition, Latin Vulgate, and Byzantine tradition go into Messiaen, from which you get the NASV, ESV, NIV. And those are the dates when they first came out. Obviously, there are modern versions of all of those, as those translation committees still exist. There's a NASV 2021, in fact. There's a Legacy Standard Bible that MacArthur's group is putting out that's a variant that's based upon the NASV. But you can see where there's differences between them. Now, this is the chart that Dr. Stauffer was referring to from my book, where I put up these verses which have references to the deity of Christ. And so, in the beginning is the word, where is with God and where was God, monogamous theos, the unique God, John 118, John 20, 28. My Lord and My God, Acts 20, 28. The blood of his own is the translation in some versions. Romans 9, 5, where you have the reference to whose are the fathers and from whom is the Christ, who is God over all. Philippians 2.5-6, the Carmen Christi, where Christ does not consider equality with God, the Father is something to be held on to. Colossians 1.15-17, creator of all things. Colossians 2.9, where you have Jesus described as Hati, enauto, katoikai, ponta, pleiroma, teis, theatetas, sematicos, for in him is dwelling all the fullness of deity, theatetas, in bodily form. The King James confuses theatetas and theatetas. Those are two different words. Theat is used like in Romans 1 where it's talking about the divine nature. Theat is that which makes God, God. the very essence of deity. King James translates them by the word Godhead, whatever in the world Godhead means. And so that's what you have in Colossians 2.9. 1 Timothy 3.16 we've already looked at. God was manifest to flesh. Titus 2.13 is the Gramble-Sharpe construction we'll have to look at later on. Hebrews 1.8 is a reference to the sun as being God. And 2 Peter 1.1 is the Gramble-Sharpe construction as well. So that is the chart. And then I just simply compared them as to whether it's clear or ambiguous. Romans 9.5, the King James and the NIV rendering is not nearly as clear as the NIV, and we're asserting that Jesus is the God who is blessed in Romans 9.5. Colossians 2.9, again, the Thayot issue, the King James is ambiguous at that point. Titus 2.13 is ambiguous because it doesn't translate the gravel chart. Same thing here. So all I'm doing through all of this is simply to, as someone who has debated Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Muslims, around the globe, These are texts that I deal with all the time. And so, you put together the facts, I've taught Greek for decades, do the work of an apologist, this is how I evaluate these things. This becomes an attack upon the Word of God by Dr. Stauffer. It's not an attack on the Word of God, it's just simply, let's look at how these things are translated, and let's consider how this is. So, let's get to the Gramble-Sharpen structure. Well, here's a quote from Dr. Stauffer. Actually, this isn't where I'm going to deal with it, but here's a quote from Dr. Stauffer that's relevant to that chart. Sorry about that. I had said in my book, the little book of 2 Peter contains a total of five Granville-Sharp constructions. They are 1-1, 1-11, 2-20, 3-2, and 3-18. No one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. So in other words, when you go to 2 Peter, in 1-11, 2-20, 3-2, and 3-18, it's our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And every translation, including the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, translates it, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Because that doesn't bother their theology. But at 2 Peter 1.1, where you have the identical Greek syntax and word order, it says God and Savior. So the New World Translation mistranslates it, because that's what the New World Translation is. It's a mistranslation. It's a perversion of Bible. But the King James missed it as well. And so what I was saying is, no one would argue that the other four instances are exceptions to the rule. No one would make that argument, even the Jehovah's Witnesses don't make that argument. Notice Stauffer doesn't even understand that. Here's his comment. Let me try to rephrase Mr. White's insightful comments. This rule, that did not exist when the King James translators did their work, is being used to justify changes that are unnecessary and unscriptural. See how this works? It's not a discussion of what is the best translation. It's not a discussion of what did Peter mean by using the form of language. That's irrelevant. The standard is now the King James. The standard is what happened between 1604 and 1611. So, notice, to justify changes that are unnecessary in a scripture has nothing to do with changes. The death knell of King James-only-ism is simple. What did the apostles write? That must be your standard. If that's your standard, there's no room for King James on this. Ever. But that's not the standard for that. Furthermore, his arguments for the changes in the modern versions are bolstered by a rule that he says applies five times in one book, but four of them are clearly exceptions to the rule? I didn't say anything. I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule. I said none of them were exceptions to the rule. Did not even begin to understand. And this is why I do not believe Dr. Stauffer can read the language. I just don't think he has any access to the language whatsoever. And that's problematic if you're going to write books pretending that you do. All right, what does all this have to do with 1 Timothy 3.16, which is where we started? Because I want to explain to you, why is there a difference? Why does the King James have a reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Corinthians 3.16? And ESV, NASV, they do not. Well, the difference between two passages that they would have written originally would be this. Well, that doesn't help you too much. Let's use some color. That's not a good color on the screen. But that's what the difference is, those two letters. Let me show it to you in