25. King James Onlyism Part 4

The For Freedom Podcast starts now. And here we go. Baby, let's go! This is the For Freedom Podcast. This podcast exists to bring to light the legalism and abuse and the independent fundamental Baptist movement and to encourage believers to grow in grace through the scriptures. Now, here's your host, John Holyfield. All right, there we go. Welcome back to The For Freedom Podcast. And this is your host, John and... James. How we doing, guys? Big James. We're trying to do something different. We're trying to add a little bit. A little spice to your life. Spice it up. That's right. And how you been, James? I've been doing good. I just got out of a meeting. I'm going green, John. I'm going green. I went ahead and signed up for some solar panels for the new house and trying to come off the grid a little bit. And hopefully it'll work out well. My wife was a little skeptical when I told her the cost and everything. But I think in the long run we're going to do well. So I'm pretty excited about it. Yeah, I'm there with you. I wanted to do that too. But my wife is like, eh, no. So we're still doing the old way. But I like the idea. That's pretty cool. Yeah. We've had a crazy... The guy came out today and he said, does your wife need to be here? I said, nah, we'll just do it. Wow. That's awesome. Yeah. Great communication there. I do all the money. So I deal with it. And yeah, it'll be great. How about your week? You been busy? I heard you got some good news for us. Well, yeah, I guess so. Our church voted this week and voted me in as the senior pastor of our church. So my family and I are now in the pastorate here at Calvary Baptist Church in Manchester, Tennessee. And so the kids are excited. I asked all the kids if they wanted to do this. And they said, yeah. And then I asked my three-year-old Mason, Mason, do you want daddy to become the pastor? He said, no. And then he pointed at me and then he pointed at him. And he said, me and you both. I said, okay, so you want us both to be the pastor? And he said, yeah. That's how he wanted it to run. Well, good. Well, that's about how it runs anyway. So. Yeah. But. Well, good. I'm excited for you. It's good stuff. Yeah. We're excited about the future and what we can go move forward and try to do things for God's kingdom. And just try to help people and also win people to Christ. And so. Well, if you've been listening to our podcast, you'll notice that two weeks ago, I think John said we're both in the same ministry state. We're both looking for pastors. My church still is. Okay. But John, they move a little bit faster than we do. And they have already moved on. Different circumstances. Yeah. Different circumstances that happen. But yeah, it's pretty exciting. But we're back in this and this is going to be part four of our King James only series. But before we get to that, James, it's time to do the this week roundup. Week roundup. I'm going to try. We need to get like a little jingle for that as well. Yeah. Week roundup. All right. So this week, just things that we care about. And then a little bit about the IFB world that we try to do if there's anything that's happened. So this week, the AFC and NFC championship games and the NFL playoffs happened. And James, I think you have a good prediction there. Yeah. Well, Tom Brady, he likes to cheat. He likes to get in. I think I saw him in a referee uniform at one point. And so he was out there. Now, one great part, he did go up to the referee and tried fist bumping after a touchdown. And the ref just looked at him like, dude, you're not in New England anymore. Did that really happen? Are you messing? It really happened. No, it really happened. He didn't say anything. The ref never said anything. But Tom Brady went for the fifth bump and the ref just looked at him and he like turned away and like fifth bump the air. So, yeah, that was great. There were some great statistics that came out that I thought was really good about that matchup. And about Tom Brady in and of himself, I've got him right here. Tom Brady has made the Super Bowl 10 out of 21 seasons. 41% of the time that he's played in the NFL, he's went 41% of the time. Steph Curry's career three-point percentage is 43 points. 43%. So, Tom Brady is more likely to reach the Super Bowl than Steph Curry is to make a three. That's right. And that's why he is the greatest of all time. Yeah. Another good thing. So, we have a Super Bowl. We have a Super Bowl of the Kansas City Chiefs with Mahomes and Tom Brady and the Bucs. Is this the Super Bowl where Tom Brady just puts that final sort of checkmark on his – I mean, does he really need a final checkmark on his career? I don't think so. But just does that little final little thing of, yeah, in case you still want to get angry at me and not think that I'm the greatest, I am the greatest, and win another Super Bowl? Or is this going to be one of those passing of the torches, as you say, of, okay, Manning's gone, Brady's now moving out of the greatest in the league and handing it over to Mahomes being the greatest quarterback in the league? I think that it's going to be a – Tom Brady's not going to win this year. That's what I'm calling. If the Chiefs have an own night, Tom Brady and the Bucs will not be able to beat the Kansas City Chiefs. They are too good of an offense, and the Kansas City has too good of a defense right now. If they're on, if they're playing right, I don't see them losing. So, your Super Bowl pick two weeks from now is – It's Kansas City. Yeah, Kansas City. I'm going to. The Bucs are too young. They did a big rebuilding this year. It was crazy that they were able to be there. But I think the hype of, you know, this is the first time we've ever had a home Super Bowl team playing at their home in the Super Bowl. It's the first time it's ever happened. So, I don't see that, them winning this game. I may be completely wrong. No, I agree. I agree. I mean, when you really get down to it, Tom Brady is playing in the Super Bowl. So, there could be some cheating involved. Now, Bill Belichick's not there, but Tom Brady's there. Oh, my goodness. All right. We may get censored, John. Super Bowl is happening in two weeks. This past Friday, Episode 3 of WandaVision came out, and I loved it. It's getting better. It's getting better. The plot thickens, if you will. James, did you catch it? I didn't get to watch it, but I did watch both Episode 1 and 2, and they were both fantastic. I thought it was great. And I'm really excited about watching Episode 3 and then 4 this Friday. I didn't know they were coming out every Friday. Yep. So, I'll catch up. All right. And then, you know, another thing that just off the top of my head, my wife and I found this show we've been watching at night after we put the kids to bed. We signed up for that Discovery Plus service. And we found this show called Welcome to Plathville. Have you heard of this? I have not, John. Okay. You should check it out. I know I keep giving you things to check out. So, Welcome to Plathville is about some family in South Georgia. They have like nine kids, 10 kids, 11 kids, something. They have a lot of kids. They live on the farm, and they basically seclude themselves from all of society just about. So, IFB? They refuse to say what they are, but I'm almost certain they're right. I am. Somebody said that there's, if any of our listeners out there that know for a fact this family is independent fundamental Baptist or not, let me know. But they talk about Bible colleges. They talk about their weird belief systems in the Bible and this kind of stuff. And it's just interesting because you have these kids starting to come out and, like, they'd never, this kid had never had a Coke before in his life until he got married. A Coca-Cola? Yeah. And they live in Atlanta, Georgia, and the kids never had a Coke. Well, they live in South Georgia. Okay. So, they live outside of Atlanta. But, yeah, they live on a farm, and they basically seclude the kids and cut them off from society. But it's interesting to see. I think it's good for parents to watch, especially parents that are Christians, because it's