48. King James Onlyism Part 7: KJV Debate Debrief w/ Nathan Cravatt

I do not mean to be mean, I do mean to be mad. You obey your pastor. If you ain't got the King James, you ain't got, hey, if you don't have a King James, you don't have a Bible. But you know, there's so much that I hope when you get a spirit, I think it's like you're a soul, when you say, where you can get a Bible, when you're going to get a Bible, and it makes you pray, when I'm from a tribulation, I'm going to make a Baptist church. I still believe if you have gold in hell before I get my talents from a woman, I'm a preacher. The young preachers have two love of God getting pulled off in the Calvinist, and I'll fight it, I'll fight it. I'll fight you in the parking lot over it, I'll get personal with you. When you got dressed today, you dressed deity. This is the For Freedom Podcast. A podcast that is part of the RFP network, that seeks to bring freedom in Christ from the spiritual abuse of legalism in the independent fundamental Baptist movement. Now here are your hosts, John Holyfield and James Saifert. And so fundamentalism is designed to unpack the idea of authority from Scripture. The problem with that is that that's not the defining principle in Scripture. It is a part of the Scripture, but the defining principle in Scripture is love. And now I'm not saying that all men who sit under that teaching will become abusive, but what I'm saying is the ones who are abusive will be drawn to that sort of teaching. I don't want to give people just a list of things they can start doing differently until they have a heart out of which they're going to be doing those things differently. Bitterness is different from hurt. I would say that hurt or even abuse does not have to result in bitterness. Well, welcome back to the For Freedom Podcast. It is exciting to be here with you today. We have a great lineup. Social media has been going crazy over this topic that happened just a couple of weeks ago. And we covered a little bit with this, with the church split, but it's a pleasure to have Nathan on with us. We'll bring him on in just a minute. But it's exciting to be able to discuss the debate, what happened, what went on, sort of the process, the behind the scenes of how this all unfolded. How did Cody, how did Nathan get a hold of each other? And so we're going to discuss some of those things. John, welcome to the show. How are you doing today, man? I'm doing good, man. Doing great. And it has been an interesting past seven days. We're recording this on Saturday. So it's seven days removed from the actual debate. And it's been, I mean, it's been a wild seven days. But you know what? Today, when this is dropping, is actually going to be a lot of RFP fam, I think, are going to be experiencing FOMO. You know what FOMO is, James? It is. Yeah. It's the fear of missing out, my friend. And I'm not going to miss out. Are you going to miss out? I'm not missing out because I'm about to see a bunch of family today. And we are excited. And so for those of you that are traveling to Bourbon, Missouri, we cannot wait to meet you and see you today. And so we are excited. So we'll see you later today. But for right now. Well, John, do you want to tell our audience what we're going to be talking on at the meetup? Okay. Yes. Well, we're going to do an episode on, we're going to do a live episode on manipulation. And so what we're going to do is we're going to define that biblically. And then we're going to show how that plays out in not just in church life from behind the pulpit, but also in everyday life. And then what we want to do is talk about how that can actually give you sort of some scriptural, some actual biblical tools to combat that if someone has been working on manipulating you. So we are very pumped about this material that we're going to do. But James, I think it's time to bring on the man, the debate, the debate king, Nathan Cravat. What kind of shallow person do you want to become? Recovering from fundamentalism or something. They're everywhere. And I think to myself, well, you were just stupid to begin with. If there's such a word, you're stupider now. Don't get flubbed up like us. And all you flubbed up people, you come and we'll all flub up together. Nathan, how's it going, man? What's up, fellas? It's going really good. Glad to be here today. Yeah, we are so excited to have you on. We actually were going to cover a totally different subject. We had notes for and everything. But then we were like, you know what? We have a feeling this will be probably what's on everybody's minds. And no shortage of material to talk about with the past seven days of social media. So, you know, how's it been? Let me start off just sort of, you know, introducing Nathan. He's been on before. And actually, Nathan, I want to say our most listened to episode still to this date. And probably the first episode to reach a thousand downloads for our little podcast. And that is, I mean, we make no bones about it. We're a little podcast among big fish. But, you know, we just want to say thank you and welcome. Thank you very much, man. I enjoyed coming on the first time. That was a really challenging topic that I had thought through on my own, but had never had a chance to sit down and really talk it out with somebody because I had to work through bitterness to myself and really enjoyed being on there. And man, that was pre-Saferet, right? Yeah, it was. Yeah, man. So you got on to the whole next level and I'm glad to be back on now that the podcast is complete and on the next level. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And one thing that we should probably say at this point, too, is that we're now on YouTube. Yeah. Awesome. So everybody gets to see the fact that my headphones died and then you started without me and then I walked back in and started talking over you. So, oh my goodness. I was thinking about that. Yeah. These are the things I don't think about now that people are seeing us. Plus the fact that I'm in my daughter's like girly bedroom. Man, that is so cute. Eight-year-old girl's bedroom. Yeah, I know. This is how we rock it. Eight-year-old girl's bedroom. See, I had to get these lights put on and I'm getting in the right spot. I'm trying to be like JC Groves because he has all these cool lighting and everything. So, yeah. You got to up your game there, John. I know. I know. I know. But we are here to talk about the debate, right, James? That's right. Well, why don't we go ahead and jump in with the first question here. Nathan, how did you get the invite to begin with? How did they find you? How did you approach them? Did they approach you? Was there another debater? Were they going to have multiple? How did it all form and happen at Cody's Orange Church? About a long way from where I'm at. Yeah. Here's how it all happened. So, after our four King James episodes, Cody and Brian and JC, they were all going back and forth. And I was kind of going back and forth with him a little bit on Twitter. And he sent me a private message, I believe, on Twitter or on Facebook. I can't remember. I think it was Twitter. And he's like, hey, here's my phone number. Why don't you give me a call? You guys say you don't back down from a challenge. I've got a challenge for you. And so, you know, I texted back. I said, hey, I'm busy. I'm in the middle of something. But I will call you. Looking forward to the conversation. Because everybody knows I like having conversations with people on the other side. I even like eating lunch, having coffee, whatever. Like, I'm open to whatever. So called him back. Or actually, a couple days went by. And he was like, hey, are you going to call me or what? And I was like, yeah, sorry, man. It's been busy. And so then another day goes by. And he sends me this long message, just ripping me a new one, saying I'm a coward, saying all this. And I just responded by laughing. I was like, man, no, it's not like that at all. I said, I get that's how you perceived it. But I am actually incredibly busy. I told him what all I was doing. I was like, but I will make