2 Timothy 3 and verse 10. But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra, what persecutions I endured, but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, truly furnished unto all good works. Amen. May the Lord bless to us the reading of his own word. And our theme this evening is why we should continue to use the authorized version of the Bible. Why we should continue to use the authorized version of the Bible. Now this is a very big subject and one that to deal with properly would need a series of meetings and not simply one brief meeting like this. But I want to at least give you the bare bones of the subject this evening. The first thing I want us to consider is what we should want in a translation, what we should want in a translation of the Word of God. This is absolutely vital because the answer we give to this question will undoubtedly determine where we end up in terms of what Bible version we use. What should we actually want in a translation into English of the text of Holy Scripture? Well, there should be two things. Firstly, we should want the whole text of the Word of God. We should want the whole text of the Word of God. Because the Bible is the Word of God, we want all of it. God has given us a whole Bible, and every word that has proceeded out of His mouth is precious, As we read, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. So we want the whole Word of God. Secondly, we not only want the whole text, but we want the whole text accurately and clearly translated into English. We want the whole text accurately and clearly translated into English. These two things come first, the whole text and accurate translation. In the scriptures we find that when scripture is referred to, it is referred to as God speaking. So, for example, in Acts chapter 4 and verse 24, and when they heard that They lifted up their voice to God with one accord and said, Lord, thou art God, which has made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that in them is, who by the mouth of thy servant David hath said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? So there a quotation from Psalm 2 is said to be God speaking through his servant David. Or in Hebrews chapter 3, And verse 7 we read, Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, and so on. And it's quoting from Psalm 95, as the Holy Ghost speaking. And the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 5 verse 17 and 18 indicates that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away, but all would be fulfilled. Now a jot is the smallest Hebrew letter, and a tittle is the little mark that distinguishes one letter from another, rather like our crossing of the letter T. and he says that not one jot or tittle shall pass away, so that it is the word of God down to the last detail. Now, this being so, the following responses to the question of what Bible version should we use will not do. There are those who say, I find that this particular version suits me. If you ask people using any one of the array of modern versions, they often say, I find this version suits me. Now that answer is just not good enough. A Bible version can suit us for various reasons, and not necessarily good reasons. It may be that the Bible version is so diluted that it is not confronting you with the accurate meaning of the text. And so you feel comfortable with it precisely because you are not being confronted as you ought to be with the Word of God. Or another answer is, I find this version easiest to follow. Now that's not good enough either. You could find a Bible version easy to follow because it makes some passages easier than they actually are. because they have diluted the sense, and the sense is so reduced that yes, it's easy to read, but you've lost a great deal of the meaning and the content of the passage. So the fact that you find a Bible version easy to read and easy to use does not mean that it's the Bible version that you should be using. The publishing houses have not been slow to recognise the me and my feelings centredness of this generation. They've caught on to it very clearly and they have exploited it to the full. The fact that people are preoccupied with themselves and their feelings and their felt need and they want what will make them feel good. And so they want, if you like, a personalized Bible. And so the publishers have produced an array of seemingly personalized Bible. They have produced a series of different formats to meet your also special personal needs. And so we have the user-friendly version issues of the Bible. You have the youth Bible, the woman's Bible, the men's Bible, the married couple's Bible, and so it goes on. It's absolute nonsense. The Bible you need is exactly the same Bible that I need, and that everybody else needs. We need an accurate, complete translation of the Word of God. And if that's not personal enough for you, there's something wrong with you. Now we have a problem here. We are confronted with a vast array, an ever-increasing array of versions, all claiming something in order that they should be bought. Some claim greater accuracy, but generally the marketing claim is that of ease of reading. It's easy to read. It reads like the daily newspaper and so on. Now whatever is or is not of Satan, surely he has a hand in the sheer chaos and confusion that the professing church is in over this issue. It is, of course, both a reflection of the fragmented state of the Church and a further cause of that fragmentation. But the number of Bible versions that are being used is quite simply absurd. Now, do you believe that what you really need, above all else, is an accurate translation of all the words of God. Because if you don't, all that I will be saying from now on will have no significance for you whatsoever. If you don't believe that what you really need is an accurate, the most accurate translation of the whole word of God. If you think you need something else, well, all that follows will be irrelevant. So secondly, Which is the right text? Which is the right text? The Old Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language and the New Testament was written in