interesting to see basically how a wrong way of doing things can really drive your kids to what you don't want them to be. You don't want them to have. So, we're checking it out. We're still in the first season. So, it's an interesting watch. And so, also going on this week is the Idea Summit out in Las Vegas, where a bunch of our crowd is at. Yeah. We're not there. They are. We're not. We're not as big a shot as they are, John. We are not big shots. We don't have a – Are we medium shots? I think we're little shots. We're little shots. They have that giving program that you can give to – we don't have any of that. What do you sign up for, John? Yeah, where people can give monthly to help them out. Oh, Patreon? Patreon. See, we don't have any Patreon account. We don't have any Patreon. I've thought about that. I just – We're just nobodies, John. So, we're just hanging out in Tennessee and North Carolina. For Freedom Podcast, hosted by Nobody One and Nobody Two. Amen. Now, we're riding our martyr horse today, so – Well, you know, old Tom Vineyard out at Oklahoma. Well, I can't remember what church he was at off the top of my head. Do you remember what church he was at, John? Tom Vineyard? I think it's either Oklahoma City Baptist or – no, Sam Davison was Heartland, wasn't he? Yeah, Sam Davison was Heartland. He had a college. Windsor Hills. Windsor Hills Baptist Church, yeah. Yes. Okay, so Tom Vineyard, his statement was, we're all just a bunch of little shots shooting for the big shot, which was Jesus. So, that'll be our statement today. You had to quote an IFB pastor, right? I did. I did. I did. Okay. Well, it looks like they're having a good time out there. Let me ask you this. If you were out there in Vegas, who would have been the person that you would have liked to meet the most? You know, Josh Tice, I think is how you say his last name. I'd like to meet him. He's got a lot of great stuff out right now. Josh Tice. And really, I'd like to sit down with Kerry Schmidt. I've been around him a lot in, you know, leadership conference out in California. And I've read a lot of his books. But I would have liked to have sit down and just picked Kerry Schmidt's brain, which I'm sure he's listening to this episode. So, Kerry, if you want to hook me up, 828-929-9144. Shoot me a call, Kerry. And we'll talk for a little while. Did you just give your phone number? Do you want me to edit that out? Nah, if only for Kerry to call me. I don't answer calls that I don't know. So, people are going to let your phone up. Okay. John, what about you? Go ahead and hit your number out. Because you're going to do something that's going to offend somebody, and they're going to let you know it. If James offends you on this podcast, I want you to call him. You got his number right there. Shoot me a text. Call me. I'm here for you. I would like to meet – I say I'd like to meet Nathan Cravat from RFP. But I live like an hour from him, and we're actually scheduling a time to get together. So, I'm going to take care of that. I think it would be Caleb Sargent. No. No. I don't know Caleb. Caleb is – I would have loved to get together with Caleb down there. He's a buddy of mine, and it would have been good to meet up with him out there in Vegas. Eric Skorzynski, actually. I've talked to him twice, and actually to get together with him in person would have been something fun to do. So, that's who I'd have looked forward to the most. But it looks like you're having a good time. And Caleb brings a lot of people together, and they find some good fellowship out there. So, it sounds like a great time. When you said Nathan, I was fully expecting you to say Nathan Rager. But I know he wouldn't have been there. How cool would that have been if Nathan Rager was there? Oh, that would have been awesome. Epic time. Well, that's about the end of this week roundup, and we wanted to close this segment out with one clip. Now, this is not a – this is actually not a new clip. We are going to show you some IFB craziness from, like, as old as it gets. Not really. Not as old as it gets. But this is like whenever we were in Bible college, we found this clip. This came out because this guy was ripping our college that we went to because we had a Starbucks. And he was claiming that – this is Steven Anderson. He was claiming that Starbucks has the image of a nude woman on there. And so, we thought that was pretty funny. And then the next clip we find of this guy is this one we're going to play. So, here is a nice little clip of Steven Anderson giving some great Bible doctrine and Bible teaching here. I'm going to close with one thing. I was reading my Bible this week. And I kept seeing this phrase jump out at me in the Bible. And you're not going to like this. But you haven't liked the sermon up until now. So, why would I try and please you now? You're going to be mad no matter what I say. But I was reading the Bible. And I kept seeing this phrase. And I studied this phrase in the Bible. It's used six times. And it's used by God. It's used out of the mouth of God. And it's when the prophet is preaching to the king of Israel, Jehu. And he says – I'm sorry, Jeroboam and Son of Nebat. And he says, Thus saith the Lord. He said, I will destroy from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall. Have you ever seen that phrase in the Bible? Put it up here. Him that pisseth against the wall. You see that in the Bible. It's used six times. In the Bible. And you know six is a significant number in the Bible. It's the number of a man. You know there are different numbers that represent different things in the Bible. Like seven is the number of completion. Five is the number of death. And you'll see that all throughout the Bible. People being killed under their fifth rib. Genesis 5, 5. Acts 5, 5. On and on. You'll see different numbers and significance and numbers. And the six times this phrase is used in the Bible. And you say, Oh, I can't believe you speak that way. That's the Bible. Well, I'm sorry, but the Bible says that the words of Jesus Christ are wholesome words. And the Bible says every word of God is pure. And so don't accuse me of using bad language. That's what the Bible says. He said, I will destroy him that pisseth against the wall. Now, do you ever stop and think, what did God mean by that? Did he mean, well, I don't know what did he mean? Obviously, what is he talking about? All the men, right? He said, I'm going to kill all the men that come from Jeroboam. Because there's a difference between men and women. Men piss against the wall. Women don't. Okay? And so God said, he used that language. He used that expression. And by the way, that expression is only in the King James Bible. The New King James eliminates it. This is what the New King James says. Males. All the males. And you know, the guys who made it, they are males. They're not men. And God said, a man is somebody who pisses against the wall. Did you know this? When I was in Germany, and you're not even going to believe this. You say, why are you preaching this? Because it's in the Bible. Okay? I was in Germany. And I went to use the restroom in Germany in several different people's houses. I mean, totally different people. And even in public places, they had a sign that prohibited a man from peeing standing up. I'm not kidding. I mean, you can ask, my wife is from Germany. And I was there for three and a half months. They had a sign in people's house. They had a sign in the public restroom that prohibited it. And I'm not going to, you know, it was like a circle and a line through it. And it's no peeing standing up. And I asked my wife, I said, is that like, I thought it was a joke. I thought, is that a joke? That's kind of a crude joke. She said, it's not a joke. She said, no man in Germany pees standing up. That's where we're headed in this country, my friend. We got a bunch of pastors who pee sitting down. We got a bunch of, and you say, oh, you know, you're being vile. I'm not, hey, think God's being vile. God's the one that wrote the Bible, my friend. We got pastors who pee sitting down. We got the President of the United States probably pee sitting