time to call you this afternoon. So I called him that afternoon. He's like, hey, man, thanks for calling me. I didn't think you'd do it. I thought y'all were too scared. And I was like, no, man, just what's going on? Yeah, I've just been busy. So he goes, I've got a challenge for you, RFP boys. He said, I want to challenge you, all three of you, to a King James Bible debate. And I was like, OK. He said, one or all of you can come. And he said, I've got somebody that I want to debate you in my church. And we'll come up with the format, the rules, the questions. And you'll have it ahead of time. I said, well, first of all, who will I be debating? Who will we be debating? And he said, Mitch can up. And I was like, I don't think I've heard of him, but I'll look him up. And there was he has a podcast. So there's a lot of stuff on there. And he has a lot of videos on YouTube as well that a few of the churches he's done seminars and conferences in have put up. So I told him I would check that out. And I said, I would need to see the rules in the format first. And I said, I'll talk to JC and Brian. So we got off the phone that first day, called JC and Brian. And they're like, heck no. No way are we going to debate with Cody Zorn or his friend. And no way are we going to his church. According to Cody, JC wouldn't come because he's not even a saved person. Yeah, I mean, that does make sense. That makes sense. So at least I got to be saved. Like I just found out 45 minutes ago, I'm saved. Like I've been serving Jesus for 20 something years. I've been in the ministry. I've been leading people, the Lord. And like, yeah, God in his divine providence allowed Cody to be the one to inform me that I get to go to heaven. And even though I'm incredibly deceived and, you know, I don't know. But anyway, so JC and Brian were like, they're a lot smarter than I am. So they were like, heck no, we're not going to that debate, whatever. And they pretty strongly in the beginning encouraged me not to. They're like, it's going to get nasty. We just don't want to take part in stuff like that because we'll go back and forth with people. But we don't want to do something that dishonors God. And I told him, I said, look, I feel like God is leading me to do this. I've prayed about it. I've talked to some people I'm really close with and my pastor and my wife and some other people. And I've always wanted to be able to stand up and present my position on this issue because it was something I had to struggle through. Man, I studied for five years before I finally reached a position where I was comfortable declaring for a non-King James only position. Like my conscience was seared that if I did that, like I was fighting against God. I was rebellious. And so once I finally discovered truth, studied both sides out, trying to prove it, I came to this position. So I wanted to do it. And when he got the rules or the questions and the rules of the format back to me, I sent them out to guys like Mark Ward and two or three other guys that I'm really, really close with and that I trust. And every single one of them said, you got to change the questions. They're all biased towards the King James only position. They're all written from a King James only position. They're slanted that direction. And like it's their fake questions. They're written for their benefit. So there's no right way to answer them. And I said, no, I think I want to answer his questions the way they're worded. I didn't change one thing. I said, I'm willing to answer your questions this way. I'm willing to come onto your turf. And that's the way I saw it. They invited me. They got to write the questions. They got to pick the guy that challenged me. And I wanted to go on their terms and defend what I believe. So you didn't do any pushback to them on the questions at all? Zero. Okay. Zero. Were there only three or were there more that came down? You know, let's just state or how many did they send you? There were only three and he read them off exactly like they were worded when I got them. I had them printed off of my folder and I was going to point it out if he had changed anything up. He only changed one word because he had an English error in one of the questions, but he did say it right in the debate. So that's the only thing he changed. Gotcha. Now, did the format of the debate, was that the original format or did you change that at all? Well, because a debate that I've watched in the past and we talked about on the church split and we did that episode with them would have been more of a give your argument and have time for rebuttal and be able to cross examine each other. Yeah. Was that ever brought up or was that? It was exactly like we did it. That was how it was in and Cody stuck to the rules. He stuck to the format exactly. And we did agree that if a question went over and Mitch needed to finish, he could get a couple more minutes, but that I would get the same amount of time that he got extra. We never actually did that. I don't think maybe on one of the questions in the Q&A, but that was that was fine. But yeah, it was written exactly like that. And I was actually glad that there was no cross examination where we're just interacting back and forth. I would have been willing to do that, but it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. It would have just been talking over each other and more ridiculous arguments and answers. So I was thankful that wasn't in there because I got to state what I wanted to state without getting into a fighting match with somebody. Yeah. So you mentioned a little bit about how you were preparing for this for like five years and that kind of thing. But once you actually got the questions and you looked at what the, because when you go back and listen to the debate, you notice that, by the way, you do answer all of the questions and your responses. But you also did something that I was commending you from my recliner at home that you were spending time explaining why the question had faulty logic to begin with. And so what was what was your like you got the questions, you know, you're not going to really you know, you're going to do it on their terms. So what do you do? Like, where do you go? So I wrote out before I answered any of the questions, I sat down and I wrote out my goals for this debate. And I really haven't shared these with anybody. Let's go. Here is the folder. Come on, man. Look at that. You may not need the folder for this question. Yeah. So. Take me a minute. That was awesome. Oh, so it's actually not in this. It's in my notebook. But basically, I'll just I'll just tell you. Go ahead. I wish I could share with everyone the message that my wife was going back and forth with me on because she was at home with the kids. She really wanted to be there. We just couldn't find a sitter and she didn't want to bring the kids to something that could go crazy and, you know, be in church and stuff. But the whole time she said, I wish I'm glad I'm not there. I would be going off on people because she knew the same people that we knew that were there. So it was it was quite interesting to go back and forth through the messages with her. This should be. Oh, yeah. Pause real quick. This is probably a good moment of clarification for everybody listening that James and I actually grew up in the area. I'm a graduate of Rockwell Christian School. This debate took place in Rockwell, North Carolina. James grew up in Salisbury. I grew up in Salisbury. We we we grew up. Oh, John, come on. Just breaking my daughter's desk here. But we grew up in the area so that we're very familiar with the people and the area. So little parent parenthetical there. Sorry. Go ahead. No, that's OK. So this is the folder that are the little notebook that I use before it got transitioned over the folder. I had multiple notebooks. I had all kinds of files on my phone and it was it was just crazy. But one of the very first things I wrote down was my goals for this debate. The first one is to glorify God and how I represent him. Like that was my goal. If I could not do this and glorify God and represent what a true Christlike follower is and a disciple is, I didn't want to do it. And some of the ways I put down that I wanted to glorify him was by being kind to the opposition and being kind in a hostile environment by having boldness. I knew if I went in like a kitty cat, nobody was going to listen to me. So that's why I started off from the beginning kind of preaching more than I was just talking. Normally, I would not talk like that in a debate. And normally I wouldn't go that fast. But with the time limitations, I just kind of kicked it up in Cody Zorn mode. And I did that intentionally. We call that contextualization. So I tried to approach it where they would listen to me. So I knew I needed to be bold. Truthfulness was another way that I felt like I had to honor God. The other side absolutely played loose and fast with the facts and with history and the percentages. 