Let's turn to 1 Peter chapter 1. We'll start here this morning. 1 Peter chapter 1 and we'll read a few verses here. We'll turn to, begin reading in verse 23. So 1 Peter chapter 1. And verse 23, at the end, we'll have 5-10 minutes for a time of question and answers, or if you want to add a comment about anything, we can do that there right at the end of the lesson. But notice 1 Peter 1, verse 23, the Word of God says, "...being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." Notice verse 24, for all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. Notice, but the word of the Lord endureth forever, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Now, as we think about the doctrine of the Bible this morning, or morning, not evening yet, we're going to deal with this translation. It's all about the text. Translation, it's all about the text. Now, as we continue to deal with this foundational doctrine, because the doctrine of the Bible is a foundational doctrine, if we don't know that we have the words of God today, then we can't know that we're saved. Right? Because we're basing our salvation upon the Word of God. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So we have to settle the Word of God before we settle salvation, before we settle the doctrine about God, and ecclesiology, and soteriology, and all these things. And so the doctrine of the Scriptures, now there are many preachers and theologians today that are attacking those who hold to the King James only position. Many people are attacking. Let me give you a few, and some of these names might shock you, you might know some of those, but some you might not know. But let me give you a few names, and the reason why I name those names is because these are leaders in the movement that are attacking those that believe in the King James Only Bible. Let me give you an example. Dr. Jerry Falwell announced that he was hiring Dr. Harold Rawlings to refute the King James Only cultic movement that is damaging so many good churches today. Dr. Robert Sommer warned about the veritable foundation of misinformation and deception double talk on the subject of King James Onlyism. Dr. J.B. Williams refers to those who advocate the King James Only as misinformers and as a cancerous sore. So if you are believing the King James Only, then you're a cancerous sore. That's what you are. Dr. Robert Joyner called King James Bible loyalist heretics. Dr. James R. White warned about King James Bible proponents as undercutting the very foundations of the faith itself. Well, let me say this, as those that believe the Word of God, we're not undercutting faith, we're strengthening faith. But, I'm telling you, this is the attacks today on those that believe the King James Bible. Now, clearly, these men, they despise the people who choose to hold to a perfect inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures. Now, if you're coming into this lesson, I would encourage you, every message is posted online. And it's important, before we deal with translation, it's all about the text, you have to go back and listen to what we talked about, revelation, inspiration, preservation, because that leads us up to this here, mourning, and you can't understand this unless you go back and deal with inspiration, preservation, and all these things. Now, I want us to think about the different English versions today. There are a lot. Let me give you a few. If you go to a store today, you would find these versions. The King James Version, the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Bible, the English Standard Version, the New Living Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the New Century Version, the New English Bible, the American Standard Version, the Good News Bible, The Amplified Bible, Today's New International Version, New English Translation, Lexman English Bible, Revised Standard Version, The Contemporary English Version, God's Word Translation, Common English Bible, Easy to Read Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Bible in Basic English, World English Bible, New American Bible, The Living Bible, The Message, Young Literal Translation, The Ghetto Bible. That's right, The Ghetto Bible. That's real. This is just a few of the Bibles that are out there. In other words, you walk in a store, and you'll have all these choices. Now, the claim today is that the King James Bible today is hard to understand, and by the way, that is the only basis why people today recommend Bibles. If you go to a store, and I've been there, and perhaps you've been there, And someone's looking at Bibles, and someone looks at someone and says, well, what would you recommend? And someone would say, well, you know, you should get the NIV because it's easier to read. That's the arguments today. But there's more to the issue than that. Let me give you a little history about, because the people are criticizing those that say, we believe in the King James only for English-speaking people. This is the only Bible we use. It's the only Bible that has accurately translated the word of God. And so let's study a little bit about the history of the King James Bible. a little portion that was taken from a little booklet entitled, The Westcott and Hort Only Controversy, written by Dr. Phil Stringer, pages 3 through 6. I'll read several portions, but this is what he writes, a little bit of the history of the King James Bible. God was doing a great work in England in the early 1600s. The preaching of the gospel of Christ out of Matthew's Bible and the Genevieve Bible was leading to multitudes of conversions. Evangelicals and Puritans were becoming a stronger and stronger force in the Church of England and in English culture. Yet many were concerned that the final translation work into the English language had not been done. King James was persuaded to authorize a new translation. The King James Bible was printed in 1611. Okay? At first, there were questions and concerns about the new translation. This was as it should be. No one should accept a Bible translation lightly, but by 1640, however, the King James Bible was clearly the Bible of the English people. The Geneva and