All right, let's take a look. Part three of our series on the Bible itself, not necessarily a study of the contents of the Bible, but of the Bible itself, how it came to us. Part three and the last part, right? You're hoping for that. This kind of culminates in this. King James Bible tonight. If you're a King James lover, good, you should be. It's a great Bible. In no way am I putting it down tonight. I just want to show you some things about the King James Bible in comparison to the other English Bibles. uh... that uh... you may or may not know let's take a look We see the profitability of scripture, it's worth our study. We know that it's for teaching, which means that it's beneficial. We know that it's for reproof, according to 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17. For the conviction of sin. We read the Bible and we're convicted of sins, and we're benefited by it. It is for correction. It is to set right, that's what the word means, to restore to an upright state. If you got a broken bone, you need your bone set. It needs to be reset, corrected. It is for training in righteousness, discipline, instruction. It's the verb form of what a child is. How about that? Training in righteousness. The result of reading Scripture, being benefited by it. This is 2 Timothy 3, 16-17. It is that the man of God, or by extension, woman of God, may be equipped for every good work. Don't miss that. Every good work. Every good work that we are made to be. We're given in Scripture. Scripture is all we need. That's why we're Protestant. We don't need anyone telling us, other than what is in the Bible, what we need to be righteous. That's why we believe in sola scriptura. Scripture alone. That Latin phrase. Part of the Reformation rally cry. In A.D. 30 to 65 we believe that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. We read that, we believe that because in John's Gospel for instance Jesus will say something and then in parenthesis it will say which in Aramaic means. It was the lingua franca of the day. Jesus would have spoken and known many languages. Some knew up to four languages at least. They would know Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Maybe Latin would have known it then, but not so much. It would have been used, it came around a little bit later. But yeah, Latin was a language of the day for sure. But he likely spoke Aramaic, his words were orally transmitted and preached for 35 years by the Apostles. Orally in the sense that no one went down to a library and said, let's write us all down, let's go spread it. They were speaking it. They knew what Jesus had said. It was orally transmitted. The gospels were eventually written but they were written in Greek and the epistles were written in Greek even though Jesus would have spoken Aramaic they would have been put in a Greek form. Mark we believe was the first gospel around 50 to 55. Matthew we believe followed it AD 58. Luke around AD 60 and John between 70 and 85 wrote his gospel. People ask a lot of times why did it take them so long to write? And could they remember? 30 years ago. I've been married for 32 years now and I can go back and I can tell you about the day I was married. I can tell you what we did the day we were married. I can tell you what we did during our honeymoon. I can tell you what I did the first year with my first job when I was married. I can tell you, I can go back and list lots of things that happened 30 years ago for me. It's not that hard. Some of you are not quite 30 years old and you won't be able to remember back to the day you were born, but I did. I have kept a record of my life every day since I was born. I was rereading it recently, and the second day it said, wow, if this keeps up, I'm going to be 100 before I'm two. My days are doubling. And the other day, I think it was like the third day, I said, I'm still tired from the move. So it was just a dumb joke. That's all it is. Should have saved that for around 745 when everybody's falling asleep. It's easy to think back and remember, especially when the Holy Spirit is causing you to remember and write these things down. Jesus even said in John 16, I believe it is, where he tells the disciples, I will bring it to your mind. You will recall what you need to recall, and it will be written down, and it was. words copied and recopied for centuries all over the world of course up to around 250 you had the emergence of one of the worst if not the greatest persecutor of the church Diocletian who made sure that he tried to eliminate every piece of scripture he killed Christians and so Christians had a way back then of taking scripture dividing pages and disseminating them In fact, that's what people have done through the years in underground church situations. I read, I remember back when people were going into the Russian church after the wall came down and way back in the day, people, there was a Bible. They had, the Bible was circulating. But when those, when the powers that be would come into a place to try to eradicate, if they had heard there was scripture there, they might only have one page of scripture. And in another portion there was another page of Scripture. So they had it to where if anyone came into one particular place they didn't destroy the entire Bible. And so people were existing on one page of Scripture. Some people one paragraph of Scripture. And believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. It happens in China. It happens in Russia. and underground churches. And so these are the kind of things that are dug up way back to the first century, especially back during the times of Diocletian and even the modern church that's underground. So the words were copied and recopied for centuries all over the world. The beauty is that when they're dug up, they all say the same thing. That's the wonderful part of it. Today, as I showed you last week, we have over, that have been up, dug up to this day, over 5,600 Greek manuscripts. 5,600 of them, putting them all together and putting the Bible together, dating back to the second century. But there is over 24,000 when you include other early languages, Coptic was one of them, Syriac and these the books of the Bible or the words of Jesus were spoken and recorded in other languages early on. So you put these together and as I told you last week you can take the early church fathers up to the 200's and they quote the entire Bible. You can get rid of every manuscript you ever had of the Bible and just go to the church fathers they quote the Bible so extensively you could put the Bible right back together just from their quotations. Isn't that beautiful? The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 4th century, that's the 300's, as the language of the Roman Empire at the behest of Pope Damasus who said we need to, let's have a, there was a Latin version but Jerome was kind of the scholar of the day and Damasus put him in charge of putting together a standardized text of the Bible in Latin. It had been in Greek but Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. It's a standard Catholic text for 1,100 years. The Greek Orthodox Church, as you know, had moved from the west, from Rome to Constantinople, continued to use Greek and not Latin. They kept the Greek text in the west when Constantine moved that part of the empire to the east. Last week we talked a little bit about Erasmus, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, who died in 1536. His rally cry was to the source. We've got a Bible in Latin, but it was originally written in Greek. So he set out to find as many Greek manuscripts as he could and put together an entire Greek New Testament. We went