23. King James Onlyism Part 2

This is the For Freedom Podcast. This podcast exists to bring to light the legalism and abuse in the independent fundamental Baptist movement, and to encourage believers to grow in grace through the scriptures. Now, here's your host, John Hollifield. All right, guys, we are back with the For Freedom Podcast. I hope you've had a good week, and it's good to be back here and on the mic with my man from North Kakalaki, James. James, how's it going, buddy? Let's go. How are we doing, guys? We're doing well. You just ripped off old JC. Had to. Had to. Trademark infringement. Hopefully, he's listening, and he can call us and sue us for all the money that we're making right now. All the big monies. The big. Oh, yeah. Yeah. You know, that's why we do it. We do it for the money. All about the Benjamins. Come on. So, how's your week been doing, John? Oh, my weeks have been crazy. We are both in a situation in our churches where we're in the middle of pastor searches. You realize that? Yes. We are. It's crazy. We're looking at a church where you guys are in the process of looking for a senior pastor, and we, at the present moment, are in the same situation here. So, we'll see how it goes in the next few months and see if we can get somebody to watch over us, make sure that we're breaking any laws, right? What you're saying is we're in search of leaders and someone to lead us from our craziness. What does that mean? That we're just going? We're just floundering right now, John. Oh, my goodness. We're just fish out of water right now. It's not going to be good. No. We want to start off. We're going to start doing a segment in the podcast before we get into our material. We're in the middle of a King James Only breakdown. Episode two. Episode two of the King James Only-ism. And you know what? When the world's coming around you, you won't be shaking. Like Brother McNeese said yesterday morning, I understand. There's a part of me that's bothered. I understand Brother McNeese said it perfectly yesterday morning. There's a part of me that's bothered about this. There's a part of me saying, just any day now. Just any day now. Just any day now. Our Lord is coming. You know how I found out about that? Not reading Reader's Digest. Not watching Blessed Fox News. Somebody help me. I got in my King James Bible. And I began to read what the Bible says. Thank God tonight we have a Bible. What light is that shining so brightly for me? That gives me the courage, the right way to see. What hope for the trust in soul. Wonderful book divine. And I love the old Bible. The old King James Bible. Right on my pathway to shine. It keeps me so happy. Always so happy. God's wonderful book divine. This is for the liberals. Now if you are wondering of what book I've seen. It's the one that the old time revivals did bring. It's the only real Bible authorized by the King. God's wonderful book divine. And I love the old Bible. The old King James Bible. Right on my pathway to shine. And keeps it. Hallelujah. We got a word tonight. And we want to get into. We want to get into like do a segment to start off the podcast. Or just sort of a this week roundup. And so the first thing I wanted to say something about was. Oh, I know what it was. Sorry. I went blank there guys. My bad. Show notes would be. Show notes would probably be a good thing for us to do on this podcast. Don't you think? Yeah. Probably good. Probably good. Oh, so a couple of guys that entered into the fray a little bit. They're part of the RFP team. Dropped a new podcast this week. And I got a chance to listen to it. This is Josh Johnson and Clay Maynard and the Young Baptist Podcast. And James, you got a chance to listen to it, didn't you? Yeah, it's fantastic. They did a great job. I thought it was great. Man, talking about the gospel. I actually wrote down. I'm preaching this Sunday at our church. And I wrote down a couple of their statements. As I'm going and as I'll be preaching, I'm going to name drop them a little bit in my sermon this coming Sunday. So what you're saying is you're ripping off JC and now you're ripping off Clay and Josh. Hey, the Bible says there's nothing new under the sun. Learned that a long time ago. But what about under the moon? Well, come on. I'm just joking. I'm just messing with you. No, that was great. I just want to know one thing. Are they writing? Like, are they reading that? Because if they're saying that off the top of their heads, I'm like, these guys are like walking encyclopedias or something. Like that. I mean, they're so articulate. They probably have show notes unlike us. I know, right? I told you we're going to need leadership. I thought it was fantastic. Josh Johnson. I don't know if Clay was involved in this, too. But Josh has put out some Twitter videos that are absolutely gold. They got great sense of humor. And, I mean, can you imagine having both of those guys on staff at your church at the same time? It'd be great. It'd be like me and you working on staff together. I don't think so. It's got to be a megachurch, right, if they got those two guys? At least, maybe possibly. Probably a multi-megachurch. Oh, man. But it was really good. I'm looking forward to what they're going to cover. And there'll be some overlap. All these podcasts, there'll