Matthews Bible, once greatly used of God, went out of print. There was simply no demand for them anymore. The Church of England, with its official evangelical doctrinal statement, used the King James Bible exclusively. It was the Bible of the Puritans, both inside and outside the Church of England. In fact, the Puritans began to use the distinctive Bible English of the King James Bible in their day-to-day speech. The King James Bible was the Bible of the Protestants, the Congregationalists, the Quakers. It was clearly the Bible of the Baptists. By 1640, it was the Bible of the Pilgrims. The King James Bible was the Bible of evangelicals in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. It became the Bible of the English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. The only religious group of any size of importance in England that didn't use the King James Bible was the Catholics. All non-Catholics could have been referred to as King James only people. Do we understand that for the English language, it was recognized widely that the only Bible for the English people was the King James Bible, except for the Catholics? When the Methodist revival stirred England in the 1700s, it did so with the preaching of the King James Bible. John Wesley, one of the founders of the Methodist, made one translation. He attempted to make a translation of the New Testament. However, it found little acceptance, even among Methodists themselves. Only the King James Bible was in common use. When English colonies flourished in Australia and New Zealand, the King James Bible was the common Bible for the settlers. The President, George Washington, took the first presidential office of the United States of America and he did so on his hand on the King James Bible. Every American president since then, with the exception of Franklin Pierce, has done the same. Over 150 English translations were produced between 1611 and 1880. However, they found no audience except with a few cults. Most went out of print quickly. The English-speaking Christian world was truly King James only. As hard as it may be for the liberals and secularists to admit, the American public schools were built around the King James Bible. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, not exactly a religious right publication, describes the early public school this way, public schools had a distinctly Protestant flavor with teachers leading prayers and scripture reading from the King James Bible in their lessons. The Roman Catholics minorities objected to the King James Bible and so they developed their own school system. With the exception of the Catholics, the United States was clearly King James only. According to Winston Churchill, 90 million copies of the King James Bible had been printed by the mid-20th century. The King James Bible was the Bible of the great modern missions movement of the 1700s and the 1800s. The missionaries from England and the United States were saved, called to the mission field, and trained through the preaching of the King James Bible. Many of these missionaries knew little or no Greek or Hebrew. They translated the Bible in 760 languages from the King James Bible. Truly, the modern mission movement was a King James only movement. So you look at the history of the Bible for the English-speaking people, and the people, for the most part, except for the Catholics as he enumerates here, were all King James only. That was it. That was the word of God that was received by God's people, exclusively. So the people today that say, well, this King James only, that's a cult. Say, wow, everybody must have been in a cult before then, because everybody held to the King James Bible. The issue is deeper than, well, we need a Bible that is easier to understand. We are going to look at three things that separate the King James Bible from all other English versions. First of all, we're going to look at the difference with the text. Number two, we're going to look at the difference with the translation. And number three, we're going to look at the difference in theology. So first of all, and I'm going to go through this very quickly, but first of all, there is a difference with the text. Now, please turn with me to 2 Thessalonians 2. Let's read a verse there. 2 Thessalonians 2. And notice verse 1 and 2, 2 Thessalonians 2 verses 1 and 2. The Bible says, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that day of Christ is at hand. Notice he says, he warns them, he says, be careful if you receive a letter from me, that has not been from me." In other words, there was letters at that time. Think about it. There were false translations or false Bible versions at that time. People were writing to churches, signing the name Paul, and they weren't Paul. So at that time, think about it, there were already attacks on the Word of God, the letters that were being received. And the people of God recognized early whether a letter came from Paul himself, which was inspired of God, or if it wasn't inspired of God. And so this is something that's been going on through the centuries. But I want us to think, as we think about the text, There is, we would refer to this as the underlying text for the King James Bible and the underlying text for all other English Bible versions, yes, including the New King James Bible. In other words, on the one side, we'll have two sides here. On the one side you have, okay, we'll say the King James only. On the other side, you would have the West Conhort. Let me explain this. For the English-speaking people, the underlying text, and I'm talking about the text that they used to translate from, for the Old Testament would be referred to as the Masoretic Text. Okay, that's what was passed down, what was copied through the centuries. It was in Hebrew and Aramaic. Okay, and it was preserved. For the English Bible, the King James Bible, for the Old Testament, used the Masoretic Text. For the New Testament, they used the Received Text, which was written Koine Greek. So for the King James Bible on that side, you have the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament, and for the New Testament, you have the Received