over that briefly last week. Let's go to the source, which is Greek. He published the first Greek New Testament from about six manuscripts, none of which were earlier than the 9th century. That's 900 years manuscripts going back to the original, so there could have been changes in those. We found out later there were not. There were a few very minor changes. He used the Latin Vulgate. He didn't have everything he needed to complete the book of Revelation. I believe it's the last six verses of Revelation. He didn't have a Greek manuscript that had those verses. So he went to the Latin Vulgate and he guessed from the Latin what the Greek would be and had his Greek text. Made a few mistakes along the way when Greek was found. Other manuscripts were found of the book of Revelation. It was later dubbed the Received Text. This Received Text was the text, these Greek manuscripts dating to the 9th century after they were originally written, 900 years later, became the Greek behind what the King James Bible was written in. In 1382, in Oxford, England, John Wycliffe translated the Latin Vulgate into English. It was the first English translation of the entire Bible, actually I should have put the New Testament, I think it's just the New Testament, based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. He didn't write it from the Greek or Hebrew, because Erasmus hadn't gathered the Greek text by then. This was about 150 years before Erasmus. And that's, how many of you think you can read that English there on the left? You could read it, you might not know what it means. So that's Wycliffe who said, we need to put the Bible in the language of the people, especially when you're working in Oxford, England, where they speak English. Well, he died before they could kill him, but they dug his body up, threw him away, really hurt him. In the 1450s, Johann Gutenberg's printing press was the first major product from that printing press was Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In 1516, Erasmus' Greek New Testament was published in its first edition. And as I showed you last week, he went so quickly to try to get that published before the others that he made many mistakes, of which he knew. Slips of the pen. When you're copying from one to the next, you're writing fast. You know what it's like to write fast. He did that. By 1530, William Tyndale, and that's a picture of William Tyndale on the right, his English Bible had been written by 1530. Tyndale used Erasmus' third edition, where he had made some much-needed changes in his Greek text, and Wycliffe had used the Latin Vulgate. So Tyndale is using the Greek, a standardized Greek text that Erasmus had put together, whereas Wycliffe had used Latin. But they both come out in English. Not major differences, but some pretty major differences when you look at Catholic theology versus Reformed theology. I mean, there are things that the Catholics have believed about Mary based upon what the Latin Vulgate leads them to believe about her being without sin, whereas the Greek text doesn't say those things. Tyndale invented terms. This is great. Tyndale had to invent words. He invented the word Passover. He invented the word peacemaker, scapegoat, beautiful. He invented the word loving-kindness. When you come across these words and you invent them because you say this is what the Greek word means, the word for loving-kindness in the Hebrew text is a word It's a hesed or you really got to get some spit in the back hesed to come together. It's a beautiful word about loyal love, faithful loyal love. And he's trying to put one, what English word can capture that? Well that word didn't exist so we just made it up, loving kindness. It still exists in the Bible today. And scapegoat of course. Beautiful, I love that. He invented beautiful. King James I, after Elizabeth I died in 1603, James VI ascended the throne of England and became James I, King James. James hated the Geneva Bible, which was the Bible in circulation of that day, the Bible of our Puritans, the Puritans. He hated it because Exodus 119 seemed to promote disobedience to the king. You know Exodus 19 off the top of your head? Roundabout, it's where the midwives decided to disobey the Pharaoh's order. He hated that. He didn't want people reading anything like that and saying, okay that's in the Bible that you can disobey the king. He wasn't a big fan of that. He didn't like the Matthew Bible's textual notes that he found offensive. So he authorized the new English translation called the King James Bible, which you'll find oftentimes called the AV, the Authorized Bible, because it was authorized by the King of England. The authorized version of the King James Bible, it was done by 54 scholars, which were organized into six panels, three for the Old Testament, two for the New Testament, one for the Apocrypha. There were rules to guide their work. For example, here are some of the rules in putting together the King James Bible. be as accurate to the original as possible, no marginal notes allowed except to explain Hebrew or Greek words." That was one of the things that James hated in the Geneva Bible and the Matthew Bible is there were notes by the translators going, take this with a grain of salt, or blah, blah, blah, whatever it might be. No marginal notes except to explain a Greek or Hebrew word. Utilize Tyndale. Because Tyndale had published his in 1530, about 70-80 years prior. Utilized Tyndale, the Matthew Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the White Church which is called the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible if needed in order to help you with the translation. And that would be done in any translation group of men or women translating the Bible today. The King James Bible was first published in 1611 and very rapidly went through several editions, nearly all of which had some changes in the text. Now this is important for people out there today who say the King James Bible is the inerrant Bible and there is no other Bible. It's perfect. If it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for us. You've heard that before, right? And yet it underwent all kinds of changes, hundreds of changes. I'll show you a few. The original preface to the King James Version noted that translators' decision would not be acceptable to all. They knew it. And a translator's decision is, okay, here's the word in Hebrew or Greek. We've decided to use this word. And that's what a translation team does. And they'll get together and they literally vote on words. We're going to use this word or this word. It was used in this translation before. How about this word? It's a more updated modern word. They vote on it. So when that vote is there, they might make a note. We had some discussion on this particular word. We decided on this word for this reason and that reason. And so the translators knew that not everyone would agree on their choice of words in some places. Translators believed that later discoveries and research would help to clear up some of the confusions in the text. Today this preface, however, you will not find in the King James Version, no longer printed in the KJV. Its omission has been one of the major reasons why some groups believe the King James Version is the only inspired Bible perfect in every way when the original translators knew it wasn't and had a preface to say we know it's not. Any of you ever met a King James only? Crazy person? I remember the first one that called me, I had written an article for a Point of View radio talk show, and I had quoted the Living Bible and the New American Standard Bible. And this guy called, he was very nice, he said, you