nice, big, there you go. Now you can see. This is the difference in the underlying Greek text between the Texas Receptus and the modern translation. As you can see, this is the word God, and this is the word has, he, who. You notice they look a lot alike. And these are written on what? Papyri. And what are papyrus made of? They're made of the leaves of plants. Remember when I showed you the papyri? What did you see? Lots of lines. There's lots of lines. It's not a nice flat surface. And so, it's very easy to see how a scribe, reading something that had been written 200 years before, could confuse this for this, or vice versa. So here's Codex Sinaiticus, and look, there is has, so here is musterion, mystery, has ephanerothe, so he who was manifest. There's Haas. Very clearly, that's the original, same ink as everything else. And then you can see about 700 years later, dot, dot, dot, the Haas. Now, remember, I explained to everybody last night, you may be wondering, if you read any Greek, you go, that's not God. Yes, it is. This is called a nomina sacra. A nomina sacra is one's sacred names. God, Jesus, Lord, Spirit, something David. New Testament manuscripts, we don't know why, but they consistently abbreviated the gnomon of sacred. And they would cut it down into two or three letters, normally two, with a line over top. And so I showed you, for example, P72 last night showed you God in the gnomon of sacred, stuff like that. So this is God, that's he who. You don't need a conspiracy theory. You don't need to say that, you know, I was a critical consultant on the NASB, so you must not believe in the deity of Christ. I've stood in mosques and defended the deity of Christ, where the Muslim audience was sitting on the floor right there. I've never met one King James only that would ever dare walk into that position. So don't tell me I don't believe in the deity of Christ. I do. But I also recognize it needs to be grounded in the reality of what the text actually said, if it's going to be true. So that's why there is a difference. The textus receptus follows the later Byzantine reading as the os, and that's why it's there. Simple. KJV-only literature abounds with examples of circular argumentation at this point. Keep in mind that for the vast majority of KJV-only advocates, This is the starting point in our thought. I've already said this, but you need to see it. The King James Bible alone equals the Word of God alone. When we realize this, we can understand why they argue as they do. got to understand that equation in their mind. There is no historical process that leads to this. You start there, and then you do with manuscripts, or logic, or history, or preceding translations, or you do with them what you need to do to make that true. That is what, and if you deny this, you're attacking the word of God, and you're probably not saved, and you're probably demon possessed, The Antichrist, like Jack Chick said to me, and stuff like that. That's why it works. The result of this mindset is seeing the language used in this debate. Instead of asking, what did John or Peter or Paul originally write? We hear about how modern translations have removed this, or deleted that, or added this, or changed that. All these loaded words assume the KJV is the standard by which all others would be judged. Some KJV-only folks go so far, as we said, to say that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves must be judged by comparison with the King James Version of the Bible. So, how about John 5, 4, that we made someone back there go, where did he go? You didn't know you were missing a verse, did you? There you go. is not only admitted by P66 and P75, the two earliest manuscripts we have of the Gospel of John from around 175 to 200, Sinaiticus Vaticanus, and others. But even in the manuscripts where it does appear, there are a number of variants within the text, and some even mark the passage with asterisks or obelis, little marks that say, this is not original. Most likely this was a marginal note, an explanation, written in an early manuscript, and accidentally inserted into a later copy by a copyist who thought it was a part of the original text. This happened all the time. Because once you receive the manuscript, you may not have known who copied it. You may not even be able to ask them. But when you're copying it, it was common. And I can show you pictures of Codex Sinaiticus where this has happened. It was common that if when you were copying it originally and you skipped something and you realized you had missed it, you'd write it in the margin. So if you're copying it later on and you don't want to lose anything, what are you going to do? You're going to insert it in the text. And so marginal notes would be inserted. John 5-4 was an earlier marginal note. It was explaining why there are all these people laying around the pool who are sick. And it becomes part of the original text. How about John 1-18? The earliest manuscripts of John, P66 and P75, prior manuscripts date around AD 200, as well as two of the earliest unsealed manuscripts, Sinaitics of Vaticanus, all read monogonese theos. Now Vaticanus has ha monogonese, whether there's an article there or something like that, but the point is, monogonese means unique or only begotten, theos, use of the word God, Jesus. unique god or the only son who is god. The bulk of later manuscripts read monogamnes quios, which is the normal. In the Gospel of John, what does John 3.16 say? Does monogamnes quios, only begotten son. That's the normal, that's what you'd expect to come after monogamnes, not theos. So the only begotten son, the KJV following the TR reads son. Now, that's why I said last night I'm going to be really interested when John finally comes out in the ECO and the CBGM databases are created and it analyzes John-118. I'm going to be really interested in seeing what CBGM says at that point. But right now, that's a well-kept secret. Though I've thought about getting over to Birmingham, England and bragging to somebody who's working on it, but