down. We got a bunch of preachers. We got a bunch of leaders who don't stand up and piss against the wall like a man. And I'm going to tell you something. That's what's wrong with America. You don't like it? You don't like an old-fashioned Bible that tells you what being a man is all about? Because it's called the King James Bible. And if you don't like that term, piss against the wall, then you know what? Go to the bookstore this afternoon and buy a new King James. It'll take out that word. It'll take out the word damnation. It'll take out the word hell about half the times. It'll take out the word Jehovah, the name of God. It'll take out anything in the Bible that has any power to it. It'll take out anything that tells you how things are supposed to be. But you know what? 400 years ago, pastors used to stand up and preach that a man needs to be a man, not a male. Not the males. It's because the editors of the NIV pee sitting down. It's because the editors of the New King James, they all pee sitting down. I'm going to tell you something. I'm not going to pee sitting down. I don't care if it's Germany. I'm going to Germany in about a month. You better know I'm going to stand up everywhere I go. Wow, people. There you go. Good stuff. There you have it. Pisseth against the wall. Oh, my goodness. I'm speechless, John. I really am. I've heard it before. But hearing it again, just it really is mind blowing. It's literally parsing scripture the most incorrect way you can. It's taking it as far out of context as you possibly can. I think we even had a Bible professor at the college we went to who had spent five years. And it's been a couple years out there in Germany as a missionary. And we asked him about those little pieces of those things about Germany. They won't let men's pee standing down or standing up. It's like he's never heard or seen anything like that in his life. That's some of the dumbest stuff I've ever heard from the pulpit. But let's move on from that and let's get into the meat of the show. And so this is where we're going to be discussing back into King James onlyism. This is part four, but it's part two of the section we're talking about the Genesis and authors of the King James only movement. So this is our discussion on the King James onlyism. I'm telling you what, I like them little nuggets and the word are gone. Them things he's throwing out, I mean the whole thing is great. Them things he's throwing out at the beginning. You may sit there and say, well that's just over. No, no, no, no, no. I'm telling you, I am quite taken with that blessed old book. I mean, brother, I don't know what you think about it. It matters not to me at all what you think about it. I've settled it in my heart. And brother, I'm so far gone on it, I don't just believe all the words. And I'll tell you something. I even believe that the chapter and verse markings got oil on them from another world. Yeah, even the punctuation. Somebody the other day throwed out to me on Twitter some statement Spurgeon made that he said something to, and I like what Spurgeon says. I think he's a man of God. Hey, he's smarter than I'll ever be on a lot of things, but on this he was quite dumb. He said, I believe that the chapter and verse markings were put there very clumsily. Nothing could be further from the truth, Doc. You might as well kept puffing on your cigar instead of commenting on that one because there ain't nothing clumsy about the way the chapter and verse markings are put in that King James Bible. That's been proven time and time and time again. Got the Holy Ghost on it. Now, just a little bit of a review. We covered some guys here already. We started off with this. Where did the King James only argument or the King James only movement begin? And so we trace this back to 1930. 1930, when a Seventh-day Adventist named Benjamin Wilkinson produced a book called Our Authorized Bible, Vindicated. This goes then about 20 years later, 25 years later, and another guy named J.J. Ray produces a book in 1955 titled God Wrote Only One Book. James, you take it from there. After that, we get the guy named Edward Hills, who goes through the King James Version Defended, A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts, and Believing Bible Study. And so he goes through and goes through talking about advocating the inerrancy, talking about how much better informed and more accurate nearly all of the King James only literature is. The argument that he says that we embrace the King James is our final authority. We have no final authority at all, and hence all is subjective and uncertainty. And at the end of this program, we're going to give you a little sneak peek at what we're going to be doing, where someone actually quotes that almost word for word, but they don't give Mr. Hill credit for it. But then we go from 1961 to 1990, Mr. David Otis Fuller, where he writes a series of books, Valiant for the Truth, Which Bible, True or False, Counterfeit or Genuine? And then we get into the elusive Mr. Peter Ruckman. They are the best manuscripts, according to the majority of conservative scholars. If they're the best manuscripts, why couldn't they translate them? Here's the NIV from these two manuscripts. You turn to the Old Testament NIV, no Apocrypha. Well, they're in here. And those are the manuscripts you used. If they're the best, why don't you translate them? Huh? Huh? Hey, boy. Huh? How about that? Huh? They're the best, aren't they? You corrected the King James in 15,000 places for these manuscripts, and then you couldn't print them? Naughty, naughty, naughty. Mama had to spank. You say, who are these men putting out this stuff? Why don't you know? The most godly, highly recognized, qualified, dedicated Hebrew and Greek scholars in America. They're just dishonest. They're just dishonest. If they're the best, why don't you print them? Which is where we'll spend the majority of our time today talking. We talk about how he produced three books. One is called The Bible Babble. And then the two most popular books that he's done, which is the Christian Handbook for Manuscript Evidence, which was in 1970, and the Christian Handbook for Biblical Scholarship in 1988. And so he goes through and has a pretty intense following from some crazy, some out there followers. Right. And he really gets going. The first book is this Bible Babble in 64. By 1970, when he releases the Christian Handbook for Manuscript Evidence, he begins to start getting a follower. They begin a little college or institute out there, the Bible Baptist College or Bible Baptist Institute. And he's pastoring a church at this time down there in Pensacola, Florida. And so I want to go through a couple of notes here on Ruttman that I've taken from some research that I've done. Some of these are taken from James White's King James Onlyism controversy, King James Only controversy. Some of these are from some different sources. But while Ruttman, this guy says this, Bob Ross notes on this or speaks on this. He says, quote, while Ruttman braves a lot about final authority, his hermeneutical approach to the King James Bible is so nonsensical that he is nowhere close to what we understand to be good, to be the doctrinal, practical and prophetic teachings of Scripture. He has various plans of salvation, various gospels, a 10-foot-tall antichrist who arrives on a UFO, a mark of the beast applied by two huge black lips, baptism for salvation on Pentecost, and other such nonsense. His smoke about final authority is just so much, quote, hokey, end quote, to beguile the gullible. He twists and distorts the KJV to make it say what it does not say and doesn't permit it to teach what it plainly says. If you listen to any of Ruttman's teachings on this, you find it online where he's teaching about the King James Only. They practice a lot of what is called gaslighting. Basically, every other thing that he says, he then criticizes you and makes you feel like you should be doubting yourself if you don't agree with him. And therefore, it puts this pressure on people that if they're not in agreement with what they're saying about this, then they must be