go to John chapter number 17. John chapter 17, I'm not sure how smart I was in going this direction of ask the pastor. I was going to do this on Wednesday nights, just do some small studies, answer a few questions, and sort of enjoy myself through the process, but I'm telling you, you all are deep thinkers and have a lot of questions. I'm going to have to take the website down, pull the cards away. I've got more questions than I can answer probably for the remainder of the year. And so we'll come back at it sometime down the road. Anyway, we've got some pretty hefty questions, but some of them I'm going to deal with on Sunday nights. And the question was, why do we at Calvary Baptist Church use only the King James Bible versus other popular or modern translations? Which I believe is a very good question. It is. It's a question that deserves an answer. And there is an answer. I thought about it this way. As people ask this question, here's what goes through their minds. Aren't the newer versions easier to read and understand? Why don't we just go ahead and move on because other versions are easier to read and they're easier to understand. And you're going to find that actually the King James Bible was translated for public reading. It actually reads easier than the other versions. We're just not used to the vernacular, the language that it uses with the these and the thous and the yees. in certain words, but it actually has a natural rhythm. That's why even when I listen to guys preach on the radio that don't use the King James, I'm amazed at how often they quote. When they have something committed to memory, they'll quote it in King James. You know why? It's easier to memorize. It was used for public. And so that's really a misnomer. But anyway, I think it's a question that goes through people's minds. Aren't the more modern versions just as good as the King James Bible? I mean, aren't they all the Word of God? That's a valid question that we need to answer. All of them fair and valid. Let me tell you why we don't use the King James Bible, and then we're going to look at a verse of Scripture, and then probably for the next several Sunday nights I'm going to be talking about this subject to give you a biblical as well as a practical reason why. And let me tell you first of all why we don't use the King James Bible. We don't use it because it's old. Okay? Older is not always better. Okay? It's not. And so we recognize that just because something's old doesn't make it better. I would agree that probably every lady in this room would take a modern washing machine to a washboard. How many would agree with that? Amen? Alright. And so older is not always better. Okay? We don't use it because grandma and grandpa used it. How many times have you heard a preacher say, well, it was good enough for grandma, it was good enough for me. Well, you know what? That doesn't work if you're a Mormon, converted from Mormonism. Or if you're converted from Jehovah's Witness and they have their own Bibles, and just because Grandma may have died a Mormon and that was the Bible that she used, which was different that while they have the King James, they have the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, they have their own books that they have on par with Scripture, and just because Grandma used them doesn't give us a valid reason to use some. Are you following me? Another reason we don't use it is because of tradition. It's what we've always done. Tradition's not always biblical. There's times that traditions need to change. Wouldn't we agree with that? And so tradition is not a reason, especially if it's a tradition of men. Another reason we don't use it is because of peer pressure, what all the other churches like us in the area would say about us. If we don't have the Word of God, I want it. I don't care what anybody thinks. I don't care what anybody says. I don't care whether I'm preached about in other churches or whatever. It doesn't make any difference to me. If for some reason I don't have the very Word of God, then I want to exchange it for what is the Word of God. Wouldn't we agree with that? We don't use it just to be different. Okay? Just to be different. Some people just like to be different. Well, we don't use the King James just to be different. And so I'm going to answer the reason why. Look in your Bibles, if you would, to John 17 and verse number 8. Here is the high priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus. And in this prayer, he makes a reference to the Word of God and to God's people. Notice what he says, verse 8, For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me. and they have received them." Did you see that? You need to underline in your Bible, they have received them. God's people recognize throughout the centuries and the histories of time God's Word that has been given from heaven. They recognize that. They have received them. Many of you, four reasons, four key reasons why we use the King James Bible. We could spend weeks and months on this subject. But I believe that what I'm going to share with you is very doctrinal. It's very practical. I think it'll be very helpful. And I believe it'll give you an answer. A person that is unconvincible, it won't convince. But a person who is open to reason, I believe it would convince them of why what we use is the right Bible and that we do have the Word of God and we don't need anything better. Okay? And let me give you the reasons why. Number one, the King James Bible is superior in its text. Can I help you understand the English Bible controversy of the King James, all the other modern versions of the Bible, It's not an issue about the English language. That's not the issue. If that were the issue, I would have no problem making a switch. It wouldn't be an issue. But that's not the issue. It's not the