now I can't get there anyways. But some insist that the literal rendering, Only Begotten God, actually undercuts the deity of Christ. Hence, it can't be right. Allegations of Gnostic corruption abound in KGB-only books. But this is determining the text of Scripture, not on the basis of the best evidence available, but on the basis of one's own ideas of theology. This is very dangerous. Where do you get your ideas of theology? You're supposed to get them from the scriptures. But if you use your ideas of theology to determine how to translate the scriptures, how can the scriptures ever validate your ideas of theology? That's why you have to have one goal. What did John, Paul, Luke originally write? And how can I get the best translation of it? Once you start using your own, and that's what Stauffer does in Titus 2.13, well, it should read this way. Because of these considerations, and you ignore the underlying grammar, you ignore the underlying manuscripts, you're no longer doing Bible translation. And you're no longer believing in Sola Scriptura either. So, in point of fact, the phrase does not necessitate any idea of inferiority regarding Christ. In fact, while the phrase, only begotten son, was prevalent in Gnostic writings, the phrase, unique God, monogenes deos, does not appear in the extant Gnostic literature from the time period. So there's all sorts of these guys that will say, the Gnostics said that, but the Gnostics never used that phrase. But they used monogenes deos all the time. So if you make that argument, it actually is an argument against you. First John 3.1, which we mentioned earlier and we looked at last night. Sorry for those of you who already saw this once. First John 3.1 is an excellent example of a simple scribal error. An error of sight that is common to us all. Look at the passage in Greek. There it is again in all capitals. You don't have to know Greek to see how an error could have happened here. Look at the relevant phrase. You can see the two... Those are in different colors. Sometimes, and I don't mean this in an insulting way, but sometimes men are colorblind, and they don't see it. And there's a certain proportion of the human population of males that don't see that. So that's red, and that's red. Notice how the two of these words end with the same three letters. U-absolute nu, U-absolute nu. Just as we often inadvertently skip something when our eyes come back to what we are copying, because two words end in a similar ending, such as ing or tim. So to an ancient scribe, upon writing clathomen, then returned to the text, and instead of starting there, saw Esmen, and such we are, and inadvertently skipped the phrase. It's a standard scribal error. We have all sorts of examples of homo italiaton from multiple languages, all across the New Testament, Old Testament, things like that. Again, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's not the translators didn't like to say, believe that we were the sons of God. It's totally and completely a matter of the underlying Greek text. In the same way there is no conspiracy in John 14, 14. Here the older text joined with a large portion of the Byzantine text and contained the word me. So it is the majority reading. But a part of the Byzantine tradition does not contain the word, and that part underlies the TR. Because remember, the TR was based upon only about six manuscripts. It did not have a huge number to draw from. The majority text contains the reading, Me at this point, demonstrating the TR is not identical to the majority text. And so this is just a major error in the TR, and hence underlying the King James Version of the Bible. Likewise, Revelation 1.8 and the reference to the Lord God is another example, where the TR even departs the entirety of the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The vast majority of texts, including the later ones, contain the reading that is in the ESV and ASV, but not in the King James. The TR in the Book of Revelation is particularly suspect, as I mentioned, this is due to the fact that Erasmus Rushd's work in the book relies on only one manuscript of Revelation that he borrowed from his friend Johannes Reiklin. As a result, entire words exist in the TR that are found nowhere else in any Greek manuscript that nobody has ever seen on the planet Earth, but they're in the King James Bible in the Book of Revelation. Here's one of the big ones, Colossians 1.14. We used to go up to the Mormon temple And if you need to run over and get a drink of water or something like that, I'm going to try to be done in about 20 minutes. And that's fine. I'm not going to be offended that we're going long here. And if you stop at Starbucks on the way, you might have a problem. So go ahead and do that. It's no problem. I was standing, we used to, every six months, we used to go to the General Conference of Mormon Church in Salt Lake City and pass out tracts. First weekend in April, first weekend in October. They have completely hidden from COVID. They are in their basements. They haven't come out yet. And they are completely in hiding because they haven't done it now since October of 2019. I was up there. But we used to go up every six months. And I was passing out tracts at the south gate of the temple and I saw this guy come up and he started passing out tracts too. So I'm sort of looking at him, he's sort of staying off by himself, you know. But eventually we started talking, and he says, so what Bible are you using? I knew where this was going immediately. And I said, well, I've got an NASV with me. Oh, is that the bloodless Bible? The bloodless Bible. I knew exactly what he was talking about. This is what he was talking about. Colossians 1.14. King James Version, Colossians 1.14, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. NIV, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, through his blood, is not in the NIV. Obviously because the NIV translators do not believe that the blood of Christ is relevant or important or anything else. Is on the basis of passages