know Mr. Waldie, I was very young at the time, I had just started seminary, he said, you know, you write very well. He said, I wonder why a good writer like you would be so deluded into thinking that the King James isn't the best Bible. I said, what do you mean? He said, well you quoted two other versions of the Bible. I said, okay, I'm all ears. Tell me what I don't know. And he was tempted to fill my ear, and I thought, okay. Well, I was taking Greek at the time, and I had a couple of books I had to read anyway, and it was good timing, and I learned quite a bit. It was a good challenge, and needless to say, I disagreed strongly with him later when I became a little more educated about it. But at the time, I just said, okay, talk to me. I mean, to him, it was a satanic infiltration on God's word to have any other version other than the King James Bible. When the King James was published in 1611, note this, Dr. Hugh Broughton, a first rate Hebrew scholar at the time, who was apparently too cantankerous to serve on the KJV translation team, said of the translation, quote, the KJV was sent to me to censure. which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe. It is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches. The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt." Now that is way overstated. But now we know why he wasn't invited on that translation team. This man when he meets Jesus will be, eh, I'm not impressed. There were three revisions of the King James Version, note this, incorporating over 100,000 changes from its original version in 1611. For example, Matthew 26, 36 says that Judas came with Jesus' disciples, yet he had already hanged himself in the previous chapter. KJV reigned supreme until 1881, 1611 to 1881, when Westcott and Hort, two men, published the revised version. The revised version. How do you think that went over? After over 200 years, over 250 years of the King James Bible, let's publish a new one. Westcott and Hort were not very well liked at the time. And today, for King James only people, Westcott and Hort are devils. They were quite brilliant and wonderful men of God, however. Over 300 words in the King James Version that no longer mean what they meant in 1611. That's going to be key. Over 300 words at least today don't mean what they meant back then. And I'll show you what those are as we go on tonight. So a summary of the King James Bible. The King James Version is based largely on Erasmus' third edition of the Greek New Testament. Half a dozen manuscripts sloppily edited. Six verses back translated from Latin with no Greek support in the book of Revelation. And some verses added to 1 John 5 because of pressure from the Catholic Church. In other words, Erasmus' 3rd edition had a, I shouldn't say it, not his 3rd edition, yeah his 3rd edition when it was released did not have what the Latin Vulgate had. The Latin Vulgate said in 1 John 5, I believe it's verse 7, that these three testify, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Wow, that sounds great, doesn't it? That's the Trinity. But that's not what it says at all. And so it says, the blood, the water, and the spirit. That's what it says. And so when the new one came out, when the Greek text came out, it doesn't say what the Latin says. Well, Erasmus was in all kinds of trouble. You're a heretic. You have cut out the Trinity from the Bible. To which Erasmus said, it's just not in the Greek text. Maybe in the Latin, but it's not in the Greek, and the Greek is original. And so he said, I'll tell you what, if you can find a translation, if you can find a Greek manuscript in my next edition of the Greek New Testament, I will put it in there. What do you think popped up? Some old looking version where it was crumpled paper and made to look old and there was the Trinity formula. So in his next edition, true to his word, he added that verse. And you'll see it in today's King James, a new King James version, you will not see it in any other English version. First John 5-7. And so you'll see brackets. And so, wait a minute, did they kick out the Trinity? No, it's just not in the Greek text. So he had to publish it to be true to his word. Anyway, just one of those things. It misses the original wording in about 5,000 places, the King James Bible. Now again, none of this tonight is meant for you to go home and throw your King James Bible away. The King James Bible is still the Bible. Keep it. If you love it, read it. It is God's Word. Your life will be transformed by it. I'm not saying that. So make sure we get that up front. Some new manuscripts finds, manuscript finds, in 1844 by Constantine von Tischendorf. Told you about him last week. At the Mount Sinai Monastery, the base of it. He was discovered, as I told you last week, he was looking for manuscripts and he went into this monastery, it was cold and they were stoking the fire with what he found to be manuscripts. And when he, wait a minute, what are you doing? They said, oh this is nothing, we've got an entire codex. And he said, will you show me? And what they showed him was the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus was later unearthed. This is the entire New Testament dating to the 300s, which up to that point, as I told you earlier, had been torn apart and dispersed around the empire. By this time, enough manuscripts had come together, put together, Codex Sinaiticus, dating to the 300s. When did I tell you the manuscripts of the King James Bible were, that's 900. Now the good news is when you compare the manuscripts of the 900s to the manuscripts of the 300s, there's only slight differences. In fact, what happened was over time new stories were added. Three of them actually. And I'll show you where those are. You'll see them in your Bible. If you read your Bible you come across it all the time and you go, why is that there? In 1881, after Tischendorf's discovery, Westcott and Hort published the revised version, the RV. Not the new revised version, or not the revised standard version, but the revised version, relying on much earlier Greek manuscripts than what the King James Version translators used. They're updated. They're earlier manuscripts. So Westcott and Hort put out the revised version. It does not have the long ending of Mark. Mark ends at chapter 16 verse 8. It does not have 1 John 4 because that verse is not in there. It does not have the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8 verses 1-11. That's not in the earliest manuscripts. In fact you'll read in your Bible, in your New American Standard Bible or your NIV Bible when you get to John 7-53 where you start reading about the woman caught in adultery you'll read the, you'll see these brackets and you'll go down to the bottom and it will say earliest manuscripts do not contain this story. And that's what it's saying. So Westcott and Hort published a shorter Bible, a shorter Bible, and people go, wait a minute, you're heretics, you've cut out those stories. No, he's just saying those aren't in the oldest manuscripts. Later, in 1895, a man named Adolph Diceman made new discoveries in an Egyptian garbage dump as an archaeologist that added further translations. Here's Adolph Diceman, 1895. Up to 1895, The Greek that the New Testament is written in is called koine it just means common, the common language of the people. It was not understood, it was not the modern Greek of that day, it was different. And so people surmise well the Greek of the New Testament must be a Holy Spirit Greek. This is a special Greek by the Holy Spirit. But the KJV translator surmised the New Testament, as I said, Holy Ghost language. And if you have a Thayer's lexicon, any of you