90% of the world speak English. Yeah, I know. It's just things like that. That does not honor God because it's not true. And it represents poor scholarship and poor study. And then wisdom. I prayed for wisdom and I wanted to go in there and say things that people hadn't heard before. So glorify God. Then secondly, to earnestly contend for the faith. This all King James only positions and James White lists out five different positions. All King James only positions are not heretical and are not issues that attacked true Christian doctrine. But there are some things cultic about what Mitch and Cody believe. And even though Cody said he does believe people can be saved out of other versions, he brought in someone who clearly does not believe that. And that was his. That's on him. That's the egg on his face because he clearly knows. And Mitch never denied it for one second. And Cody didn't try to deny that Mitch believed that. It was obvious that that's what he believed. So I wanted to earnestly contend to the faith. And I also wanted to demonstrate the orthodoxy of my faith because they don't believe I'm a true Christian. And if they do finally come around and Cody, after what I said in the debate, says, OK, I can't deny that he's a Christian. He still believes that I'm heretical in the views that I hold and that I'm deceived. So I think I very clearly in the introduction demonstrated that I am orthodox in my faith and that they hold the variant position. So and then I wanted to expose some inconsistencies in their argument. And one of my biggest one of my biggest goals was not to get lost in the weeds. That was that was the thing that held my feet and anchored me was that I didn't want to get distracted. I wanted to stick to the points to answering the questions. So what I did was I came up with a strategy and basically I had three points that I wanted to address in each of these issues. And to me, these were the biggest thing and the biggest idea of question one was that this is not a Christian doctrine. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints. You don't get to add new doctrines in the 17th century. This could not have been a Christian doctrine that was passed down by the apostles. So if it's not a Christian doctrine, we're just talking about preferences. And if I establish that, which I believe I did, the whole debate is a moot point because Christians can have different preferences. That's that's biblical. We're not to the weaker brothers, not to hold the stronger brother and the stronger brothers, not to hold the weaker brother, whichever position you think you're in. We're allowed to have differences in preferences. So I thought right off the bat and I repeated it all in the intro, in the first point, second point, third point, all the questions. I tried to come back to that over and over and over again. And we're debating about something that is not an essential Christian doctrine. Second of all, it's not even a secondary or third level Christian doctrine. It's not a Christian doctrine. It's a matter of principle and preference. And I'm perfectly fine with someone preferring the King James Bible. It's a great translation. And I lean that direction myself because I consulted every sermon that I study. I look at the original language. I look at the King James. I look at the ESV and sometimes a few other versions. But so so going into it, that was my goal in the first question. The second question, my big idea was preservation. I just wanted to point out how they don't even understand what preservation is. And they have a very weak position on preservation. For the third question, it was. The fact that the King James translators used textual criticism and how it was developed. And so I spent a lot of time talking about how they did that. And the beginning of that question, I kind of went back and covered some stuff from question two that Mitch had said. That's the one time I went off script, but it was it really needed to be. And really, I just finished up some things that I didn't have time to say in question two. And then I streamlined what I did in question three. But those that that was my goal. Basically, those three things. That's great. And that's a it's a great insight of how you did. As we go a little bit towards the question side and some takeaways of the debate, as we're thinking about it, and I don't want to forget this question. Were there any questions from the floor that you weren't expecting? Anything that that was said? Hold on, James. I'm sorry. I don't want to get to the question and answer portion. And I know that we're not our intentions and we talked with this, Nathan, about this. Our intentions are not to go step by step through the debate. We'd be here for six hours. But I guess you had it was obvious you had planned, you had prepped. And can I say this? Maybe this should be a statement that I make at the very end. But I do want to say, Nathan, you're what how you presented your your your your argument and the way you conducted yourself, I would say, was a check. And I think that's what I've accomplished because I know I've already had conversations with people who lived there, who watch you watch the debate, who are King James only and have said, I've got a lot more respect for Nathan that I do. Mitch. And I think the exact quote from this. This is a independent, fundamental Baptist pastor made this statement. I believe this is the direct quote. You could tell one was prepared and one wasn't. And he said, I have a lot of respect for that guy now. You know, you you were you were affecting if not only just from our side of things. Yeah, we got it. But, you know, from the other side, it may not have been in that room. But there were people watching that were affected. Well, thank you for saying that. And I and I will say this. People told me going in, you won't change anybody's mind. Don't go in there with that goal. Just go in there to present your side and to handle yourself with grace. And but I was still praying that people's eyes would be open and I would present things, which if they were listening and if they're intellectually honest, they're going to have to deal with that. With some of those questions, the 1680, the 1769 and the 1611. Never address section. Never address. Never answer. Because there is no answer. The only way to answer is to lie, which Mitch has done for 40 years. I heard him multiple times saying there were no changes, only printing and spelling errors. He has lied to churches all across the country. I pointed that out and he didn't even address it, which which tells me he's not ignorant. He's intentionally deceiving people. So so, you know, I went in there and I believe that some people have. Well, I know for a fact that some people had questions that they don't know how to answer now. And it's not that I was trying to trick them up. I was trying to ask honest questions that they can they can study everything. I said it's out there. It's on the Internet, whether Mitch sees it or not. It's on the Internet many times over. And believe it or not, I've had multiple people call me and tell me they're no longer King James only. These are independent Baptist King James only men