Text in Koine Greek. These two, okay, were the underlying texts by which those that translated the Bible into English, the King James Bible, used the Masoretic Text and the Received Text for the New Testament. And from there, okay, in 1611, they started in 1604, in 1611, the translators accepted, the King James Bible was accepted as the Word of God, translated in the English language as an accurate translation. Okay, so that was Received. translated from these sources. Now, for the other side, by the way, this didn't happen until 1844. That's a long time, since 1611, okay? The word of God has already been established. But now, two gentlemen, well, it kind of started with this man, his name is Constantine von Dichendorf. Now, yeah, that's a complicated name, but let me give you a few dates. He discovered two different New Testament manuscripts. The first manuscript he discovered is called the Sinaiticus. He discovered this in a wastebasket, basically a trashcan in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mount Sinai. This discovery was made in 1844. So get this, he found a manuscript in a place where they discarded manuscript and because it was new, it was not used, he said, well look, it's older, it's better. But let me say this, if you have a book in your hand and you read it all the time, you're gonna wear it out. It's going to fade. Pretty much, pretty soon you're going to have to buy another one. But if you put a book on a shelf and let it sit there for years, it's going to look brand new if you don't touch it. You see, the manuscripts that they found that were older, they were older because they were never used. They were discarded. So they found, the first one was Sinaiticus. It was a New Testament in Greek, but it was a discarded manuscript. The second was found a year later in 1845, which is called the Vaticanus. So the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. It was discovered in the Vatican library, first in 1475, but then it was rediscovered in 1845 by Tischendorf. These two New Testament texts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, Westcott and Hort, used these texts and said, oh look, these are older, so they must be better. Now if you study the issue, what you would find, think about this, in both of these manuscripts for the New Testament alone, they had over 3,000 contradictions in the Gospels alone. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these two New Testament texts, had at least 3,000 contradictions. Word changes, verses missing, paragraphs missing, words completely altered, changed. Words, by the way, they won't say that to you, but on the manuscript, some words were actually crossed out. Now you look at that and you say, and they use that. I say, look, it's older. It was older because it was never used and it was still intact. The good manuscripts that were created at the same time or written at the same time that were good manuscripts were used. They were no longer around because they'd been read and used and reused. So get this, in 1611 on this side, from the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Received Text for the New Testament in 1611, the translation for the English-speaking people with the King James Bible. But years later, at least 200 years later, Westcott and Hoare, who received these new, okay, received older, they said, received texts, they are referred to as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. And by the way, then they say, well, we've got to abridge the Old Testament. So they took the Masoretic text, that was the underlying text for the King James Bible, and they abridged it, so it's called the abridged Masoretic text, in 1937, with 20,000 to 30,000 suggested changes. Okay, so here we have the Bible that's been passed down, that's been received, that's been accepted. Hundreds of years later, they come up and say, oh look, let's come up with a new New Testament. This is an older, better one, and just in the Gospels alone, over 3,000 changes. Then they say, well, we gotta change the New Testament, so they took the Masoretic Received Text, and they made their own abridged version, with 20 to 30,000 suggested changes. Let me ask you this, why was there a need for a new Bible? Why was there a need for a new Bible? There was no need, but the devil's at work. That's what happened. So it is, so as we think about the issue here, the issue is the text. The text is different. For the Old Testament, in Hebrew and Aramaic, the King James Bible was the Masoretic text. For the West Con Hort, the new, all other translations, NIV, every other English translation, use the abridged changed, if you would, Masoretic text. They changed what was already settled. Then for the New Testament, you have the received text that's been passed down, received, translated for the King James Bible. And then on this side, you have two sources, by the way, which two sources contradicted them. And so what they did is, between the Sinaiticus and the Vannikatus, they arbitrarily decided, well, this one contradicts, so we have to make a decision here. Which one's right? Well, let's just pick here. Ini, mini, mani, mo. How do you pick that? Who's the authority? Man is the authority now. And so the issue is the text, the underlying text. Let me ask you this. If you perfectly translate something that is faulty, can it ever be perfect? No. So the source is the problem. now let me stop and say this the King James Bible used the Masoretic Text in Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and the Received Text for the New Testament that was accepted the King James Bible is the only Bible in the English language that uses these two sources on the other side all other English translation the NIV, the ASV, you can put all of them in there the Ghetto Bible used the Westcott and Hort texts, which were faulty. Okay? So the issue is the text, the source. If you translate something where there's verses missing and verses changed, then it is a faulty translation. It is not the word of God. Now, We have to go back and see, did God inspire his word? See, it goes all together. Now we'll come to translation. This is why it's important