be some overlap. And they'll probably do it better than we do. Yeah, they're IFB, right, John? I don't think so. I thought they were IFB. They're the right-leaning IFB as far as they've got their head on straight. But I thought they were IFB. Maybe I'm wrong. I think they're Baptist. I know that. Okay. Well, I hope they're Baptist. The Young Baptist Podcast. They're Young Baptist Podcast. I would hope that they would be Baptist. Yeah. We're a couple of Presbyterians doing a Young Baptist Podcast. Yes. No, but it was really good. The other thing that I wanted to mention, too, this is more of a serious note, but I thought it was – I just was really excited about it. But Eric was able to put some information out on the Preacher Boys Podcast of a guy who had an awful sexual rape and that kind of thing of a teenage girl. Her name was Kathy Durbin, and he had done that 30 years, decades ago, and got away with it. And I think the process was that once it came out, basically, they just sent him the first Baptist to him, and they just got him out of town. And, you know, you should go over there and listen to her story if you haven't listened to her story. There's two episodes that cover her story. And this week, this past week, they had a hearing, and he pled guilty, and so he is being held accountable for that. I wish to – listening to Kathy talk about the court transcription – you know, the – what do you call it? How it transpired. Yeah, how it transpired. I would have – I wished he'd have got more time, and I know she probably wished he would have got more time. But the fact that he was being held accountable after 30 years is actually a huge win. It's a very huge win. Well, and it's also good to know that if you're in that situation as a man or a woman and you've been hurt, that freedom can come. You can see healing. It may take time. I'm reading a couple of books right now on just going through those trials and helping some of our teenagers out to understand that there is a moment in time where you will get that freedom. You will get that healing. Whether it's here on earth or somewhere else in heaven, eventually you'll get that healing that you need and the rest that you need. It's good to know that. After 30 years, I can imagine 30 years and not seeing really anything going on, any change, and now the law is taking an effect of what needs to be done. You know, she made a statement in that podcast that I think I posted this on social media along with another story, and it just really like, oh, man, that was so right. And, you know, when you're thinking about what kind of sentences these guys get, she said victims receive a life sentence. Yeah. Because they'll be carrying that around. Now, they may get to places where they think about it less or they grow and they heal, and they're able to use their story to help others. And as they mature, it's with them for the rest of their life. Yeah. And so when you're thinking about what kind of punishment should be put upon those who inflict that kind of abuse on other people, that's something that I think should be taken into account. But that was good to hear. And this week, and Eric, you know, keep up the good work. The Preacher Boys podcast does some good work in those stories that are coming out. Also, he did a good one. Have you listened to the one about Ravi Zacharias? I was so excited about that. Well, I don't know if I was excited, but I listened to it. Well, I was because – well, I'll tell you the reason why I say that is because when I found out about this stuff, it took me seriously maybe an hour and a half. I've heard something about this report like a year ago, and it took me seriously like an hour and a half or less to find enough information for me to realize there was more than one witness to corroborate this story and meet it to be proven. And you know what I've not heard since all of this stuff, and now RZIM is coming out and saying – I haven't heard one big-name evangelical leader come out and say anything about it. There's so much silence with this. And I'm like, why can't you guys come out and call it what it is? Yeah, I was at – when we were in Gatlinburg, Johnny Hunt was there, and, of course, Johnny Hunt, Ravi, was a great close friend. I watched that video on YouTube of the wellness spa that opened up, and Johnny Hunt was there and gave a prayer of dedication. If you haven't watched that video, it's on YouTube. You can go to it. Is it super easy? It's super easy to look at it. It's – I think it's J-I-R-A-M – R-V – oh, sorry, J-I-V-A-M or something like that. Wellness spa, grand opening. And a guy put this video out in 2009, 11 years ago, 12 years ago. And just crazy to see the people that were there, the governor, the mayor of a spa that opened up. A major league pitcher for the Atlanta Braves was there. Like, just crazy stuff. But then I was at this conference, and Johnny Hunt got up, and he said – people have reached out to me because we were close – and have said, hey, will you be the first evangelical leader to come out and talk about Ravi? And he replied, no comment. What? Yeah. So, I'm like, something – I mean, I don't understand what's going on. I've listened to the podcast. I've listened to the – I've looked up some research of it. But it's crazy that they're just