stupid or unintelligent or corrupt. All right, this guy, I'm going to mention this note here. He says that it was Ruttman who manufactured out of the whole cloth the false claim that no Protestant scholar has ever personally examined the Vaticanus manuscript. That is actually a lie. It was also Ruttman who created out of thin air the absurd notion that there was no Greek translation of the Old Testament until one was produced by origin in the third century AD. I'm actually going to correct this guy on that because it wasn't Ruttman that actually initiated that. It wasn't Ruttman that began that theory of the Septuagint was not done by translators before the time of Christ and that that was what was used in Christ. But actually, the Septuagint was actually manufactured with corrupt intentions by origin in the third century. That actually came from, he got that from James Jasper Ray, who plagiarized it from Benjamin Wilkinson, the Seventh-day Adventist. This was not unique to Ruttman. Ruttman stole it from this guy who stole it from the Seventh-day Adventist. That's where that theory comes out. And there's no basis to it. It's sort of like saying, it's sort of like me and you, James, sitting here talking about history and you say, well, you know what? Mussolini actually was fighting against Hitler. Yeah. The Italians fought Hitler. What? You're just changing history, just pulling something out of history that you want to change and changing it with no evidence whatsoever. And that's exactly what they're doing here. They have nothing to go back. They just say, well, this is a good area to try to tell people and convince people that this is corrupt. So say this. This goes along with our theory. It goes along with our narrative. And so, therefore, no, origin came up with the Septuagint. And origin was a heretic. So it's corrupt. Yeah. Well, and one of these points that we were going to talk about. And I remember sitting in Bible college in chapel. And I remember this statement said. And they never said Ruttman said this. But this is a statement. Ruttman was the first to propagate the erroneous idea that the King James has no copyright. This teacher, which was also a college professor who was preaching chapel, was teaching in New Testament survey and Old Testament survey. And I went back and looked through my notes. And I found the note in my college notes that he said this statement in my college notes. And I remember typing it down because I remember typing down the King James is the only version that doesn't have a copyright. And I thought, man, that's going to be good evidence. That's going to be able to help me. And I remember writing that down. I remember the chapel service when he preached it and he said those statements. And this right here was refuted in 1983 and also in 1993. So 10 years apart, the Baptist biblical heritage first published. The biblical evangelist was in 1983 where they refuted this and they showed that the copyright. And actually, in fact, the King James is a copyrighted translation. And so that's one of their big points. They like to they like to dwell on. Yeah, it was. It can't make money off of it. Right. It's not a modern copyright, but it was copyrighted in the 1600s. Yeah. But, you know, what influenced Ruckman? We just pointed this out about about Ray's influence. And this this this note here also explains this, that Peter Ruckman's book, The Bible Bible, that was put out in 64, betrays his unmistakable signs of heavy dependence on James Jasper Ray. Ruckman's chart of corrupt texts and the versions facing page 28 is is an abbreviation of Ray's pages 56 and 70 in his book. Ruckman's tree of good versions facing page 73 is a virtual reproduction with very minor alterations of Ray's chart on his book in page 109. On page seven of the footnote references, Ruckman specifically mentions Ray's book, though giving the title as God only wrote one book, which is typical of his level of accuracy. Just as Wilkinson misapplied Psalm 12, 6 and 7 to the KJV, as did Ray. Well, so did Ruckman. Furthermore, in Ruckman's so-called the Christian and Christian's Handbook Manuscript Evidence from 1970, Ruckman specifically commends Ray, along with Edward Heavils, as one of the very few reliable writers on text and translation translation issues. And this just goes to, and as far as the Psalm 12 and 6, 12, 6 and 7 argument, we're going to get to that. And that's going to have a little bit to do as well with what we're planning on doing the next episode. But Ruckman's argumentation, which goes along with most KJV-only arguments, and I think, James, you pointed this out at the end of the second or the first episode, is circular at best. Yeah, it really is. And often grossly flawed. All right? So we have an example here of his argument on the New King James Version. This is what it says. It says that the translators has been part of the infamous Alexandrian cult. He says that the Alexandrian creed is a standard confession of every member of the Alexandrian cult from the origen to the far stad. Not one member of the cult can honestly deny a line of it. And no matter how subtle he tries to get around his adherence to it, the creed is a true statement of what a real cult member believes. No honest man could recommend the New King James Version 1982 to anyone. Okay. So here he basically just says that the people, Art Farrstad, who was involved and sort of the head of putting together the New King James Version. And he basically lumps him into this imaginary cult that Peter Ruckman has come up with. I actually have like a whole, like a one-hour, I don't want to call it sermon, a one-hour lesson that he has called the Alexandrian cult. And basically in Peter Ruckman's mind, he developed this idea that anybody that believes in these versions, he calls them part of an Alexandrian cult. And he made up – he, he, Peter Ruckman wrote out the Alexandrian creed to this cult and said this is what they live by. Well, Dr. Peter Ruckman, I'm going to welcome you to World of Prophecy. Good afternoon. How are you all? Dr. Ruckman, the Alexandrian cult. What is the Alexandrian cult? Well, the Alexandrian cult is what we call the Scholars Union. What that thing is is a collection of destructive Bible critics that came from the first century to 1996. And all of them are professing Christians. It comes from the first Christian school, and the first Christian school, whoever set up was set up at Alexandrian. And the faculty of that school was Origen and Clement of Alexandria and preceded by Philo and Fantanus. And all these men were destructive Bible critics. They were platonic, the allegorized of Scripture. And they produced the manuscripts that are copied by Eusebius and Plampillus called City Attics and Vaticanus. And those in the manuscript used for every new version since 1884. So, what do we have today? Are there a lot of people who are believers in this intellectual cult called the Alexandrian cult? You can always spot them because they make their living by lying. We call them professional liars. Or the yay has God said society. They always press in the Word of God. And they're mainly noted by the fact that they omit or subtract from the Word of God because the first sin committed to misurse was committed by a woman in Genesis 3 where she inadvertently omitted the Word freely from what God said. When she quoted God, she omitted freely. He's fashioned and made this all up, and people believe this stuff. It's absolutely ludicrous. Examples of one of his textual arguments for this is from 2 Corinthians 2.17. Where Rutman, it is all right to corrupt the Word of God as long as you don't peddle it. Observe how no addition in any King James Bible reads with the Falwell Nelson in 2 Corinthians 2.17. All right, so, James, do you have a King James Version? I do. All right, I've got a new King James Version. So, let's go to 2 Corinthians 2.17. All right, I will read the King James. It says, For we are not as many which corrupt the Word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. And then in the New King James, it says, For we are not as so many peddling the Word of