the Greek language. We do not have the original manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek in the sense of the actual parchments and so on that the prophets and apostles wrote. They have not survived what we call the original autographs, the actual physical parchment that they wrote. What we have is a large number of copies, copies of copies of copies. Now with the Old Testament there is not that much of a problem because of the severe care that the Jewish scribes took in copying the Old Testament. If you want an account of the process involved, read Malcolm Watson's booklet. With the New Testament, it's not quite so simple. There are perhaps two main classes of text, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. Now I'll explain that in a moment. as we go on. First of all, the Byzantine. There are some 5,000 copies or part copies of what is known as the Byzantine Greek text of the New Testament. And 95% of these copies date from later than the 8th century. Now it is often maintained that there is no appearance of this form of the text prior to the 4th century. But as Mr. Watts shows in his booklet, this is not true. There are distinctive readings from what is called the Byzantine text found among some of the early writers as far back as the 2nd century. So we know that 2nd century Christians did use what we call the Byzantine text. And when Emperor Constantine professed Christianity, he established this text as standard from his capital in Constantinople, also known as Byzantium, hence the name the Byzantine text. And this Greek text reigned supreme. It was from six manuscripts of this type that Erasmus published his Greek text in 1516, And later, in 1550, Robert Stephens also did the same, though having a greater number of copies available. Then between 1565 and 1604, Theodor Bethe published nine editions of the Greek text, all belonging to this Byzantine family. And in 1611, of course, the authorised version was translated based on this Byzantine text. So we have a large number, several thousand texts with very little variation at all between them. But then we have another group of texts, the non-Byzantine texts, numbering about a hundred either full copies of the New Testament or part copies. These manuscripts differ somewhat from the Byzantine text. Two particular manuscripts were discovered last century, and they are both what is known from the Alexandrian type of text. They are called Codex Sinaiticus, or Aleph, and Codex Vaticanus, or B, Codex B. These two manuscripts, Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, are evidently 4th century texts. And so the claim is made that they are older than the bulk of the Byzantine texts, and therefore likely to be more accurate than the Byzantine texts. Though as we have seen, the Byzantine text was in use in the 2nd century. Now I realize this is all rather laborious and I hope you'll bear with me, it will get easier in due course. Now I'm not going to burden you with all the arguments among the scholars for and against the superiority of these two manuscripts in particular. There are various arguments on both sides. Suffice it to say Yes, so these texts are very old and they have survived but one reason why they may well have survived is because they were corrupt and were not in general use and so did not get worn out as the earlier copies of the Byzantine text did because the Byzantine text was in general use and these were not so they have survived and so that is why we have older copies of this text because it is a corrupt text and was kept by private individuals but not generally read among the people of God and so they didn't wear out. Now the amount of text in which they differ from the received text is, or the Byzantine text of which our authorised version is based, is 3% roughly. Now, many of these differences are minor, some of them so much so that they actually make no difference in translation, but they're not all minor. The two largest passages in question are Mark 16, 9-20, the last section of Mark, And John 7.53 to 8.11, the story of the woman taken in adultery. And if you read, for example, the New International Version, you'll find that it tells you that the best and oldest manuscripts don't have this in. We'll come to that in a moment. There are other texts that are altered in such a way as to fail to bear testimony to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. as they do in the received or Byzantine text 1 Timothy 3.16 for example that God was manifest in the flesh in the New International Version which follows the other text it has who was manifest in the text Revelation 1.11 is another. In the authorised version it ascribes to Christ the title Alpha and Omega whereas in the New International Version this is not so. Now these two manuscripts discovered over a hundred years ago or more are supposed to be the most accurate and that explains some of the verses missing in the New International Version, for example. They're supposed to be the most accurate. And yet, they differ vastly from each other. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, taking the Gospels alone, differ from each other in 3,000 places. So how can these two texts, which differ from each other so much, represent the most accurate text of the New Testament? Now, as I've said, I'm not going to burden you with the arguments of the scholars, because I believe that this matter is not just a matter of textual scholarship, that if it's argued on the basis of textual scholarship. It puts the debate outside the reach of most Christians and most ministers included. But there are doctrinal reasons for insisting that the received text underlying our authorised version must be retained, and that the claim that these two manuscripts particularly, and those like them, are not to be regarded as superior. There are doctrinal reasons which I believe every Christian can follow. We must be clear that to accept this altered text we have to believe that for hundreds of years the Church was without the true text, that from the fourth or fifth century Right up until last century the church was under a delusion that it had a pure text. But it didn't until these manuscripts were rediscovered. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence, kept pure and entire in all ages, are therefore authentical. Is the acceptance of the superiority of the Alexandrian-type text and particularly these two manuscripts only discovered last century compatible with believing that God in his providence has kept his word pure and entire in all ages. Remember these texts were only discovered last century, they were out of circulation for hundreds and hundreds of years. And so we're saying that the Church did not have the real pure text that the Church only had a corrupt text until last century. There are two questions. Firstly, how did God preserve the Old Testament? How was the Old Testament text preserved? Well, it was preserved by means of the Church of God. God gave the Word, and that Word was copied accurately and kept pure by the Church of God in the Old Testament. We sang in Psalm 147 of the Lord giving His Word to Jacob and His testimony in Israel. In Romans 3, 1-2, the Apostle says, What advantage then hath the Jew much every way, chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God. So God preserved the Old Testament text through his church. He placed his word among his people. And they were the custodians and the means by which God, in his singular care and providence, kept the Old Testament pure and entire. If God did that with the Old Testament, should we not envisage that he would do the same with the New Testament text? And is it compatible with this to say that actually the most accurate text was out of circulation for hundreds of years? I don't believe that it is. And then there is a second question. Is the canon of Scripture fixed? By canon we mean the rule, what we include as Scripture. Is it fixed? In other words, is the Bible, is what we include as Scripture, fixed? Is it settled? If we say that the truest manuscripts of the New Testament were unavailable for hundreds of years until last century's discovery, and that on the basis of fresh discovery we can swing from the accepted text of Scripture to a different text, and in the process lose in material the equivalent in fact of 1st and 2nd Peter, 200 verses. How can we say that the canon of scripture is fixed? Let me put it this way, if on the basis of discoveries in the 1800s we can decide for example that the last few verses of Mark are not the word of God after all, then how can we know that further discoveries will not be made which indicate on the same basis of argument that another part of Scripture is not the Word of God after all? Or perhaps manuscripts will be discovered that have additional material, that we will treat additional material as the Word of God. In other words, we're seeing that this approach to the text question leaves the canon of Scripture unsettled. That if, on the basis of freshly discovered manuscripts, we can counsel out the fact that the received text has been accepted by the Church for hundreds of years, traceable right back to the second century at least, if we can say, well the church had it wrong all those years because we've now discovered some more manuscripts, then it means that none of the Bible is fixed. To illustrate the point, our Protestant reformers believed that Mark 16, 9-20 was part of Scripture. And if we're saying on the basis of last century's discoveries, well it isn't after all, how can we know that any passage that we regard as Scripture will not be similarly declared not to be after all this century or next century, whatever? Therefore we say that God's singular care and providence in preserving his word pure and entire means that the true text is to be found within the Church of God in all ages. That is not true of these texts, we may call them the Westcott and Hort texts, these two manuscripts and those similar to them. It is true of the received text or the Byzantine text. So we stick with the received text. We do not accept the alleged superior purity of the manuscripts discovered last century. Then the third question is, how shall the text be translated? How shall the text be translated? Since the Hebrew and Greek are the very words of God, the Hebrew text, the Greek text are the very words of God, it is not good enough simply to have a rough paraphrase. Nor is it good enough to have what is called dynamic equivalent, that is, that form of translation which gives priority to the structure and grammar and idiomatic expressions of contemporary English, whether or not this closely parallels the linguistic form of the original text. So we want not a rough paraphrase, not something that in order to be easily understood gives only a general equivalent, Nor do we want a translation that incorporates interpretation of the text into the translation. In a translation, we want just a translation. We don't want what the translator thinks the text means. We just want translation. If we can't understand what it means and we want help, we go to commentaries and expositors, but in a translation we want nothing but what is actually there. Ease of reading cannot be top priority if we reverence the Word of God. Since we are dealing with the Word of God, then accuracy must be the first consideration. Now, there are parts of the Word of God which are difficult. Even if you were a Hebrew speaker, even if Greek was your natural language, there are parts of the Scriptures that would be difficult. There is no way that Romans 6, for example, can be made simple and easy to read if it is going to be translated rather than diluted. It cannot be done. The Greek text is difficult. The way Paul, under the inspiration of the Spirit, wrote it in the Greek language is difficult. Those who spoke Greek and who received the letter would find it difficult and there's no way round it. So we want a literal translation as literal a translation as possible within what the English language will allow. We want to be as literal as possible provided the result is English. This is probably best illustrated by examples. You've been very patient. Let's look at some examples and you might find it easier to concentrate. Let's look at the