sort of circling the wagons. No one's talking about it. I mean, Jeff Foxworthy was at that opening, and Johnny Hunt. It's crazy. I know. Look it up. It's a great video. It's eerie. The guy who put it together is very eerie. All right. Let's move on to something else before I get angry. Okay. James, do you have anything else? I'm going to move into that crazy. Oh, yeah. I'm good. I'm good. I just want to – yeah. Go ahead. All right. So, we may do this on and off, but I came across a clip on IFB Sermon Clips at Fake Servant. Is it still Fake Servant? Well, you know who I'm talking about. IFB Preacher Clips. Okay. And we came across this clip. This actually didn't – James is laughing. This actually didn't completely shock me because I've seen some of this stuff before. We will do an episode in the future basically titled Ruckmanism because I want to do a deep dive into covering Peter Ruckman and his teachings and all that stuff. Not just the KJV only stuff, but he taught this stuff. And this is Andrew Sluder talking to a couple other guys about alien abduction. Here it is. The good news is that if you're a Bible-believing Christian, though, you really don't have to worry about aliens. That is true. And actually, the crazy thing is, according to several sources, the only group of people, group of people that have never been abducted by aliens is Bible-believing Christians. Now, there are people who profess to be Christians who have been abducted, but what they call them Bible-believing, living it Christians. You know, people that are committed to Christianity as a way of life. Those people have never been abducted by aliens. I mean, that's what the Bible says. 1 John 4 and verse number 4. Year of God, little children, and have overcome them because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. And Dr. Ruckman even talked about that back in 96 when he wrote this, that Bible-believing Christians just don't get abducted. They just don't apply. And I think that might be one of the reasons why so few of them believe this stuff. Yeah. The Christian world in general. Yeah, they don't have to interact with it. Yeah. Right. Alien Intrusion. Alien Intrusion. There's the book Alien Intrusion by Gary... Bates. Yeah, Gary Bates. And there's a really good documentary by the same name, Alien Intrusion. Same guy. Yeah, yeah. And it's on Amazon Prime. And really, everybody should watch that. It's such a good documentary. Really well done. There you have it, guys. There you have it. Oh, good stuff. Bible-believers do not get abducted by aliens. Abducted by aliens. That's right. That's right. And hopefully, you are a Bible believer. Hey, not just someone who says they're a Christian, but actually, I mean, because if you just say you're a Christian, you're still liable. You could still get abducted by aliens. It's only the ones that are true, true in it. All in. No, that's an important point to make, because Ruckmanites, when they say Bible believers, they're not just talking about being a Christian. No, no. A Bible believer is a Ruckman following King James only Christian. Come on. If you don't follow to that T of what they believe, you may be a Christian, but you're not considered a Bible believer. Yes. Yes. You have to. If you're not there, a Ruckmanite has never been abducted by aliens is what they're saying. Let me say this. I don't believe in aliens. No. Okay. People are going to be sending me stuff like, you're denying truth. Anyways, I don't believe in that. If there is anybody who's been abducted by aliens and sent back, it is Ruckmanites. I mean, really? Come on. Yes. Yes. Oh, it's good stuff. Good stuff. No, but we're. It's the aliens. Come on. Did you hear that? I heard something say John, I thought. Okay. This has got to be the most informal podcast I've ever done so far. So anyways, okay. Let's jump back into our KJV only material. So we've been talking about manuscripts and the history of the English Bible. We took it from how the Bible was transmitted and written down to up until about after they started compiling the Greek New Testament. Erasmus. You had a guy named Robert Estian, Stephanas. And then we got to Theodore Beza. These were all guys that worked on their different editions up to 1565 on the Greek New Testaments. Now I want to talk about putting this into the English language. Putting this into the English language. Let me say this. In the 1300s, there was a guy who saw the need of putting the Bible into the English language. His name was John Wycliffe. He's known in church history as the morning star of the Reformation. But there's a couple of things to understand about his English translation. Number one, the English language that they translated it to is almost unreadable to English speakers today. It was definitely a different form of English as the language is still progressing. Number two, he translated the Bible. The translation work went straight from the Latin. So he was translating from the Latin Vulgate into English. And the third thing to understand about that is that Wycliffe was not able to actually complete 100% of the work. I think he got to like 75% or 80% before he died. And then his students or followers, which became known as the Lollards, they finished the work out. And it became known as the Wycliffe