God, but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ. The King James uses the, translates that term corrupt, corrupting, and the New King James Version translates it peddling. All right, and John, in the ESV, it says this. It says, For we are not like so many peddlers of God's Word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God in the sight of God, we speak in Christ. Okay. So, we see that there's two versions that are used in the word peddling. Why don't you look that up in the, what does the Greek say about that word peddling or corrupt? Is it corrupting God's Word, or is it peddling God's Word? Now, corrupting God's Word would be like changing it and adding corruption to it to make it say something else or make it, you know, untrustworthy, right? Peddling would be... That would be our modern... Yeah, our modern view of... That would be our modern views of corruption, yeah. Okay, so peddling would be the idea of trying to use it for capital gain, right? Yeah, we use the word willing and dealing these days. Yeah, okay. Or how, you know. All right, so here's the Greek word. The Greek word behind this is kepalouo, if I'm pronouncing that right, I'm probably not. And it means a huckster, to retail. That is by implication, to adulterate or corrupt. So, is it wrong to translate that peddling? No. No, actually, that's exactly what it means. So, the New King James Version is not messed up, and it's not wrong in understanding this. But, of course, in that mindset, going to the Greek, you can't do that because the King James just made the Greek better. It corrected it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that's where, you know, when I really got to understanding this more, when you look at words that we so often know the definition to. The Bible says, let your speech be that of someone who goes through that verse. I can't remember off the top of my head. But when we actually look at that word, it actually isn't talking about our actual words. It's talking about our actions. Do you know the verse I'm talking about, John? Let your speech be seasoned with salt? Maybe. I can't remember off the top of my head. Conversation. That's what it is. It says, let your conversation is what it's talking about. But where conversation, a lot of times we think of the word, our words, but it's actually talking about our actions. And too many times, because we're so familiar with the verbiage, we will interpret a word that we're familiar with that was actually used different back in 1611 or 17, whenever you're looking at this in the King James. And we began to interpret it a different way because we're familiar with that definition of that word. So we don't even study it out. And that's a great point. That's a great point because even some of our understanding of English definitions have changed in 200 years, since 1769. And even, I mean, the context even should give an understanding of why peddling would actually be a better translation because Paul's talking about those who seek to make a profit by preaching. And he contrasts this motivation with that of his own, which is sincerity. Now, do we, is this a thing that happened in Paul's day and still happens to our day that is a problem that needs to be pointed out that people try to use either Christianity or the teaching the Bible to make money and further an agenda to gain wealth? Absolutely. It happens all the time. Yeah. Yeah. But that is, that's Peter Ruttman. So Peter Ruttman really, pretty much as we continue on, with the exception of maybe D.A. Waite, just about everybody that we cover from here on out are, they are direct descendants of Peter Ruttman. So Peter Ruttman's books and teachings have, were influences to these people who continue on this teaching and propagating this, this thought. So moving from Peter Ruttman, we come to a guy who's still a very strong voice for this today and really has made it his one, I hate to use this term to be, come across as cruel to him, but this is his one shtick. Okay. And that is King James only-ism. And this guy's name is Sam Gipp. And let me say this, guys, in case you got, you got, you know, off the beam a little bit. You probably heard this and somebody said it to you. Well, you know, this King James Bible controversy, ever heard that term? Now, look, this is not semantical, what I'm about to say. There is no King James controversy. There is no King James Bible controversy. It is what the controversy is, a perfect Bible controversy. And I say that for this reason. If all of us people who are King James could agree, which we don't have to worry about that ever happening. But if we all came together, imagine if one day everybody that believes King James Bible around the world said, the King James Bible is not perfect. It does indeed have mistakes in it. All those anti-King James guys, what would they say? Man, yeah, they finally woke up. Then we finished our statement with this. Yep, the King James Bible is not the perfect word of God. The ESV is the perfect word of God without a mistake. Everybody that's anti-King James today would be anti-ESV tomorrow. Because they don't like the thought that God has a perfect Bible on this planet. So that's what we deal with. This is the very newest book. It came out about three weeks ago. It's called The Second Answer Book. Believe it or not, that book has pretty much stopped a lot of the questions. So this takes off where that one left off. What do you do? Like when you're dealing with somebody about the King James Bible, where do you begin? I get that question a lot. This tells you where to begin. I would tell you, but then you might not buy the book. Should we make an issue out of Bible translations? I hear all these guys go, well, I never make an issue out of the Bible. Yeah, they'll break fellowship with you over where you eat breakfast. And ask them why, and they'll go, well, I got that from the Bible. Oh, so you get these convictions from a book that you have no conviction about. You'll make an issue out of something you got out of the Bible and not make an issue out of the Bible you got your conviction out of. Seems a little democratic. Who started the King James Bible issue? Sam Gipp. He's a great, great man. I will say this about Sam Gipp. He is an excellent persuader. I don't want to use the word manipulator, but he uses one clip, and maybe, John, you can find this clip. It was featured on one of Eric Skorzenzi's podcasts a while back. But it's a clip of everyone together, and he has them read Psalms 23. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. And he gives everyone all these different versions, and he prefaces it by saying the Bible says that God's not the author of confusion. And now we're all going to read these different versions, and we're going to see what they sound like, because God wouldn't let confusion happen, right? And they all read it, and it's all you can't understand what they're saying because they're all reading different words at different times. And he has at the end, he does that moment, that mic drop moment where, see, God wouldn't give confusion. How about we just do it? How about we just all read? We'll read from all the versions you have. We'll read Psalm 23 in unison and see how it sounds, okay? Okay. Now before we read this, we all acknowledge from the Bible that God is not the author of confusion. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in three pastures. He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul. He guides me in the paths of righteousness. He is in the name of the Savior. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, start now. I will not be afraid of the Lord. For you are with me. Your separate rod and staff's protect me. Thou spreadest a table for me in the sight of my name. Thou hast richly made come over me, Lord. Surely goodness and loving kindness follow me for the days of my life. And love will be with me all my life. And your house will be my Lord forever. Now what one word best describes what you just heard? He's great at that. I don't want to say manipulation, but persuasion and using things to. He is a very, out of all of the people that teach on this subject, he is a good speaker. Let me put it this way. He's easy to listen to. Peter Rugman, to me, is extremely difficult to listen to. His voice, the way he talks, it's like, it's torture trying to listen to this and gather materials for this podcast and listen to him. Sam Gipp is easy to listen to. Well, and he's not going to rip you apart and tell you how blasphemous and horrible you are as a person. Well, he undercuts. He's not as degrading as Rugman, but he is degrading in a way that's sort of real quick and makes fun of, you know, and moves on. But he enters into this in 1987 with Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible, which, by the way, James, was the textbook at our Bible college. Really? For the class, the History of the Bible. I don't know if I took that. Who taught it? I don't want to say. Okay. Send it in the notes because I probably didn't take it because of the teacher. Yeah. Okay. I figured. But this guy, this book is interesting, and I'm going to bring this book out because he has some things that actually, I think, refutes some things he says when we get into that John Ankerberg debate. All right. In 87 also, he puts out the answer book. And then in 2009, he does our, is our English Bible inspired? And also in the 90s, he is one of the featured debaters on the John Ankerberg debate show that goes about several episodes long for John Ankerberg show, but it goes about three hours long was the debate. And he was one of the guys defending the King James Version that was involved in that debate. So that's Sam Gipp. The next guy is a guy named D.A. Wait. I believe that the thrust of the text that underlies a King James Bible is the text that the early church copied and recopied. And the text that underlies these false versions, these versions that are not based upon proper text, is a text of the 4th century, they claim, 350, 375 A.D. And that text, basically the Egyptian text doctored by heretics, Egyptian texts, really B. and Aleph, those two particularly that they almost worship, those texts were never copied and recopied by the church. There are measly 45 Greek documents, and that's as far as it goes, B. and Aleph and 43 others. And they have kept themselves buried until Westcott and Horton, some of the others, unburied them and said, aha, these are the texts that the Bible, the New Testament, should be based on. And we believe that that is serious because the early church realized that there were forgeries and falsities and errors abounding in those two Egyptian texts, and they never copied and recopied them. Well, Dr. Waite, certainly you're aware of minuscules that exist long after the time of the Egyptian texts that still maintain the Alexandrian readings like 1739, 1881, and others. But I don't agree that these texts were quote-unquote doctored by heretics or things like that. I certainly see no evidence of that when I examine the texts themselves. I noticed that in your book you do feel that there are a lot of theological issues that are impacted by the textual readings that we choose. And D.A. Waite debated James White. There is a debate, sort of a phone call radio type debate between James White and D.A. Waite. And he started the Dean Burgon Society and also produces the Bible for today. He is not, in fact, this is what's interesting, is that the Sam Gipps and the Ruckmanites cannot stand D.A. Waite. And D.A. Waite cannot stand Sam Gipp and the Ruckmanites. Like, they fight each other almost as much as they fight people that teach modern versions. All right. So next up, though, I've got two next people here is Jack Mormon. Now, this is not a Mormon, but his last name is spelled M-O-O-R-M-A-N. So Mormon is how you pronounce it. He's produced plenty of books, a lot of books out there by him on the King James Only Argument. And he is the man who debated James White in London. You take, coming back to the 1 John 5, 7 passage, when you take those missing words out, it does leave its footprint. And if you speak to a native Greek speaker on this, the genders do not match up. There is strong reason for it being there, a tremendous attack upon it. We have given evidence. Many have gone way beyond what I have given here. A good friend of mine, Michael Maynard, has written nearly 400 pages showing the debate over this text. It was a debate. It should be there. But it leaves its footprint in the mismatched genders when you take the missing words out. But I think the point you made was that it wasn't in the majority text. No, it's not. It's not. That's an error about the genders. And I have to correct something. I think we just had a perfect illustration of what are my main problems with the Textus Receptus. If you look at the Textus Receptus, if you'd open it up for us there, Pastor, there are no textual footnotes in there. We're not told anything about the manuscripts. In the Nessialen text, here is the Greek text. And down at the bottom, I have an exhaustive listing of every textual variant. In the CNTTS apparatus here, the Nessialen apparatus is not as full. Here's the point. Let's say Kurt Alon was the worst heretic in the world. So Desiderius Erasmus, who created the foundation of the TR, was a Roman Catholic priest. Everybody knows what he does. Now, I can show that in 1 John 3.1, the King James is missing an assertion of our sonship in Christ. Is that because Erasmus made something happen with the text? It's very easy to make those kind of assertions. Those are conspiracy theories. Here's the problem. I have the textual data here. So does the Nessialen. I'm not limited to what Kurt Alon tells me. I can make the textual decisions myself. And almost ghosted him afterwards. He hasn't done a lot with him since then, if I remember correctly. And then the last one that we'll talk about under this area is Mr. Jack Chick. And so most of you may know this by the Chick Chacks that you may have seen. These came out. These were, he was a fundamental Christian, best known for his comic tracks. He was an advocate for the King James Only Movement. He actually wrote a comic called The Sabotage Advocating the King James Only Movement. And his company offers various books on other authors who are also King James Only positions. Our church growing up, I think they were for the Chick Tracks. I know my dad was. Maybe that's where I'm getting it from. My dad was a big Chick Track guy. He bought a lot of them and had a book shipped in. He would give them out at work. So I'm pretty familiar with the Chick Tracks. They were very comical for me to read. And I took them as comics. I didn't take them as Bible or biblical. I just took them as comics. So, yeah. Yeah. So that brings it up to the 90s. And so all of these people were producing material in the 90s. Now, while this is spreading around, you have this seed growing and growing and growing bigger. Now, of course, the Ruckmanites are having some type of, and Ruckman is having some type of influence on independent fundamentalism. But still, a lot of people, because he would attack Curtis Hudson, he would attack John R. Rice, and he would call out other places like Bob Jones, Ruckman was quickly sort of looked at as craziness. And so some of his ideas were not accepted. D.A. Waite was gaining traction with other parts of fundamentalism. It was Jack Hiles at the S.W.O.R.D. conference in 1980 or 81 after Rice had died. It started purporting King James onlyism openly after Rice had died. That it really started to catch mainstream and fundamentalism. But I sort of look at it as where this thing really started becoming like mainstream doctrinal issue in independent fundamental Baptist churches in the 90s. And that is with the publication in 1993 with the book by Gail Ripplinger called New Age Bible Versions. Okay. The interesting thing about this is that I have a copy of this book on my bookshelf. If you get a copy of New Age Bible Versions, you will not find Gail Ripplinger's name on any of the covers. You know what you find? You find the name G.A. Ripplinger. All right. This thing sold like wildfire and was promoted by Jack Hiles. And so, therefore, it took off in the 90s in the independent