(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Dr. James White, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Good to be with you. Could you just start out just by telling us who you are, a little bit about yourself? I really don't matter. I'm just a funny looking fellow of Scottish descent, an elder in the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, director of Alpha Omega Ministries. We're a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, and been involved in, well, I started off with Mormonism, was my primary focus, did a lot of work with them, and that expanded out to Jehovah's Witnesses and hence into the area of the Trinity, deity of Christ, things like that. Right. Then I moved into dealing with Rome Catholicism. We've done over 40 debates with leading Catholic apologists over the years, especially like Mitch Pacwa, the Jesuit scholar who speaks 12 languages. We've had really good debates with him. And then really part of that, and what's relevant to us, is when I was a Bible college student, I remember opening my UBS back then, third edition corrected, which is dating me a little bit, and I remember asking my professor, I said, what are these notes at the bottom of the page? And he said, that's where the manuscripts differ from one another, and that's the information. I was already talking to Mormons, and I immediately realized how vitally important this was. And so even in the seven years of Greek study that I did before I started teaching the language, I was always focused upon that. And in that process, I come from a long line of Baptist pastors. My parents came home from a trip down south, and they told me about the King James only controversy going on in the south, and churches splitting over it and stuff like that. What do you mean? Tell me about this. And so this was back during the days when David O. Fuller was still alive. What year is this that we're talking about, approximately? This would be about 1984-ish, somewhere around the middle of the 1980s. So I started collecting material from David O. Fuller, which Bible society, then I started running into Peter Ruckman, as everyone always does eventually. And so I actually corresponded with David O. Fuller. I started doing some studying. This is while I was still in Bible college. I graduated in 85. And then I went on to seminary, and nothing more really focused upon that. But then in 1994, I think, a volunteer called me as I was about to leave the office and go home, and she said, there's this weird lady on the Christian radio station. You need to tune this in. And I tuned in. Well, it's not even a Christian radio station here in Phoenix anymore, but it was then. And I encountered Gail Riplinger, and I got home too late to really get into the program. So I contacted the host, and I said, you've got to have somebody on to respond to this stuff. And he says, well, nobody will debate her. She says, nobody will debate her. I said, I will. And so, well, she won't debate anybody who hasn't read her book. So I went down to the radio station. They gave me a copy of New Age Bible versions. And I don't know if you've heard the resulting two programs that we had with Gail Riplinger, but they were the last times she ever allowed herself to be put in that situation. It was pretty amazing. Well, what happened was I took the notes that I had typed up, and we started getting contacts from Christian bookstores all across the United States going, we're constantly getting hit with this. Can you send us that material? So we put together just a little booklet, and it was going to all 50 states and outside the United States. We were amazed. And so one day I was talking with my editor at Bethany House. I had written some books with Bethany House on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, other issues. And we were talking about it. It sort of got quiet. And sort of at the same time we said, hmm, there's a book here, isn't there? And I wrote The King James Only Controversy in about four months in 1994. The only reason it took us long to get out was because Gail Riplinger threatened to sue us so many times in the process. Really? Yeah. And so they wanted to make sure that all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted and all the rest of that kind of stuff. And so it came out in 1995, and I think it's had a pretty major impact as far as there was another book out at the time by D.A. Carson, but it was a very small book. There were a lot more examples that I went into. And it's been used as a textbook in a lot of Bible colleges. I know Southern Seminary uses it. And it's been very important also in that, for example, I just returned a few days ago from South Africa. And I did six debates against Muslims in South Africa over about seven days. Two of them were in mosques. Four of them were in universities. One of them was actually in the masjid. I stood in front of the Qibla right next to the mambar that had never happened in South Africa and to our knowledge hasn't happened in the world in our lifetimes. It's just an amazing opportunity to stand there and debate on sin and salvation with one of the leading Islamic apologists in the world. Well, let me tell you something. Textual critical issues, the manuscripts, the liability of the New Testament, central to dealing with Islam. Because ever since a book came out in the 1870s called Itzar al-Haq, the Muslims are absolutely convinced that the Christian scriptures have been utterly corrupted, that we have no idea what they originally said. And so this area is extremely vital. I've debated Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, you know, these types of critics along those lines, and any more because of the internet, because of the popularity of books by Bart Ehrman and people like that. If we send our children off to university without having grounded them before they get there, we're idiots. I mean, it's like sending people with American flags on their shirts into Afghanistan without preparing them for what they're going to encounter if they go there. So I think it's vitally important apologetically. I think it's vitally important pastorally as well. I mean, with all the other fun stuff I get to do, still I think calling to be an elder in the church is the highest calling you have. And so I've been preaching through Hebrews for three years, and I'm not the primary preacher. That's why it takes so long. But Reformed Baptists are known for being very slow preachers anyways. And I will address the difficult issues that especially Hebrews present, and sometimes they are textual critical issues. You can't dodge them because if you do, then you're leaving your people open. Let's just put it this way. Our enemies know our stuff real well. And if you don't cover everything, you're not really doing what's best for your people. So who am I? Nobody special. I've just had an incredible opportunity to do things. You kind of answered a little bit my first question that I wanted to ask you, and maybe you can elaborate a little more, or maybe just in a concise way, the dangers of King James Onlyism. Because obviously you felt that it was necessary to write a book to refute King James Onlyism. You obviously feel that this is something where people need to be corrected. So in a nutshell, what are the dangers? Why do you want to make sure that people are not King James Only? Well first of all, let me thank you for expressing it the way you did. The vast majority of folks who present a King James Only perspective present my book as an attack upon the King James Bible. Which it isn't. It isn't. Right. I clearly differentiate between King James Onlyism and the King James Bible itself, which I was raised on. And I firmly believe that there are wonderful saints of God that continue to use the King James to this day, and are not going to be in any way, shape, or form damaged, harmed, or anything else by their memorization of the King James or anything else. My dearly departed mom used a King James her entire life, and that was perfectly fine with her. That was no problem. Why am I concerned about it? Well, like I just said, my biggest concern is that honestly, from an apologetic perspective, I do not believe that the system can defend itself out there with the bar dermans, with the shabir alis, the man I was debating in South Africa, with the best opponents of the Christian faith. The reason is, I believe, that inherent in the King James Only mindset is a circular reasoning that makes it impossible for it to engage with the viewpoints outside of that narrow realm. I was raised as an independent fundamentalist Baptist. So I know the mindset, I know the realm, I know the experience there, and I simply am convinced that what you have in King James Onlyism is the application of standards to every other translation that are not applied to the King James. If you say, we have to be fair, we have to use even scales, we have to, whatever standard I apply to you, I have to be willing to apply to me. This is something that, again, is a part of the entirety of my apologetic ministry. The big thing I'm saying to Muslims right now is, you apply a different standard to my Bible than you'll apply to the Quran, and this is, every single one of them is locked into it. Let's stop for a minute, because I want to talk about something that you just said, if we can. But before we do, let me just start out just by telling you where I'm coming from, quickly, and then I want to stop and go back to the circular reasoning issue. First of all, I just want to tell you where I stand, is that I believe that the King James Bible is the word of God. I believe that it's without error, and I believe that the other versions that are coming out, the NIV, the New American Standard, that they're bad, that they're of the devil. That's my position. Now, in your book, you divided King James Onlyism into five groups, and obviously, I'm not going to say that those descriptions would exactly describe where I'm coming from. But if I had to choose one of your descriptions, I would put myself in category number four, meaning that I believe that the KJV is without error, because it is a perfectly accurate translation of the originals. Is it inspired? I believe it's inspired because to me, but I don't know if we have the same definition of inspired. I believe that inspired means God breathed, or that God spake these words. So when I say it's inspired, I'm not saying that the Spirit of God came upon the translators as they translated, but what I'm saying is that the product is inspired as far as the words that are in this Bible. This is what God said. It cannot be improved upon. No, I don't think it can be improved upon, because I believe that it's the word of God. This is what God said. Now, I realize that when God spake these words, he was speaking another language. But to me, that is irrelevant, because I believe that this is what God said, albeit this is an English version of what he said. I don't think that there's any difference between what God said when we're expressing it in Hebrew, or if we're expressing it in Greek, or if we're expressing it in English. This is what God said. So therefore, I say that the King James is inspired, because these are the words that God spake. But that's the only... It would be helpful to know exactly where you're coming from. For example, obviously you know that's not the 1611. That's some form of the 17th. We're going to talk about that later, the difference, because I brought the 1611 so that we can talk about that. But I mean, when you say those words over against any other, what makes... Let's use the closest translation. Why isn't the New King James inspired? Because it uses the same manuscripts. Well, it doesn't, because there are a lot of places where it goes against the TR, as you know. Not in the New Testament. It does, actually. There are actually a lot of places where it departs from the TR. So the reason that the New King James is not inspired... Now, individual verses in the New King James are inspired when they say the same thing that the King James says. For example, if the New King James is saying the exact same thing as the King James in a particular verse, which there are verses like that, then obviously that's what God said. Those words are inspired. The New King James says something different than what the King James... And I'm not saying the difference between a TH on the end of a word and an S on the end of a word. Obviously, we both know that that's the same thing. I'm saying when it says something that's actually different, like a word that has a different meaning. And there are many places where the New King James departs from the text of Persebus and departs from what the King James is saying. But I didn't want to get real deep into that yet, because I do have questions on that. I just wanted to let you know where I'm going from. But I will be able to have the opportunity to ask you, because one of the key issues for me... You're going to be able to ask me whatever you want. Well, the key issues for me is that in my conversations with King James-only advocates, a number of times, especially on key Christological passages such as Titus 2.13, where you have the description of the deity of Christ, but it is not clearly expressed, because Granville Sharp construction was not even known to the King James translators. The New King James renders it accurately. Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. I've had King James-only advocates actually attack the accuracy of the Granville Sharp construction to defend the King James. Would you do that? Is there any possibility? I mean, a rule that the King James translators themselves did not even know existed. It's found out afterwards. So there couldn't be an improvement anywhere in the King James at all. Here's the thing, though, because I read what you wrote about the Granville Sharp construction. Me personally, reading the King James Bible, my understanding of Titus 2.13 has always been that the blessed hope and the glorious appearing are the same thing, being restated with an and between them, and that looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ, that the great God applied to Jesus Christ. Now I realize that a lot of people would look at that verse in the King James and understand it differently, that we're talking about two different people. But even in the English language, the word and is often used to separate two equivalent things. Like, for example, many times in the King James it says God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we know that that's obviously the same person. So I believe that Titus 2.13 is accurate in the King James. I realize that these newer versions have changed it to make it unequivocal. But you would be against that. Well, I guess I'm not really an expert on the translation process from Greek and English, but I would say this. If it's saying the exact same thing in the New King James or the King James or the original Greek, then to me it doesn't matter if they're both saying the same exact thing. Okay. Does that make sense? It helps me to understand a little bit. I mean, I think there are still issues to be addressed there, but you said we'll get to them. Yeah, we're going to cover everything. I want to talk about circular reasoning. You basically say in your book that King James Onlyists use circular reasoning. Can you basically just define what you mean by circular reasoning? Yeah. Well, as I said in the opening chapter, my experience with King James Onlyists is that there is an equivalency made between the King James itself, and I think you just did that, the King James itself, and the Word of God. The King James Bible is the Word of God. I believe that. And so any statement that would say, well, this is a translation of the Word of God, and as such it has a history. There are differences between different editions of it, and it has to be analyzed just as the Geneva Bible, and the Wycliffe Bible, and Tyndale, and everybody before, and anybody that comes after. The King James Only position will apply critical thinking to the Bibles that come before, and the Bibles that come after, but they won't apply the same standard to the King James, because it becomes, and once you make it the standard, then you always just have to circle back around, and when you ask the question, well, why are you taking that position? Well, because I believe the King James is the Word of God. So I don't think you understood my question. Can you just basically explain what circular reasoning means in general? I see how you believe that circular reasoning applies to King James Onlyism, and I agree with you. I just want you to just define what you believe circular reasoning means in general. What is circular reasoning? In general, a person who is engaging in circular reasoning is making certain assumptions, and then, when asked or challenged to validate those assumptions, utilizes those assumptions as the basis of their argument. So it's creating a circle. So in the King James Only situation, you start