heard of Thayer's lexicon? It's free online. You click on it. Thayer's lexicon is based upon the idea that the language of Greek, of the New Testament Greek is some Holy Ghost language. Diceman found 2,000 year old papyri in several garbage dumps in Koine Common Greek. Just like the New Testament Greek, the common language of the first century. In the KJV, the word propitiation, which wasn't quite understood, means satisfied. Satisfied. When you're digging around in a garbage dump and you find old Microsoft Excel ledgers. Now, they're not Microsoft Excel, but they were ledgers. People kept ledgers then as they do now. Satisfied. Your debt, satisfied. It is finished, Jesus' final words, is one word in Greek, tetelestai. It means he found it on bank records, it means paid in full. He finds this digging around. This is not a Holy Spirit language, it's the common language of the common people. John 3.16, if you memorize that in King James, God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son. Begotten, what does that mean? It really means unique. Monoganea. First only born. Now all of us are God's sons and daughters. God doesn't just have one son. He has one unique son. He has one unique son. And hence that makes perfect sense. Meanwhile, while Diceman is digging this up, a revised version has been written in 1881. Diceman is finding more discoveries or discovering more things. Other discoveries on the Bible are coming up, being dug up. More and more Greek New Testament manuscripts have been discovered since 1895. Today totaling over 5,600, as I've told you. The oldest manuscript that we have dates to the second century, the John Ryland's manuscript. I showed you a portion of John 18, dates to 125. The KJV manuscripts date from the 9th century, so there's a long time in between them. There's not many differences. There's just a few slight differences, so it's not even a big deal. The King James Bible is based upon these late manuscripts but they comprise 80% of the 5,600 manuscripts in existence. What do I mean by that? So you take of the 5,600 manuscripts that are in possession of scholars that can be consulted 80% of those date to the 9th century. 80% of them. So there's a lot of them you think well if most of them say that then that must be the right ones, but those are dated late. Why are there so many? And the reason is, is because most of them were written in the Greek Orthodox area of the empire, where they continue to speak Greek. They're using these things, they're writing, they wear out, they write them again, they wear out, they write them again. There's many of them, there's many scribes in Constantine's eastern empire. In the west, they're Latin. So it goes stagnant there. So there would naturally be more, but more doesn't mean that the majority means the majority of manuscripts say this reading. So we're not going to watch these because these over here are much older. So we put them all together. You don't just take one over the other. Textual criticism puts them all together and decides what the original wording would have been. KJV translators use the Greek text that Erasmus used when he published his third edition of the Greek New Testament. He only had about six manuscripts and he lacked the ending of Revelation as I showed you earlier. The text of modern translations, earlier manuscript discoveries dating to the second century actually give us a shorter Bible. As I told you that earlier, Mark chapter 16 ends at verse eight, where the women see the empty tomb and it says they were so afraid. But someone didn't like that ending, so they added verses nine to 20, copying from Matthew, Mark, and John, no doubt, and put in accurate accounts, but it's where we get things like you have to believe and be baptized. It's where we get things like you'll handle serpents and not die. Where do you think snake handlers got that from? The longer ending of Mark that Mark didn't write, that is not inspired. Now the hard part about that is explaining to someone that's not inspired. If you don't have 30 minutes to explain it, someone's quoting you from the Bible and you're going, yeah, I know that's the end of Mark, but that's not really Mark's writings. What? You're a liberal, you're picking and choosing. No. It's difficult to explain to somebody who's ready for a fight and you just say, okay, that's the Bible. Difficult to get through that believe me. I've tried it on many occasions John 5 for as I told you last week omits the angel of the Lord stirring the waters remember the guys hanging out by the waters He's waiting for the stirring of the water so we can get in and if you don't know what's going on you're going What is he doing there? Why is he there? Well one of the manuscripts? Know that just trying to explain it puts in the margin For an angel the Lord would come down annually and stir the waters that little marginal note winds up in the text by the ninth century, which is what Erasmus is using, which is what the King James Bible is translated by. You go, okay, all right, that doesn't belong there. And then the woman caught in adultery is not in the earliest manuscripts. Do I think that story happened? I do. But John did not write it. John did not write that. That is a story that found its way in, that a scribe eventually read and had read enough times in the margin and said, you know what, let's just be sure that it goes here. It might surprise you to note it finds its way into a place in Mark's gospel, too. It's not always the same story. You can tell it's been moved around, changed, but it's still a good story. So again, you're sitting there tonight, if it's the first time you've heard this, you're going, wait a minute, there's things in the Bible that I don't have to believe. Everything that's in there, even these, are believable and there's no reason to cut them out. The longer on your mark, you got to take with a grain of salt. You have to study it a little bit harder. When I finished Luke's gospel, I thought, Cheryl said, you're going to bring up Mark's? And I thought about it. I prepped for a couple of days to do it. And I said, you know what? I just don't want everyone going away. Thinking that you can't believe the Bible. There's just a couple of things. And I'm showing you these right on the overhead. It's not me. It's just what's learned when you find older manuscripts. Hey, those stories are not in the oldest manuscripts. How did they appear later on? Someone put them in there. They're not terrible stories. They don't lead us astray. They don't change any doctrine, that's for sure. Modern translation text. Examples of changes in the text. 1 Timothy 3, 16, if you find a manuscript from the 9th century and you compare it to a manuscript from the 2nd century, the 3rd century, you're going to see God manifest in the flesh was changed to He was manifest in the flesh. These are the kinds of changes. It's a pronoun. As I told you earlier, the Trinitarian formula from 1 John 5, 7, and 8. Revelation 22, 19, this is one of the passages that Erasmus did not have with his Greek text. He's guessing at what the, he takes the Latin, he's trying to guess what the Greek would say, and he comes across and he speaks of the book of life. Well, the oldest manuscripts say tree of life. Is a book and a tree different? Yeah. I mean, that's an easy one, folks, yes. Not a trick question. You say, well, a tree is, or a book is made from a tree, yeah, but they're still different, aren't they? Three basic influences as to why translations differ. Everyone has this question, well why does this translation say this and that translation say that? Which can I believe? Both, they say the same thing. Textual