such as this that KJV-only folks have identified the enemy as the bloodless Bible, but is such a charge true, accurate, and honest? No, it is not. First, any person studying the passage might note that Ephesians and Colossians contain parallel passages. They do. I'm very close to one of them. Parallel to Colossians 1.14, in Ephesians, it's found in Ephesians 1.7. And notice what Ephesians 1.7 says. Well, there it is, through his blood, in the KJV, and in the NIV, in him we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins in accordance with the riches of God's grace. So, if the NIV is trying to hide the blood, why include it in Ephesians? Well, because you need to have it multiple times. And if it's only there once, then maybe it's weakened. That's normally the argument. As we all know now, it's because of the underlying Greek text that's being translated. In reality, the KJV here contains a reading in Colossians 114 that goes against not only the ancient manuscript, but against the vast majority of all manuscripts, including the Byzantine. The earliest manuscript to contain the added phrase, through his blood, in Colossians 114, is from the 9th century. All of four manuscripts, all dating long after the original writing, contain the reading. So it's a small minority reading, almost a millennium after the original. And why did it end up there? Because Colossians is parallel to Ephesians, somebody who had memorized Ephesians 1-7, Probably even inadvertently, when copying it, inserted it in, because they knew the text from Ephesians 1-7. KJV-only advocates were consistent with their arguments. They would reject this reading. Since they do not, they prove their arguing in circles. And that is the fundamental. Every time I get these folks to do debate, listen to the debate I did. Back during the COVID lockdown, it was one of the first debates I've done online, which is not as much fun. I can assure you of that. But I was debating a TR-only advocacy, somebody who says the TR, not the King James, but the TR is the final authority. And the point that I brought out was, no matter what text we look at, the arguments that a TR-onlyist or a King James-onlyist are going to use for any one text will change completely once you get to the next verse. They cannot use the same arguments. They cannot use the same standards. And if you have to keep changing your standards for what is proof and what is evidence, that means your arguments are invalid and should be rejected. Here's a simple error in translation. Acts 539. Anyone ever notice this if you're reading to King James? Look at the KJV. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree. You ever notice that? Did the Jews kill Jesus and then hang his dead body on a tree? No. They killed Jesus by hanging his body on a tree. Crucifixion. So you notice the ESV. The God of our fathers, Regius, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. And if you read Greek, you look at this, and you look at the verb, and you notice the participle, hanging upon tree. Oh, that's the instrumental use. It's a very common use of participles, especially in Luke and his style. It's clear. It's obvious. How do you defend that? But I've had people defend that. Whom ye slew and hang on a tree. No, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree is what the Greek is communicating to us. Here's a simple error in the underlying text, Ephesians 3.9. This is one that I debated with a TR only guy. The King James says, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, in Ephesians 3.9. The NSV says, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery. It was in preparation for this debate that we finally dug up a single manuscript from an earliest, the 12th century, that has koinonia at Ephesians 3.9. All other manuscripts. All other translations. The Latin, the Ethiopic, the Coptic. Every reference in the early church fathers. for over 1,200 years has He Oiganomia Tu Musqueamu. And it just so happens that the one manuscript where some guy wasn't paying attention falls into Erasmus' hands, and he uses it in Ephesians 3 now. By any textual critical standard, We know what Ephesians 3.9 says. And yet, every King James Only Advocate, every TR Only Advocate will defend the King James reading. Which means that every Christian for 1,200 years had their own reading, and God didn't seemingly care. Never understood that part of it. There was that part of the problem. This enormer clearly seen in the textual inundation found in Revelation 16.5. I love this one. Even our hymns have been impacted by this text over here. All Greek manuscripts of whatever type agree in reading as the New American Standard Bible, which says, and I heard the angel of the waters saying, righteous are you who are and who were, O holy one, because you judge these things. The key phrase is, O holy one. Compare the King James Version. I heard the angel of the waters say, thou art righteous, O Lord, which art and was and shalt be. Because Thou hast judged us. So instead of, O Holy One, it says, and you shall be. Every manuscript we've ever found in the Book of Revelation says, O Holy One. Everything wrong. How did we end up with, and you shall be? Well, Theodore of Asa. Calvin's successor, Geneva, made a conjectural emendation at this point. That's a change in the text that has no manuscript support. He had no manuscripts in front of him that read differently. He felt that the text made more sense if it read, and shalt be, than O holy one, because it was who was, who is, who is to come. And he thought the Greek words were similar enough in form to explain it. That is, he felt that these two Greek words were close enough in form to allow him to change the text. So this is O holy one, Haseas. This is, shall be, you shall be, a somnambulist. Well, at least they end with the same two letters. So against all manuscript evidence, this reading persists in the TR today. So if you pick, if you buy that little blue case-bound text of Receptus, when Revelation 16.5, you will have a reading that no one