with the assumption, this is my standard, and then, when asked, why is it your standard? Because it's my standard. That's not actually an answer. Now, you may go through 20 steps around the outside of the circle, but you're still coming back to the exact same thing. So here's my question for you. Why do we believe that the Bible, in general, is inspired by God? Well, you know, it's interesting. I think we might have different answers for that. I'm not sure what you're—well, I actually am aware of at least some of your theological perspectives, and that we would have fundamental differences in regards to the concept of Reformed theology. From my perspective, the reason that you believe that there is anything that is divine revelation comes back to your understanding of who God is, and the fact that, for example, my ability to communicate has to come from someplace. I am a speaking, reasoning creature. Where did that come from? It doesn't come from this world. It's not coming from natural selection or anything like that. It has to have an origin source in my Maker and my Creator. So my Maker and my Creator has to be able to speak, and has to be able to communicate. He has done so, and He has done so first and foremost in the person of Jesus Christ and the Incarnation. From that point forward, here's where I think we might have some difference, is as a what's called a presuppositionalist, a person who begins with the presupposition that God has spoken, and that outside of that there can be absolutely no human predication, human thought. We are dependent upon that starting place. I believe that there is, in fact, a proper place for a kind of transcendental circular argument, and that is that any ultimate source cannot appeal to a higher authority to establish its authority. For example, I think most Christians are wrong in their apologetic to point to...well, think of the things that people point to to substantiate the authority of the Bible. Fulfilled prophecy, archaeology, whatever these things be. I think all those things are important, and I think they can increase a Christian's faith. I don't think any of them prove that the Bible is true. But none of them can prove the ultimate authority of the Bible, because if you were to appeal to them in that way, you appeal from a lower authority to what? A higher authority. So if my ultimate authority is that which is theanustos, God breathed, I cannot appeal to anything above that, or I'm establishing that as a higher authority. But the difference is, you say we're saying the same thing, we're not. We're not saying the same thing. I'm talking about... I didn't say we were saying the same thing. Lest anyone think that we are. The difference, of course, is that what I'm talking about is the entire concept of a revelation from God, rather than a particular book, a particular translation of Scriptures in a language that did not exist when the actual act of revelation itself was taking place, which I believe ceased happening with the death of the last apostle. I do not believe there's any revelation since that period of time. Let me tell you why I believe that the Bible is inspired, and let me tell you what I think about the argument that you just made. I believe that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says that it's inspired when it says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, my belief in the Bible is completely circular because I am using the Bible itself to prove that the Bible is the word of God. If I said to an atheist, the reason I believe that the Bible is the word of God is because the Bible says that it's the word of God. The Bible says that it's inspired by God. That's why I believe that it's inspired by God. But if we look at what the Bible says the reasons for our faith should be, it says faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It also says that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. If we're going to use logic and rationale, like you said, if we were to appeal to history, archaeology, science, then our faith would stand in the wisdom of men, and it would not stand in the power of God. For me, the proof of the Bible is the Bible itself because faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is the evidence. The word of God is the evidence for itself. That is a circular argument. All of Christianity is a circular argument, but that doesn't mean that it's not legitimate just because some philosopher somewhere decided or some logic professor decided that that's circular reasoning. Call it what you want. It's biblical Christianity. You hear the word of God, you believe the word of God. It's that simple. My faith's not based on archaeology. There are many things that I would agree with there, but there's also something that fundamentally separates us as well. As a presuppositionalist, I do believe in the ultimacy of God's revelation. I do believe that the ultimate evidence of the inspiration of Scripture is the consistency of Scripture itself and its own testimony to itself. However, interestingly enough, when you make your circular argument that has only one step in it, I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. There's two issues there. I believe that the Bible is the word of God because God's Spirit that has taken out my heart of stone and given me a heart of flesh draws me to his word and gives me faith to believe what his word says. I agree with that. My concern was when you simplified it as much as you simplified it, there was a major foundational step that was taken out, and maybe you were just trying to simplify it, but the very existence of the triune God and the fact that there's communication between the divine persons is what provides the foundation for my being able to say that he has communicated, and therefore the Bible can be the word of God. There is, I think, something more there. Furthermore, my other concern is this, and that is when you said, well, I'll say that to an atheist, okay, I'll tell an atheist, you are God's creature and you are suppressing the knowledge of God right now, but those are not the first words I will say to the atheist. Wisdom would be, and I think the apostles give us an example, for example, in Acts 17, Mars Hill, is to lay a foundation upon which those words can be understandable. And so, if I were to say to an atheist what you said, I will eventually get to the point of what you just said, but recognizing I'm dealing with a fellow image bearer of God, I'm going to bring the fact that he is suppressing that knowledge of God to bear, show him his own inconsistencies, and then once I make my testimony, hopefully I've already taken away the grounds of his objection. So let me just tell you how I became King James. Are we agreeing too much? No, I mean, but this is a really key point. I know, but I mean, it sounds like we're having a break from the truth. That's okay. I mean, there's plenty that we disagree about. We're going to get to the stuff we disagree on. There will be plenty of that. But anyway, let me just tell you how I became King James only, and I'm sure that you would define it as a circular argument, which I'm fine with. But I started out as a child on the King James, you know, went to an independent Baptist church that preached from the King James, but I had not been exposed to the errors in the modern versions or the concept of King James only or that the King James was without error. No one ever really taught me why we were using the King James. We just used the King James. Well, when I was 12 years old, there were problems in our church. We ended up switching churches. My parents were looking for a church that was King James and conservative and sang the hymns and stuff like that. And they were really just struggling to find the church that they wanted. So they basically just kind of threw their hands up and said, I guess we're just going to join one of these more modern Baptist churches where all our friends go. So when I was 12 years old, we started going to churches that used the NIV. They had like a rock band. They were more contemporary. So from the time that I was 12 to the time I was 16, those five years, I went to a church that used the NIV for a few years, and then I went to a church that used the New American Standard for a few years. Now all that time I had the King James Bible. I didn't know anything about the differences. I didn't know that it was without error. I didn't believe that at that time, but for some reason I just always knew just from hearing the versions, hearing the NIV from the pulpit, hearing the New American Standard, something just didn't seem right. Something didn't sound right because I've got the King James in my lap and I'm listening to the NIV and I'm seeing the difference, and I just felt that the NIV was weak, watered down, just didn't sound like God's word. But then when I read the Bible or the King James Bible, I would look down at the Bible and it just made sense. And I believe that that was just the Holy Spirit bearing witness to me that this is his word. Now Jesus said, my sheep hear my voice. He said, a stranger will they not follow for they know not the voice of strangers. And I believe that when I was hearing the NIV, the New American Standard, I was hearing the voice of a stranger. I didn't recognize it as the voice of the shepherd. The Holy Spirit was bearing witness to me. This is not God's word. When I'd read the King James, let me just finish. I'm almost done. As I read the King James, God's Spirit testified unto me that it was his word. I didn't get that from the new versions. A few times I was confronted, you know, why do you have the King James? Because everybody else has the NIV, New American Standard. And my youth leader took me and said, you know, why do you have the King James? And I said, I just like him. I don't know. And I couldn't explain why. I didn't know any reasons why. I just knew this is what I'm going to stick with. And I was very, I mean, I stuck with it. I never switched over to the other ones. And then my pastor finally, when I was 16, he took me out to ice cream just to explain to me why I needed to get rid of the King James and get a New American Standard. That's the first time I was ever exposed to the fact that there was any textual variance. Kind of like you told the story about how you kind of were exposed to that concept. He explained to me that the New American Standard was based upon manuscripts that had been discovered after, you know, the King James had been translated, that the translators of the New American Standard had access to older and more reliable manuscripts, better manuscripts, and that's why I needed to get on the New American Standard. As soon as I heard that argument, I said, whoa, I mean, there's no way that the real true word of God could have been buried and that we, you know, and that it just is discovered. And so that right away I saw a red flag, but that was the first time I ever even knew there was a difference. That's when I started researching it. That's when I started looking at the different manuscripts or the fact that there are whole verses missing. I didn't even realize that until that conversation. That's what prompted me to look into it. So the reason why I believe that the King James Bible is the word of God is based upon a comparison of the two. Just the finished product, not the history leading up to it, not the archeology. It's based upon, I've got the diamond right here and I've got the cubic zirconium and I can tell which one God made and the one that man made. You know, and the illustration I like to use is the cell phone towers that are made to look like a tree. You know, I don't have to be an arborist to tell the difference between the tree that God made and the tree that man made. And so I believe that the King James Bible is the word of God because of the Holy Spirit. Because of the fact that it has power. It's quick and powerful. The NIV, I do not believe is powerful. I believe it's weak. So if you had been raised in the NIV and then you went to a church used as a King James, you would have found the King James to be very strange. What you just said was, I felt this and you've just said that basically, you've basically made all the rest of your questions irrelevant because you just basically, but if you think about what you just said, what you just said was, I believe this because the Holy Spirit has told me so. When I debated Gail Riplinger and I asked her about where she got acrostic algebra from, and I don't know if you know what acrostic algebra is, but no, no, no. What she's saying is ridiculous. I agree a thousand percent, but here's the problem. Hearing the voice of the shepherd is a ministry of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. I'm not saying the Holy Spirit gave me extra biblical revelation. But there are many people who would say that they have heard the Holy Spirit speaking in other translations of the Bible. And I don't think, and I don't think that John 10 is about translations of the Bible in English language in the first place. That's certainly not exegetically a defensible position. My point is this. It's about God's word. If you said you felt something, well, that's a subjective experience. Maybe I used the wrong word, but what I mean was that when I heard the King James, I heard the voice of the shepherd. The Holy Spirit bore witness with me that that is the word of God. But what about someone who says, you know what, I had the exact opposite experience. Is that an impossibility from your perspective? They could say that. Would that invalidate your experience? Absolutely not because the thing is somebody could read the Book of Mormon and say that they had that experience. Exactly. There is an absolute reality and truth that the Bible is true and that the Book of Mormon is false. So that's the difference. That's like saying, well, that's like basically if you were to criticize me for saying Christianity is the only true religion, you'd say, well, a Muslim could say their religion is the only true religion. Yeah, but one's right and one's wrong. So I'm saying that I know that I'm indwelled by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit has guided me into all truth. When I hear the new versions, that is not the voice of the shepherd. I'm able to identify that. Whereas when I hear the King James, and just to prove to you that it's not just the Elizabethan English, okay, when I first found out how the King James translators had included the Apocrypha between the Testaments, I approached the Apocrypha with an open mind and I opened up the Apocrypha and it was very obvious right away just from reading a few chapters, this is not God's word. Although it sounds like the King James because it's translated by the same translators. You can instantly tell the fraud for what it is. You can tell the cubic zirconium for what it is. When you read Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Jesus of Sirach, you can tell this is a cheap imitation of the book of Proverbs. When I read the book of Proverbs, every verse is amazing, every chapter is amazing. Read Ecclesiasticus, read Wisdom of Sirach and you instantly know this is man-made. This is a lower quality. Anything God does is going to be perfect. It's going to be powerful. It's going to be amazing. That's what I see on every page of this book. I read the NIV, it isn't there. But Stephen, you've just made yourself the final arbiter of this issue and I'm not saying that the other questions are irrelevant but- Because they're about comparisons. But the problem is by the position you've just taken, I have sat with intelligent, committed. You're an intelligent man. You are a committed man. I appreciate that. But I've sat with Mormons who were very intelligent and very committed and they would not begin to question the foundation upon which they accepted the book of Mormon to be the word of God because they had a testimony of the Holy Spirit. That it was God's word and with tears in their eyes, they said to me, I can read this and I know it's from God and when I read your Bible, I know it's been changed. I've had the same conversation with Mormons. Okay, so is there a means of approach to that person that you can consistently take because you have said you know the Bible's word of God because you read the NIV and it doesn't do the same thing for you and yet I've talked to Christians who have been raised on that. Right. Good, godly people and they can't read this and get anything out of it because it doesn't speak their language. I think it's probably because they're not saved. So you just dismiss their Christianity based on the Bible they read. I believe that if a person is reading the King James Bible and they're reading it and they're just saying, I can't understand this thing, and then they read the NIV and they love it, why don't they recognize the voice of the shepherd? Why do they prefer the lie to the truth? The lie? Right. Because here's the thing, the NIV is different than the King James, it's very different. And it's not