translation. Of course, Wycliffe died, and the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope had him exhumed. They exhumed his body and burned his bones and then tossed him in the river because they didn't like him that much. But going to the English translation. So you have it in Greek, and then you have something happened in 1517, which was the Protestant Reformation with Martin Luther. And so this teaching is starting to spread around Europe. And a guy in England, a young man in England, gets a burden in his heart to, just the same as Wycliffe, to get the Bible in English. And that young man's name is William Tyndale. He knows with the way that the laws are in England and how the Roman Catholic Church had a hold on England, that he wasn't going to be able to do it and get it done in the homeland. And so he leaves the United Kingdom, the island, and he moves into the mainland of Europe. And he begins to jump around as he's translating the Bible. I could spend two hours on Tyndale because I taught some lessons on Tyndale. Amazing life. He's actually able to finish. He actually doesn't even finish. The Tyndale Bible is not even – he didn't even get to finish that. I think he did the New Testament. He was working on portions of the Old Testament. And then they arrested him. He sat in jail for a year, almost a year and a half, and then he was burned at the stake. But they have – there's several English – I don't want to call them translations. I don't want to call them translations because they're not translations. In fact, James Price said this. Let me see if I can read it for you real quick. James Price said this. The sequence of Bible editions from Tyndale's Bible to the Bishop's Bible had continued the tradition of revision, each being a revision of its predecessor, modifying, refining, polishing, purifying, and updating it to the current literary usage. By the time James I came to the throne, the process was due to be repeated. And so Tyndale's work is actually finished by a friend of his that was actually working with him named Miles Coverdale, and he finished Tyndale's work. Ten years later – go ahead, James, with the rest. Oh, yeah. Ten years later, the Coverdale Bible comes out, and then it goes through revisions again. And then we go into the Matthew's Bible, and it's just great to be able to look through this. And as we were looking through it, something that I want to really encourage our listeners and our audience, back when the Reformation happened, it's because the people had the Word of God in their hands. That was the whole pushback from the Roman Catholic Church. They didn't want the people having a copy of Scripture. So when these Bibles were coming out that were able to be put in people's hands, all of a sudden people are reading, and they're learning, and they're studying, and that's where we see these great transformations come from, because Martin Luther was able to take the Bible and read it and study it for himself. Yeah. Luther, one of his first works he went to work on after his trial was translating the Bible into his language, which was German, and he put out the first German translation. And then, James, you mentioned the Matthew's Bible. That was actually by a guy named John Rogers, who was – because there was such vitriol trying to get out, you know, put down this idea of an English translation, he put it under the pen name of Thomas Matthews, and so the Matthew's Bible came out two years after the Coverdale Bible. Now, it's important to note, too, that the king actually issued a decree to have an English translation. This is Henry VIII. This is the guy with all the wives. He had a couple of Protestants speaking in his ear, one of them Thomas Cranmer, and Thomas Cranmer convinced the king that England needed a Bible and convinced them to get the Bible put into the English language. And so he commissioned the next one, which was 1539, the Great Bible. But what was the Great Bible? It was simply a revision of the two previous, Coverdale and Tyndall Bible. It was a revision of those, and we're going to talk about why we say this is a revision and not a translation when we get to the King James because this is important. So then there's a big break, and so the Great Bible is used, the Matthew's Bible, it's whatever Bible could be distributed, and then the Puritans come along. And so the Puritans want their translation, so they work on a translation, and they get together, and they put out what is known as the Geneva Bible. And so you have this sort of rogue group, the Puritans, that are out there with their English Bible, the Geneva Bible. And so the Church of England is now established. They come along after Elizabeth takes over the reign, after the Bloody Mary's gone. And then the Church of England is established, and the Church of England, these guys who are like, they're not priests, they call them bishops, they begin saying they don't like the Puritans. The bishops and the Puritans did not get along. They disliked each other. Calvinist, arminist. Calvinist. Well, I think on that issue, most of them were all Calvinists. I'm saying that same riff. Oh, yeah, yeah. Calvinists don't like arminists. Right. Yeah. So they basically disagreed. They didn't like their church polity. They didn't like the Puritans, didn't