approach of various translations, various versions, first of all to the text of scripture. There are some versions which reconstruct the text beyond any existing manuscripts. Now that's sheer liberalism. In other words, they don't say this manuscript is better than this one, they actually construct the text in a way that is not found in any manuscript in existence. For example, the New English Bible, in its introduction, says, Sometimes, for what seem sufficient reasons, the order of the verses has been changed, as will be seen from the verse numbering. Occasionally passages have been brought together if a common refrain or other evidence shows that they have been wrongly separated. Now what they're saying there is that without any text to support it, if they think in their judgment the text has got muddled up, they'll sort it out without reference to any manuscript at all. Now that's liberalism. You find in the New English Bible they do that in the book of Zechariah for example. Also the New English Bible uses the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament as a basis for altering the Hebrew text. So it uses a translation to alter the text of the Old Testament Hebrew. This is not surprising because The New English Bible translators had no respect for the Bible as the Word of God. That text we read earlier, 2 Timothy 3.16, which in our authorised version says that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. In the New English Bible it is Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and so on. In other words, not every scripture is inspired, but every inspired scripture. So it's not saying that every scripture is inspired. And that view of scripture pervades the New English Bible. The same is true of the Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version, in its prefaces, sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provide a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text. Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation CN and a translation of the Masoretic text is added. Now what that's saying is that where they think that none of the manuscripts have the right reading, they'll make it up for themselves. Incidentally, the New World translation of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses does the same. They like to say that they're great followers of the Bible. They are liberal in their view of Scripture. They import the name Jehovah into the New Testament without one shred of manuscript evidence in the Greek New Testament. Right, New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, New World Translation, they don't accept the authority of the Word of God. Then there are paraphrases. The market is full of paraphrases and this is due to the mental laziness of the professing Church of God. They're so used to watching the television they can't be bothered to think and therefore it has to be made easy reading. Our best mental energies must be reserved for the study of the Word of God. We're to love God with all our minds. Some of these paraphrasers say they're paraphrasers Others say they're versions of the Scriptures, and they're not. To want a loose paraphrase for your daily Bible reading is an insult to God. What you're saying is, God has given us His Word, I can't be bothered to think about it, so I won't read God's Word, I'll read a paraphrase that's easier to follow. That is an insult to Almighty God. Then there is the Living Bible. The Living Bible, just to give one example of how it fails to stick to translating in its desire to make it easy to read, John 1 becomes, Before anything else existed there was Christ with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. Now that is not translation by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. The Good News Bible on the same text. Before the world was created, the Word already existed. He was with God and he was the same as God. Now that's not translation either. That's paraphrase. They are not translations of the Scriptures. But then we come to the New International Version. The New International Version does not do all that these versions do. It does not reconstruct the text without any manuscript support, but it does give preference to these last century discovered manuscripts. And therefore, there is a significant amount of the text of our authorised version that is missing or relegated to a footnote. So the reason that we do not accept the New International Version is as follows. Firstly, it uses the wrong text and very dogmatically so. It does not translate the same Greek text as our authorised version. It does not content itself with stating its view at the beginning in the introduction and then giving the information on the variants. It actually pronounces For example, John 5 verse 4, it says some less important manuscripts have, and then it gives the bit that's missing in the NIV. Well, actually there's loads of manuscripts that have the part that they miss out. When we come to the woman taken in adultery in John 8, it says the most reliable manuscripts omit. They're not the most reliable manuscripts. When it comes to Mark 16, 9 to 20, it says, the two most reliable manuscripts omit. Or in John chapter 3 and verse 13, John 3 and verse 13, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. Now that phrase, which is in heaven, is omitted in the New International Version. And the footnote says, some manuscripts have who is in heaven. In actual fact, of all the several thousand manuscripts that have John's Gospel in them, twelve alone leave this phrase out. But the NIV says some manuscripts have it in. There are thousands with it in, and there's only 12 that hasn't got it in. But they give this impression that there's only some that have it in. In other words, there is a lack of frankness as well as the wrong text being followed. But then also, in the New International Version, there is a tendency to interpret instead of translating. Let me give you an example. Romans chapter 1 and verse 17. Romans chapter 1 and verse 17. For therein, that's in the gospel, is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith. Now that phrase, from