differences, manuscripts of the Bible discovered since the late 1800s are older and hence I believe they're more reliable. Not everyone says that. There are informational difference. Ancient finds render the King James words inferior. based on Adolf Deismann. You'll find words that don't mean today what they meant then. And then there are philosophical differences. Translation theories have evolved over time. A translation theory is we believe we should take the Bible and go word for word, translate it just right so that we can be very conservative. Others will say, no we can take the word for word, get the sentence and summarize the sentence and make it more readable. We have both versions of the Bible that way. Some say only this or only that. I don't think we should be so dogmatic personally. And aren't modern versions satanic? Well, only if you think the King James is the only Bible. No major doctrine is changed in any modern translations, with the exception of the New World Translation. You ever come across a Jehovah's Witness is knocking on your door, they will open their Bible and they'll begin to read your Bible, their Bible. Don't buy it. Don't buy into what they're saying. Say, well, let's get a Bible that hasn't been butchered, and let's look at this one. They'll probably go away after that, and that's to your advantage. Some say, no, we've got to bring them in. You can if you want. Do your best, but know what you're talking about. Never let a Jehovah's Witness open up the Bible and get you on their track. That's all, they have a track. They have a way of getting you. Here's their spiel. Don't let them do it. Put them on your spiel. Over here, let's talk about this. They have no idea. Most of these guys have a class or two. They've been trained to knock on doors. All they need to do is meet somebody who has just one ounce of wherewithal to know their Bible. Take them off the track and they will say things like, I've never seen that before. Well, the reason is you've never read the Bible before. Is there a Bible translated from the Greek in the New Testament? They have a Bible that was once accurate. In fact, they used to use the American Standard Version. But they began to go through that English text and just remove every reference to Jesus as deity. Now, I have read at least one woman's testimony, because the Jehovah's Witnesses put out an interlinear Greek translation one time. It's got Greek, and it's got the English under it. And she was, what do I want to say, saved out of Jehovah's Witness Church, because she said, there's the Greek right there, it doesn't say that at all. And so, I don't know why they would do that, but I'm glad they did. So no, they didn't change Greek, they just took the English. It's an English religion, as you know. English cult. When you compare King James Bible, NIV, NASB, you put all the different Bibles together, no single doctrine, no doctrine at all, not a single doctrine has been changed. The deity of Christ remains intact, which is strange if someone's saying, okay, Satan put, as that guy told me on the phone that day, Satan put the NIV together. Okay, well let's take a look at the NIV. Is Jesus God in the NIV? Oh yeah. Was He born of a virgin? Yes. Is the Word of God profitable for teaching for every form of righteousness? Yes. Is there one God who exists in three distinct persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit? Yes. Every doctrine is found in the NIV. That's a strange satanic Bible. The virgin birth remains the same. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is found in all modern translations of the Bible. So if modern translations are satanic, why are all the major doctrines still intact? It seems like Satan might have a little better say in taking some of those doctrines out. So, let me show you the inferiority of the King James Version of the Bible to modern translations. Here's eight reasons why it's not the best English translation. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just not the best. You want the best, don't you? There is no scriptural warrant for any translation of the Bible being superior. No scriptural warrant. If we're going to go to the Bible, does the Bible say look at one version? It doesn't. So we have no biblical support. The Greek text behind the King James Bible is late and inferior to recent archaeological finds. The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since 1611, as I said, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. One example is 2324, where it says, King James says, you strain at a net, but swallow a camel. Strain at a net. Get out of my way. No, it says strain out a net. You know what a strainer is. You'll get rid of a little net, but you'll swallow a camel. It's the word in versus out. Big deal, right? Changes everything. No, it doesn't. But it's better translated in modern translations. King James Bible was originally chastised for being too simple. Some today revere it because its English is too hard. That's why people like it. It's just hard. It takes more for me to understand. It's not hard in an academic sense. It's hard in the sense that we don't talk like that anymore. Five, those who advocate the King James Version's superiority are English-speaking folks. It's only in English. Luther's version predates, his German version predates King James by 100 years. So are we just arguing English Bible? What about German, Spanish? The King James adds words, phrases, and even stories to the text, as I've shown you. When comparing the King James Version to Tyndale, it is evident that the leading principle of the King James translators was not faithfulness to the Greek, but English elegance. And that's why people love the King James Bible. It is beautiful English. It is the most beautiful English of any Bible out there. It's beautiful, it's elegant. 300 words in the King James Version no longer mean what they used to mean. And I want to give you, these are called false friends. Scholars call these false friends. Let me show you some false friends. We'll have fun with this. Because here we are to have fun. And I am the leader of all fun. My wife is not amening that. Colossians 2.23 in the King James Version says this, which things have indeed a show of wisdom in worship? Huh? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in worship? The question marks are mine. What? The NIV says, such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom. Which one are you going with, folks? Verse finishes with, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV, a very flowing translation. Psalm 23.1, you memorize it like I did, the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. When I was a kid I could not figure that out for the life of me. I remember saying it. At Armstrong Elementary where I was in elementary school, that was when we got to say a Bible verse. That was my first experience being a preacher, second grade. Lance, you're going to say the scripture that day. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. And I thought, I don't want Him as my shepherd? Honestly, did anyone else ever think that as a kid? The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. Doesn't want mean to wish, or to pine, or to desire? In the King James Version it means to lack. That's Old English, that's what it meant then. In the King James Version, 1 Kings 18.21, it says, Elijah came unto all the people and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him, but if Baal, then follow him. Halt ye? Who says that? Doesn't halt mean stop, vacillate, or pause? How long shall you stop between two opinions? Of course in the King James it meant to limp, figuratively to have a wobbly mind. How long will you vacillate? Romans 5.8 in the King James Version, but God commendeth His love toward us, not commandeth but commendeth His love toward us and that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Doesn't commendeth mean to recommend, to compliment or reward? does today, then it meant to demonstrate. And today it is done. It is translated as demonstrate. But God demonstrates His love toward us. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Daniel 3.16, in the KJV, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we're not careful to answer thee in this matter. We're not careful. We've decided to be completely reckless in how we answer you. Doesn't careful mean attentive, precise, or wise? Well, King James, it meant worried. It doesn't bother us. We're not worried about it. Ephesians 5.4 in the King James Version, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks. It's not convenient to talk filthy, foolish talking, or jesting. It's just not convenient. It's very inconvenient to talk that way. It means fitting and suitable today. Back then it meant appropriate. Same type of thing. So these are false friends. I got a couple more for you. 2 Timothy 2.15 in the King James Bible, study to show thyself approved unto God. Well, we know how to study. And we would think, you know, the longer time we spend studying, we will be approved to God. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not what it means. Study means to work hard, read a lot, burn the midnight oil. 1611, it meant to be diligent. Today it's translated, be diligent. Not about studying, it's about being diligent perhaps in study, being diligent in your walking with the Lord, being diligent in your faithfulness. Those are the ones who are approved by God. Matthew 19, 14, suffer the little children to come unto me. Suffer the little children. Doesn't suffer mean to agonize or ache? Did Jesus require us to beat our children so they'll go to church? Make them suffer. My parents thought so. You're going to church. And the one I really got beat for was, and you're not wearing blue jeans. Spank with every word. What's that? Phonics, that's right. I learned phonics that way. Suffer back then meant to allow or permit, and that's what Jesus is saying. Permit the children to come to me. False friends, now does this mean you can't read it and figure it out? No, but there's a little more study in there that you're gonna need a 1611 dictionary to translate these words. Why not just get a modern translation? 2 Timothy 2.12 in the KJV, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. It's usurp we're looking at here. Many a woman preacher has said the following, I am not usurping any man's authority in teaching. The authority to preach to you today has been granted to me by the elders of this church. That's how women get around. Passage, the elders of the church are my husband has given me permission so I'm under their authority. Well that's not what the word means. Usurp is not what the Greek term means. It means to have authority over. No man can grant a woman to have authority over men. Scripture forbids this. No woman can be given the authority to teach a man in church. No matter what culture you're in, it's still in the Bible, that can't be done. So, you can't, to usurp, you say, well I'm not usurping, I was given permission. Well, it means to have authority over. And the moment a woman starts to teach, she takes authority over a man. Now, I'm not here to say that women are inferior, they are absolutely not. And I would say, all things being equal, there are women, many women that are far better teachers than men. Could do it better, but God has said that is not the place of a woman to teach or have authority over a man There are roles that God has given to us At home is the same way bill Ladies I'm gonna tell you what Tony Evans said Submit to your husbands as unto the Lord men lead women let them Ladies, you have all the power. This is a little rabbit trail here. But ladies, you have the power. You want to hear that, don't you? You have the power because He can't lead unless you let Him. You are commanded to submit to your husbands. Men, do not marry a woman who will not submit to her husband. You are the buck, and the buck stops with you. Ladies, if you can't find a man that loves the Lord and will love you as Christ loved the church, don't marry him. because you are commanded to submit. In fact there should be more, don't you think there should be, since it's a sin not to, don't you think there should be more church discipline for women who refuse? I don't know why you're laughing. I really don't. Why is that funny? It's not funny. We take that, oh women today can do that. Women you are to submit to your husband. Well, they're not submittable to that's not the thing you are to submit to your husband's whether he's a good man or not Now we're jumping off that that little rabbit trail Genesis 128 in the King James Version says God blessed them be fruitful and said be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it Replenish the earth in the beginning if God tells man and woman to replenish the earth. What does that imply? I? It's already there. Let's start over. Guys, redo what was already there. People ask this question a lot, that word replenish in the King James Bible. Doesn't it mean to restock, reload, replace? Doesn't that imply the earth was once filled and needing a refill? The Hebrew text uses the word malah, which simply means to fill. Now replenish in 1611 meant to fill. But today, the implication is, no, doesn't the Bible already say that there was already an earth here? All kinds of sin, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years of sin, and God started over? Well, that's what it implies, but that's not what the word means. It didn't mean that in 1611. It means that today. It has been said that the King James Bible is fitting for a fifth grade reading level. Computers have concluded this. However, not scholars. Computers count words and length of words to determine this, not readability. In fact, if you've ever taken a how fast can you read test, one of the tests will be, they'll flash a word on the overhead, bam, and then take it off. And did you read it? If you read that word, if you could write the word down that you read, they'll say that you can, okay, you read that word that quick, that means you can read this many words in this short a time. It's a terrible test. It doesn't indicate it at all. How many of you can read a bunch of words in 30 minutes and go, I have no idea what I read? If any given text is rearranged to mean nothing, the computer changes the assessment to the 8th grade. So you'll hear that. People say, well, King James Bible is written for 5th graders. Well, I know many 5th graders. Some of them are smarter than me, but that's not what it's coming to. And so if you rearrange them at all, it just says, okay, there's eighth grade reading level. You ever seen a big difference between a fifth grade and eighth grade reading level? Anyone ever admire an eighth grade reader? Don't answer that question. The computer is not reading, it's counting. Yesterday's computer cannot tell us how readable something is, only people can do that. But AI would not say the same thing as ancient computers did. Ancient being last year's. AI would say something different today. There are many English dialects. In English we speak British, Australian, Canadian, Southern. In Indian English, Raj passed out last week, does not mean he fainted, means he graduated. In Old English, the word generous in Shakespeare meant noble, not magnanimous. He's generous, not magnanimous, noble. I love Isaiah, or Isaiah 43, 4, if a woman quoted it, if a single woman quoted it, out of its context, she would say this, Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee, therefore I will give men for thee. God quoting to her. Wouldn't that be great? This is what a single woman can do. It's what it sounds like, King James. The New American Standard says, Since you are precious in my sight, since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life. I just love that for a single woman to quote that. Genesis 24-2, King James Bible says, Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house that ruled over all he had, put capital P, calling him Put, I pray thee thy hand under my thigh. Okay? Now there is a man in Bible named Put, so it's not a, not making it up. Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house that ruled over all he had, Put, I pray thee thy hand under my thigh. NIV says he said to the chief servant in his house, the one in charge of all he had, put your hand under my thigh. Little better. New American Standard, Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, please place your hand under my thigh. Put isn't even there. So you can see some changes, differences, modern translations are better in that regard. So who gets to decide? Who gets to decide what's better? First, it's helpful to have a working knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and English, along with the translations and how the translators translate the words. Not many people go study those languages, though. Who can say that they have these qualifications? Usually only those with higher degrees in these fields of study, precisely the people who work on modern translations. Some people say, well, I don't agree with that. Well, if you're not of the educational standard of the translators, then what right do you have to disagree? Dr. Smith over here is a kidney doctor, nephrologist, right? Doctor of nephrology. If he tells you something about kidneys, what am I gonna say? I think you're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. I know you got an MD and everything, but I don't think you know. If I said that, I wouldn't say it to his face. But if I said it all, you'd go, yeah, what are you, Dr. Google? Those who know, let them do it. Scrutinize it on your own, but be careful how we critique these scholars if you don't know Greek and Hebrew. You know, I think what has occurred in the past 15, 20 years is the tribalism surrounding some of the various translations. The Christian standard Bible has become a standard for Baptists, Southern Baptists. The ESV has become a standard Bible for reformed traditions. The New Living Translation for Millennials and the Message is typically found in the Seeker Church. And people will surround these translations. These are our translations. I mean, they're all Bible, but it just, I find them somewhat tribalistic. What about the King James Version? It's still God's Word, simply requires older English dictionaries and more explanation for accuracy in the modern world. Is the readability of the King James Version really that difficult? Yes. Psalm 37, 8 is often misunderstood. Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. We know the words, but do we get the meaning? NIV says refrain from anger and turn from wrath. Do not fret, it leads only to evil. All right, so here's why you're here. What's the best translation? Which translations should I use? I've listed, I've just got five of them up there. Translation theories, there's the formal equivalents, word for word, translations from Greek and Hebrew. You'll find that in the King James Bible, New American Bible, English Standard Bible, the Legacy Standard Bible. Then there's the dynamic equivalents, which are phrase for phrase translations. Best one, I believe, is the NIV and the New Living Translation. The Hebrew Old Testament says, God's nostrils enlarged. You want to read that? It just means God became angry. Matthew 1.18 says, Mary was having it in the belly. Do you want to read that? No? It means she was with child, or how about she was pregnant? That's what it means, doesn't it? Do you want a perfectly literal Bible? Here let me show you an extremely literal translation. Here is the Greek of Matthew 1.18. I won't read the Greek to you but I've done my English translation word for word. The Greek word order is different but I've put it all in the same order in English. Word for word says this, of thee but Jesus Christ the birth thus was, being betrothed the mother of him, Mary, to Joseph before or to come together them she was found in belly having from spirit holy. Do you want a literal translation, my friends? Here's another one, John 4, 15. I've done the same thing. Says to him the woman, Sir, give to me this the water that not I thirst, nor I come here to draw. You could look at it and get the meaning, but it has to be nuanced. You take the literal thing and what does it say? What is it saying? Translators are going to take that and say, let's put that into readable English, boom, the next new version of the Bible. So do we really want a true literal word for word Bible? When we compare these Romans 321, the NASB says, But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. The New Living Translation says, But now God has shown us a different way of being right in His sight, not by obeying the law, but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. You see the difference, don't you? You hear the difference. Do they say something different? Not at all. The American Standard Bible, as you know, is the Bible I use, the 1995 version. It is my favorite version. It is the revision of the old American Standard Version of 1901 by the Lachman Foundation. The translators are from Dallas Seminary and Talbot Theological Seminary. First released in 1971, again in 77, it uses non-archaic wording. It is a formal equivalence, meaning it's word for word, nuanced a bit for readability. It was revised in 1995. It was revised in 2020, but the Legacy Standard Bible is also a revision of the New American Standard Bible, bringing it up to modern English and even becoming a little bit more wooden in its translation. Taking every instance where the Lord, every time you read the Lord in all caps in your Hebrew in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word behind Lord in all caps is Yahweh. But because Jews don't say the name Yahweh, it's been translated LORD in all caps. So you know, since it's in all caps, Yahweh's behind it. Well the Legacy Standard Bible says forget that, we're just going with Yahweh. We know Him personally, we can call Him by name. Having read the New American Standard Bible all my life and going to the Legacy Standard Bible, I'll say I haven't gotten used to calling God Yahweh all the time. It's the best word-for-word translation available, and that is just my opinion. Others might say different. I know Greek and Hebrew. I've translated Greek and Hebrew. I find it to be oftentimes the best. Sometimes not. I would have done it another way, and I find the ESV to be better in some cases. But that's just opinion. I read this to you last week. The preface to the New American Standard Bible says this. Now note this, this is a preface to the New American Standard Bible. It says, In the history of English Bible translations, King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881. In the New Testament, in 85, the Old Testament. The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lachman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the American Standard Version by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources, and