like the haughtiness of the bishops. The bishops got paid money, all this stuff. And so they didn't get along. So the bishops wanted their Bible. So they get a revision put out of the Great Bible, which becomes the Bishop's Bible. So this has, so how many Bibles are this in the English language so far? Number six. All right. So we got six. Now, it's important. Why is this an issue? And again, we're going to get to a point where we break down the argument. Because in the Psalm 12, 6 and 7, these are some of these guys use that passage to say, the words of the order, pure words, purified seven times. And the King James is the seventh English translation. And I say, okay, number one, that's terrible connection. Number two, because that's not what it's talking about at all. Number two, the King James Version is not the seventh translation. It's not the seventh translation. So here's what happens. Elizabeth dies. All right. Let me see if I can go through this quickly. So hang on, jump on the train, because I'm going to start talking fast. Elizabeth is King Henry VIII's daughter. She is on the throne. She's known as the Virgin Queen. She never marries. And she is on the throne for several years. I think more than 20 or 30 years. She eventually dies of old age. And they need somebody to take over the throne. And the closest living relative that Elizabeth has is actually James Stewart I. This is actually Mary, Queen of Scots, Mary Stewart's son, which who Elizabeth actually had put to death. But anyways, years before. James Stewart is just a teenager when Elizabeth died, but he's the closest tutor relative to Elizabeth. So Elizabeth dies, and the powers that be in England say the next line of the throne is this young boy over in Scotland. So they bring this teenager over to Scotland, and they crown him king, and he becomes King James I of England. One of the first things in 1603 that he has to deal with is they convene, and they have the bishops come, and they're trying to get King James to commission a new Bible translation in his name. They figured if they got it and they'd do it in his name, it would stroke his ego enough, and he would go along with it. The Puritans were wanting him to name the Geneva Bible as the Bible of England. And so when it came down to it, he decided to commission a new translation to be put in English under his name, and he commissioned these guys to have about 54 different translators. Now, a lot is made by King James Oniis on the translators themselves, and let me say this. They were exceptional. They were great minds, great intellects for what they were able to do. So then in 1603, you have the King James translation begins. James, why don't you read the next note that we have there? The work was done in a way similar to many modern translations. This wasn't – we sort of took this way they translated it, and they have adapted and used this same way. The work was done in a group of committees. There were six different groups of scholars that worked in three different locations, Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge, and they worked on the Old and the New Testaments in these locations. And so they weren't able to really talk to each other and say, hey, what are your thoughts? Let's get these together. They translated them separately and then came together so they were able to really understand the two things. Yeah, and you had different groups of translators. For instance, you had one group of guys, and their job was to translate it from Genesis to 1 Kings. And then you had another group that their job was to translate the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And so that's sort of how it worked. Now, what did the – John, were these men – they were perfect men, right? They'd never done anything wrong. They were infallible humans, right? No, of course not. In fact, they weren't even Baptists. What? No. They weren't even Baptists. No. Turn the podcast off. We're done. They were not Baptists. These guys were Calvinists, five-point Calvinists. Just about 99% of them were, and I'm pretty sure all of them believed in infant baptism. Yeah. Yeah. I like what James White said. That's what – okay, go ahead. Go ahead. James White said it's very common for King James-only advocates to attack such men like Westcott and Hort for being baby sprinklers. Yet the KJV was born in the heart of such a system of theology. The inconsistency of attacking modern translations due to the alleged theological irregularities of those associated with them while overlooking the very same problems with the KJV is striking. Yeah. And that's why they used the word baptize because they transliterated the word baptizo. If they would have used an interpretation, it would have went against their theology, so they had to go with the word baptize. That is a very – yes, that is a very astute observation you have, James. That's exactly right. They actually – and explain what a transliteration is, James. So transliteration, the word – because we're talking about it – baptize in the Greek is baptizo. So they just took the word baptizo and they just made it sound like – or they transliterated it into the word that – each letter, what it would sound like in English, which would be baptism. In a sense, making a new English word. They