fundamental world. And because of this, I think that most people thought she was a man because women didn't have a whole lot of sway in the fundamentalist world. And, therefore, once people started finding out she was a man. Sit down and be quiet. But she really got – she took Ruckmanism's conspiracy theories of this, this, this stuff, and she took – I mean, it's like that on steroids. And it was crazy. And so, known for her book, New Age Bible Versions, and a number of other works – now, she started producing books like crazy. She's also addressed in some detail the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible. However, a lengthy critical review of her book, New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone Magazine in 94, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passatino of Answers in Action, described the book as, quote, erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible. I'm going to play a clip right now. Right after this book came out, a radio host in Arizona had her on talking about it, and somebody had contacted James White and said, you need to listen to this. And so, James White turned on the radio, and they were taking calls and listening to her talk about her book and this stuff. And so, James White called in, and the radio host figured out who he was, and they did an impromptu debate right there on the radio. It's about 40 minutes long, and that was the first time Gail Ripplinger has ever been debated, and it is the last time she has ever been debated because she will not engage in anybody else after this because she's embarrassed. So let me play. Here's a clip from that. You can find it on YouTube, but here's an audio clip of that. Well, I think the first thing I would probably go to is I have some very serious problems with the type of argumentation, Gail, that you utilized in your book. For example, if you could explain to us, on page 149, you utilized something called acrostic algebra. And what you did in a passage that reminded me a little bit of the identification of Henry Kissinger as the Antichrist two decades ago, how they'd take his name apart and add it up, so on and so forth. You took the New American Standard Version and the New International Version, NASV and NIV, and then you somehow subtracted out AZ and using this acrostic algebra somehow demonstrated that supposedly the NIV and the NASV together add up to sin, as if this demonstrated something about the version. So I'd like to ask you, first of all, where does acrostic algebra come from? And secondly, why it is that everywhere else in your book you refer to the NASB, New American Standard Bible, except for this one place where you changed it to NASV. Why the change in the two things? Okay, I'll address your first question, or this last question of yours relating to that acrostic algebra. Your ministry is called Alpha and Omega, right? Right. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. Now, it's very, very likely that every single word and every single letter in the Bible has a specific meaning, and it's there for a reason, and that lots of words and things that we use today have very specific meanings. He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law to all be fulfilled. So I don't think anything is accidental. Okay, and I think when we're in heaven, the dark glass that we're seeing through now, everything will be quite clear. And the fact that when you take the letters out of, when you take the material that's in the NIV and in the NASV out away from them, and you just have the AV left, what's left are the letters S-I-N. Now, I didn't expect that that's something that just happened, and I think it's very purposeful because the new versions do allow for sin. I mean, you've got immorality instead of fornication. If you ask any college student that I'm sure you've worked with and ask them what immorality is, they'll give you a definition relating to pollution or something like that. And if you look fornication up in the dictionary, it's very clear that that's premarital sex. And so the new versions do, in fact, allow for sin. And so where did I get that from? The Lord gave that to me one night, and I was pretty surprised when I saw it. Well, then you didn't answer the question of why throughout the book you use NASV, but you change it to NASV. Well, I suspect that the Lord calls it the NASV. Actually, it is the NASV, and I called it— The Lord calls it the NASV? Well, I don't know. I'm just suggesting that he gave me that formula there, and that's the only thing that I can say about that. She—this kind of conspiracy theory connection type of things is all over the book. The book is actually not—it's a little difficult to follow. It's not really—it's this thing and this thing. It's strange at best. Daily during the six years needed—she said this, quote, Daily during the six years needed for this investigation, the Lord miraculously brought the needed materials and resources, much like the ravens for Elijah. Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the directed hand of God, so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Wow. Yes. Wow. Wow. Wait a minute. And then what— What— Are you claiming divine inspiration for your book, lady? Inspiration, baby. We're going to talk about that a lot, too, coming up next episode. But yes, inspiration. God inspired her as a modern-day prophetess to write these words down and put them in a book. Yeah. One of the things that she pushes out there is that there's some satanic-inspired conspiracy on the part of modern Bible versions, which is connected to the New Age movement. So all other translations other than the King James is a satanic Bible is what she puts out there. Yeah. What did you—did you define what the GA stood for, John? Did we tell our guests that? Well, it's Gail. What's the—what's the A? It's the God and Ripplinger. Oh, yeah. It's God. Yeah, that's what she said. A is and, and the Ripplinger is her last name. So the GA is not Gail. It's God and Ripplinger. So God is the author of this book and also Ripplinger as well. So just so everyone knows, God is also the author of this book. Yeah. So. It's absolutely ridiculous. On page 375 and 376 of her book, she says, quote, The KJV is also the only Bible that distinguishes between the Hebrew Adonai and Jehovah, using LORD for the former and LORD, all caps, for the latter. This is simply untrue. The New American Standard, the NIV, the New King James, the RSV, the NRSV, the NAB, and others all use the same titling. LORD and LORD in all caps, means of distinguishing between Adonai and Yahweh. She and other King James Version-only writers also claim that all modern versions stem from using the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which is also untrue. Westcott and Hort, this is a huge fabrication lie that's put out there in King James-onlyism lore, okay? So here's the truth of that matter. Westcott and Hort were the ones that came up and first did a Greek New Testament and way of translating in using newly discovered the Alexandrian text-type manuscripts since the King James. Since then, many others have done this. The only connection Westcott and Hort could have to some of the newer translations like the ESV or the New American Standard is that they were pioneers in using those manuscripts. Other than that, they cannot be connected to these things. Sorry, I just, the dishonest. Get it, son. Get it. It gets to me. So there is that. Also, there is also a, on YouTube, you can find a one-hour refutation of the book itself by James White on Gail Ripplinger there. James, you have anything to say about Ripplinger before we move on to the next guy? No, it's just, it's hard for me to get past the God and Ripplinger statement that her book is inspired. It really is. It's just, it's mind-blowing that someone would stoop to that level to say that it was so much of like an Elijah moment that she had to put God's name in the book of God and Ripplinger. It's just, it's mind-blowing, really. It's crazy arrogance is what it is. And you talk about peddling? Yeah, there you go. Is that not what that is? Hey, God wrote