that said, you know what, I'm I'm transitioning to a preferred because this is not a doctrine. And, you know, I don't know how to answer the questions and it's not something I can hold with conviction. And I'm going to study it out more. But I'm no longer King James only. I praise the Lord for that. And that's not one person. That's multiple people. Even more people in the King James side have contacted me privately and said and I would never say their names or say anything specifically about them because they're struggling through this. And you know what it's like to be in a hostile environment. But many dozens of people have contacted me and said they appreciated how I handled myself and they have to study this deeper for themselves because they're not sure they can hold this position any longer. So they haven't said I've switched that. I know a lot of quite a few people that did specifically say that. And the biggest answer of prayer to me is is there are people in my family that would be in one aspect, one of the five categories, not where Mitch is at, but one of the categories of King James only is. And multiple people in my own family, immediate family and extended family have contacted me and said they were proud of me, which blew me away. That meant everything to me. They said they're proud of me. My own dad said he's proud of me and he thought I handled myself well. He thought I won the debate hands down and that I represented myself well and showed the fruits of the spirit and honored God. And it's opened doors within my own family to have better conversations, even about my podcast and about the debate itself. So that was that was an answer to prayer. Well, for many people, I really believe that was the first time they'd ever heard another viewpoint. You know, which blows my mind because I seriously spent five years watching YouTube videos, downloading manuscripts of debates from the Internet, looking up textual criticism, studying it out for myself, which is still hard to explain and understand. But I had to understand what it was. I mean, I spent hours and hours studying both side, reading Gail Ripplinger's book. Oh, my goodness. That is so painful and ridiculous and poor representation of the position. It's not readable. It's not readable. Mitch's quotes came out of that book and his arguments and, you know, the other half were from Ruckman himself. So you said something to me off the air, John, that I think you should say I called I called Mitch Knup on the fact that he's just spouting Ruckmanism. And he got up afterwards and said, I did not learn what I learned from Ruckman. I learned it from this other guy. He mentioned three names. He mentioned three names. He mentioned the first guy. I can't remember what the name was. He mentioned the second guy named Bobby Utley and a third guy named Daryl Dunn. I've heard preaching tapes of Daryl Dunn, but he's from Tennessee Temple. I don't know much about Daryl Dunn or his influence, but Bobby Utley has been a pastor in that area for decades. And if you walk into Bobby Utley's church, there is a portrait of Peter Ruckman in the lobby. Tell me he's not influenced by Peter Ruckman. So since he wasn't a direct student of Ruckman, he learned from another Ruckmanite. That doesn't make him a Ruckmanite. That's brilliant. I love it. The first one, John, was a guy named Pastor. His pastor's name is Pastor Faggart. Paul Faggart. Right. Yes. Okay. His Paul Faggart son was in the crowd, which is his pastor's son, and asked him a question during the debate. Yeah, that was interesting. It was very interesting. Well, I was going to ask you. I'm sorry, James. I'm interrupting. No, you're good. You're good. One of my best friends was there. His son or his brother was there. He came over to me, and he's like, man, I'm so glad to see you here. He said, man, Mitch is so, so, so great, man. He's got a license tag. It says 1611 KJB. He wouldn't even call it a version. It's a Bible. He's going on and on. I looked at him, and his name is Samuel, and I said, Samuel, you know I'm not here on that side of the debate. And his eyes, I mean, got as big as John's microphone. It was huge. I love it. And he said, what? And I said, yeah, man. I said, about five, six years ago, I said, I've studied it for myself. I listened to debates. I listened to the Ankerberg show and read some books. And I said, it was very clear to me that I can't be an only position. I said, the only thing I can be only about is Jesus. And so I said, I can't be only about a book that was written in the 1600s. I said, so, and I said, maybe afterwards we'll talk about it. And he left a little quick. We didn't get a chance to talk, but it's fine. But what I wanted to ask was, I know that you had prepared statements and you were really sticking to your material. Did you intend or were you tempted in any of the process to respond to some of the stuff? Because Mitch followed zero format. And I'll say this. Cody pointed out that, or he said on the second question that he felt like neither of you answered the question. I'll say this. I rewatched the debate. I don't think Mitch ever answered any of the three questions. He didn't. Yeah. No. So were you ever tempted or intended to respond to what he was saying in the moment? So here's the situation. Mitch did not have to answer the questions because Mitch wrote the questions. Come on. And they are his position. So he did not have to answer them in all fairness. Mitch wrote the questions. That was obvious from my conversations with Cody. And so those questions were basically explaining his position. So, you know, he really didn't have to because those are the positions he holds word for word. And, you know, he didn't go into detail. He went to conspiracy theory. He went to numerology. He went to faulty logic, bad history. He went to all those places. And that's one of the jabs I took at him was you can call it numerics if you want to, but it's numerology. I mean, that's semantics. But anyway, so I was very tempted. Multiple places. If you watched the debate, multiple places, I would start writing down things and start going through like I'm developing this whole stream of thought. And I would just set my pen down and be like, nope, I'm sticking in my script. I would look back at my notes and think if I say this, I'm not going to get to one of my really big points that I wanted to that I wanted to make. So I would set it down. The only place I adjusted was at the beginning of the third question. Mitch went first. I came in next. And I had to go back to question two because I didn't finish my thought. And it related to what he was saying. And so I was very tempted. But I will say this. I was so prepared for this because thanks to Mitch, his storyline hasn't changed in 40 years. He preaches the exact same thing everywhere he goes. And I listened to a wide enough variety of his sermons that I was able to prepare for every category he was going to approach. And so my biggest points that I really wanted to point out, for example, not only numerology, but the biggest one that I felt like he just absolutely walked into a trap was the principle of first mention. And he called it the law of first mention. I was very prepared for that with the first mention of perfect. So that was in my notes. I skipped over it because of time. But when he on the second or the third question said something about the law of first mention and he laid into it and basically put all the weight of his argument on that, I flipped back to my first question where that was at and had to read that. So that was one place I adjusted, but I didn't go outside of my notes. I just adjusted back to that. And then I read the ending of what I said about King James doing textual criticism and everybody doing textual criticism. And then I jumped into the third question. But I went through that fast enough that I was able to cover most of the topics. But, yeah, it was it's so hard not to jump on lies, ignorant statements, inconsistencies, because he literally argued one point in question one and then came back on question two and argued