English language that why we use the King James Bible. Just because they have these and thous and all of that. That's not why. By the way, I'm going to talk about the these and thous. It's actually, and I'm going to get ahead of myself, precise English. It's actually precise English. And I would rather have something that's precise, wouldn't you? And I'll explain that more when we get there. There are basically, it's actually a textual issue. And what I mean by that is how the Bible came from the original languages into the English language. It's what we call translations. Translations have to have a source. We call them source texts. They are the languages by which the Scripture is brought into English and there are basically two text streams or text sources from which all Bibles come. And that's where the issue is at. First of all, there is what we call the textus receptus, or the received text. It draws its name from John 17 verse 8, For I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they, talking about God's people, not the world, but God's people, they have received them. It refers to the biblical manuscripts that the true churches and Christians have accepted since the beginning of the inception of the Christian era. Alright? Or what we would understand, the church age that had been handed down to us through the centuries. Alright? The Bible is a book of antiquity. It is an ancient book. But yet it is a modern book in the sense that it is relevant to our lives today. What Job wrote, thousands of years ago, over 3,000 years ago, is just as relevant today as when he wrote down those very words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. and they have come down for it to us. The TR, that's what I'm going to call it, the TR, that's how we refer to it, consists of about 5,600 or 5,200, somewhere around in there, manuscripts and fragments. And so you have to understand, they have received it. So what's been handed down to us is not a whole Bible. Sometimes it would be a whole Gospel of John, or maybe it would be a partial Gospel of John. Sometimes it would be whole manuscripts, but more often than not, it would be fragments that were worn from use. Because the people of God had received them, they have used them, and God has preserved them so that we have them today. Are you following me? All right? The received text was compiled and published in 1516 by a man named Erasmus. Don't ask me to say his first name. It's not John or Paul or Joe, okay? Nobody is named. Have you ever noticed anybody named past about 1900? We'll go a little further back. Their names are hard to pronounce. Have you ever noticed that? Especially in other languages. But anyway, Erasmus. he would easily be called the father of the Reformation. Because in the year 1517, the very next year after, he took all of these fragments and all of these manuscripts and compiled them into one text. that we call the received text from which our King James Bible comes from. So that happened in 1516. In 1517, a monk got a hold of this by the name of Martin Luther. Now I don't agree with everything Martin Luther ever done. He was a persecutor of Baptists, but yet he was a saved man. He was a man that God used greatly in bringing about reformation and pulling people away from the Catholic Church. And all of that in his day, he was a man that was strong in the doctrine of grace and salvation. But it was in the year 1517, after the publishing of this Greek text by Erasmus, that he nailed what was called the 95 Thesis. to the door of a Roman Catholic church in Wittenberg, Germany and it would light the fires of the Reformation out of which much of the modern denominations came. Now I'm going to make a side note here because this is a teaching session more than a preaching session. Baptists are not part of the Reformation. We are not Protestants, okay? We have always existed down through the centuries of time. Don't let anybody ever lump you into the Protestant category. We never protested something because we were never part of it. We always have been separate from the Roman Catholic Church. Alright? And so that's very important to understand. There was a Roman Catholic priest and here's what he said about the origins of the Reformation which they hate. Here's what he said, Erasmus laid the eggs and Luther hatched the chickens. That's what he said. That brought about the changes that you see in our world today. Do you realize that up until about 1517 and Erasmus was part of the Reformation, he was actually part of the Roman Catholic Church, or you wouldn't have any... He had access to some of the manuscripts. They had been compiled and kept in different places and monasteries. And so He had access to them around the world as they've been kept down through the ages of time. Let me give you some synonyms. I want you to jot them in your notes for the received text. It's also called the traditional text because it's been handed down to us. You don't have to write this one down, but I'm going to give it to you. It's been called the Byzantine text. And that's because the manuscripts flowed through the eastern side of the Roman Empire, or Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire, which historically... Now stay with me. You say, Preacher, you're getting in over my head. I'm really not. I'm just making some statements to help you to understand something. Those manuscripts flowed from Antioch. We call them Antiochian. The church at Antioch in the book of Acts. That is the stream through which the missionary efforts, the copying of Scriptures, the preservation of the true texts of God, that's how they came down to us. It's also been called the majority text. Alright? And I'm going to tell you why in a moment. It's been called the majority text. Alright? And so those are some different words for that text. That is one