just a few differences, it's different on every page. Okay. Now I'm not saying that all of those differences affect doctrine because of the fact that if a Bible verse has been changed, even if that change does not affect doctrine, wouldn't you agree that a lot of the differences between the NIV and the King James do not affect doctrine? Of course. Most of them, right? Even if the change does not affect doctrine whatsoever, we've still gone from God's word to something that is not God's word. The power is gone. The Holy Spirit is gone because Jesus Christ said, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. If we take a sentence out of Jesus' mouth and we change anything about it, even if it doesn't affect doctrine, but if it changed the meaning of what he said, we just went from being true to a lie. Do you see how your presuppositions have now led you to actually deny the existence of people that Jesus has saved based upon the English translation that they find to be the most understandable to them? Do you see why I'm very concerned here, Stephen, because it sounds like what you're saying, it sounds like your presuppositions are leading you to fundamentally deny the Christianity of people who have bowed the knee to Jesus Christ based upon the English translation of the Bible they use. I generally don't use an English translation. I read Greek and Hebrew. Is that what you do your personal Bible reading in? Yes. So, what about me? Well, I mean, I don't think that we should make this about you or about me. We're talking theoretically. I mean, I could give you all my opinions about you and you can give all your opinions about me, but I'm speaking in generalities. I don't want to make this personal to you. My friend, you did. Well, if the shoe fits. Absolutely. When you said the Holy Spirit speaks to you, you have made yourself the standard now by which you're judging other people. No, that's not true. See, I've been told that I'm a hard-nosed guy because I believe that Rome's gospel is an unsaving gospel. So do I. And I speak to Muslims and say that just believing Jesus is a mere rarazul is not enough to bring about salvation. Agreed. And I say that Mormonism's Jesus doesn't exist, therefore he can't save anybody. Amen. Yeah. In each one of these, I'm told you're being mean, you're being unloving, you're being intolerant, all the rest of these things. Are you saying that I'm making you look nice? No. Is that what you're saying? No, not at all. But you are in a sense. That's not what I was saying. But the problem is, here Steven, is that the basis upon which I say those things, and when I look, I have met incredible people who are Roman Catholics that I wish I could simply put my commitment aside and say, this is a Christian person because they are just such incredible people. And I've met Muslims and I've met Mormons, but I have to stand my ground. Why? Because it's an objective revelation of what God's Gospel is, what the truth is. And they're not believing it. But you just are now telling me, when you decide, well I just don't think they're a Christian, you didn't ask about what Gospel they were believing in, you asked about what Bible they read. Let me clarify my position just so that you understand where I'm coming from. And I think you virtually understand where I'm coming from. I think I do. I think I do. I'm not saying that any Christian who carries the NIV is not saved. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that anybody who says, I think the NIV is the best version, is not saved. What I am saying is that anybody who reads it every day, because let's face it, most Christians don't even read the Bible cover to cover. Maybe you don't agree with that, but I can tell you that a lot of people that are saved don't read the Bible cover to cover. They don't read the Bible every day necessarily. We should, we're commanded to. But what I'm saying is anybody who reads the NIV every day and is familiar with both and reads the NIV and believes that the NIV is the word of God, that would make me doubt their salvation because Jesus said that my sheep hear my voice. They will not follow another, a stranger will they flee from for they know not the voice of strangers. When I see somebody following the stranger, thinking that the stranger is the shepherd's voice, why would I not doubt their salvation? Why would I not doubt the salvation? Now obviously, if I want to find out if somebody's saved, I'm going to ask them what they believe about the gospel. I'm going to ask them what they believe about Jesus Christ. But when I see somebody who is saying that the NIV is the word of God and the King James, I can't understand it. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for their foolishness under him, neither can he know them because they're spiritually discerned. I think that the reason that they're doing so well with the man-made book and struggling so much with the book that's written by God is because they're not saved. I don't want to spend too much time on that, but that's what I believe. You probably understood me right the first time. I understood you right and I think this leads to the most dangerous aspect of King James onlyism. That is, in essence, saying these individuals are not saved because of the Bible translation. Now, I've already been told that a million times. You're acting like it's the first time you've heard it. You know why? Because you and I actually agree on many things and so to hear you going there concerns me greatly. But if I'm going to be consistent in my belief that the NIV is not God's word, that it's the product of the devil, and that's someone's daily Bible of choice. If I'm going to be consistent, would you really expect me to say that Christians are reading it every day and that the Spirit of God is speaking to them through that book? The amazing thing is, though I would be somewhat limited, if all I had was the NIV, I could teach the whole counsel of God from the NIV. All of the main doctrines you're saying are present in the NIV. Of course. Right. And you know what? I agree with you about that. Then if it's the devil's book, why did the devil leave enough truth in it to get people saved? Because here's the thing. The devil always mixes lie with truth. He doesn't just come at you with the lie. Of course he mixes truth in. But here's the thing. Just because we have a doctrine, I don't believe that a person is saved by doctrine. A person is saved by the Word of God. For example, and you may not agree with this, and we're probably going a little too deep on this subject. We need to get some other stuff. I think it's absolutely vital. It's important, but I just want to make sure that we get to the other stuff, too. And you're getting so excited, you're getting in front of the cameras. That's what that one's for. I just see him sitting there going, this is... I lost my train of thought. What was I going to say? I'm sorry. I apologize. I didn't mean to do that. What was I going to say? It's something important to say. I don't know. Maybe it's a good place to take a break and let me get a drink, too. Go for it. Yeah. I'm not sure if you would agree with this or not. But for example, I don't believe that if I were to confront someone who's never heard the Gospel, they've never heard the Word of God. And I were to sit that person down, and I were to explain to them the Gospel message. I were to explain to them the whole concept of heaven and hell, the Lord Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins, being buried and rising again. And I were to just explain it to them in my own words and go into all the detail necessary. But I were not to use any of God's Word. I were not to use any scripture, but to just explain it in my own words and use no scripture. I do not believe that it would be possible for that person to get saved, because I believe that faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The Bible says if his own will begat he us with the Word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. You cannot be saved without the Word of God. The Word of God is absolutely necessary for salvation. So therefore, if I explain it in my own words, it's not going to get anyone saved, because the power is in the Word. The Word is our spirit, and the Word is our life. So for a person to be saved, you need to quote to them at least one verse in the King James Version of the Bible? Well, here's the thing. There are verses that are the same in the New King James. But it has to be a scripture that says, at least one scripture, because that Word of God is what's going to create faith. Because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. How can they believe in him of whom they've not heard? So even an accurate summary of what the Word of God says in its essence is not enough. It has to be a quotation of the King James. And that's what most of the NIV is, is an in places accurate, in places inaccurate summary of what God said. But it's not exactly what God said. It's tweaked in every place. So if you lead a young person to believe in Christ, but you do not quote any scripture, a scripture that agrees with the King James Version of the Bible, that young person is not saved. So when my parents explained to me, at an extremely young age, the concept of substitutionary atonement by using the concept of spanking, so that I would understand what punishment meant. It's a great illustration. I've used it many times. In tandem with God's Word. So if they didn't quote a verse, then I couldn't have been saved. Well, does your faith stand in the wisdom of men or in the power of God? There's no power of God. Obviously I completely disagree with the interpretation. The power. It makes Word of God equal to a translation. I believe it's the message. Well, but hold on. And the wisdom of man is obviously wisdom that does not come from God. So you're saying that if I quote a scripture in English, it's not the Word of God? No. What I'm saying is that when you explain, if I explain to you what John 1-1 means, as long as the essence is the same, I have given you what the Word of God says. Simply quoting an English translation of it isn't the same thing. And in fact, I would submit to you, if I don't make it understandable to you by simply quoting it to you, I haven't given you the Word of God. You have to do both. You have to explain it and make it understandable, and you have to use the Word of God. But you can't just explain it and not use the Word of God. But again, we disagree. But let's move on. I want to talk about, we've really gone into the philosophy, and I think we understand each other on this point. Let's go into textual criticism. I want you to explain to me a few points about textual criticism that I got from your book. I just want you to articulate those for us. But before we do, can you just give me Codex Sinaiticus in a nutshell and Codex B in a nutshell? Well, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the primary objects of the vitriol of the King James only movement because of the fact that they were so central in the development of a New Testament text other than the Textus Receptus. I hope that you will have a fair and full discussion of Erasmus' development of his five editions between 1516 and 1535, which will include, for example, his own statement that his first edition was precipitated rather than edited. I hope it will include the fact that in the book of Revelation, he actually had to borrow a commentary on Revelation and extract the text from the commentary, and as a result, there are numerous places in the text of Revelation in the TR that contain readings that no Christian prior to Erasmus had ever seen in their lives. And one of the problems I have with most King James only argumentation is that it sort of doesn't realize there had to have been a church that existed up until that point in time. I'm not sure what your view of church history is or whether you hold to some kind of a trail of blood view, or I just don't know what your view of ecclesiology is, but I think it's important to affirm that the Scriptures were given to the church throughout all ages. And therefore, if we have something that exists in the text today that no Christian for the first 1,500 years of the history of the church ever saw, that's a problem for me. Now when you say all ages, you just don't mean in the first century AD and then from the 1800s forward, you mean all the way through. Right. So I think it's important to recognize the continued existence of the church. I'm not one of those folks that just goes, well, Rome took over in 325 or something and kicked everybody out. That's ridiculous. That's a naive view of church history, but there are a lot of people who have it. But anyway, I hope that you'll deal with those issues because what happened with Oliph and Bea and what happened with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, unfortunately in most of my experience, King James only folks are pretty well stuck in the 1890s on this issue. What I mean by that is Dean Bergon and people like that did not like Sinaiticus. They did not like the weight that was put on it by Tischendorf and people in Trigellus and people who followed him. But the reality is all of that has changed, and it's changed radically since the 1930s. And the reason for that is the discovery of the papyri. The discovery of the papyri, which of course came from Egypt and various sundry places, the readings of those early manuscripts, P66, P75, P72, have verified and demonstrated that the textual tradition found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus was not unique to them. I mean, there's theories running around now that these were Roman Catholic forgeries and all this kind of silliness like that, but the problem is now if you're going to say that you have to say the papyri are forgeries as well, now you're going to have to come up with a conspiracy that literally transcends centuries and places like that. So let's talk about, let's just home this in on just Sinaiticus. Just to the person who doesn't know what Sinaiticus is. I could grab it off my shelf actually. No, no, no, I don't mean up there, I actually have the facsimile over there. If you could just, if you just, you know, what it is, where it was found. Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century manuscript that at the time of its discovery, as far as we could tell, was the earliest Greek manuscript we had of both the Old and New Testaments. It also contains some other books, so it's really, it's more of a Christian library than it was just simply, it's not like we would have a single bound volume. Right. I mean, this took time and money to make, and so it's sort of like a Christian library. What are some of the other books that Sinaiticus could take? It contains, for example, The Shepherd of Hermes. I think it might contain the Epistle Barn, but I'm just going off the top of my head at that particular point in time. But it was at the time the earliest manuscript that we had. It was in use, as far as we can tell, for 1,500 years, which means it's extremely corrected. In other words, since it was in use, and the ecclesiastical text arose during a time of its use, there are literally tens of thousands of places where there's been a marginal note, there's been something scribbled between the lines, et cetera, et cetera. You can see it even on this image on the wall. Yeah, you can, exactly. You can see that type of thing, which sometimes happened in the production of a manuscript, but very frequently in this case, since it was in use for so many years. We can tell, for example, at 1 Timothy 3.16, which is a major textual variant between the King James and modern translations in regards to he who was manifest in the flesh, and God was manifest in the flesh. I'm sure you're familiar with that particular variant. If you look at Sinaiticus, you can tell very plainly the original reading is Has, he who, and then in a much later hand, completely different ink, completely different writing, the As has been written. That image, I think, is in your book. Yeah, it might be. I don't remember which example it was in there. It is highly corrected on that level simply because it was in use for such a very, very long period of time. Now, there's a lot of controversy as to when Tischendorf discovered it, how it ended up getting where it went. There was politics involved and money and all sorts of things were involved. Today, it's the most easily accessible manuscript for antiquity because it's completely online now. It's online in electronic format. In high quality digital. Unfortunately, Vaticanus is not nearly as accessible to us. Can you start out and give us on Vaticanus, similar to what you just gave us on Sinaiticus? It first appears in the Vatican Library in the late 15th century. Ironically, and interestingly enough, as you probably noted in the book, Erasmus would love to have used it, but it was too far away. You theorized. No, because he wrote to his friend Bombasius to specifically ask him to consult the Vatican