faith to faith, that is what is there in the Greek. And in English, it's from faith to faith. Now you see, I don't know what it means. The New International Version has the answer. It renders it by faith from first to last. But that isn't what's there. Neither do I think it's what it means. I don't think it means that at all. From faith to faith is simply saying, as I understand it, that it is by faith that this righteousness comes to sinners and is imputed to them, and it is to those who exercise that faith. It is to everyone who believes. So it's by faith and it's to the same people who exercise that faith. In other words, My faith doesn't bring this righteousness to you, your faith doesn't bring it to someone else. It's from faith, it's my faith, and it is to those who exercise this faith. But the point is that whoever's right and wrong as to what it means, the New International Version has incorporated its idea of what it means into the text of Scripture. The text doesn't say by faith from first to last, it says from faith to faith. That's what it means. If it's ambiguous, if it's hard to understand, so be it. You don't tamper with the Word of God to make it easier to understand. Sometimes the NIV gets the meaning right. In Hebrews 9.28 To them that look for him he shall come a second time without sin unto salvation. The NIV says he shall come a second time not to bear sin. Now I think that's the correct understanding of the text. But it's not the text. Even the right understanding of the text should not be incorporated into the text. What we want is a translation. That's all. If we want help, as I've said, with understanding, you can ask those who are in a position to help you, you can get the commentaries out, Matthew, Henry and people like that, they'll help you. But in the Bible translation, we just want what's there. In Acts 5 and verse 20, the words of this life become the words of this new life. Now the word new isn't there. Constantly the NIV translates the word flesh, the Greek word saps, which is flesh, as sinful nature. But the word sinful isn't there. And the word flesh sometimes refers to man's weakness on a physical weakness on account of the fall, as well as sometimes referring to his fallen nature. But the word sinful isn't there. Then there is unnecessary interference. In Romans 1 verse 18 we read, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Now you'll see that that word for is one of four of them, four. fours. In verse 16, for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Verse 17, for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith. Verse 18, for the wrath of God is revealed, but the NIV misses out. 2 Corinthians 5, 17, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Behold, all things have passed away, all things have become new. The word, behold, it's a Greek word, eidou, and it's behold, or lo, or look. The NIV has nothing but an exclamation mark at the end. There are many other examples that could be given. I'll give you just one or two very quickly. John 1, verse 16. And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace, Now in the New International Version, we read John 1, 16, "...from the fullness of His grace we have all received one blessing after another." That isn't what it says. It just isn't what it says. It's trying to make it easy. But we want the words breathed out by God. We don't want it to be made easier than God has made it. I noticed recently when we were going through 2 Samuel on a Thursday night, 2 Samuel 20 verse 1, it talks about this man who is a man of Belial. a man of Belial, now that is what is there in the Hebrew, ish b'al, Belial it's a man of Belial, that's what's there the NIV translates it as troublemaker but it doesn't say that, yes he was a troublemaker but that's not the point it doesn't say that you say but I don't know what a man of Belial is well then you find out because that's what God breathed out If you don't understand it, you've got a problem. You've got to seek understanding from God and through those means He has put at your disposal to help you understand. But you don't alter the text of Scripture for anyone. Hebrews 5 verse 7. Speaking of the Lord Jesus, who in the days of His flesh when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." In that he feared. Now, in the New International Version, Hebrews 5, verse 7, becomes, "...during the days of Jesus' life on earth, That's pretty loose stuff there, but anyway, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Now what it actually says is, in that he feared. It could mean what the NIV decides for us it must mean, but it doesn't have to mean that. It can rather mean in that that he feared, in the thing that he feared. The Greek is ambiguous, so the English is ambiguous, and the expositors have to help us understand which is the best meaning. But the NIV tries to do it for you, so you don't have the option of what I actually believe is the right view, that it means the thing in which he feared. He was delivered in that thing which he feared. The point is, it's not just translation. It's building in what they think is the correct understanding of the passage. They're not there to do that. That's not what a translator is for. Well then, the NIV simply is not adequate in its text or in its translation method to be accepted as a replacement for the authorised version. What about the New King James Version? Well, our time's gone and I've tried to say that we'll stick to half nine finish on these meetings. The New King James Version does stick to the received text, though it gives footnotes telling you where other texts say something different, which we believe to be a blunder. But anyway, there are criticisms that can be made of the translation. I can give you some later. The headings are not good, particularly in the Song of Solomon. It's a disaster in terms of the headings and the breakup of the text so that it's trying to tell you this is what the text means and the view of the Song of Solomon that they have is by no means the only view and some of us regard it as a quite wrong view. It's interesting to notice that some of the men involved