text source or stream by which we have versions of the Bible like our King James Bible and other versions around the world that have been translated from that text. You don't go English to English. or English to a different language. You go from the original languages into that language. Okay, are you following me? And so that's your text stream from which versions are translated. Translations are ancient. They go all the way back to about 150 A.D. called the Peshetta. It's the first translation of the New Testament in Syriac. It was in Syriac. And it's a very good translation of the Holy Scriptures and they still use it today. Alright? The second text source or text stream from which Bibles are translated is the Westcott Hort text. The Westcott Hort text. Alright? It was edited and published. Westcott and Hort were two men that compiled, they edited and published a New Greek text in 1881. Another name for it is critical text. Alright? Critical text. There's a reason it's called that and I'll explain it. Or the Alexandrian text. Here's why. This text stream did not come out of Antioch. It came out of Alexandria, Egypt. Okay? Can I just say, there was two different views of the Word of God, two different views of interpretation among those early church writers and early churches, and you're going to find that the true text stream came through Antioch, and the corrupt stream came through Alexandria, Egypt. Alright, and I'm going to explain that more. Let me talk to you a little more about these two guys. Could I do that? B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were divines in the Church of England in the late 1800s. These men hated the Textus Receptus, or the Received Text, or the Majority Text, or the text that they hated it. Matter of fact, Westcott in his writings, I have read them, in his writings, I've not read all his writings, I've read the quote, the statement. He referred to the received text that had been handed down that everybody, that all of the churches looked to as the true source of the Word of God. He hated that and he called it that vile text of Scripture. He hated it. Westcott and Hort, both of them either denied or watered down all of the major doctrines of Scripture such as inspiration, inerrancy, the infallibility of the Bible. They denied the creation of the universe in six literal 24-hour days. Westcott and Hort were enamored and personal friends with Charles Darwin. They embraced evolution. That's why they believe the text of Scripture evolves. You see, behind the modern version is a mindset of the critical text. They call themselves textual critics. They believe the Word of God is always evolving. It's changing. We're always discovering more. Are you following me? They don't believe it's been delivered. They don't believe it's finished. They believe they're continually discovering it even today. and their intent and their mindset, and they are very, very passionate about this as textual critics, that they are trying to reproduce the original, but yet, wait a minute, it's even beyond the original. And I have a quote I'm going to share with you from a Harvard textual critic in 1973 that will really help you understand their motive. But let's go back to Westcott and Hort. They deny the deity of Christ and His bodily resurrection from the dead. Listen to Westcott Hort in his own words. Are you ready? He said, I have been led to emphasize two facts which are, I believe, of the highest importance and clearly established by the documents. He's talking about the documents of Scripture. that the Lord, talking about Jesus, was not raised again to the natural human life as Lazarus was raised. So Westcott, who is the originator of this text source, now stay with me, did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. He believed in a spiritual resurrection. He believed his body had rotted and went back to the earth, but Jesus had spiritually risen again. I'm just going to say, if that's what he really believed, he's not even a saved man. Because you have to believe in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. I don't know his heart. I'm not his judge or anybody else's judge. I'm just saying to you what he has said in his own writings. Westcott-Hort primarily based their text on two manuscripts that the academia of that day and today proclaim as the oldest and best manuscripts and therefore are better than what your King James came from in their minds, the received text source or the textus receptus. Here's the truth. Are you ready for it? They're neither older nor are they the best. There's a book written, if you can get your hands on it, neither oldest nor best, by Dr. David Sorensen, who's an authority on this issue. It is excellent. You're going to find that a man by the name of Tischendorf pulled a fast one on Christendom. And he made up and fabricated a story. These two texts are called the Sinaiticus. Alright, manuscript. Let me tell you, it's about its history. It was supposedly found by a German textual critic in the 1800s by the name of Tischendorf. He's a contemporary of Westcott and Hort. He said and he claims that he found it in a wastebasket. Should that tell you something? It's been thrown away. and at a monastery in the Sinai Peninsula near Alexandria, Egypt. And what he claims is he went into this monastery, saw them burning what looked like ancient documents, and went and grabbed them and rescued them from these monks that were burning it so that they would rescue the Word of God. It was that these monks actually knew something Tischendorf didn't know, that it was a flawed text and if it was even being burnt, that's why it was in a wastebasket and that's why they were using it as fuel for the fire. That's the truth. But there's one more little tidbit. The kind of parchment that that text manuscript was written on doesn't