manuscript in regards to the Kami Ohani. I thought that in your book, you characterized it as he consulted Bombasius to consult a famous manuscript. It may have been... No, it was Vaticanus. I thought in the book you said it may have been Vaticanus. No. Well, there would be no other manuscript at that time in the Vatican Library that he would be looking to. Okay. I'll look up the wording in your book. He would love to have had access to that. The reality is he didn't have access to it and he was rushing too quickly. John Froben was putting him under too much pressure. But again, these two manuscripts do not stand alone. And today, the Nessiolan 28th edition, UBS 4th corrected, there are a number of places where not only does Sinaiticus disagree with Vaticanus, though they frequently are together, but they don't stand alone in light of the papyri, especially in Luke and John, the discovery of P75, has demonstrated that P75 is copied from an antecedent to Vaticanus, but not the same one. They're not directly linked, but they're very closely linked. And so what we've demonstrated is that the text of Vaticanus goes at least 150 years earlier back to P75 at that point. And also the modern critical text, whether it's the Nessiolan or UBS or whichever, sometimes has departed from previous critical texts that went with Aleph and Beth in favor of the papyri. Not only in favor of the papyri. Even in favor of the TR in some places. Well, and see, I would... Because of other earlier discoveries that supported TR readings. I would hesitate to use TR, I would say the Byzantine family. The majority texts. But they're not the same thing. They're not the same thing. They're not the same thing. So the excess receptus represents one stream of the Byzantine. Exactly. Right. So there have been times where the modern editions have either based upon internal probabilities or other things like that. The idea there is just... There was a imbalanced prejudice on the part of Westcott and Hord for Aleph and Beth. But they were working before the papyri too. Right. Anything before the papyri is today primarily irrelevant. It's become outdated because of newer discoveries of manuscripts. And because of the fact that that has given us an insight, and I think is the foundation for being able to demonstrate that people like Bart Ehrman and others, who are the ones who are the ones who are undercutting the faith of our young people, that they are wrong. That they do not have a foundation. He's only undercutting the faith of the young people whose faith stands in the wisdom of men and not in the power of God. Well, obviously, I completely disagree with the application. So there are two points of textual criticism that I want to talk about because obviously there are certain principles that the textual critics are using when they're deciding which reading is right. You know, they have something where there's evidence for both and they have to make a choice between the two. And there's certain guiding principles that you articulated in your book repeatedly. And one of those, let me explain it in my own words, and then maybe you can explain it in your words, but it seemed that you described a principle of textual criticism that if you have a reading that sounds right and then you have a reading that sounds wrong, the one that sounds wrong is the one we're going to go with. For example, begotten son, begotten God. Begotten son sounds right, so therefore it must be begotten God because who would change it to the one that sounds wrong? Give that in your own words. Well, it's not my own words. The concept is that a scribe is going to either purposely or more often simply in the process of copying themselves, going to go with what they are familiar with and what is easier rather than going for something that sounds more difficult or more uncommon. And so it's not just, well, look, for almost ten years now I've been teaching through the Synoptic Gospels. And if you look at a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, you will discover that every single time, okay, I better be careful there, almost every single time, it's been 98% of the time it was put that way, there is what looks to us to be a conflict between, say, Matthew and Mark, that there seems to be a difference in what they're saying that might actually cause us some issues, some problems. You will find some manuscript somewhere, normally a later manuscript, but you'll find some manuscript someplace that will try to ease the issue by making one sound like the other. That is simply the way that scribes may have done so inadvertently because they knew Matthew's way of saying it, they're copying Mark and just assumed that Mark's going to say it the same way that Matthew did, so it may not have been purposeful, but it may have been purposeful that, well, Mark couldn't have said this, so this copy must have an error in it because it says it's over here in Matthew, okay? So they make a conjectural emendation at that point. Well, it's a possibility, it could be, there's lots of ways that it could happen. But the point is that it is much easier to understand why a scribe would attempt to make things easier than why they would try to make things harder. Now that would not be the application, I would not make, that's not the case in regards to the difference between Monogones sui as and Monogones theas at John 1.18. There what you have is just simply the fact that when a scribe writes Monogones, if they are used to writing that term, almost always what comes after that is going to be something like theos or something of a child or something along those lines. To have theta sigma, it's called the nomina sacra as I explained in the book, to have theos following after Monogones would be completely unique. And because it would be completely unique, it would be much easier to understand how a scribe writes Monogones and just assumes the next word is theos and goes on, doesn't even realize, than it is why would anyone ever have put theos here if the original is theos. You guys speak English for the sake of the film. I'm sorry, why would anyone have put God here when sun would have been much more logical for them to put there. The irony is I don't do that to try to go, oh, I read Greek. The point is that in English, sun and God look very, very different. Now, I'm not fluent in Greek, but I know who theos and theos are, but for the sake of the viewer, we want to keep it on the bottom shelf as far as English at least, right? But sometimes we do have to explain it because, for example, the nomina sacra and first Timothy 3.16. Just how little the difference is between the two in Greek. The difference between theos and theos is two small lines, but I don't want to dismiss that because King James only advocates will sometimes preach entire sermons on first Timothy 3.16 accusing someone like myself of not believing in the deity of Christ. Well, you go with the King James reading on that anyway. No, no, I didn't. I thought you said that God is the better reading. No, actually if you read, if you read, I think. In your debate in London, you stated that you believe that theos is the correct reading in first Timothy 3.16. No, no, I didn't say that. I said that in John 1.18. No, I'm talking about in first Timothy 3.16. You said that the King James has a better reading in first Timothy 3.16. No, no, I'm sorry. You misunderstood me. Okay, that's fine. I misspoke or misunderstood me. It's on YouTube. I'll go back and check it out. Please do. What I have said is that it's fully understandable why there is a confusion in the reading there and I would not have any problem with someone who takes the reading to theos. But from a textual critical perspective, I'll double check on that. So we covered that principle of textual criticism. There's one other principle I want to cover and then I'd like to get into some specific verses. We just talked about first Timothy 3.16, but there's another principle of textual criticism that says go with the shorter reading, not the longer reading. Can you explain that in your own words? Well, fundamentally, the tendency, again, and these are just simply identifying tendencies in any particular text, there has to be an examination of context, the author's intention, the author's normal usage, all these things. They all come into play, obviously. But the overall tendency is to expand and this is a good thing. This is a very good thing. Why do I say that? The Byzantine text is, what, about 3% longer. Fuller is the term, partly because of the expansion of divine names, what I call the expansion of piety, which I think I've explained in the past fairly clearly, but also because of conflate readings. But what's good about that, this is very, very important, this is one of the reasons that when you talk about textual critics, they're unbelieving textual critics and they're believing textual critics. And for the believing textual critic like myself, this is extremely important because what it means is we have all the original readings. Robert Bowman likened it to the situation we have in looking at the New Testament manuscripts as having a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and we have 10,100 pieces. It would be really bad if we only had 9,900 pieces. It's much better to have 10,100 pieces. So this principle of textual criticism is saying that the scribe is more likely to add something than to leave something out. For example, let me give you a good example. John chapter 5 verse 4 is one of the differences between the Byzantine text platform and the modern Greek text. And most scholars feel that that was a marginal note. And think about it. In the first 260 years of the church, there's a tremendous amount of persecution. You may inherit a Bible, you may be given a copy of the Bible, you can't ask the original scribe who wrote it, is this your explanation or is this supposed to be in there? Because since when you were writing on stuff, if you did skip something, you frequently would go back and put it in the margin in a smaller font. Of course I disagree with you on John 5.4, but I do understand your reasoning very well. Where I'm not understanding, though, is when it comes to the titles of Jesus, you know, Lord Jesus Christ versus just Jesus Christ, or maybe leaving off a Christ, leaving off a Lord, couldn't it be possible that one would just be left off by mistake? Just as much as, I mean, wouldn't it be more likely to leave something out than to add something when it comes to things like that? In general, the only thing that causes a deletion of something like that is normally something like what's called homoe teleuton, similar endings or something along those lines. But the fact is, when you look at the Alexandrian text versus the Byzantine text, it's a systematic, it's a programmatic thing. It is almost always getting longer, and that's the expansion of piety. That's people who call into my radio show and say, you should say, Lord Jesus Christ. Now, see, the problem I have with that is, even in the King James, there are places where it's just Jesus. So there's nothing disrespectful about saying Jesus said this or Jesus said that. Or even just he. Exactly. Exactly. But, look, but I've had people use that kind of argumentation. I'm not trying to pin that on you, but you just need to recognize that's a very common type of argument. Let's get into some individual verses. Okay. Let's talk about, for example, Luke 2.33. Obviously, that's a big one. You cover it in your book. Luke 2.33, in the King James Bible, says the child's father and mother marveled at those things which were spoken of them. In the modern versions, the New American Standard, NIV, ESV, that is stated as the child's father and mother. In the King James, it says Joseph and his mother, and in the modern versions, it all says the child's father and mother, thereby calling Joseph Jesus' father in the modern versions. So wouldn't that be a contradiction? Because it seems to me that when I read the King James Bible, it's always very careful to not call Joseph Jesus' father. For example, in Matthew 1, it makes it clear in that genealogy, the begat, begat, begat. Then it says Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called God. So the Bible's always very careful not to call Joseph Jesus' father, yet here in the new versions, Luke 2.33, Joseph is being called Jesus' father. Well, again, the issue is what did Luke write? It's not... I agree. The issue should never be could someone misunderstand this? Could someone take Luke out of context? Luke's already talked about the virgin birth. Luke's already explained to us what this situation is here. And instead, what you have in this context is he's talking to Simeon. What would Simeon have thought of these two people? I mean, did Simeon know about the virgin birth? Did he know about all these things? But yet this is the narrator, though. The Holy Spirit is saying the child's father and mother in the new versions. We're amazed at what we've said about him. And the reason, and you've done this many, many times, and it's something I document in the book, and you're consistent with it. You've made the King James a standard and then said it's been changed. The issue is what was the text of the church even in the early days? I mean, the earliest examples we have of the Gospel of Luke, what does it say? It says father and mother. But that's hundreds of years after the fact. But the earliest evidence we have... The earliest evidence is hundreds of years after the fact. Okay. What I'm saying is that if I look at a book that has errors and contradictions, I can know that that book was not written by God because God doesn't make errors and God doesn't contradict himself. So this is a contradiction in the new versions. It's not a contradiction at all. How is it not a contradiction? When anyone who looked at Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, what would they have said? They would have been wrong, though. And God would not be wrong. No, no. You're putting the context, you're putting the text into context that it itself does not provide. Was Joseph Jesus' father? In the sense of begetting him? No. In the sense of raising him, teaching him, presenting him in the temple? This was his role. This was what he was supposed... That's why he's there in the temple. He's not being presented as an orphan. He's presenting him as his father. He has taken that role and responsibility. The rest of Luke tells us that there was a virgin birth that took place, but that was absolutely unique. There's nothing wrong in calling Joseph the father of Jesus as long as you recognize... There are people out there... Doesn't matter. ...who believe that Joseph was Jesus' father. Irrelevant. In the physical sense. Irrelevant. And they could point to this and say, this is a contradiction in the Bible. Irrelevant. No, they could not. I believe they could. We disagree. That's fine. Let's put it this way. There is no truth that God has ever given to us that an unbeliever cannot twist. No truth. I just don't believe that this is the truth. I have seen the King James used in this very way because of inaccuracies in the translation. For example, the first biblical contradiction presented to me by Mormon missionaries was because of the fact that the King James is not accurate in its rendering of the story of Saul's conversion in Luke 9, Luke 22. The King James could do much better than it did, and because of an inaccuracy in that, there are more missionaries running around saying the Bible has contradictions in it. So should that cause you to abandon your King James onlyism because Mormons misuse something? Absolutely not. Your misuse of father here doesn't mean it. In my opinion, it's not a misuse, but we disagree. That's fine. The other one I want to talk about, 1 Corinthians 9, 27. In Luke 2, 33, we have a textual variance. In 1 Corinthians 9, 27, this is just a difference in translation. But could we do one thing before we go there? Could we stay in Luke 2? Let me ask you about Luke 2, 22. Now when the time came for their purification, according to the law of Moses, now the King James says... Her purification. Okay. Now, if you've looked at the material in my book, you know that, again, the vast majority of manuscripts, so much so that many of the critical editions don't even note the foundation there. Right. Okay. Were they all made by enemies of God? Well, I'm not saying that they were all made by enemies of God, but I'm saying that they're all in error if they say something different than what this says. And if I go back to the Old Testament, if I use my circular argument using the King James to prove the King James, if I go back to the Old Testament, her purification fits the context because it is about her purification if you look at the scripture in the Old Testament. But he's being presented. This was the presentation. He's being purified according to when you go back and look it up in the law of Moses. But the child was to be brought as a part of this too. But not to be purified. So from your