the opposite side for multiple times. He did that. Multiple English and American. Yes. He says, I we don't even speak English. And then, you know, he said, we speak American. And then on question three, he said, and it's on YouTube now, thanks to sermon clips. He said, I speak English. I'm an English speaker. And he just totally destroys his own argument. And that's really hard not to jump all over. But I just had to let it go. So many things I just had to let go. But the good thing is we have things like this. And I'm going to do some videos. I've got some surprises coming up, some videos I'm going to do walking through the debate. And Church Split is going to walk through the entire debate and comment on it, which is going to be. It's going to be like a four hour show. Hilarious. Four hours. It's going to be 12 hours. I mean, it's going to be crazy. You know how Will is. Will is like me, man. He wanted to be up there debating like he he would have taken that challenge anytime. Like and I hope they challenge him one day. I think he would do a great job. But yeah, he's he's going to have fun going through that. James, you want to go to some of the question and answer now? Yeah, we can jump in a couple of those. The question I asked a minute ago, were there any questions from the floor that you weren't expecting? Anyone to ask? Was there anything that took you by surprise? Like, whoa, I wasn't expecting that or. No. And it looked like that. And that's part of the painful process of me sticking to my game plan, because when they ask questions, for example, one of my dad's friends, I think his name is Jason. I wish I could remember his last name. But he he came up to me before the debate and said, hey, I knew your dad. And then during the question and answer, asked that question. And then we talked afterwards and we've messaged each other afterwards. But he came after me about the Pascha question, the Passover and the Easter question, which for me, that's getting lost in the weeds. We can agree to disagree, whatever. If you think there's good reasons that King James, you know, made an exception for for that word that one time when it's translated 28 other times a different way. Like that's not a word for word. And that, to me, argues against the King James position. But I've read all the arguments on that and I could honestly kind of fall one way or the other. I could probably be convinced out of that position. But my position is that it should have been translated Passover. It's just it's obvious. And so when he asked that question to me, that's a one word answer. No, I don't. I don't think the King James got that right. Next question. But he he pushed it and he thought he was going to get to debate me like that's not how question and answer times go. You don't get to say, oh, really? Well, what about the fact that the Passover if this, this, this and this? And I just turned and looked at Cody and said, you know, I didn't come to debate him. He does. He does. That was part of part of the issues with maybe the format, because normal the normal debates, you have audience questions. And it's like they get a time to ask the question. The responder debate participant gets maybe 60 seconds to respond. Yeah. You guys five blessed minutes. That was ridiculous. And, you know, and the first time I just kind of took a couple of minutes, maybe a minute to answer it. And then the next question, Mitch capitalized on the five minutes and talk the whole five minutes, not about what they asked, but just about stuff he wanted to say. So after that, I was like, OK, I need to just answer the question and then take it in the direction of what I want to talk about and basically reciprocated what Mitch did. And but it was a little bit annoying because I would have rather stuck to the question and answer time. But yes. So for me, when you see me pausing and hesitating and kind of like making a decision, the decision is, do I want to get caught up in the weeds and get drawn into this debate when I don't really even think it matters for this, the overall topic and the points I wanted to drive home? So once I worked through that issue and started kind of branching out and answering, you know, some of the things like showing the poster, I didn't get a chance to show the poster in the where I had it in the debate notes and the point because I ran out of time. I reverted back to that when Stormy asked me that question and got to use the poster because it related to what she was saying. Yeah, I do think that that's a great thing and a great thought. I just there's so many questions and I know we're not going to go through all of them that were said and things that were done. Even even what you just said with the five minute rebuttal. I mean, that sets it up right from the bat that you're only going to get six, maybe seven questions. Yeah, he's almost limiting because he didn't want to ask other people outside of. And we talked about it before, but from me sitting there, it felt like he had picked who was going to ask questions from beforehand. And I know we're not going to get into that, but I don't I'm going to push back. Me and James like to get into it a little bit. And so I'm going to push back on you, James. Number one, we don't know what he was thinking. We don't know what his motivation was or what his heart was. And another thing is I do want to give credit to where credit was due. And I think Nathan has been very consistent on that part that I think Cody did a phenomenal job at, you know, just just keeping it, you know, cool and calm and collected and and just, you know, showing kindness to you. Yeah. And I don't know if you caught this, but he turned at one point and said, hey, I think I've been a very unbiased moderator. Don't you think I'm don't you think I'm unbiased and or something like that? He used the word unbiased a couple of times and I looked at him and I was just like in my brain. I'm thinking there's you are absolutely biased. You're the definition. You're the epitome of bias because you hold to one of these positions. So you can't be an unbiased moderator. But the questions were biased. What he meant was I've been fair and I stuck to the rules and and I said, you've done a good job. I wouldn't say you're unbiased because that that's ridiculous. There's no way he can claim that. But he did a very good job. He stuck to the rules. He did what he said he was going to do. And I applaud him for that. I know the RFP fam is going to come at me now like, I can't believe you said nice things about Cody. I've said a lot of nice things about Cody and we've been texting and having conversations ever since the debate. So I disagree with him strongly, but I think he's a good guy. I think he's a good old boy and I think he's doing what he thinks is right. Yeah, I thought it was. I thought he did a pretty good job as well. He came and talked to me twice once before and then once at the very end, we spent about three, four minutes talking. And it was very cordial. I mean, I thought, man, this is good. I'm glad we were able to talk and discuss. And I said, I told him this. I said, I thank you for allowing a debate or this type of talk to be done. We need more of this on both sides. Yeah, it was very bold. It was very bold of him to do it because he's taken heat. Like there are a lot of people on Twitter that's like, there's nothing to debate. This is not a debate. What are you doing? You're opening the King James Bible for debate. This is a settled issue. And so he took a lot of heat from his side and he took a lot of heat from his side after the debate because his side performs so poorly. But I applaud him for having that. I don't expect a whole lot more of them. I think everybody's going to kind of move in because you know how the club is. The big name preachers will move in and cut him off at the knees. And he says he's not anybody's puppet, but the big boys will pull him back because he. From his position, he shouldn't have done what he did, but I applaud him for doing it. And I think it I think it shows his heart, at least. Yeah, his circle is