reading any Greek manuscript in the history of the church ever saw. But there will not even be a note telling you that. There are no notes in the CR. No notes in the CR. Revelation 16.5. Which KJV do you have? And which one should be the standard that we are to use? Almost all KJVs, they are actually the 1769 Blaney revision of the authorized version, not the 1611. But there are different kinds of KJVs. The two most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can you tell which one you have? Well, look at Jeremiah 34, 16. And in Jeremiah 34, 16, down there in the middle, I'm not gonna read through all of it, whom he had set at liberty. The Cambridge edition will be whom ye set at liberty. Now if you know your old pronouns, ye is what? It's plural. It's plural. So, which one is it? Is it a masculine singular, or is it a plural? If the King James is your standard, and if you can't go back to the Hebrew to correct the King James, which one is it going to be? You can't know. You can't figure it out, because you've changed the standard. If you look back at the Hebrew, you can figure it out. But you'll find differences in published, printed King Jameses to this day. In regards to that particular text, I have an interesting discussion of it in the King James Only Controversy, because it's actually stuck in the new King James, too. Somebody's using King James to check things out. Alright, last thing. This is the biggie. This is the one where Alberto Rivera looked me in the eye and said, I'm going to hell because of this text. And I've had many King James Onlys say the same thing. King James Version of the Bible, 1 John 5, 7-8. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. Now look at the New American Standard. For there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are in agreement. That's a lot shorter. You can see in the red what is at stake. There is no text more directly relevant to the integrity of the New Testament's text than this one. Listen to what I'm saying here. This sounds sort of radical, but I need you to hear it. For if such a vitally important theological text can disappear in toto, completely, from the Greek manuscript tradition, then we have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that we still possess the original readings of these ancient writers. No Greek text for the first 1,300 years of its history contains the text found in the text of 370s. Not a one. Not a one. So if you can have an important theological statement disappear completely from all Greek manuscripts, then we can have no confidence that God has preserved his word. None. The text first appears in certain Latin texts in the 4th century most probably as a gloss, an explanation of what spirit, water, and blood was supposed to refer to. Very clearly, and I know at least one guy who's sort of a Byzantine text advocate who has strongly argued that plainly this arose in the Latin and only over time eventually snuck into the Greek from the Latin. It is not found in the Greek manuscripts of 1 John at all. While it is found in a few 10th and 11th century Greek manuscripts, it is only written in the margins in a 16th or 17th century hand. So it wasn't originally a part of that manuscript. The following manuscripts are the only ones that contain the verse in the actual Greek text of the Greek manuscript. Here they are. And you'll notice 14th, 15th, 15, 20, 16th, 16th, and 18th centuries. well after the printing press has been invented. Now you may notice one of those is weird. 1520, have you ever seen a date? An actual date on the manuscript that we know? That's Codex Monfortianus. And we know when it was copied. Codex Monfortianus number 61 is in the Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. It was presented to Erasmus as evidence that the reading appeared in a Greek text, because in the first two editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, there is no 1 John 5-7. It's not there. And so people who had it in their Latin manuscripts started attacking him as if he was undercutting the Trinity. And so he said, I've found it in no Greek manuscripts. And so he was shown Codex Monforteanus number 61 as evidence that the text appeared in Greek text. Erasmus even asked his friend Bombastius in Rome to consult Vaticanus, Codex V, to see if it was there. It's not. Bombastius confirmed that Codex V does not contain the Kaaba Yahani. But since he was shown Montfortianus in the third edition, he inserted it into his text, the long note in the annotation saying why he did not believe it was original. But that was an extremely important text. It continued in editions four and five. That's why it ends up in Stephanus. That's why it ends up in Vasa. And that's why it's in the King James Version of the Bible. Here is a picture of me and my friend Doug McMasters at the Trinity Library in Dublin, Ireland. All you can see is my hand, unfortunately. Doug's a big boy. And what are we examining? Codex 140 on this. Looked it up for ourselves, just to make sure. And here, you'll notice, it doesn't even read like the TR. The TR is different. There is a picture of what I looked at with my own two eyes, there in Dublin, Ireland, and what Codex 149 reads at that particular point. So here's the point with First John 5-7. When you defend that as original, you are fundamentally destroying the only solid basis on which we have to defend the New Testament, and that's its tenacity. I know they don't intend to be doing that, but I've never seen these people debating Bart Ehrman. I've never seen these people debating Muslims. They primarily just keep all this stuff within the Church, and so they don't know that this is what they're doing, but that's what they're doing. If you can say that an entire theologically important phrase can simply disappear from all the manuscripts and have to be reinserted from a translation, then you're saying that the Greek manuscripts do not contain all the original readings of the Testament. You're saying the same thing that the Muslims are saying. You don't mean