by rendering it into more current English. Remember, Diceman found these in 1895. The American Standard Version was published in 1901. That's just six years later, incorporating these changes. Therefore, in 1959, a new translation project was launched based on the time-honored principles of the American Standard Version and the King James Version. The result is the American Standard Version. The revised version, just quickly, we'll finish up some of these versions. This is the one Westcott and Hort put together, released in 1881. It was a revision of the King James Bible. The scholars who produced it were more interested in a literal translation than the beautiful translation of the King James English. In spite of all the scholarly clamor for this new translation, most people, including the clergy, still preferred the King James version. Tradition typically trumps common sense. The ASV, released in 1901 by American scholars, not British like the RV revised version. Significantly better English than the revised version. The most literal translation up to the time. Like the revised version, this translation was a revision of the King James. The sixth revision of the King James. And it became a great study Bible, though it is now outdated by even newer discoveries. The revised standard version, it's different than the revised version, it's a product of American scholarship, spirit of the KJV, it's actually the seventh revision of the KJV. On the first day of publication, September 30th, 1952, it sold one million copies. It is said to be the most hated English translation of the Bible. Condemned by McCarthy as communist propaganda, because it uses the word comrade for friend. Condemned by fundamentalists because it says young woman instead of a virgin in Isaiah 714. These people need to lighten up. The NIV, released in 1978, conservative scholars were on the board. It was a phrase for phrase, dynamic equivalence translation of the Bible. Over 100 scholars, which is way too many in my opinion, mostly American, highly readable but hardly elegant, outsold the King James Version by 1995, over 100 million. The most popular Bible. It's not a good study Bible because it's not written to be a study Bible for word studies and all. Remember, it's phrase for phrase, not word for word. The King James, New King James Bible. To answer your question, Jason, there it is, 1979 to 1983. That was your question last week, remember? See, I remembered. Even though we answered it last week, I'm answering it again. Significantly updates the King James Version, but only from English, not from the Greek. It doesn't take the oldest Greek manuscripts, it just updates the old words. The beauty of the original King James Bible has been sacrificed for accuracy, hence it is similar to the NASB and the Revised Version. It's based on the same old, on the same Greek text as the old KJV, which is why I don't think it's best. Only modern translation, not following the most recent Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's the only one, other than the King James, but that's not a modern one. The New Revised Standard, this one's interesting, appeared in 1989. Remember we've got the Revised Version, we've got the Revised Standard Version, now we have the New Revised Standard Version, in 89. Update to the RSV, which is 40 years old. Psalm 50 verse 9 says, I will accept no bull from your house. Such things as this needed an update since bull has other meanings. The New Revised Standard was also the first gender-inclusive translation, making it unclear if even elders must be men. It says in the New Revised Standard, it says, an overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, New American Standard Bible. Revised Standard, it says, now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once. So that would leave that open to female. And so it has been relegated as a bit liberal. The ESV, many of you have an ESV, 2001. The Evangelical Reaction to the New Revised Standard Version came out. It updates the New Revised Standard Version without making it gender inclusive. One of the most popular versions today, providing both readability and accuracy to the Hebrew and Greek texts. An excellent version of the Bible, the ESV. So which one should you choose? King James for its beauty in the English language? Choose that one. The NASB, ESV, and LSB for updated English utilizing the latest Greek manuscript finds and theological accuracy. The NIV and New Living Translation and the Modern English, the J.B. Phillips version, which I love, for readability and help with more wooden translations of the Bible. I say get multiple Bibles dispersed all over your house and car. The more Bibles you have, put it in your car, put it in your bathroom. How many of you go to the bathroom every single day? Don't answer. If you like to sit when you go to the bathroom and you got a little bookshelf there, pull that off. You can get a little reading done right there every day. Cause you go every day. Some of you go multiple times a day. You get in your car, put a little slimline Bible, pull it out. When you get into your car, read a paragraph. When you get out of your car, read a paragraph. Reading a Bible is not hard. In fact, just put Bibles everywhere. Everywhere your hands can go, there's a table, there's a Bible. There's a table, there's a Bible. If you're getting griped at for having too many Bibles, you're a godly man. And finally, I recommend highly a MacArthur study Bible. I don't care if you like John MacArthur or not. If you don't like John MacArthur, fine. But he is the greatest theologian of our day, preacher, accurate, over 50 years without a scandal. That's a good man. That Bible with the study notes, excellent. It has the entire system of theology, pages, maps, get you a MacArthur study Bible. It's done in the New King James, the English Standard, the NASB, and now the Legacy Standard Bible. Get you a good study Bible. But when you're reading the Bible, make sure you hear this, my last thing. When you're reading the Bible annually, when you're just trying to get excerpts in, don't read the study Bible. You'll always wanna go down to the notes. Get you a Bible without, only just text, only just text. And you're reading the text, making sure you're, I recommend the NIV or the NLT, just reading through it every year for the rest of your life. If you got 50 years left of your life, you read the Bible 50 more times. If you read it twice a year, you read it 100 times. If you got 10 years left, read it 10 more times. How is that gonna hurt you? You ever heard that you can't take anything with you in heaven? Yeah, you can. You take what you know about God's word, what you know about God, inhale it, put it all around you. Find it. Read it in King James. This is not to say you don't read King James, but at least you have some background on King James Bible. Let's pray. Father, thank you for the study we've had and the information you've given to us on the evolution of your word and how it's come to us. It's really quite miraculous that we still have it in its form the way you would have us have it. You would never have allowed it to be handed down through so many generations with errors in it. I thank you for that, Lord. Comfort us with that. I pray that we would hunger and thirst for your righteousness, and that you would fill us as you say you will in Matthew 5, 6. Fill us with your righteousness as we inhale your word. May it transform us. As we go through it, may it go through us. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. You've been listening to a sermon by Dr. Lance Walding, senior pastor of Harvest Bible Church in Cypress, Texas.