going to get smaller. He's not going to get the invites to anyone else, any big name. I mean, he's not going to get this platform that he wants to have because of some things that he's done. And I think that's where you're going with that. Yep. I did want to say one thing publicly, too, because there was a there was an accusation. I don't know if accusations too strong of a word, maybe the perfect word, but made towards those that were in support of Nathan that were in the and at the debate in person and said that Cody and his church members felt that they were unkind or fair say. Maybe he didn't say unkind, but fair say it was definitely a word that was used. And the example was used on how many of his people came and shook your hand, Nathan, and expressed kindness to you. But none of the visitors from Nathan's side did the same to Mitch, and it was noticed by his people. And so James being there, I think we need to have enough humility about ourselves to reflect on, OK, is this a valid accusation? So I wanted to address it publicly. And I asked James about it off air. And so what James had to tell me was was actually very, I think, enlightening to that accusation. So, James, I think you said that. Well, at one point that I go ahead, James, you say what you what you were telling me earlier. Yeah. So I drove an hour to get there. I left my house about 1030, got back about 630 after everything was said and done. I know some guys drove six, seven hours. A guy was there from Chattanooga. I mean, Nathan himself drove. I mean, he didn't get back for the debate recap to 11 o'clock. So you could tell he drove a ways as well. So I definitely wanted to talk to Nathan. I hadn't met him in person yet. And so I made my way over. There was a line. And I waited. I got up and I was talking to Nathan. He didn't know that I was from for freedom or anything. And then once I had never seen your face before. And once I introduced myself, we were talking. But then, I mean, someone else came up and he basically blew me off and started talking to someone else. Signing notebooks. I'm sorry, dude. Oh, my goodness. James, let me tell you something. Nothing in the debate caused me nervousness or stress. Like, people can accuse me of stuff. People can come after me. People can lie about me. I don't get stressed out about that. When there are three people or two people wanting to talk to me at the same time, I get so stressed out because I want to talk to both of you. And if there's 10 people in line, which at certain times there were, like, I want to talk to every one of them. I want to have deep conversations with every one of them. If someone starts talking while someone's talking to me, like, I think the proper thing to do is keep talking to this person. But I'm always, like, looking back and forth. So, dude, I don't even remember what happened. I was just throwing a little jab at you. I'm horrible in those situations. I love it. That's funny. So, he did that. And I knew there was a lot of people there. So, I didn't want to waste his time. I said, hey, that's what I came to say. And so, I sort of walked over to where Mitch was at. Man, his line, there were five, six people up on stage with him. The line was down and wrapped around by the piano. And so, I sort of stood there talking to Cody, hoping the line would die down. But no one was leaving his area. I looked at my clock. I'm like, man, it's already 5, 5, 10. I know what time I'm going to be getting home. And so, I told Cody, I said, hey, man, thanks for allowing me to come. I was trying to talk to Mitch, but his line's just too long. So, I'm going to head on out. Went on out, said hey to a couple people I knew. Got in my truck, left, got home about 6, 30. So, for me, it wasn't that I was trying to blow Mitch off. It's just there were so many people around him. I couldn't get there. So, I'm not going to waste my time. And so, most of everybody that was there was driving. They didn't have a five-minute drive home. There were two people that James were guests with James that were there in support of Nathan. They actually even left the bay early because it was going so long. They needed someone to be somewhere. So, I think that needs to be taken into account that people didn't just have a five-minute drive home. They had to, you know, they had a road trip ahead of them that they had to make on a Saturday. I think it goes a little bit deeper than that, too. And I think you guys are trying to be kind. And I appreciate that because that's my heart as well. But I think it goes deeper than that because on one of the questions, a young lady asked Mitch a question about her husband's salvation and asked a question about, you know, respecting each other's positions. And Mitch replied to her and put her in a position of, and I quote, harlotry to the point where her husband stood up and he was fighting mad because he used that word referring to the position of his wife. Now, he didn't call her a harlot, but he did speaking to a woman, you know, used that word for the first time and put her in a position of spiritual harlotry where she's trying to join the truth with error. And he did not affirm that her husband was saved because he was saved out of the NIV Bible. So, one, he's using very offensive language to people on our side. He clearly, throughout the debate, made it clear that he does not think we're even Christians and we're even saved. So why would we want to go talk to him? You know, I was respectful to him. I shook his hand. I had multiple conversations, not about the Bible, but about just random stuff about his health, about our families, about different things. I had a lot of conversation about him, but when someone, like, disrespects the most important part about your life, your spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ, the creator of the world, and doesn't think you're a believer, why would people want to walk up to him and say, thank you for doing this? People were coming up to me and saying, thank you for respecting my position. Thank you for being kind, for showing the love of Christ, for preparing. Thank you for these things. That's just a level of human decency that Mitch did not achieve. And, you know, basically to put it in everyday words, Mitch was a jerk in the debate. And so I don't blame our people for not wanting to go talk to him. That was one thing also. Cody wasn't a jerk. Cody wasn't a jerk. He was nice to everybody there. Mitch was aloof and condescending to everybody. There was one thing else. I sent this to both of you guys last night because I was rewatching a debate. And I thought this was worth mentioning because it is concerning to me that this was evident in maybe the hearts of their people. That Mitch made a statement somewhere in one of his his ramblings of one of the questions where he said, I'm not telling you what I got off the Internet. And that statement right there got as much noise and amens and praise than the entire testimony you gave about you coming to Christ and Christ saving you and your introduction of the proclamation of the doctrines that you believe that they should agree with as well. That I would say that if we ask them one by one, each thing they said, yeah, I believe that silence. Now, why is that statement worthy of such excitement and a man? But someone that is actually talking about when God saved their wretched soul and set it on a right path is not worth any consideration. Because that was a big jab at me that everything I said came off the Internet. And as you know, you can prove either side from the Internet. There are there are lies on the Internet. You have to verify what you do. But a lot of my prep time was on the Internet because I'm I live in the 21st century. And, you know, I have access to it. And it is like there are books that I referenced that are in libraries in England that I can go through original manuscripts of. Translations, King James translation, different things like that. The Bishop's Bible, I can reference things like that and see them for myself. I referenced actual books that are the writings of Tyndale