burn. It wasn't made out of paper. It was leather skin. And leather skin smolders. You don't start fires with it. He fabricated the story. It's probably a lie. I'm not making statements that have not been documented. Because I know what's swirling through your mind. Well, if that's the truth, then why do men like David Jeremiah And other well-known Bible teachers in America not use the King James? Or why did they move from the King James to the modern versions? I will answer that at the end of our study. And the little paper, the little booklet you have, hang on to that, okay? Because we're going to work through that over the next several weeks, okay? Alright? And if you didn't get one, grab one, listen to the message, fill it out. That way you can answer the questions. The Vaticanus manuscript was housed in the Vatican in Rome. Erasmus and the early reformers knew this manuscript existed. He had examined it and rejected it as corrupt and would not use it as part of the text source for the King James or what we would understand the received text from which the King James come from because the King James was translated after Erasmus went off the scene. So let me give you a little box. I think you've got a little box in your notes. Are you ready? So let's sort of break these two text sources down. The Textus Receptus comes from about 5,200 to 5,600 manuscripts. The Westcott-Hort, two manuscripts. The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus that they claim are superior to all the other 5,000 plus texts. Are you with me? With the Textus Receptus, all of these 5,000 manuscripts that have been handed down through antiquity, there's about 95 to 99 percent agreement between all of these fragments and manuscripts, all of this 5,000. Now this is where we get to the majority text. So here's what Erasmus and those before him had done. They had taken all of these 5,000 manuscripts and say they had 50 manuscripts and fragments of the Gospel of John. And so they began to compare them. And let's say that 49 of them has in John 3.16, "...For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Let's say 49 of them have the word begotten, but one of them leaves the word begotten out. Which ones are going to be true? The majority. This one here is probably a scribal error. He omitted the word. Are you following me? And so it became known as the majority text because they took the majority reading of these 5,000 plus manuscripts to create what we have today as the textus receptus or the received text. Now watch this. In the Westcott Hort, there are thousands of disagreements. Not only do they disagree with the received text in those 5,000 plus manuscripts in thousands of different places, they don't even agree with each other. When Westcott was actually examining the Vaticanus text, he only had four hours to look at it. Four hours. He couldn't photocopy it because they didn't have photocopiers. Couldn't pull out his iPhone and take a picture of it. He had to examine it and take notes. He only got through the four Gospels. Do you realize that these two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, disagree with each other just in the four Gospels over 5,000 times? That means there's over 5,000 errors somewhere in these manuscripts. One of them has to be true and the other one's wrong. They have nothing else on which to go. Are you following me? The TR, or the text of receptus or received text, is the text source of your King James Bible, which we believe has been handed down from antiquity. All right? All versions of the Bible translated from the TR, I believe by conviction to be the true Word of God. On the other side, all modern English versions and other language versions that are brought out of the Westcott-Hort manuscript are of a different text source. I personally do not believe them to be the Word of God on par with the Holy Scriptures in our King James Bible. Their text source is wrong and flawed. The received text is the only text of Scripture that fits the doctrine of the providential preservation of God's Word. Because God said He would preserve His Word. Psalm 12, 5 and 6 in your notes. Let's look at it real quickly together. The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Stop. Okay? Do not make the fallacy of saying, well, the King James is seventh in line, and therefore it is the true Word of God, because seven is the number of perfection, and it's the number of completion, and there's seven English virgins in the King James. Well, if that's true, and it's not, why didn't God just give it to us the first time? Why do we have to wait to seven? And by the way, there's more than seven English translations from this text in antiquity going all the way back to the 1300s. I'll show you that in the next lesson. That is not good interpretation. That's not good stewardship of the Scriptures. It's fanciful. What God's saying is that it's purified seven times, that the words of the Lord are as pure and perfect as they possibly can be. That's what He's saying. That's the true interpretation of the text. Now what's the next part of it? Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. The Westcott-Hort text, or the critical text, is the product of the modern textual critics who believe that they must scientifically reconstruct the text of Scripture. That somehow it's been lost in antiquity and it's our job to be able... And by the way, you can't do this. Only we can. Doctrine of the Nicolaitans. lording it over God's people. You have to come to us for truth. If you can't read the originals and compare, and by the way, nobody has them, then you really can't know the Word of God. Well, if that's true, then Psalm 12, 5, and 6 are not true. In all the other verses in the Bible, where the Bible says, the Word of our God shall stand, how long church? Forever. How long is God's Word settled in heaven? Forever. Alright, either that's true and they're wrong, or they're right and God's wrong. And you have to decide which one's right. Listen to Harvard professor M.M. Parvis. Here's what he wrote in 1973 and I want you to listen closely. I'm almost finished for tonight. I've given you a lot. This is probably more than you asked for in the question. But I'm going to answer it correctly. Harvard professor M. M. Parvis, 1973, textual critic. He said, when we reconstruct the original text, we are not reconstructing, but rather we are constructing something that is never before existed in heaven and earth. They've got something God doesn't even have. That's what he said. Isn't that right? That's what he said. But wait a minute. Psalm 119, 89. Forever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled, where church? In heaven. Jude verse 3. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. It is the difference between delivery and discovery. You see, according to Jude, that means that God's Word which was forever settled in heaven has been delivered to God's saints on the earth so that we have the very faith, the words of God that He has given us. So there are basically two positions on the Word of God. Either we have it or we're still working on it. Either it's a delivered word, Jude 3, or it is a discovered word and we're still trying to discover it. R.B. Ullett in his book, A More Sure Word, which I believe probably is one of the best written books for just Christians in general. that just want a good book to give them some understanding. It's excellent. You'll find some of these quotes in that book that he's gleaned from other writers throughout time that has defended the King James. But here's what R. B. Ouellette wrote. He said, Some believe in a preserved word, others believe in a progressive word. Some believe in truth that has been delivered, and some believe in truth that is still being discovered, at least as far as the English language is concerned. So here's the question that I want you to ponder. If Westcott and Hort's texts string from those two texts that have thousands and thousands of disagreements, that means that one of them is wrong in thousands of places. Or both. If that is the true Word of God, if that's the oldest and best that was given to us in the 1800s, Why did God keep the best from His people or at worst has lost it for them to have to discover it for 1,800 years? So that means for 1,800 years God's people went without the Word of God. They had to wait on Westcott and Hort and other textual critics to discover it so we could have it. Do you believe God's kept His Word for 1,800 years from His people? Do you believe He lost His Word? I don't either. That's one of the reasons why I use the King James Bible. It's superior in its text. Now you say, preacher, and I'm going to answer a lot of these questions down the road. I'm going to get really practical at the end, okay? So those of you that have got glazed over eyes, it will get practical. But I've got to give you this first. One of the questions I'm going to ask a young man Maybe somebody like Joseph Llewellyn or maybe John Fry when they come along and they're ordained to the gospel ministry. I'm going to ask them this question. Do you believe the Bible you hold in your hand to be the Word of God or does it just contain the Word of God? By the way, if they come back to me and answer the question to that ordaining council, Brother Vernon sets on all levels. He is our de facto secretary. He loves to take notes and be the secretary of all the ordaining councils. He's the guy, okay? But anyway, we would look at each other and we would say, if he said, well, I just believe it contains the Word of God, then you know what we would do? We would say, uh-uh, we're not laying our hands on you to the gospel ministry. See, what you have to decide is this. The Bible you use, does it contain the Word of God or is it the Word of God? I believe the modern versions of Scripture contain the Word of God. so far as they're correctly translated from whatever agreement in those two texts that they would find to the received text, which I believe to be the true text source and the true Word of God. Church, I believe this with all of my heart. If I didn't, I would resign at this moment from this church. I would. I believe the Bible I hold in my hand to be the Word, the true Word of the living God that has been preserved for us and handed down to us through the ages so that we have in our hands the very words, a copy of the very words that were given to Paul and Peter and John and Isaiah and Ezekiel and Jeremiah and Moses. Because God said, Thou shalt preserve them. The Bible says, John 17 verse 8, "...they have received them." Any language that's been translated from the true text source into that language accurately, is the true Word of God for that language group of people. That's not even good English. For that particular language and the people that speak it, how about that? And so I don't believe that everybody in the world needs to learn English. That's a folly. That's crazy. We get this idea that everybody in the world speaks English. Guess how many people population-wise speak English? Less than 10% of the 8 billion people on the globe. So we would have to teach the vast 90% of the people on our planet English if the Bible, the true Word of God is only here. That's a foolish statement. Thank God. Thank God that God has preserved His Word to every generation. And there are people that are still waiting to have the Bible translated into their language. Your Bible at the end of this study should be more precious to you than it's ever been before because you hold in your hand the very Word of the living God that's forever settled in heaven. and we need to receive it. Amen? Let's bow our heads in prayer.