made a brand new word for it. If they would have transliterated it, it would have said to immerse. If they translated – Sorry, translated, yes, yes. To transliterate is basically the idea of there's no word in that language for that word. So – or maybe there is a word, but they wanted – they made a new English – an example of this is basically the word for deacon. Yeah. Servant. In the New Testament. So the word that is in the Greek that is used whenever you see the word deacon is the word diakonos. Now, what it means is servant. In fact, you can go through a lot of places in the New Testament, and when you see the word servant, you can look it up, and it'll say either diakonos or doulos. Doulos actually means slave, and diakonos means servant. And so what they did, the translators of the King James did, is that whenever they saw diakonos and they thought it was talking about an office or an actual position in the church, they didn't want to just call them the servants of the church, so they transliterated it. They made a new word, and we have the word today as deacon. Deacon. That's another example of transliteration. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So that's where we have to really understand why were the words used. And sometimes when we get to a translation that is more modern, they take that word and they say, well, maybe baptism isn't the best word to use, so let's put in there a different translation of it to make it better understandable. And here's another interesting thing about the King James translation. Let me ask you this. Okay. I try not to. We talked about not getting political on this, right? Well, I'm okay with it. So let's, for the sake of argument, all right, the current president only has a few more days in office regardless what happens, right? I mean, he's going to be out of office, and they're going to be swearing in a new president in just a week. But when this comes out, it'll be, yeah, about a week away. Okay. So let's say, James, that Joe Biden, President Joe Biden, decides that he wants to have an American translation of the Bible. Okay. And then he commissions a group of guys and puts together a team, and then that team comes together, and they're intelligent men and women, and they work on this. And then President Joe Biden, before they get started, then sends them a list of rules and regulations that they must follow on their work of translation. Yeah. How do you – Such as possibly, like, you're not allowed to use mother and father. You're supposed to use parents. You can't use brother and sister. It's siblings. Almost like the new rules in the House that Nancy Pelosi just put through. James likes getting political. Is that what you're talking about? James likes getting political. You know. Okay. Okay. Yeah, like at the end of Revelation when it says, even so, come Lord Jesus, amen in our woman. Yeah. Amen in our woman. Yes. Got to add that in there. Go back to the illustration. Go back to the illustration. How do you think the church would receive the idea of President Joe Biden commissioning a team, not just commissioning a team, for a new translation, and then telling them, these are 15 rules that you must follow while doing your work. Do you think that the church would really accept that translation very well? No. No, we wouldn't accept it at all. There would probably be another riot at the Capitol or something. So, this is the exact situation that you have in 1603. Because King James, the political leader of the day, commissions a new Bible translation and then gives them 15 rules to follow. So, James, let's look at some of these rules. Read me off a couple of these rules that they had to follow while translating the King James. They had to rely heavily on previous translations, such as the Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, the ones we just talked about. They had to use good, solid Bibles that had been used for a while. The Tyndale Bible, at this time, had been around for almost 100 years. So, it's a reliable Bible. It's something that people could trust. Okay. This is actually pretty interesting. I told you I was going to come back to the Tyndale Bible. Many have examined, the linguists have examined the Tyndale Bible and the King James. Check this out. When the King James was completed, the King James was only able to improve on the work that William Tyndale did alone by about 20%. 80% of the work that William Tyndale did is in the King James translation. It's word for word exactly the same, about 80% of the entire Bible. So, 54 of these translators were only able to improve on Tyndale's work by about 20%. That's crazy. So, could it be said, I'm just going out on a limb here. I know I'm going to get, like, lamb blasted for this. Could it be said that the King James Version is just a revision of the Tyndale Bible? Very well could be said, John. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that goes back to say this. Does that mean that the words that are word for word in the Tyndale, does that mean that those words are inspired and inerrant just as the King James' words are inspired and in their argument? I don't know. I don't know. Go to number four. Number four. Marginal notes were to be used to help explain Greek and Hebrew terms. Yeah, this is an issue because many of those that are King James only hate or repudiate the New King James Version. While the New King James Version, its source material is the same Greek New Testament and manuscripts behind the King James, they really, their big criticisms of the New King James is that it has footnotes and marginal notes to give explanations of certain translational decisions and things like that. But what they don't want to talk about is the fact that the King James translators did the very same thing in 1611. Oh, my. All right. Number five. It was recognized that there were places of special obscurity, and the translators were to make appeal specialists in those fields that could assist in understanding the text. All right. So one of the rules were that if there was an issue with linguistics or something like that, then the translators were supposed to utilize somebody outside of the translating team. The 54 translators to lend their skills of specialty to working on that particular issue. And this is also something that is attacked by King James only as to moderate translations as well, but they did it on the King James. Number six is a point to be brought out. What it's that I have on here on my notes is that a number of the original translators died during the translation process itself. Why is this an issue? Why is it? Why do I even say this? Because if you know of any of these guys that do this, there was this – Gail Rippling really pushed this kind of stuff. These conspiracy theories that those that worked on the NIV and all this stuff, God was killing them. They died mysteriously while working on this. Yeah. I think the same thing happened with Westcott and Hort, too. They had – one got ran over by a horse, and one got thrown from a bridge or something in the middle of translation, if I remember correctly. Oh, no, I haven't heard that. And so we couldn't. I think, if I remember correctly. God sent that horse to teach him a lesson. Yeah, he did. He did. And so – but none of the King James translators were killed. So you're good there. No, they died. Yeah. Oh, they did die. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Wow. Now, the form of the 1611. The form of the 1611 is in Elizabethan or Shakespearean English, all right? The King James was reprinted by a guy named Robert Barker. He was the royal printer. The original 1611 edition – now here, check this out – contained 6,637 notes in the Old Testament, 4,111 expressing the more literal rendering of the Hebrew or Chaldee, 2,156 giving alternative readings. Let me say that again. There was 2,156 notes in the 1611 King James Version giving alternative readings, which, in the opinion of the translators, are not very less probable than those in the text, and 767 in the New Testament, 37 of which relate to variant readings, 112 providing a more literal translation of the Greek, 582 giving alternative translations, and 35 giving explanatory notes or brief expositions, making a total of 8,422 marginal notes. Now, somebody wants to say that the King James Version is the perfect word of God, all right? My question is, which one? That's my response. I got to think about this, John. They said that the King James Version was the seventh version – version, not virgin – version translation that came out, which makes it perfect, right? But also, the King James went through seven edition changes. So does that mean the seventh transition, translation, updated edition, would that be the perfect, not the 1611, the 1769? Are they also going to take that to the same extent? Yeah, but see, that's the question. At what point was it perfected? Yeah, which one of these? I guess the seventh time, 1769. Now, as soon as it came off the presses, James, they had to go back to the presses. Yeah, the next year. No, no, no. I have in my notes that it happened as soon as 1612, but actually it was immediately. And the reason was is they have this – actually, Pensacola Christian College has an example of this in their manuscript room. Oh, the women's Bible. Yeah, the he-she version. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The first version was an error that was made in the printing of the King James version in 1611 that as soon as it came off the presses, they realized that the books of Esther and Ruth were printed with the male pronouns when referring to the women in the book. Yeah. And so they had to go back and fix it. That's why we need Nancy Pelosi's rules, John. Oh, my goodness. Stop writing the same things, James. Yeah. Stop it, James. We've got to get rid of those pronouns and nouns. We're not women and men. We're parents. Come on. You're not my brother. You're just a sibling. I just lost 100 listeners. Okay. Sorry, guys. Okay. But that was fun. Additions with changes in the text came out as soon as 1612. So 1612. Then it had to go back for more revisions in 1613, followed by more revisions in 1616, 1629, and 1638. Now, James, you have a King James Version? Yes. Is it a 1611? No. Exactly. Most people that hold in their hands a King James Version Bible, they do not hold a 1611. In fact, I have a copy of a 1611 King James. And most of the people in church pews today could not read it. John, you're just special. That's why you have one. I just, I just, I'm trying to get a cookie, man. I'm