and different people like that, that Mitch will never have access to sitting in his at this kitchen table reading all hours of the night. Like he said, he's done for 40 years. And that's why his study and preparation is so much superior to mine because mine came off the Internet. So I'm very, very careful about the way I study and prepare for sermons and for debates. And I think that was obvious from the debate. But that was a slam at me. The whole slam about which I thought was hilarious about my notebook. You won't need your notebook for this one. Like I thought I thought that was hilarious. But it's a slam at intellectualism, trying to study and using our God given brains to to prepare and to present a case. Anti-intellectualism is strong in the IFB. And in certain pockets of it, especially Cody's, you'll hear him say over and over and over and over and over again, him and Mitch and people like that, that, you know, they don't need a cemetery education. Don't send your kids to the cemetery. Don't send your kids to colleges because they'll lose their faith. Well, that's because you're not making disciples out of your kids. That's that you're you're brainwashing them and teaching them behavior modification and to check off a checklist. And they're not strong disciples of Jesus. Now, there are certain places I would say I don't want to send my kids to because I don't want to immerse them in postmodernism and theological liberalism. But. That doesn't mean you have to be anti-intellectual. Yeah, well, let's go ahead and transition. Time is getting away from us to our very last question. And with this question, I do have a question on top of it because I've watched a little bit of Cody since the debate, the Sunday message. And I did not see this happen, maybe because of where I was sitting. Maybe you saw it. But what are some of your takeaways now a week after as we transition away from this? But Cody said on Sunday he was thinking a couple of people. He was thinking the the greeting team and the security team. And then he made this statement. He said our security team had to escort one lady out for being disruptive during the debate. I never saw that. They did. And it's interesting that she was on their side. He didn't say that. He didn't say that. He just. I thought it was one of our people that were like crazy and they had to take them out. Yeah, this lady's in a long dress. She's handing out King James tracks to all the people in the lobby and arguing with them because she didn't think any of them were true Christians, including Mitch's people. And so she's out there. Almost every event, you'll have some wacko come out there and preach with a megaphone and hand out crazy cultish stuff. Well, Cody even made the comment to me that the track she was handing out was a very good King James only track. And he agreed with everything in the track, but that her attitude was bad. So it was someone on his side that she was out there. They told her she was going to have to leave. They argued with her, threatened to escort her out. She said, my husband is in there. So they she finally walked out, got in her car. They walked and they said, you can't go back in, but we'll go in and tell your husband. They went back in and told her husband. He stayed for a little while. Then he left. And I guess they drove off. But that that whole story was was twisted. See, I perceived it as there was because he said a disruptive woman was escorted out. I think it was the word he said. I took it as one of the RFP fam was being disruptive. Nope, absolutely not. That's that's how I took it. He yeah. So what but what are some of your takeaways now week after you've got people who have reached out to you? I even had a lunch with a guy on Tuesday of this past week, and he wanted my thoughts on the debate and how things were. He knew some of the people in that circle. He's not King Jones King James only by any means, but it was an interesting lunch that I had with him. And so I know you've had more than than I've had. But what's your thoughts? The debate could not have gone any better for my side and for our position. It just absolutely could not have. Mitch was an embarrassment to his side. And I'm quoting dozens of people, including Brandon, the guy that wrote the article. He was an embarrassment to that position. He was not prepared is his logic, his history, his conspiracy theories really dishonored that position. And he was the most extreme point of that position. And all the rhetoric since then, Cody, Brian Green, whom I like and is a great guy. Brian Green preached the next day in Cody's pulpit and said some ridiculous things. And they're they're all, you know, coming after me. It just proves that their inconsistencies were exposed. They don't have a valid argument. So they have to attack us. They have to say J.C. Groves isn't saved, that Brian Edwards is saved, but he's got big issues that I'm saved, but I'm not truly in ministry. I'm deceived. I'm being used by the enemy, even though I'm a Christian. They have to attack us on those points because their argument is inadequate. Yeah. J.C.'s not saved, but at least he's not telling people from the pulpit they should go to hell. Yeah, exactly. Or saying, let me say, let me clarify, saying from the pulpit that he tells people to go to hell. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Well, James, you got any closing comments? The only closing statement I want to say is the closing statement that Nathan gave after, what's his name, Kaiser? Kiker? Yeah. After Kiker. Kiker. After Kiker gave that question, your closing statement was probably the mic drop of all mic drops. I was hoping you were going to take your lapel off and just drop it. Because it was basically saying, and if you haven't watched the debate, go listen to the last five minutes of what Nathan said. He said, based on what you have said today, Mitch, my life and what I've lived and everything I've said, I'm basically still splitting hell wide open because I don't agree with one statement that you agree on is the King James only. And I was just, I mean, I was the guy that I started every round of applause for you. I was saying, come on. I was saying, amen. I was in your corner. And I said some of the same things for Mitch. He said some things that, yeah, were true, but the things that weren't true, I wasn't going to amen. I'm just like you said some statements that he said, and they were the exact same. And I, I agreed with both of them. But yeah, it was, it was definitely that, that statement that you said at the very end was, was fire. The funny thing is that, thank you. But the funny thing is when people started posting on Twitter and Facebook, that that was the best moment. And that when I delivered the gospel at the end, that that was the mic drop moment, that that was the best part of the whole debate. I didn't even remember doing it because it was a question. It wasn't in my notes. It was off the top of my head. It was from my heart. So you, and when they said, no, I didn't need it. So when they said you present the gospel at the end, I thought, I don't think I presented the gospel at the end. And I had to go back and watch it. And I thought they were talking about when I presented the gospel in my introduction. But when I went back and watched it, I was like, oh, I don't really even remember saying that. It was just off. It was from my heart. And I stand beside it. And I mean it because if someone can die and go to hell while they're clinging to Jesus as their only hope, while they're clinging to the doctrines, the core doctrines of the Christian faith, while they're clinging to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then something's wrong with somebody's theology. Yeah. And see, that's where I wish that Cody as the moderator would have said, Mitch, do you have anything to say about what Nathan just said? Because he knows. That's a direct attack. Why would you not? Why would you not cross examine that and say he just said that about you? Do you want to have a time of rebuttal? Cody never. You can do that. Cody never