to, but you are. And that's the fact. And that's why they won't debate this subject. Well then, has God preserved his word or not? That's the question KJV-only folks always come back with. Unfortunately, they all seem to assume that unless you have a perfect English translation, you don't have a perfect Bible. Of course, English did not come into existence until more than a thousand years after the last words of Scripture were written. Hence, making a perfect English translation of the standard is obviously an error, and it should be obvious, especially to anybody who speaks more than one language. A lot of these folks do not speak more than one language. Think of it this way. Let's say the Constitution of the United States was translated in the language of a small island in the Pacific. How much sense would it make for someone on that island to take one particular translation of the Constitution, insist that this one translation is THE standard, and then proclaim that unless this translation is perfect, then no perfect Constitution exists anywhere? Yet that's exactly what King James Onlyism is saying. That's exactly what they've done. See, it doesn't matter if there is a perfect translation of the Constitution in Swahili for there to be a perfect rendition of the Constitution in its original language. How, then, has God preserved His Word? He has done so by making sure, as we saw last night, the New Testament was so quickly distributed all over the known world that there never was a time when any one man, one group, one church could gather up all the copies and make wholesale change. By the 3rd century, entire manuscripts were already buried. If major changes were made after that time, they would be easily detectable by comparison with those earlier manuscripts that we've discovered only in the past 100 years. This means... I'll wait until you get that picture, Jason. There you go. This means we can disprove the claims of those who say the Bible has undergone wholesale editing and changes, such as Mormons, Muslims, atheists, New Agers, the Jesus Seminar, etc. KJV-onlyism undercuts the most foundational elements of our defense of the veracity and accuracy of the scriptures, all in an attempt to establish a final authority in English translation. So what do we conclude? First and foremost, that we don't need conspiracy theories complicating our lives. There is no reason to embrace King James-onlyism. It is a system, a tradition, that must assume its conclusions to prove its conclusions. As such, it is not something that Christians who love the truth should wish to embrace. And next, we recognize that the Lord has indeed preserved his word, but he has done so in a way other than that assumed by KJV advocates. Sorry, I didn't get to that one. Finally, that while there are modern translations that we can never recommend, it does not fall that we must go back to a venerable translation that exists in a language no one has spoken for hundreds of years. If we follow the apostolic example, we will give the word of God to people in a language they can understand, not one that leaves them absolutely, totally bewildered. Now, very quickly, because I wanted to be done here, but I forgot to cue this up beforehand, and I have a lot of presentations here. Let me see if I can find it for you real quick. This would be... I think it's in the New World one. Have you noticed, for me anyways, they're making the fonts smaller and smaller. I'm not sure what I can do about that, but New World Translation, where'd it go? Well, I guess I should just do it this way, huh? Go down to N. Sorry, I should have had this. I thought I had this all set up. Oops. Okay. How about this one? Yeah, this'll work. Yes, I know, I know, I know. Don't worry, I'm not gonna tell you about your hospitals. All right, real quickly, I said that I would do this, and I need to, in light of The claims of Dr. Stauffer here locally. Grammar Sharpe's Rule, Titus 3.15, 2 Peter 1.1. NASB in Titus 3.15 says, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus. The New World Translation says, we wait for the happy hope and the glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Savior of us, Christ Jesus. They're trying to separate God and Savior. Here's the basic rule. When you have two singular nouns that are not names connected by the word chi, which means and. The first, having the Greek article. The second, not having the Greek article. So, arthurus and anarthurus, if you're following along. Both nouns are describing the same person. Now, I did a huge paper on this in Bible College. This is actually one of six rules of Granville Sharpe, who, by the way, was an English abolitionist, one of the leading people who led to the abolition of slavery in England, but was also a Greek scholar. He identified six rules the word the in English is really boring in comparison to the Greek article. The Greek article is very rich, can be used in many different ways, it can become a pronoun, they do all sorts of fun stuff. Most of us who even teach it have never really fully mastered the article because it's that complicated, but this is about the use of the article. Now, in Titus 2.13, If you go back and look at the language that is used there, I don't have time to do it right now, but if you go back to Psalm 130, verses 7 through 8, Ezekiel 37, 23, Exodus 19, 5, the whole discussion in Titus is about how Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, is redeeming a people unto himself. That's the background language from which Paul is drawn when identifying Jesus in Titus 2.13. And so it makes perfect sense that when you're drawing from passages about Yahweh, that you would then say that we are looking for the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. We've just been saying that the work he has done is the work of Yahweh. And of course, Paul identifies Jesus as Yahweh. In places like Philippians chapter 2, we went over some of these things last night in regards to the identification of Jesus as Yahweh. So the context of Titus 2 is very