this, so buy it. Yes. Yep. And when, you know, when, when Jack Howells, one of the people said that when Jack Howells endorsed a book or wrote a book, it automatically sold a million copies. I believe it. Because he endorsed it or he wrote it and everyone in the IFB movement wanted it or wanted to buy it because he endorsed it. And so we're seeing here, he endorses this book and now it sells a million copies and it becomes one of the bestsellers because he endorses it. I'm pretty sure he even gave her an honorary doctorate too, but we know how. Might as well. Yeah. Come on. Somebody's got to. John, I'm going to probably give you an honorary doctorate now that you're a senior pastor. You know what, James? You get an honorary doctorate today too. Hey, thank you. I'm going to put it on my wall behind me. Yeah, because you're the co-host of the For Freedom podcast. So. Amen. You know, that's what we do when we can't make it to Las Vegas for idea something. We get ourselves honorary doctorates. Yes. I'm going to put it off, put it on our Facebook page. The last guy we're going to talk about in this area is a guy named William Grady. And when I was down in Mexico, the Lord gave me a lot of material out of this chapter here. And I had started a study on it, but it gave me a lot more material after I got down there. And it's become my favorite section of the Bible to teach the King James issue from the scripture. You've got your Bibles open there in Acts 27. And they have the story of a ship that gets sunk out there and falls on it. And it's a very interesting story because the ship comes from, well, most of you know the story, but read along with me and you'll see. This is one of the most interesting chapters in the whole Bible. We discuss the King James issue in my opinion. And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus Band. And entering into a ship of Adred Midium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coast of Asia, one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us. Remember, Paul said, I appeal to Caesar, so he's got to stand before Caesar. So he's on his trip now, under arrest, correct? Verse 3. And the next day we touched his side, and Julius courteously intrigued Paul and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself. He's the guy that started the yard of Julius, the franchise. Verse 4. And when we had launched from thence, we sailed under Cyprus, because the winds were contrary. And when we had sailed over the sea of Cecilia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia. Now, here's the beginning of the Bible study. Look at verse 6. And there the centurion found what? A ship what? A valley of Israel. All right, now, we know something about this. This ship is going to sink, isn't it? Paul's going to nearly get wiped out, correct? And they're going to get stuck on the island of Myles. Turn the chapter, turn to chapter 28. And after the shipwreck story, and after they catch their breath and wait until the sailing season comes back again, they're going to renew their trip back over to Rome. Look at verse 11 of the next chapter. And after three months, right, we departed what? You know what? Ship of Alexander. Isn't that too funny? Now, here's the bottom line. Now, we're talking about the Apostle Paul, who was going to write nine books of the New Testament. Pardon me. He's going to write nine books of the New Testament. At the time of this writing, Paul had still to write seven of his New Testament books. Seven of his nine books had not been written yet. He had not written the prison epistles. He had not written the pastoral epistles. Now, put your seatbelt on. Watch this. Luke is with him on the ship. He hadn't written the gospel of Luke yet. He hadn't written the book of action. That's yet to be written. Got it? When these two men and the company that they may be with get on board this what? Ship from where? Alexander Eber. Also coming from the Ruckmanite camp, writes a book called Final Authority in 93. And then in 2010, he also writes another book called Given by Inspiration. And very much a conspiracy theorist. He's more popular now for his, I'm using air quotes here, history books, which are very conspiracy theory heavy and centric. The last thing I want to say as we wrap up this section is that, just to mention, and I don't know if I'm going to get to cover this. I want to, is that there's also several men that's misrepresented in King James onlyism that are historical figures. One of those is Scrivener. Another one is Dean John William Bergon from the late 1800s. He was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort. And then another guy was a guy named by the name of Robert Dick Wilson. And Robert Dick Wilson is, was a brilliant, brilliant mind who, who had become fluent in over 40 different dialects, including many that were dead languages and biblical languages. If he found a people, a people group in the Bible, in the Old Testament, he then found their language and tried to learn it fluently. The guy was, was a brilliant mind and he did apologetic work defending the validity of the book of Daniel. And what King James onlyists like to do is they like to use what Robert Dick Wilson did and said in defending the book of Daniel and tried to twist that and make it match that it was a King James only argument. And he never was of that mindset. Never, never espoused it. And in fact, it, yeah, he actually worked with many people and understood translation and that more translation work needed to be, to be done. So that is, so, so far we've covered the history of the English Bible. We've covered the Genesis and history of the King James only movement, where it started to where it is today. Okay. So now where we want to go is to actually refuting the King James only argument. Now, and our route to get there, we're going to do something fun next week. All right. So here's what we're going to do. Can I explain it, John? Yeah, James, you take it away. All right. So we, this week, there was a podcast that I, it's a brand new podcast. And I started listening to it when it first came out. And this podcast did a beginning talk on King James only. So exactly what we're talking about. Why is the King James version version? The only one, the only one that's inspired, the only one that's whatever. And so what we did when I read, when I heard this podcast about halfway through, I called John and I said, John, this is exactly what we're talking about. We need to do an episode just on this podcast and some statements that they've said in this podcast. Because when we talk about Ruckman, this was back in the early nineties, you know, late nineties. Gail Ripplinger as well. Same thing. Even when we go back to Wilkinson, this was back in the 1930s when this book came out. Like maybe people don't actually believe this anymore. Maybe this was just a fray. This was back in the day. No one really talks about it. But this was a podcast that came out Monday night, Monday. So we're recording this on Tuesday. So yesterday it came out. When you hear this, it'll be Monday of this week. And so I said, John, let's, let's try to put this together. So next week we're going to do a rebuttal, a refutal of this podcast. We're not going to tell you what it is yet. We're going to let you listen to it next week and then we'll give you the name of it. And then you can listen to the whole thing yourself, but we're going to go through it line by line and sort of talk through what their arguments are of the King James only inspired version. Yep. And so we're looking forward to that next week as we continue this series on King James only ism and getting into actually refuting the argument and taking that apart. We appreciate you listening today and and supporting the podcast. We appreciate everybody that reaches out and gives us encouraging words, leaving comments and ratings on Apple podcast as well. If you like the podcast, please give it a share. And we thank you so much for all of the love and support. And until next time to God, not jackpiles be the glory. Thank you. Thank you.

Auto-generated transcript · 12,273 words. May contain errors.