perspective then, you don't mind saying, well, I guess this would make sense for you because your ultimate authority is actually the English translation, not the Greek manuscripts. The vast majority of Greek manuscripts can be completely wrong. Right? Well, no, because honestly, we don't have the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. The vast majority of existing Greek manuscripts. For example, in the first century AD, we could conjecture how many Greek manuscripts were created in the New Testament, none of which exist. We could conjecture how many existed in the second century, 99% are gone. How many in the third century, 99% are gone. So we don't have the vast majority. What I'm talking about, we have more manuscripts of the New Testament than for any other book of antiquity by at least tenfold. There's more copies of this book in the world than any other book. Which is irrelevant from a historical perspective. It's not irrelevant because this book exists all over the world. It's been preserved. Here it is. So if the Obama administration printed up the Obama translation and printed a billion copies of it and outprinted that, that becomes relevant to the text of the Bible? No, because this has already existed throughout history. And I'm saying to you, those manuscripts pre-existed that. Every translator that worked on that would have agreed with me on this point and would have said that what is important. So why didn't they, so why didn't, if every translator of the King James would have agreed with you on this point, why did they not translate it the way that you're saying? Because of the text they're translating from. So are you saying that the materials that you have today were not available to them and that's why they made the decision that they did? No, you know what the King James translators used, seven printed editions of the Greek New Testament. The five of Erasmus, Staphonus' 1550, and the 1598 Basis. Now those are all pretty much reprintings of the same text with small variations between them. Exactly. So they were not going back to Greek manuscripts themselves, they were using printed editions. But they recognized, if you read their introduction to the readers, the absolute necessity of going to the original languages and going to the ancient codices, including the Greek Septuagint. I'm not sure what your position on that is, I've found some weird views amongst King James only folks. Do you believe that there was such a thing called the Greek Septuagint? I think that it would be silly to think that the Old Testament had never been translated into Greek. Right. That's not to say that what we have today is identical to the Greek New Testament that Jesus would have quoted from, or the Apostles would have quoted from, because they say Christ and his apostles quoted from the Septuagint. That's not to say that the manuscripts that exist today of the Septuagint are identical to what they would have had at that time, because how many manuscripts are there of the Septuagint, and what centuries do they come from? The earliest attestation is about the same as what we have for the New Testament. So we're talking like, what, fourth century? No, you can get a little bit earlier than that. So a manuscript that you have of the Septuagint from the third or fourth century, I'm not going to say that that's authoritative, but I'm sure, I'm certain that there were Greek translations of the Old Testament. It'd be silly to say that there weren't, but I'm not saying that it's extant in Greek. So very quick question for you, because it will help me to understand where you're coming from here. When, what was the ultimate authority for the apostles? Was it the Hebrew text? Well, here's the thing, I don't think that we can sit here today in 2013 and know exactly, you know, what they had in front of them. You know, I don't think we can look at a Septuagint from the third or fourth century and say, this document in our hand is exactly what they had. If you want to know what I believe that they had, you know, it was what's written in my King James Bible in the Old Testament section, but not in English, obviously in the languages that they were speaking. Okay, then I have a question for you, and if you've never examined this, say, I'll get back to you on it. Okay. Okay, and we don't include it in anything. You've preached through- I don't claim to know everything. Well, none of us do. You've preached through Hebrews 8, I would assume, and- I have Hebrews 8 memorized. Okay. Quoted in chapter, in the King James. Okay. Excellent. Did you compare the King James with Jeremiah 31? You know, I don't think I've sat them both side by side and made that comparison, but I have obviously noticed that there are differences when you look at New Testament quotations of Old Testament passages. I've never put those two in particular side by side. Okay, so- No, I've not. In Hebrews chapter 8, there is this interesting phrase, where in Hebrews it says, and he did not care for them. What's the King James- He regarded them not, saith the Lord. Okay, all right. And that's the end of the citation. He continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Did you compare the King James from the Old Testament to that? No, I'll get back to you on that. Well, let me tell you- Because I'll look at it, because I want to look at it and make sure that's really where it's coming from and go through. Well, let me tell you what it says. It says, but I was a husband to them. Now, there is a textual variant between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic text. I'll get back with you on that one. Okay, but let me just make my point, so you can understand it, so you can look it up for you. There is one slight letter difference between ga'al and ba'al. Ba'al means Lord Husband, and ga'al means to despise. So you're saying they look similar, sort of like you showed joined and captives. They're extremely similar, and so it's easy to understand where the variant arose in the Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint. My point is, the apostles of Jesus Christ quoted from a foreign language translation that had a variation from the original language and made a point based on it. That's something we've got to think about. Okay, so do we want to talk about 1 Corinthians 9.27? Sure, sure. I'm sorry. No problem. This is not a textual variant, as you know. This is just a difference in translation. Right. Let me turn there myself, so I can read it for you. What version are you holding in your hand there? Well, this is actually an NET NA27 interlinear, and so what it has... Which English does it contain? NET, New English Translation. New English Translation. I'm not even familiar with that one. There's so many, right? There's probably more than we need. Let me ask you this. Okay, you said there's probably more than we need. Do you think that we need 500 different English Bibles? No, in fact, I mentioned in the book that we have a glut. We don't have any need for any more. I don't think there's a good reason for why we've had the explosion of them over the past number of decades. I know what the reason is. Right. It's real simple. It's the fact that if you have a publishing house, you want to do a study Bible or something, which I am not a study Bible fan. Me neither. I mean, just carry your commentary with you. Why bind it together? I don't get the idea, but... I carry my commentary with me. His name's the Holy Spirit. But the point is, what they did is if you were a major publishing house, you didn't want to have to pay royalties to somebody else. So they all made their own translations. Right. Now, some of them are really good. Some of them are going to sit on a shelf and collect dust. But there is a financial motivation to come out with all these different versions. There is. No question about it. No question about it. But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. The NIV says, I beat my body. And most of the modern versions say something along the lines of, I beat my body and make it my slave. Yeah. No, no, they don't say subdue. They say... No, that's what any T says. Oh, okay. But I'm telling you, the NIV says, I beat my body. The 2010 edition of the NIV says, I strike a blow to my body and I buff it to my body. I think I'm going to be defending the NIV. Okay. I mean... It's the best-selling translation in America in 2013. I doubt that. I looked it up in many sources. I think the... It is number one. Well, okay. If you include... ESV? If you include... ESV is number five. And I did a lot of research on this. Okay. If you include liberal denominations, maybe. We're just including just sales. Okay. But I would say... To whoever. Certainly in conservative Bible believing... ESV is far more prevalent. It has just... And part of it, because the NIV has... Do you have an ESV? Because I want to look this up in the ESV. I do. Can I grab it? I will have to... Dig it out somewhere? Get up and get it for you. Okay. But you need to stretch your legs anyway. You're very close. You're very close right there. But it's got a cover on it. So it's laying sideways. The word is... Right up above. You see the Bible's laying sideways? Yeah, this right here? I think one of them's an ESV and one of them's... Okay. No. That is an ESV in your hand. Okay. Except that is... Yeah. I think that's the Allen. I think you have the Allen rebind there. So you've got a nice one. Okay. Is this going to work for me? I think it would. I think it's... Yeah. English Standard Version. Now I know there are two totally different ESVs. There's like a UK version and an American version. Because I looked up, for example, 1 Samuel 13.1. You familiar with the textual variation there? No, I'm talking ahead. 1 Samuel 13.1 in the King James Bible says, Saul reigned one year and when he had reigned two years he did this and that. Right. In the ESV that I have at home, which is the UK version apparently, it says, Saul reigned dot, dot, dot years and when he had reigned dot, dot, dot years. And it puts ellipsis right in the text. I don't know how you're going to read that out loud at church. But then in the other ESV it says, Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned 42 years. Now I'm just wondering how he was head and shoulders above the people when he was only one year old. True. Saul does the same thing. Douay Rheims. That he was a one year old when he began to reign. Let's see what this one says. There are a couple of places in the Old Testament where numbers are next to impossible to- There's the dot, dot, dot. But in the other ESV, I wish we had a copy of it, it actually says that Saul was one year old when he began to reign. In the US version or the current US version of the ESV it says that Saul was one year old. Well, here's my question. If the Masoretic and Septuagintal texts have an issue here, upon what basis do you just simply say, well, I go with whatever the King James says because of the feeling? No, but see, it's not like it's just a feeling. What it is is that when I read the King James Bible, the passage actually makes sense and it's actually consistent with the rest of scripture. When I read 1 Samuel 13.1 in the NIV, it contradicts scripture because it says, for example, that he reigned for 42 years. It makes sense to you? Well, who else do I go to? I'm just asking about the- Here's the thing. There's me and there's the Holy Spirit, right? So who else am I supposed to be going to? I thought it's just me and the Holy Spirit and we figure out what the truth is because he's going to guide me into all truth. He's going to teach me of all things. I don't need that any man teach me. I mean- Is that really- You keep telling me that I'm my own final authority, but the Holy Spirit and I are making decisions. I don't know how else to make decisions. Aren't you staying in front of people on the Lord's Day morning explaining the Bible to them? Right. I preach the Bible. So it's not just them and the Holy Spirit, is it? Unless you're getting in the way. I don't understand what you mean because when they hear my preaching, they're supposed to judge. The Bible commands them to judge my preaching and the Holy Spirit's going to allow them to judge my preaching whether it's right or wrong. That level of subjectivity is an imbalanced view. God has given us the church. He's given us elders. He's given us a proclamation. The very central act of worship of God's people when they gather together is a proclamation of his truth and his word. But at the end of the day, if you're looking at the Bible and you've got the Holy Spirit and you're looking at the Bible and it's contradicting what all of the elders in your church are saying, aren't you going to go with the Bible? Sola Scriptura? That's not what Sola Scriptura means. What does it mean? Sola Scriptura means the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith of the church. Sola Scriptura has never meant you and me alone. You're going to let the church override your personal view. But that has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the sufficiency of the scriptures, the functions, the sole rule of faith. We're getting off topic. We need to go to 1 Corinthians 9, 27. And Rich, I'm hearing voices outside. The ESV says something different. I discipline my body. Something different. But the NIV and the New Living and others, the NIV says I beat my body. Do you think that that is Christian doctrine? Well, again, hupo piazzo should be, I would translate it as discipline and to the point of subduing. So the idea of beating the body is the, I mean, that's what hupo piazzo means. But the irony is here you have a translation that prides itself on giving meaning so that it's understandable. And for some reason they've gone with a literal rendering that actually makes it less clear than it would have been otherwise. Don't ask me why. Well, here's what the King James says. The King James says, I keep under my body. So they've taken the word hupo piazzo and translated it as keep under. The new translations are saying beat yourself. This one is saying keep under. No, they're saying subdue. They're saying subdue. Which is the best selling translation in America says. You didn't ask me to defend the NIV because I'm not on the NIV translation. So you don't, you like what the ESV says more than what the NIV said. I like hupo piazzo and hupo piazzo means, well, but the point is that any English translation has to accurately reflect what was given to us by the Holy Spirit. What was given to us by the Holy Spirit was in Koine Greek. Does God expect the average Christian to learn the original Greek? God expects the average Christian to utilize the information that is provided to him. And we live in a day where we have more information available to us than any other generation ever has. And we need it right now because the attacks have never been more vociferous. But do you believe that the average Christian should learn Koine Greek? I've certainly taught enough of them. If they, let's put it this way. I think it'd be far better to learn Koine Greek than to watch the vast majority of television programs we watch. You would get a whole lot more out of it. Do you see a danger, okay, because here's my belief about it. I think if someone learned Koine Greek and became fluent in it and could pick it up and read it fluently, that would be fantastic. But a little Greek is a dangerous thing. Exactly. Don't you see a danger in someone who learns two semesters of Bible college Greek and now they're going to get up and say, like even a King James only guy will get up. He said two semesters of Bible college Greek and he's going to get up and say, oh, the King James translators, they translated this wrong. And just with the brush of his hand, you know, seven years of 50 brilliant scholars goes out the window for his... Stephen, any good thing can be abused. And a little Greek can be a dangerous thing. I've heard entire sermons based upon really bad exegesis, okay? Look. Because of a dilettante, you know, knowledge of Greek. No. Amateur knowledge. I'm not going to waste your time on this, but let me just mention that years ago I had a minister come to me and he said, hey, I saw this thing in the commentary. Man, this preaches. But I've never heard anybody say it before. You know Greek. Could you check it out for me? So I checked it out for him. It didn't pan out. It was just one of those, you know, commentators sort of went off on a tangent. You know what he did once I told him? He preached it anyways. Just because it sounds good, he liked it. Because it just preached so good. Such a great point. Oh, it was so great. That doesn't surprise me, you know. No. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me. Okay. So 1 Corinthians 9, 27. You're not going to defend the NIVs beating yourself. No. Because it's Catholic. I mean, the Catholic Church. Oh, don't. Good night. That's not where it came from. Hold on a second. Are you going to say that Catholics don't beat themselves to this day? They don't practice self-flagellation? Are you going to say that Henry VIII? Some few do. The vast majority don't even show up at mass. They're not going to be whipping themselves. Okay. How about throughout history? Okay. Well, he kicked out the Catholics and he made beating yourself illegal the same year. But Stephen, what does that have to do with the NIV translators? You see, just because Rome has done it in the past doesn't mean that that's what they intended by it. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Satan is Satan, okay? And the same Satan that got people to beat themselves in the Middle Ages is the same Satan that put a passage in the NIV telling you to beat yourself. That's where I'm drawing the connection. Even with the rendering of the NIV, it's obvious what it's talking about and it's obviously metaphorical. Okay. Can we talk about the etymology of the word hoopopiazzo? Yeah. Okay. Now, I'm not going to lie to you. I am not someone who's fluent in Koine Greek. I'm the two semesters guy. That's why I don't go back to it because I'm not qualified to. Okay. But let me say this. I do speak several languages. So I understand the principles of the differences between foreign languages. I understand translation. I've actually worked as a professional translator from German into English. That's what you're saying. Yeah. I speak German. Oh, okay. Yeah. I speak German in Germany. I speak German in Germany. Where are you from? In Minchin. In Bavaria. I've had the opportunity of teaching in Berlin the past couple of years. So I speak a few languages. So I understand language but I don't speak Greek. Do we get to include that part? Anyway, so basically, what I want to... It made us both look tremendously intelligent. All right, man. But anyway, so when I'm looking at the word hupopiazzo just as a layman, somebody who doesn't pretend to know Greek, to me, I could see English equivalents of both halves of that word. Correct me if I'm wrong etymologically, but my view of that word seems to jive with what the King James has translated because hupo would be like our prefix hypo, which means under. And then piazzo, I'm not sure where that comes from, maybe you can enlighten me, but I will say that we have a prefix in English piezo, like when we're talking about piezo electricity, and that's talking about electricity that is generated by pressure. So piezo is anything that is being pressed or under pressure. So when I look at the King James, keep under, and then I look at a word that comes from two pieces, under and pressure, keep under, holding under, pressing under, what do you think about that? Well, it is fully understandable where the King James got it. I would argue that it's almost, they almost failed to do what they needed to do to be able to explain to people what it's really saying. Because what Paul is talking about is he subdues his body. He keeps it under. You do mean keep under, though. Exactly. But by translating it as keep under, you're not really explaining what that means. So I just don't find the translation to actually... I understand the scripture to be saying that his body's not going to control him, he's going to control his body. Exactly. And that it's going to take effort on his part to do this, and this is what we're all called to do. Like an athlete in the previous... So that's why I don't have any problem with subdue or any of these other things. And just to answer your question, yes, it is appropriate to look at the constituent parts of a word, but as you recognize, especially in German, which loves to throw words together and then have it mean something... Even English examples, joystick, you know, has nothing to do with the two constituent parts. Exactly. And there are a lot of examples we get. That's a better illustration I ever would have come up with. And the reason that I even bring it up, not to be authoritative, I'm just telling you when I saw the word, the two words that popped into my mind were hypo and piezo. And then it matched the King James, and I just thought, okay, well, Greek is like that. But Mark 1-2, you're very familiar with Mark 1-2. The King James says, as it is written in the prophets, it then quotes Malachi, followed by Isaiah. The New Bibles, New American Standard, NIV say, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, quote Malachi, then they quote Isaiah. So what's going on there? Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't the King James more accurate here? You just illustrated for me exactly why you have to go with an objective standard and to recognize what's going on here, because this is the best illustration that I can give you of a scribe who, ignorant of the background of the text, attempts to help the Bible out. When you actually look at, and again, when you say the modern translations, what you need to recognize is what the modern translations are doing, is they're translating a Greek text in front of them, and the modern translators, the believing modern translators, there's lots of unbelieving modern translators, and I'm not going to defend them for anything, and I attack their work as anybody else's. But the believing modern translator is seeking to render the text that is before him the best possible way, and if they believe that the earliest text here actually has Isaiah the prophet, then they're going to render that. Right. Now, then what you're going to look at is the evidence for that, and the evidence for Isaiah the prophet includes the earliest uncials, far earlier than anything else that we have. Now, here's the question. Is that a contradiction in the Bible? No, not as long as you recognize how Old Testament prophets would be cited. Isaiah was the major prophet. The other is a minor prophet, and so when you would cite a conflate reading, and as you recognize, this is a conflate reading. That's why it says prophets in King James, it's a conflate reading. Because it's multiple prophets being quoted. It's multiple prophets. Right. When you would cite a conflate reading, how would you find that? You would start with the major prophet, and the minor prophet might not even be named. Well, let me say this then, because we have plenty of New Testament quotations of Old Testament scripture. This isn't the only place this happens. Can you show me an example in the King James Bible where it ever says it's written in this prophet, and then it quotes a different prophet? Because you're basically saying this is the trend, this is something that they would do all the time. No, no, no, no. You've misunderstood me. Whenever they have a conflate reading, this is what they do. I'm sorry. Is there any other example of this you can show me? To me, I just see this as an error. It says it quotes Isaiah, and then it says it's written in Isaiah, and then it gives us something that's not written in Isaiah. Can you show me any other place like that in the Bible? That's the only one I can find. You've misunderstood me. Okay. Your argument was that a later scribe who did not understand that the Jews would not have identified this as an error, that scribe had the same concern that you have, and that's why the change was made. There's no other reason to explain- What is your evidence, though? Wait, wait, wait. There's no other reason to explain the presence of Isaiah in the earliest manuscripts. There's no other reason to explain it. Why would it have been put there? If it simply had said, profiteis, or profiteis, if it had been tois profiteis in the original, there's no reason why Isaiah would have been inserted in those early manuscripts. There's every reason for the reverse change to be made, and so when the earliest manuscripts say one thing, and we know exactly why a scribe would be confused because of the same confusion that you have at this point, then we understand what the original was. And so I explain to my Muslim friends all the time, no, the Jews would, the Jews, if you tried to explain this to the Jews of Jesus' day, oh, that's wrong to say Isaiah the Prophet, they would have gone, that's how we cite it. But when did you ever say that to any of the Jews of Jesus' day to know that they cited it that way? What's your evidence that they cited it that way? That's my question. Well, because the Jews themselves would cite the major prophet as their source. Do you have examples of that in the Bible? Does it have to be in the Bible? Well, I mean, here's one right here, here's one right here. This is the earliest reading. In my Bible. Well, I'm sorry, but I want to know what Mark wrote. And the point is that, especially in scrolls, how would you give the reference? So here's what's funny, you know, just reading your book and in our conversation right now, and you know, your book is, you know, 300 and some pages long. And in your book, it seems that you basically have just excluded the possibility or you don't see at all that there could be anything nefarious behind any of these changes. I mean, you basically, you seem to not believe that the devil would ever tamper with his word or that any of these changes were nefarious, that any of the textual variances have to do with a guy who says, I'm going to change this because I'm bad, because I'm evil. Yeah, I actually believe God has protected his word. But you don't believe that there's a, and for example, you use the term conspiracy theorist probably 20 times in your book, you use the word conspiracy theorist a lot. Do you believe that there's no conspiracy to change God's word? That there is no? No, I think, I think entire Bible translations exist today to change God's word, but they're obvious. So if there are people today who are putting out something like the New World Translation, which is clearly a perversion of God's word, do you agree? Yep. Okay. So if people are perverting God's word today with the New World Translation, for example, they were perverting God's word in Paul's day. He warned about it. Why do you not believe that people were perverting God's word in the third, fourth century, eighth century, ninth century? We know that the New World Translation is a perversion of God's word. It is easy to detect. I have debated Jehovah's Witnesses. I just lectured on the New World Translation. It's not even a translation in many places. In a church in Tambiza, South Africa, if you know what Tambiza is, most of the people there live in corrugated huts. And that's where I was speaking about the New World Translation. So you can... You weren't even in the New World. I was not. I was at the other side of the world. The point is you can identify the New World Translation as a false translation because it is so clearly marked off as such. There has to be...the reason I used conspiracy theory is that you have to have evidence to back these things up, not just, well, it looks like that to me. And when I look at what was going on in the early church and I look at the manuscripts, if there was someone who was trying to do the things that you're talking about, the evidence would be found in the manuscripts. Are you really saying that, you know what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to destroy people's trust in the Bible by putting Isaiah in here at Mark 1-2? No, that's not what they did in the New World Translation. They went after the real areas where the...you know the only places where the New World Translation mistranslates stuff is that the very issues of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society happens to disagree with biblical Christianity. You must not have read Job 6 verse 6 in the New World Translation then. Because in Job 6, 6 in the King James Bible it says, can that which is unsavory be eaten without salt and is there any taste in the white of an egg? And in the New World Translation it says, is there any taste in the slimy juice of the marshmallow? So that's something that they changed that has nothing to do with the Watchtower, all right? So what I'm saying there is that... You memorized that? Could there be? Yes, I did. You memorized that? It was a good tool because when children would have the New World Translation it was a good way to show children that they needed to get on the King James. But anyway, here's the thing. Slimy juice. The slimy juice of the marshmallow. I didn't even know marshmallow had slimy juice. I mean if you have a New World Translation I'd be glad to show you but you believe me. But did you know something? There's a new edition just came out last week. I bet it still says marshmallow but I'll check. I will have to look. But here's my point with that though. What about all the people out there, and you've heard this a million times, I've heard it a million times, that tell you, oh, the Bible's filled with contradictions. I hear it all the time. Couldn't there be an agenda to create contradictions? Just to make... or just to put stupid things in the Bible. Just to put things in the Bible that sound stupid. Like Saul was... what about this? Saul was one year old when he began to reign. How can you take a book seriously that says that? The vast majority of the alleged contradictions that more missionaries are running around and proving to people today are the King James Version of the Bible. But that's because they know that the King James is the authoritative version. They know that? I'm saying they know that in people's minds that's the main version that's being used. That's authoritative versions. The point is this can be used to make false arguments against the validity of the Bible just as any other translation can be. Exactly. Like you made the argument there's a contradiction between Paul's two accounts. I don't see a contradiction there but people could twist the passage. One says he heard the voice, one says he didn't hear the voice. Is it Acts 9? Acts 9, 7, 22, 9. Let's pull it up in your book just because it puts it side by side and makes it easy. But to answer your question while you're looking for it, to answer your question, I don't believe that God allowed His Word to endure the kind of purposeful corruption that evidently you are assuming happened even during the time when people were dying for possessing those scriptures. The heretics didn't want to die for anything. That's not why they're heretics. Heretics don't die for truth. I think heretics die for their beliefs all the time though, don't they? Which ones? In the early church? I'm not saying the early church. I'm saying the heretics of all religions have often died. Catholics have died for what they believed at the hand of Protestants. But back then, who are the heretics and what kind of changes are you alleging they make and why would Isaiah be the insertion? It just doesn't make any sense. It's not that I don't believe that there is a... I don't know that it's in... I don't believe... It's in the book for sure. I don't remember. Of course, I wrote that book 19 years ago, so I can't remember. But the point is, I do address it in Letters to a Mormon Elder, but my point is that the attack upon the Bible, I don't believe, is what you're suggesting it is. I believe today it is much more focused upon simply believing. So KJV says in 9-7, this is what you've highlighted as the contradiction you've made in bold. Page 284. So on page 284 of your book, you've highlighted the difference between Acts 9-7 and Acts 22-9 by showing that it says in verse 7, hearing a voice, in Acts 22-9 it says, heard not the voice of him that spake with me. I say they heard a voice, but it was not the voice of him that spake with him. Hearing a voice and hearing not the voice of him that spake with him. Right. They heard a voice, but they did not hear the voice of him that spake with him. Really? Well, that's what it says. How else could you explain it? Well, actually, you explain it by recognizing that... That the King James is in error. No, that actually the NIV got it right, because it recognizes that a kuo with the genitive and the accusative are different. But you don't even know... I'm just showing you that it doesn't have to be a contradiction. But Stephen, did you see what you just did there? What did I do? You dismissed the Greek syntactical answer to the question that would actually allow you. I don't believe if you and I were staying in front of a group of Mormon missionaries that your explanation would fly. Mine will. I think that if we were standing in front of a group of Mormon missionaries, no matter what we said, there's a 99% chance that they're not going to get saved. No matter what we say, there's a 99% chance. I'm not saying that some don't get saved. But Stephen, that's irrelevant what I just said. The reason I have witnessed over 5,000 of those young men is because I believe the word of God can save God's elect no matter who they are. So do I. But let me ask you this, okay? And that means I'm going to give them the truth. And this is, see Stephen, you and I are getting along just fine, we're having a good conversation here, I'm hoping this stuff's going to be useful for you. But this is where it gets important, because I'm sorry. The answer you just gave to this doesn't fly. And the answer that I gave, you