trying to get a cookie. You want to see the table, baby. Listen, we are teetoters. We're not drinking anything special. Okay. My voice is back. I've got more rest from the conference that we did two weeks ago. Last week, I was a little low on energy because I was tired. See, I'm the opposite. I'm like, I'm like sleep deprived. So I'm like delirious. I'm revved up. I'm good to go. I got my sweet tea over here. We're good to go. He's got his sweet tea. Glory to God. Come on. All right. So most people that hold a King James Version in their hand hold a Blaney, Benjamin Blaney, 1769 edition. Now you'd say, okay, so the 1769 Blaney edition is the perfect word of God, right? Actually, or how do they say? Well. Come on, man. Come on, man. It actually is a little bit more, they have a little bit more issue than that because the, let me read this note. The American Bible Society examined six editions of the King James Version in the 19th century and discovered 24,000 variants in the text and punctuation as a result of this survey. You have two different productions of the 1769 Blaney edition. You have the Oxford and the Cambridge. And there is over a thousand differences between those two. And I actually, when I did this six years ago in our church when I was teaching through this, and I actually went to a couple of these texts like Jeremiah 34, 16. And I read Jeremiah 34, 16. And I asked everybody that was just sitting there, that was sitting there with a King James Version. I didn't plan this at all. I said, how many of yours says, and ye had set at liberty? And I had people raise their hand. And then I said, how many of you says that he had set at liberty in Jeremiah 34, 16? And I had two or three people raise their hand on that one. And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's not that standard of perfection that you hear the King James Onlius talk about. So which one of those is perfect? Do we go with the Cambridge edition or do we go with the Oxford edition? Because you're talking about a thousand differences. And then whatever you choose, why? Why? And so we're talking about this is our English translation. This is how we got the King James. Now listen, the King James Version is a good English translation. But to hold the position that it is the perfect translation and only one that people, English-speaking people should use, is a form of legalism. I believe it's a form of legalism. And close to – it's just – it doesn't hold up. It does not hold up. The argument doesn't hold up. So that is – James, you got any comments on finishing up the history of the English Bible? No, I think we did a pretty good job of writing out those notes. We don't do actual show notes. We just do notes on topics. But I think that it was very well spoken. And, hey, let us know if you're a listener, you know, your thoughts on this. If we said something that was confusing, shoot us an email. I don't think we have an email. Shoot us a message on Facebook. Facebooker. We do. John, we have an email. 4freedom at Yahoo. 4freedom at Yahoo. Just send us an email. Let us know. Yahoo. Yes. And you got a song from John just now. So you may want to comment on that, that you never want to hear that again. But, yeah, let us know your thoughts. Let us know how you're feeling, some things like that. All right. Sorry. Every time I said Yahoo, I remember those old commercials I used to. I used to love that. James tells me that I need to get off of Yahoo and go over to Gmail. But I haven't got around to doing that yet. But it's F-O-U-R freedom at Yahoo.com is the email address. Next time, next time, I know we didn't have a whole lot of audio clips in this one, finishing up the history of the English Bible. But next time, we are going to have a lot of them because we're going to talk about the history of King James onlyism. All right. So me and James are going to dive into where did the teaching of King James onlyism begin? Where did it start? And then tracking it, who has taught it and pushed the agenda to where it became mainstream in fundamentalism. And so some interesting information that I think you'll find in that one. So I'm excited about that. And so we're going to have some audio clips of some of those characters that we discuss in that. So that'll be the next time we come back together. James, you got anything else? Nope. I think I'm pretty good, John. All right. I don't know where we are on time. Whoa. You guys can't see what I'm seeing. I'm seeing Christmas lights jumped on James' Zoom screen. They don't care about that. He just froze. Can you hear me? He added Christmas lights and he just went dead. Well, James is gone, so I'm going to go ahead and close it out. So make sure that you, if you enjoyed the podcast, share it. Give it a like or a rating. And leave a comment in Apple Podcasts if you want. And just reach out to us, like James said, if you have any questions, if you'd like to cover anything. We've got a whole list of things that we want to cover that some of you have reached out to. And so we're planning on doing that. There's James. He's back. Sorry. And so that's it for today. And we'll see you next week. Until then, to God, not the pastor, be the glory. We'll see you next week. Thank you.

Auto-generated transcript · 7,892 words. May contain errors.