strong in pointing to the propriety of that translation. Stauffer never tries to argue against the Grammyshark construction, because you'd have to actually know Greek to do that. He does not make any argument against it. He says, well, Jesus has to become your savior. That's not the point. What did Paul write, and what did it mean to his first audience? Not, what do you do something with it 2,000 years later? There's all sorts of places where the term savior is used, and God is used interchangeably, and it has nothing to do with, well, he has to become your savior, and this has to do with multiple, it is the most convoluted argument I've ever tried to even figure out that he produced. And it never touched the simple fact of what the context is, and what the grammar actually says. Doesn't even try to. But 2 Peter is even clearer, and this is cool, because if I've lost you, stay with me for just a second. I'm almost done, and this is so plain, so clear. Oh, great, the font's messed up, but that's all right. 2 Peter 1.1, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. New World Translation by the Righteousness of Our God and the Savior, Jesus Christ. It's very close to the King James rendering as well. Now, I'm bummed because I do not know why this happened, but the top here is supposed to be in Greek, but it got messed up there. I probably could fix it right now, but I'm not going to. Ignore the top that's supposed to be Greek. Look at the transliteration down here. Look at the transliteration. Look at 1.11, because remember I told you there are five constructions in 2 Peter. I'm just giving you one of the parallel ones, which is 1.11. 1.11 is, Tu kuriu heimon kai soteros yesh uchistu. So, what's the difference between 1.11 and 1.11? One word. Kuriu means Lord. Θεοῦ means God. But you'll notice that they both end with O-U in English. That's the gender singular in Greek. So they're in the exact same grammatical form. Every other word is an identical. To, ἡμῶν, καὶ, σωθερός, Ιησοῦ, Χριστό. These are in the same form. Every translation renders 111, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. And no one has any problem with that. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Even the New World Translation renders it that way, because that doesn't mess with the theology. But if you could translate this as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, what do you have to translate this as? Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. You have to. Simple consistency demands it. And so, you can sit there and go, yeah, but Jesus has to become your personal Savior. What about down here? There's Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They're put together there. When you have an ultimate authority, which is the King James must be the final word, then you will do whatever you have to do with what the manuscripts say, what the grammar says, with theology, whatever, to substantiate that assertion. And that's what you have in the King James Old Testament. And that's why a Christian who loves the truth should not be a person who embraces the King James Old Testament. All right. How about 5 minutes? Real quick. I'm gonna have a limit to 5. 5 minutes, questions. Sir? Most of them will say that if you're gonna have foreign language translations, they need to be based on the TR. But in the Ankenberg debate, that question came up, and the answer that was given, Ankenberg specifically asked Sam to give, what if I speak Russian? And Sam Gibson's answer was, if you want to have the word of God, it's been given to us in one language at one time, right now it's King James Version of the Bible in English, you need to learn English. Yes, sir? Do you have an opinion on the Robinson Pierpont Byzantine text? Robinson Pierpont Byzantine text? Yeah. Dr. Robinson has snuck into my presentation I did last night when I was back in Virginia somewhere once. He's a really nice guy, and that's a scholarly work. But even he will admit that he starts with the presupposition that the Byzantine text has to be the origin of the other readings. And so he starts the presupposition that determines all the readings that he makes. He is not King James only. He really loved my book and the King James only-ism stuff. He even gave me some information for it. But starts the presupposition that it has to be the origin of the other readings. So it's a good resource to have in the library if you want to look at the Byzantine text. Yes, sir? How long did it take you to learn Greek? How long did it take me to learn Greek? I took seven years, four years in college, three years in seminary, with the same professor who had hair when he started but not when he finished. That was probably my fault. Dr. Mike Baird, who's a good friend and colleague of mine. And then probably after about two years, I started actually teaching it as well. It really, really helped. And then I've taught it on and off for decades now. Well, it depends what you mean by corrupt. Certainly, I mentioned last night Codex Vesey, Canterbury Genesis, Codex D, called the Living Bible of the early church. It's a mess. I mean, whoever did it was trying to comment on the text, and hence not just trying to copy it. But no, actually, as far as someone specifically trying to sneak something in or something like that, that would stand out like a sore thumb. And there just really isn't anything like that, outside of D. And I don't know if putting in the number of steps that Peter walked down after he got delivered by the angel was really trying to change much in the way of theology, but he did. It's a weird, weird miracle. Beza, it's called Codex Bezae Candibiginti because it was given to Theodore Beza. Theodore Beza then gave it to Cambridge University, which is why it has its name. And the letter that he sent when he gave it to them was, this manuscript is so strange that it is better to be stored than read. Good question, good question. There's actually two texts we mentioned last night, the two 12-verse sections, John 7 to 8 through 