dismissed, you dismissed out looking at it. Okay, so. Okay, all right. Let's get to the rest of the questions, because what time is it, Rich? Okay, we're ready to enter into the speed round. Speed round. All right, I will stop. I will try. Besides, this poor young lady is kneeling. For crying out loud. I mean, I am sorry. I apologize to you sincerely. Sit back a little bit. Okay. If you want to sit up here or something, please feel free, I'll move my stuff. One of the points that you've made, one of the points that you've made in your book, a lot, is that you said, you know, if the modern versions are attacking the deity of Christ, then why are there so many places in the modern versions that plainly state the deity of Christ? Or even state the deity of Christ with greater clarity than the King James. So, you know, I see your point, because of the fact that probably, you know, most people who read the NIV, if we ask them if Jesus is God, are probably going to say yes? Again, I don't... Okay, we don't know. But anyway, let's not get off on that. No, no, my point is that what people reading in translation understand it to be saying, and what it's actually saying, are often two very different things. Sure. Another doctrine though, okay, that in my opinion, the vast majority of people reading the NIV are wrong about. And I believe that it has to do with the wording in the NIV and other translations. For example, we got the ESV here. I was out knocking doors evangelizing less than a week ago, and I knocked on the door of a lady that was a Jehovah's Witness. She was shocked. Yeah, she's the other way around, right? So I knock on this lady's door, she's a Jehovah's Witness. I'm giving her the gospel, and I'm trying to get her to see that justification is by faith, that salvation is by faith. And I say to her, I started to quote John 3.36 to her, he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. She jumps in and finishes the verse from the New World Translation, but he that does not obey the Son shall not see life. And she said, you have to obey Christ to be saved, basically meaning you have to keep his commandments. You have to, you know, follow the law, and so forth. Now in the ESV... So she misinterprets the book of John. But here's the thing, in John 3.36 in the ESV, for example. Unless you're going to say that we're not supposed to obey Christ. Of course we're supposed to obey, but I do not believe that whosoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, because there are plenty of people who believe on Christ, but they don't necessarily obey Christ. And the Bible says here, in the King James, he that believeth not, the Son shall not see life. In the ESV, it reads, whoever... You've got to give the verse, I think we need to figure it out. Okay. John 3.36 in the ESV says, whoever believes in the Son has an eternal life, whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. This leads the reader to believe that the contrast is between believing and not obeying. And then people will say this, exactly what this Jehovah's Witness woman just told me, she said, well, to believe means that you're obeying him. You know, it's not to just believe, it means you're also obeying what he taught, because, you know, he that believes has life, and he that does not obey Christ does not have life. The ESV is doing the exact same thing, so this is tampering with salvation, it's tampering with the definition of believe. Because from this I can get a definition of believe that says obey. So you think the ESV translators don't believe in salvation by faith, or what? I'm saying that the devil does not want people to believe in salvation by faith, so he puts misleading verses like these in the new translations to confuse people about what believe means. So when King James has the longer ending of Mark, which includes believing and being baptized, and that's been used to promote baptismal regeneration by the Church of Christ for 200 years, and from your perspective has led thousands of people to hell, that's not the King James fault, but that is the ESV's fault. But that verse doesn't teach baptismal regeneration. Neither does that. It's been misapplied. Exactly. Right. Bingo. But here's the thing, though. Thank you. But here's the thing, though. But John 3.36, okay, is flat out saying that if you don't obey Christ, you're not going to see life. The wrath of God's abiding on you. I don't believe that a Christian who doesn't obey Christ, or a believer who doesn't obey Christ, has God's wrath abiding on him. The Greek term is a python, and it can be translated a number of ways. A right way and a wrong way? Well, well. I mean, just like anything else. But again, if we want to know what Jesus meant, we have to ask, what did he say? And you just illustrated clearly the double standard. I gave you an example where a King James passage, that I don't think should even be there, has been, from your perspective, misused to promote a false gospel. But you don't see that reflecting on the King James. I don't see that they're misusing it. That's what it says in the ESV. Whereas the King James says, the King James says, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned. Okay. He that believeth on both sides of that equation. But you also have baptism. On one side of the equation. Exactly. He that believes and stands on his head shall be saved. Because if you believe you're saved, it doesn't say if you're not baptized, you're not saved. So this, hold on, Mark 16 16 does not say, if you don't get baptized, you're not saved. It says, he that believeth not shall be damned. But this says that if you don't obey. And I can stand there with the ESV and say that the obedience to Christ is what faith is all about, has nothing to do with works. Even in John 3 and John 6, Jesus says, when people ask him, what do I need to do to do the works of God? What's Jesus' response? Believe on him whom he has sent. So I can make just as clear an argument from the ESV, from John 3 and John 6, as you just did from Mark chapter 16 going elsewhere. It's a direct parallel, Stephen. Anyone can take any translation and twist it to their own destruction. Is the ESV right when it translates it, not obey? If you understand, not obey, in the same way that the writer of Hebrews says, that without holiness we will not see God, then yes, there is a way in which it is proper to understand that saving faith must be obedient faith. It's not perfection. See this is a fundamental doctrinal difference between you and I. Because it sounds to me like you're saying that faith must include works as well. No, I'm saying what James said. Faith without works is dead. So what are you saying? Let me ask you this. We're saved by faith alone, but saving faith is never alone. What if a person... Well, hold on a second. Are you saying faith is never without works? But then James' statement would be meaningless. See, the difference between us is saving faith is the gift of the Spirit of God to his elect people. It's part of regeneration itself. Basically, you believe in predestination, the five points of Calvinism. I certainly do. Right, which I don't. But here's the thing. That's a whole other subject. Which the King James translators actually almost all did. You believe almost all of them did? Yeah, they were Puritans. Most of them. Most of the translators were Puritans? No, no, no. I believe most of them were Church of England. Have you read the 39 Articles of the Church of England? No, I haven't. Very reformed. But here's the thing though. What I'm saying is that I believe that a person can be saved by faith without works. You're saying that every single person who has faith will also have works. That what James said is true, yes. Well, hold on a second. That's not what James said. James did not say that everyone who has faith will also have works. In fact, he taught the opposite by saying faith without works is dead. That proves that it's possible to have faith without works. That's exactly opposite of his intent. If he says faith without works is dead, you're saying there's no such thing as faith without works. Why is he talking about something that doesn't exist? Because if you go back to verse 14, he is saying to those people who said, I have faith, but they have no means of demonstrating it. He says, and here's where I think the King James did not render this clearly either. Can that faith save him? Right. That's different. Here we have a difference in translation that results in a dramatic difference in doctrine. Because we have can faith save him versus can that faith save him. By saying, can that faith save him, we're introducing the concept of a different kind of faith. A saving faith. A dead faith. An obedient faith. That comes from the spirit of God. Okay. Now, since we're on Calvinism, or you probably would prefer to call it the doctrines of grace or can we call it Calvinism? You can call it whatever you'd like. Just don't kick my pulpit in the process. Have you repaired it? I don't see it. Have you repaired it? It didn't break. It takes a lick and it keeps on ticking. Does it have a dent in it or anything? It has many dents in it. You know how many times people sent me that video? Which one? You. But which one? I thought you were going off after Calvinism and you kicked the pulpit. I thought that's what you knew I was talking about. There's a lot of videos where I kick the pulpit. Oh, okay. Well, the only one they've sent me that. If you want to know the video that kicked the pulpit, you're not narrowing it down. Oh, okay. Here, I thought you were famous for just that one. No, I'm famous for a few different things, but anyway, or infamous, but anyway, we're getting off the subject. And Calvinism is going to open a whole other can of worms, obviously. I don't want to go too far into that, but let's just quickly mention how it applies to the subject of the translations, the King James. Okay. And again, you're not going to agree with me on this because you and I have a fundamental difference here between your belief in the five points of Calvinism. I believe in none of the five. Okay. Well, all five of them I disagree with, but I will say this, the Calvinist buzzword is the word sovereign. That's what I've observed in my lifetime. For example, this church has it in the name Sovereign Grace Bible Church. I can see that sign and I instantly know this is a Tulip believing church. This is a church that believes in the five points of Calvinism. I don't know anything about this church, but I'd be willing to put money on that because when you see sovereign, you know it's Calvinist. Okay. And whenever I talk to someone who is Calvinist or leans Calvinist, they always say, well, you know, do you believe God's sovereign? That seems to be a starting point with people, the sovereignty of God. The word sovereign is found in the King James Bible zero times. The word sovereign is found in the NIV 297 times and it's found in the New Living Translation 291 times. So would it be fair for me to say that these versions, these versions, the NIV and the New Living Translation lean Calvinist because they've used the word sovereign 290 sometimes, King James uses it zero times. So can't you see how someone reading the King James is less likely to become a Calvinist than someone who's reading the NIV or the New Living? No. Because they're seeing sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign. Since actually the King James is a favorite amongst many Calvinists, no, I don't think it has anything to do with the appearance of the word. It has to do with the teaching. It doesn't have anything to do with the... Okay. I just wanted to bring that up to you and see what your take was on that. I don't think so at all. Okay. We got to hurry up. We're in the speed round. We talked about John 3.36. Okay. You're only on the first page and you have three... No, no, no. We've skipped a round. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I knew. I was going to say. Buckle up. I feel like these changes are demonstrably strategic as far as changing unbelief to disobedience. Changing in the New King James. And I reject the very use of the term changing. Right. I know. I understand. We're coming from two different angles on that. But Matthew 7.14, for example, in the New King James says, difficult is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it. The King James says narrow, referring to how many people are going, referring to the fact that there are few that be saved. The New King James says it's difficult. Now, if it were by works, it would be difficult. But if it's by faith, if Jesus did everything, that's not difficult. His yoke is easy. We lean on it. We rest on it. Again, the issue would be, what does the Greek word mean? I don't believe... Do you believe that salvation is difficult? Well, Jesus does describe it as the narrow way. Which is in response to the question, are there few that be saved? I would agree. But likewise, how difficult it is, Jesus said, for a rich man. So he does use terms that could be used. Right. But here's the thing. In the King James, he explains why it's difficult for a rich man. Because in the King James, he says, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. Whereas in the NIV and all the modern versions, that phrase, who trust in riches is left out. Which can be compared to the parable that he gave right before. Well, hold on. Right before that statement that he says about the rich man... I'm sorry. Right before he dealt with the rich young ruler, he gave a parable about the Pharisee and the publican. And he talks about that the parable is for those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. Okay. Then he deals with the rich young ruler, and he's saying how hard it is for them that trust in riches. Why? Because the man who trusts in riches is used to relying on himself for everything. He trusts in his ability to provide. Instead of, like the Bible says, charge them that are rich in this world that they be not high minded. Neither trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God who richly giveth us all things to enjoy. Right. So what I'm saying is that by removing how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God, and just by saying it's hard to enter the kingdom of God, it allows a person such as yourself to bring it up, just as you did, to say, well, the Bible does say it's hard. For example, it says it's hard for the rich man. But they've removed the justification. So do you think that saying that it's hard, that it's a narrow road, that there's few that do the kind of- But hold on, you're equating hard and narrow. Hard and narrow have nothing to do one with the other. Oh, but I- Narrow means that there are few that are saved. Hard is talking about how much effort we have to expend. Our effort is zero. Jesus did it all. So here's my concern, Steve, and this really, I think, sums up a lot of this, and maybe if we're getting toward the end, it'll help. One of my biggest concerns here is, in each of your presentations, in each of these questions, not only are you assuming some kind of programmatic, I think that's a term you just used, conspiracy in the part of all translations to try to do these types of things, I wonder if you've compared the King James to the earlier translations to see if there's a program with the Geneva? I find that the King James Bible is very consistent with the six previous English translations, and that when you compare the King James to the Geneva, and you compare it to the bishops, which I have both on my computer, I've got here with me that I brought the 1534 Tyndale, when I compare them, although they are not always word for word the same, of course, they are consistent. And comparing the King James Bible to even the most, comparing the King James Bible to even the furthest removed, which would be the Tyndale, they're still in lockstep compared to comparing the King James with an ESV or an NIV. So you don't see any of the terms that the King specifically told the translators not to use, such as immersed for baptism, or church for assembly, you don't see any influences from royal authority. Here's what I see. I see with the King James' use of church and baptism, basically a moderation from others who were trying to go to an extreme in order to make their doctrinal point, in so much that they're even altering the text away from something that was the usage of the common man. For example, in this William Tyndale New Testament, it says congregation every single time, instead of church. My King James Bible says church, but just by looking at the Bible itself, just using the King James Bible only, I can easily see that the word church means congregation. That can be proven from within this book. So what you're doing is you're doing with the King James what you won't allow a new King James Bible reader to do with his. I just point that out. But here's my real problem. Here's my real problem. My real problem is, in much of King James' only-ism, there is a, in the thought of those who propose it, such as yourself, there