to go back. So we see that there's a difference with the text. Number two, there's a difference with the translation. Not only was there a difference with the text sources, but the difference was also in the way the word was translated. Proverbs 35 says this, every word of God is pure. He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Did you see that in verse 6? Add thou not to His words. We're going to see some examples in a little bit. But think about this word. To translate means this. Okay, this is very simple. Means to carry a cross. That's it. To translate. It means to carry a cross. Now, let's go back here for the King James Bible. The translation that was used for the King James Bible was two-fold. They used verbal equivalency and formal equivalency. Now, verbal equivalency means this. When the very words of a language are carried over to another word of that, to the same word in that language. It means this, word for word. Okay? So those that, the translators, 57 of them at least, that translated the Old Testament Hebrew and Greek and the New Testament, or the Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament Greek into the English language used verbal equivalency. They said, we're going to translate it word for word. Not only did they use verbal equivalency, but they used formal equivalency. That means that the form of the words are carried over from one language to another. In other words, if a word is a noun in the Greek language, it will be a noun in the English language. If it is a verb in the Hebrew language, it will be a verb in the English language. So the translators of the King James Bible used these two methods exclusively. Okay? So, verbal equivalency, word for word, and formal equivalency, from noun to noun. It is going to be a word for word, accurate translation, so that it accurately portrays the words of God. Now, not only for the Westcott Horde, the sources were faulty, but the way they translated the Bible was faulty. They didn't use verbal equivalency or formal equivalency. They used this, dynamic equivalency. Now, this is kind of funny. Dynamic means this. It means changing. And equivalency means this, staying the same. Do you see a problem with that? We're going to use dynamic equivalency. We're going to change the words, but make them say the same. If you change a word, you change the meaning. If you change the form, you're changing the meaning. That's a contradiction. But this method will produce some whole sentences and change the words according to the translator's desires. This is not a translation. It's really a paraphrasing. In other words, people, they'll look at a verse and say, all right, well, let me come up, this is the thought they're trying to communicate, so let me kind of put the thought down. No, no, no, no, no. That is not a correct translation. If my brother, and I've done this before, I don't know if anybody has done this before, but I've translated several times for people as they were preaching either in the French or the English. We had some pastors came over from the States to France, and they were preaching in English, and I got the opportunity to translate. When I translate, I don't translate the thought. I translate it word for word. Now, sometimes in the different language, sometimes a word has to be added for understanding or things like that, and that's common sense for the sentence to make sense, but it's a word for word. The preacher does not want me to translate and say, well, just kind of tell them the thought. No, no, he wants the words translated, okay? That's what they did for the King James Bible, okay? So a verbal and formal equivalency for the West Con Hort, it was dynamic equivalency, changing it while staying the same. It doesn't work that way. So to add, think about, to the credibility of the men that translated the Hebrew and the Aramaic text of the Old Testament and the Greek received text of the New Testament into the English language. Think about these men for a little bit, because if you look at all the translation out there, there has never been in the history of this world a group like the group that's translated the Bible into the English language for the King James Bible. There's never been a group. Today there's a few guys and a few individuals that try to do that, but there's never been a group that's been like the group and that were qualified like these men. And I believe that's the hand of God in His desire to preserve His word for the English-speaking people. Because God in His foreknowledge knew that the American people, the English people from England first and from the United States second, would go around the world reaching people with the gospel. I believe it's the work of God. Think about John Bois. Think about it. This is one of the man that was used as a translator. He was taught by his father and he was a young prodigy. At the age of five, he read the Bible in Hebrew. Think about that. By the age of six, he could legibly write in Hebrew. Now, I don't know if you've seen Hebrew, but it's not easy to write. When he was in college, Dr. Downs, the chief university lecturer, would find John in the university library from 4 a.m. and he would stay without intermission until 8 in the evening. That's a total of 16 hours straight. John Boyle, one of the translators for the English-speaking people, the King James Bible. Lancelot Andrews published a manual of private devotions completely in the Greek language. Now, I have a hard time, you know, writing a book in the English language, but this is a whole other language in Greek, for all that matters. Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, mentioned that Andrews was fluent in 15 languages. Dr. Bedwell, began a Persian dictionary. Henry Seville was the tutor in Greek and mathematics of Queen Elizabeth. I mean, look, 57 of those men. And they were more than above qualified. You could get this book. It's called Defending the King James Bible by Dr. D.A. Waite. He gives you the history of all these men and what they did and how qualified they were. And it goes to show you here, God, I believe, in His foreknowledge, prepared all these men for an accurate translation of his words. Now think about the technique that was used by the translator. This has never been done, never even tried. There were 57 men, there was a total of six companies. All six companies were meeting in three different cities, Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford. They began translating the Bible in 1604 and finished in 1611, making that a total of seven years. There were up to 57 men altogether that worked in these six companies. Some of these men died before the translation was complete. They would translate a book individually seven times. Then they reviewed each other's translations in their little companies of six or seven men. Each company dealt with each section. When a company had completed their work, they would send their translation to another company for them to verify it. So from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible was translated, analyzed, corrected 14 times by 57 men. No other Bible has used this model of translation ever. And they produced an accurate translation of the Word of God. So there is a difference with the text. Masoretic text, received text, the abridged, and the Westcott and Hort. There's a difference in the translation as well. The way things were translated. And there's a difference, thirdly, in theology. Now, big people today will say, what I mean by big people, I'm talking about people that are influential today among evangelicals and even fundamental Baptists. They'll say this, no theology is affected. Is that true? That's a good statement to make, but it's not true. Let me give you an example here. I'm going to give you examples to John 3.36. Let's see if the doctrine of salvation is not affected. So John 3.36. All right. Notice what the King James Bible says. It says, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. That's pretty clear. By the way, that is not hard to understand. The ASV, the American Standard Version, says this. I want you to follow along. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life, but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. There's a huge difference there. You go from believing to obeying? Yes, the doctrine of salvation is affected. Think about the doctrine of Trinity. Let's go to 1 John 5, 7. 1 John 5, 7. If anybody would teach or support the doctrine of the Trinity, they would go to 1 John 5, 7. And this is what the Bible says. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Let me read the ASV. 1 John 5, 7. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. Is that even close? So, the doctrine of salvation is affected. The doctrine of the Trinity is affected. Let's look at the doctrine of baptism. Go to Acts 8, verse 37. Acts 8.37 Notice the Bible says here, And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The NIV, the New International Version, Acts 8.37 says this. Oh, it's not there. Not there. Philip asks, what hinders me to be baptized? Now, they didn't have enough character to remove the verse. If you go to the NIV, they'll have verse 36, and then they'll put verse 37 with nothing, and then they'll put verse 38. Think about that. They removed a verse that teaches baptism, that it's not part of salvation. It comes after salvation. Think about the doctrine of Christ is affected. 1 Timothy 3.16, you won't turn there for a second time here, we'll wrap it up here. But the King James Bible says this in 1 Timothy 3.16, "...and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh." The ESV says this, "...and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, He was manifest in the flesh." They removed the word God and put He. Well, who's the He? You're manifest in the flesh this morning, but God was manifest in the flesh, not just any man. Think about the blood atonement of Christ is affected. Colossians 1.14 says this, in whom, speaking of Christ, we have redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins. By the way, this would include the ESV, The ASV, the RSV, the NASV, the NIV, the CSV all say this, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. They completely removed through His blood. So don't tell me today as people try to ridicule those that hold to the King James Bible and say, well, you know, you're kind of a cultist kind of people. No, I believe in the Word of God. And I believe that a man should not tamper with the Word of God. A man has no right, as these men as Westcott and Hort, to remove words from the Word of God. They have no right to add words. They have no right to remove verses. They have no right to remove paragraphs. It is the Word of God! And it's an important issue today. It is. And people that criticize, those that say, I believe that the King James Bible is an accurate translation of the Word of God and that we have, for the English speaking people today, the preserved, inspired Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible, they say, well, you're a heretic. No, I believe in God. And I believe that God said what He said He would do. So, if you think about this issue, okay, what's the difference? It's just about easier reading, no? The difference is in the text. The difference is in the translation. And the difference is in theology. Look at the fruit out there of people that use these other texts. Many of these churches get to the point where they basically look like nightclubs. How's that happen? I will guarantee you that none of these churches use the King James Bible. If you find one, let me know. But I don't think so. It's an important issue. See, we have to have more confidence instead of listening to the theologians today that are trying to discount the word of God and try to say, well, you know, you can't let, trust us. Let us tell you what God says. That's what they're saying today. Well, you don't have a degree. You only went four years in college. You don't know. I think I know. I'm going to trust God and believe God and believe His Word. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How is your faith going to be strengthened? How are you going to be a mature Christian when you have the Word and hear the Word of God? So let's ask the Lord to help us this morning.