in the translation of the New King James were also involved in the translation of the New International Version. So some of the men were able to work on one committee that helped to translate on a different text and with a different view of translation and then also help with the New King James which followed the received text by our clothes very soon. The new King James replaces the older pronouns with modern pronouns. Now at first hearing that may seem a great bonus, easier to follow. Instead of using thee and thou and ye and your, it just uses you, your and so on. That seems like a great bonus, but it's not. The older pronouns distinguish singular and plural, as do Hebrew and Greek. In other words, thee and thou is singular, you and your, and ye and you and your are plural. So when the scripture says thee, it's talking to one person. when it says you, it's talking to more than one. The same is true in Greek and Hebrew, the same is true in other languages of course, other modern languages, but it is not true of modern English. That means that the authorised version reader, the English speaker who doesn't know any Hebrew or Greek, as he reads his King James Version, He can tell whether it's singular or plural if he bothers to think. He can tell whether it's singular or plural. In the New King James, he can't. And surely we should want the people of God to have as much as possible in their English Bible of what is in the Hebrew and Greek text. Our authorized Persian translators did. That's why they used ye and thee. Perhaps you thought it was just because everybody talked like that in 1611. They didn't. It is highly doubtful whether those pronouns were in constant use in 1611. They deliberately did it so that you would be able to tell singular from plural just as a Greek speaker or a Hebrew speaker could if he read the original manuscripts. And that is why until recent times the people of God have not changed the pronouns. When Whitfield preached When Spurgeon preached, thee and thou were not in general use, but they didn't clamour for a different translation. When Whitfield preached to the miners in Bristol, when they'd just come up from the mines at six in the morning, they were covered in coal dust, and Whitfield preached to them, he used this Bible, using these older pronouns, that these people did not use in their everyday speech. It isn't just in this generation or even the last hundred years that he and she stop to be normal speech. But it's only this generation and one or two before it that have had this desperate urge to get rid of these older pronouns from the Bible. The singular pronouns thee, thou, thy, and so on, is used and told something like fourteen and a half thousand times in the authorised version. So that means that in fourteen and a half thousand places of the authorised version, you can tell that the pronoun and the verb is singular, which you would not be able to do with the New King James or any of the others. 14,500 places where you've got more information in the authorised version than in a modern version. So it does matter, and some of them make a difference. I'll just give you a few and then I really will finish. Luke 22. Luke 22 and 31. Luke 22, 31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desire to have you, plural, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, singular, that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. So you see, verse 31, the Lord Jesus is saying something that is common to all but in verse 32 and 33 he's talking about Peter in particular John 3 verse 7 John 3 verse 7 marvel not that I said unto thee ye must be born again the Lord Jesus says marvel not that I said unto thee so he said it to one man, Nicodemus. But what he said is true not only of the one man, but of all men. Ye must be born again, whoever you are. 2 Timothy chapter 4 and verse 22. The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit Grace be with you. Amen. The first part of the verse is addressed to Timothy. The rest is addressed not only to Timothy, but to those that were with Timothy. Philemon. And verse 21 to 25. Remember, it's written to Philemon, and yet there are those also with Philemon. You'll see that in verse 2. And in verse 21, having confidence in thy obedience, I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say, but withal prepare me also a lodging, for I trust that through your prayers, that's all of them, I shall be given unto you. There salute thee, Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus. And then in verse 25, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. You see, they're singular and plural. There's Philemon, and then there's those with Philemon. Matthew 28, 20. Lo, I am with you always. There's a promise to the Church of God. Hebrews 13, verse 5. I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. There's a promise to the individual believer. If accuracy is top priority, the authorized version must stay. Where do we go from here? We need to be clear. We are not saying that it is impossible that a version should ever be produced to replace the authorized version. The authorized version replaced the Geneva Bible, it replaced Tyndale, and so on. What we do say is this. None have appeared to equal the authorised version, and we do not believe that the Church at present is either sufficiently united or in a fit state to produce a version anything like adequate to replace the authorised version, and it's any such effort to do so would never receive the kind of universal acceptance that the Authorized Version has done. Secondly, we do not need absurd and obviously prejudiced arguments. There has been too much that is written in defense of the Authorized Version that is manifestly ridiculous. I brought an example with me, but I'll not take the time to give it. But the thing must be declared and defended in a fair, honest, upright manner. We do not need dud arguments. Bad arguments, in defense of the authorized version, has done nothing but harm. Let us defend the authorised version in an honest and fair and upright manner. We don't need to do otherwise because we have nothing to be ashamed of.