8-11, it's called the Priccape Adultery, the Woman-Taken Adultery, Mark 16, 9 through 20, the Long Rending of Mark. So everybody always asks me the question, if you were preaching through John, if you were preaching through Mark, how would you handle these things? You need to understand I've only been, I've been in three churches, remember, three churches in my adult life. Large Southern Baptist Church, Reformed Baptist Church for 29 and a half years, and for the past two and a half, three years now at Apologia Church. I wasn't in leadership at the first one, so we can leave that out. So for over 30, about 30 or two years, everybody in those churches knows that I'm a weirdo. So they know that I work in the languages, they know that when I preach, I'm going to talk about sexual variance, and that means I've done this kind of presentation for them in Sunday schools over and over and over again. So they all know about the existence of sexual variance and how to evaluate them. And so, I'm in a different situation. So, I'm not going to preach John 7, 15, 3, 8, 11 as scripture, because I don't believe it's original. It doesn't appear until the 5th century. I'm not going to preach Longren's ending in Mark for different reasons. It's not that it doesn't have good early evidence to it. It's that there are so many other endings, that if it was original, there's no reason to explain why the other endings exist. And it also has a lot of weird stuff in it. So, but I'm either going to Do a study in the Sunday school or something along those lines and then make reference to that in the sermon when we go from 752 to 812 Or when we stop at Mark 16 8 Or I'm going to refer them to stuff that I've recorded I'm not just gonna jump over it and not say anything about it so if you're in a church where If people don't have that background, then you need to be significantly more careful as to how you handle those things. I taught a class on textual criticism in Ukraine, and one of the students came up to me through the translator and said, I could never tell my people to stuff. They would never accept it. He said, I'm glad to know it, but I can never tell. That's an interesting situation. One more. Yes, sir. So how do the King James only people say who were Easter, but how do they find out who were Easter only when it has passed? Right. Believe it or not, almost every King James only, as I know, that has written a book on that subject, has developed their own rather unique, interesting mechanism for defending Easter, and basically saying, yes, that's true, it was rendered Passover, but God knew what was going to happen in the future with it, and so he guided the King James translators to render it in such a way that makes it superior to what it used to say. Once you start there, you can defend anything. Well, that's a good question. I haven't looked too deeply into that, but it probably was just to connect it to the current liturgical calendar or something like that, I would assume. I'm not 100% certain. Real quick. Your age earns you an extra question, sir. Thank you, sir. Is it true or false that all the basic translations, whether we're talking about he is the you know i mean it's a great day for us i think we're not going to be this is great the basic doctrines of christianity that was one of the main things i want to emphasize was that if you apply the same standards of interpretation and hermeneutics to the ESV, NIV, NASV, King James, New King James, I've always said the New King James is one of the best translations of an inferior text ever it's really, really, really well done Man, you could have just used the TR and an older Hebrew text. But you apply the same standards to all of them, you're going to come up with the exact same message. It's not different religions. It's not going to change any of those things. What it might change is the list of verses in support of a particular doctrine. So in regards to the deity of Christ, you'll have 1 Timothy 3.16 with the King James, New King James. But then with the modern translations, you would have John 118 as supporting the deity of Christ. But there are relatively few of those, and no doctrine of the faith is based upon just one verse. Okay, all right, again, fire hose type thing, real fast, I realize that, sorry. There is actually a recording of pretty much this, well, last night, pretty much last night from Trinity Law School from about 10 years ago on YouTube someplace. So if you wanted to sort of go back over things like that. But I cover a lot of this stuff on The Dividing Line all the time, do a webcast. One of the reasons I wanna hurry tonight is I'm gonna try to do one once I get to Louisiana tomorrow. The weather, I think, is going to slow me down. I am not going fast through that rain, I can guarantee you that. I'm not dragging my physical behind me, but pray for my travel tomorrow. But we do address these things a lot on the program, so if you're interested in that kind of stuff, you might want to check us out while we're still available before we get kicked off social media for being politically incorrect. end up in the Gulags. And then we can have studies in the Gulags together. So that's probably coming our direction. So let's close our time with a word of prayer. Father, once again, we do thank you for the freedom we've had to gather together in this place and consider your word. We thank you for your word. We ask that you would help us to help others to come to understand the mechanism by which you have preserved your word, that we can trust that word, and that we do not have to take a 17th century Anglican translation and make it the standard. that you have provided your word to your church throughout all of church history. We thank you for it. I thank you for these folks who've been here this evening. I pray your blessing upon them, the churches that have come together to allow this to happen, the host church here that has allowed us to use this facility. Your blessing upon them all, we pray in Christ's name. Amen. Good evening. Thank you.