argued the fact that Mitch believes anyone saved out of the corruptible seed Bibles is going to hell because he knows that's what he believes. And he's OK with it and lets Mitch preach in his pulpit and invited him to debate me. None of the questioners on Mitch's side tried to stand up for Mitch. Now, at one point, the audience did say, oh, he never said that. He never said that. And I said, he has said that multiple times after that. Cody, Mitch did not try to defend that. So they know that's his position. They're OK with that. Honestly, that's what Cody believes. He just can't be as dogmatic about it because it was it makes him look bad. And I did love when you said at one point, I'm saying these things because I'm here to debate Mitch. I'm not here to debate anyone else in this room. I'm not here to debate or question any of your thoughts. I'm here to debate what Mitch has said and what he has published by his own mouth on podcasts and sermons. I would have much rather talked about other points that are more relevant to the Christian faith and to the discipleship and to the Bible issue. I would have much rather spent three hours talking about those other things. But I was invited to debate Mitch. So I researched Mitch and I debated him. Props to you. I could have not put in that much time listening to his stuff. It was painful. And while I while I did keep my cool in the debate, praise the Lord, God gets the glory for that, because it wasn't easy. Driving down the road, listening to Mitch many times, I was screaming at my radio and it was playing through my phone. Over the radio, I was I was like many times I would pause it and just have out loud conversations about the the lies and the inconsistencies of his position. So I had plenty of time to prep. But, yeah, it was it was painful listening to that stuff. And I just I. I'm thankful for the opportunity to do it, but I won't be accepting any other invites for the rest of this year, at least because I need some time to to detox from some really cultic positions. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things I wanted to point out was that the information you gave in the debate was not I didn't learn anything necessarily new. There's all information that I had studied and myself and known myself and presented to. But there were a couple of points of logic that you had put in there that was I was like, man, that's great. I've never thought about that. And one of those was one of those was about how you said we don't have faith like people have faith in unicorns. We have faith like people have faith in Adams. I thought that was a fantastic illustration about that point. But one that you really did that I really liked, and I said this to James last night as I was listening to it, I said, you said Mitch said that the KJV is purified seven times. That's not possible if the Bible never needs to be purified. And I thought that nailed it. How do you improve on perfection? I don't understand that argument. It does not make sense. Even the and he came back and clarified that point because it was such a strong point. He came back and said the English language needed to be purified. Well, if the English he teaches a pure line doctrine and if the line was not pure at any point, for example, I don't think I brought this out as much as I wanted to in the debate. But for example, he says, I think it's less, but he says that 92% of Tyndale was used in the King James Bible. If 92% of Tyndale was good enough to be translated straight over to the King James Bible, what about the other 8% that wasn't? That's 8% contamination, which, by the way, and 8% perversion by his point, by the way, that's way more than the difference in the critical text and the received text. As they say, which is less than 1% of doctrinal variants. So it just falls apart. And going back to the point about unicorns and atoms, I was quoting an apologist and a pastor or teacher, James, not James, James Seyfried. That's who I was quoting. No, I was quoting Greg Boone, who is the director of Look Up Lodge. The dude is a monster of a teacher and monster of a theologian and apologist. So we're at summer camp this summer, and I'm learning all sorts of things with my youth group. Did you go to Look Up this year? Yes, I did with my middle and high schoolers. Where did you go? I was there, too. We go every year. That's awesome. I think I saw that on your social media. I was there June 27th through July 2nd, something like that. But, dude, it was awesome. And he's the one that talked about faith requires evidence. We don't have blind faith. And that happened right before my light just went out. That happened right before I started. Actually, I prepared for the debate the whole time I was there. But that point helped me understand and verbalize. So I definitely want to give Greg Boone props for that. And I had a lot of quotes and footnotes in my notes that guys like James White, Stephen Boyce, Timothy Berg, who I mentioned a couple of times, Mark Ward. Mark Wallnoffer is a good friend of mine in Pensacola, Florida, who used to be he was raised, born, raised and ordained at D.A. Waits Church. And he's no longer in that position. So, so many guys. And I'm leaving some out. Brian Townsend. Man, so many guys that helped me out processing this. And each one of them, when I sat down with them, I told them my approach and my three main points that I wanted to attack. Everybody affirmed those, said go for those points, but then helped give me some of their insight and really helped me with that. So it was a concerted effort. And I really appreciate everybody that helped me with that. Awesome. Awesome. Well, we were, we're thankful to be your friend and to know you and to be a part of this, this community and thankful for your, your stand. If I had a final comment, I would say today that one of the things that I do when I'm with someone in a counseling situation is you can, you can pick up on what's important to someone by what they emphasize and talk about. And I think it is very telling that only one of the debaters emphasized the gospel and, and, and about three and a half hours. And so I just want to say thank you, Nathan, for your, for your testimony and for your efforts in representing and glorifying God at the debate. Thank you guys. You guys are killing it. That your, your podcast is awesome. I love it and keep up the good work and cannot wait to see you face to face in bourbon, Missouri. Come on. Yes, sir. It's happening tonight. Come on, let's go. All right. Well, we want to appreciate everybody listening today and we are excited to see everybody in Missouri. And you, we want to ask you and, and to, to give this a share, like it, and give us a rating or review on your podcast platform. And I believe that's all for today. Hey, and John at bourbon, I'm going to bring in a mobile recording set that I can record on my phone. Yes. With a microphone. Yes. So if you want to grab us and give us sort of 10 minute, you know, what your story is in 10 minutes, man, come find us. Uh, we're, I think we're going to be bringing some free books. Me and John are. Yes. Yes. We are going to have, uh, I think 20, 20 copies. Yeah. 20. We're going to have 20 copies of gentle and lowly by Dane Orton that we're going to give out. Dude. That's such a great book. I loved it. We're going to be giving out some of those. I've got some stuff on my, my, my, my, my library that I'm going to bring in, um, that you guys can, everything on our tables will be free. Just come by, talk with us, hang out with us. And, uh, it's going to be a great time. So, Hey guys, my love language is books. So do you have that book? I do. Okay. So he don't need. Yes. Yeah. All right. Well, all right. Here it is. Until next time to God, not the King James be the glory. Hey, man. Thanks for listening to the for freedom podcast. To find more content like this, please visit RFP network.org to find more podcasts like this one resources and meetups to encourage you on your journey. Oh, I will. Thank you. Thank you.

Auto-generated transcript · 12,531 words. May contain errors.