is a coalescence of your understanding of Christian theology with the Word of God itself, so that you interpret your understanding of the Bible with the Bible itself. That's why I don't think you see the fact that you're doing the double standard thing. The real concern I have is, it doesn't allow you to be challenged as to your perspectives. That leads to damage to the person who holds that view, and especially if that person's in a position of authority. That's my concern. The Puritans at that time, these are people that are naming their kids things like, the Lord is near, sin deny. They want to just put everything into English. Have you read some of their sermons? Oh, it was great. To an extreme. I mean, these sermons were... But they're naming their kid, the Lord provides. The Lord provides, come on in. It's time for... So they're naming their kids what names mean. They're taking words that are commonly used, words like church or baptism, and they want to just say what it means, congregation or immerse. Yeah, those crazy Calvinists. What I'm saying is... You will admit they were Calvinists, right? The Puritans or the Calvinists? Of course they were. But the Puritans are not my authority. I don't believe that they're my spiritual forebears. They're probably more your spiritual ancestor, doctrinally. Yes, they are, and worship-wise, practice-wise. If you were to attend my church, you would see... Let me see your left hand. Let's see if you're a Puritan. Why? Why? They were staunchly against the wedding ring. I know that. They were staunch against a number of things, but if you attended my church, you would see what Puritan worship looks like. Okay, do you believe that the modern versions are correct? We're in the speed round. Do you believe that the modern versions are correct in 1 Corinthians 1.18, when they change unto us which are saved to unto us which are being saved? Well, first of all, I don't like using the term modern versions, because that assumes that there is a body. Okay, let's pick one. BSB. But the term...but when I preach on 1 Corinthians 1, and I generally do not use an English translation when so doing, when I just simply read the text, I will say, the message or the word of the cross is indeed to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved as a power of God, because it is a direct, direct parallel between apolumenos and sodomenos. And if you don't translate them in that way, you are breaking the parallel that exists in the original tongue. There is a parallel in the King James Bible, because it says, them that are saved and them that perish. It doesn't say them that are perishing. The problem...well, that's the... Now here's the thing. Do you believe... I'm not going to accuse... Do you believe that the unsaved are perishing? Yes. That does not make any sense, because perish means die. No. I do not believe that an unsaved person is dying their whole life. I mean, there's a point where they die, but to say that a 25-year-old young healthy atheist is dying is not accurate, and that's what this is saying, that he is perishing. No, it's perfectly accurate. Perfectly accurate. And that's what the Greek means. Can you dispute the fact that these participles are properly translated in this way? I believe that they're properly translated in the King James, because I believe that he's talking about those that are saved in general and those that perish in general, people that are saved, people that perish. But it's descriptive... He's not saying that they are perishing. Well, your problem is with Paul's choice of the Greek. So you're saying...what you're saying is that... This is supposed to be the speed round. I thought... But hold on. You're saying that all the King James Bible translators are wrong, because they translated it as... Well, actually, actually, the reality is, first of all, all the translators did not work on Christianity. Okay, but let's...the 12. The final 12. There was a specific group that did that. The 12. And we all know, and we all know...well, okay. So all 12 of them did not understand this basic Greek that you're telling me? And I will assert that very often their translation was much more influenced by Latin grammar than by Greek grammar. So in this particular instance, in 1 Corinthians 1.18... That it is better to translate it this way, yes. You are acting like this is just axiomatic, that, I mean, this is what it says in the Greek. End of story. But yet the King James Bible translators translated it completely differently. I am acting like the fact that the King James translators, they were sitting here, would not have been disputing with me about the accuracy of my translation either. It's not an either-or thing. I understand what they were saying. They would recognize, well, yours is more literal, you're right, but we understood it this way. They wouldn't be accusing me of mistranslation. Because being saved... And I would not be accusing them of mistranslation. I understand the concept of sanctification being a process. But however, in the context of the preaching of the cross, we're talking about saved people and unsaved people. To one, it's foolishness. To the other, it's the power of God. To those who are being saved and those who are perishing. It's descriptive of our life right now, yes. All right. Just make sure we don't miss anything here. ESV... Okay. We're running out of time, so let's skip some stuff and let's just get to an important, two important points, okay? And then we'll let you go. First John 5.7. Okay. I don't want to go into a big, long thing on it just because we're out of time. I just want to ask you a simple question. I know that you have a whole book on the Trinity. Where do you go if someone were to challenge the Trinity, you know, what's your go-to scripture or what's your go-to argument to prove the Trinity? You know, obviously, if someone twisted the Trinity to me, the first thing I would do is turn to 1 John 5.7. Oh, I really wish you wouldn't do that. But where would you go to prove the Trinity? The doctrine of the Trinity is not proven by going to a proof text, it's going by going to the New Testament. Okay. So, understand, the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed between the Old and New Testament. It is revealed in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So, the New Testament becomes the record of the religion of the Trinity, not the proof of the Trinity. So, to look for a single verse, which is what you're looking for in the comma Johannium, is to completely misunderstand the means by which the doctrine of the Trinity has been revealed. Stephen, I think I can say that I have stood in defense of the Trinity in the most amazing places in the world so far. I've defended that doctrine in the East London mosque one week after the Benghazi attack. I stood in a mosque in Erasmus, South Africa, less than two weeks ago and defended the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. And they used the comma Johannium against me because they know. But you didn't even bring it up. They brought it up. They brought it up as one of their primary arguments against the deity of Christ. And Stephen, if the roles are reversed, you'd be using that as an argument. I know you believe in the Trinity. Can you give me a scripture on the Trinity? Of course. What is the Trinity? The Trinity is three biblical doctrines. In fact, there's one true and eternal God. The fact that there are three divine persons. Can you give me a scripture on each of these three points? Yes. Okay. Exactly. Would you please do so? Isaiah 43, 10. Before me there was no God formed. There should be none after me. Got it. Check. There are three divine persons that are described in scripture. We can go to John chapter 14. Let's do it. What is it? Well, John chapter 14, when Jesus says, the Holy Spirit, I will send, the Father will send in my name. So he's mentioning all three right there in one verse. All three right there. And then the third is the equality of those persons and the personality of those persons. So you're not going to have just one verse. You're going to have every place where Jesus identified as God, where he's identified as Yahweh in John chapter 12 verse 41 or wherever it might be. And the personality of the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit speaks, the Holy Spirit gives the gifts as he wills in First Corinthians chapter 12. So you have to break it down to those three biblical doctrines and that's how you do it. I understand. Okay. This is the last thing I want to talk about, but I do want to go a little bit in-depth on this because it's an important subject and that is the doctrine of hell, or basically the word hell as it appears in the King James Bible. Okay. So the word hell in the King James Bible occurs 54 times. Okay. Thirty-one of those times are in the Old Testament. Twenty-three of those times are in the New Testament. Okay. In the NIV, for example, also in the New American Standard, the word hell occurs 13 times. Properly. Only in the New Testament. Okay. So basically, if you're reading an NIV, the word hell never occurs in the Old Testament. If you're reading a New American Standard, the word hell never occurs. Properly. And in the New Testament, it only occurs a total of 13 times. As a person who defends the doctrine of everlasting eternal punishment, the King James is one of the greatest barriers to the defense of that doctrine. Okay. So let me ask you this. Okay. In the New Testament... Can you explain why that is? Absolutely. Because it does not recognize the distinction between the realm of the dead and the place of eternal punishment. Okay. It translates hades as hell when that is not what the functional meaning is. And so by doing that, it gives those who oppose the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment ammunition to say, see, your Bible's been wrong here all along, and now the modern translations have figured it out. Okay. So let's start by just talking about the New Testament for a moment. Let's just only look at the New Testament. Three words for hell. One of them is not really relevant to the discussion, Tartaru, I don't think we're really disputing that. So let's just talk about, you know, I'm going to pronounce it... Hades and Gehenna. So, you know, that's how pastors all over America are reading it from their pulpit, from the NIV or whatever version, Hades, Gehenna. Okay. That's the English pronunciation of Hades. Okay. That's fine. So Hades is used 10 times in the New Testament. Gehenna is used 12 times. Gehenna is used 12 times. Now, when I looked up in the Greek text, which times... Because, you know, the King James just says hell. There's no differentiation made between Gehenna and Hades and the King James. So when I looked it up in a Greek New Testament to see, okay, which word is being used in which verse? It was very apparent to me that every time the word Gehenna was being used, we were talking about the final place of eternal torment, meaning the lake of fire. The place in outer darkness where, you know, both soul and body of the unsaved will spend an eternity in literal torment. And every time the word Hades was being used, it was always referring to the current place of fire and torment. Intermediate state before the final judgment. For example, perfect example is Luke 16. The rich man is in Hades. He lifts up his eyes being in torments. Whenever you see the word Hades, there's often a reference to being down to Hades. And where is death in Hades put in Revelation? Right. Exactly. So basically, what we have here is that every time Hades is being used, we are referring to where a person who is not saved will go the moment that they breathe their last breath. For example, the rich man died. He lifts up his eyes. He's in Hades. He's in hell. In the King James. Right. Okay. Are you saying that that place in Luke 16 where the rich man is burning is not hell? No. There's nobody in hell. Yes, there's nobody in hell yet. That's final judgment. Death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire. Hell is the final... You're exactly right. The New Testament writers were exactly specifically differentiating between the fact... Between the current place of torment... Between the current place of torment and that final place of torment where judgment has been pronounced over them. And these are two completely different locations because, for example, Hades, or what I would call hell, but the place a person dies when they're not saved and they just breathe their last breath, okay. That place, according to the Bible, is always referred to as being down. It's referred to as being descending into hell, being down into hell, whereas when we talk about Gehenna, we're talking about... Cast into. Outer darkness. Cast out, right. There's a big difference between in the heart of the earth, down into Hades, and being in outer darkness, right? You're confusing me. Okay. I don't... What have I said that's confusing? Because you're making my point. I thought you're agreeing with everything I'm saying so far. You're making a point for me. But I'm not. Because I'm not done. I mean, we're on the same page. I'm just making sure we're on the same page. I'm not trying to argue with you yet. It sounds to me like what you're recognizing is that the New Testament original language makes a distinction that the King James does not make. Does not make the distinction. Yes, exactly. I fully understand that. How can that then not be... Well, aren't there many other places where the King James does not make a distinction? Like, for example, between Agape and Filet-O? Whether they're both love in the King James or charity? But the point is that very lack of accuracy in the translation has been used to argue against the meaning of an eternal conscious punishment. So you're saying that the place that a person goes when they're not saved and they die could not be accurately described as hell? Because the New Testament writers make a distinction, yes. But the English word hell cannot refer to the place where a person dies? Not if you want... Again, what do you want a translation to do? You've just told everybody that the New Testament writers made a purposeful distinction between the two that you can't make because of your position. I can. But here's the thing. Every time I looked up Hades and Gehenna, it's obvious which one is being referred to by the context, which is why I was even able to ascertain the difference. So why did the King James translators not make a distinction? For example, when the King James Bible says he's going to destroy both soul and body in hell, that cannot be the place in the center of the earth because no body has gone to that place. Because it's only after the bodily resurrection of the unsaved, after the millennium, that you don't believe in. I'll let the listener see. Okay, but here. But I haven't made my point yet. I haven't made my point yet. I'm just trying to make sure that we're on the same page before I can make the point. And I wanted to make sure that you, being someone who is fluent in Koine Greek, could verify that I've correctly understood the distinction between Hades and Gehenna. Have I correctly understood it? Yes. Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. So what I'm saying is that when a person dies that's not saved, they're going to Hades. If we were to be using the Greek word, they're going to the current abode of where people are in torment, they're in flames, right? So let me ask you this. Should I, if I'm going out and evangelizing and giving the gospel, am I expected to warn someone that if they don't get saved, they're going to go to Hades? And will anyone in America, will the average person in America have any idea what I'm talking about when I use a foreign word and tell them, if you don't get saved, you could wake up tomorrow in Hades? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for me to say, if you don't get saved, you could wake up tomorrow morning in hell? And then they would actually understand English instead of me using a word in a foreign language that they don't understand. I mean, if we don't speak in words that are easy to be understood, we speak into the air. So if I'm trying to evangelize and I say, hey, beware of ending up in Hades, that's not, nobody understands. I'm speaking into the air. An advocate for a translation in a language that went out of style 300 years ago is now arguing that we should not make the proper distinctions between Hades and hell so that people can understand us better because we need to use modern language. I'm sorry, but you just... Who determines what the word hell means? But you just lost me there. But an answer to your question, an answer to your question, anyone who ends up in Hades is going to go to hell, so you could very easily, you could very easily say your eternal destiny is going to be hell and not even have to explain the intermediate state unless they brought it up. But I couldn't really take them to Luke 16 without confusing them with a foreign word. A person presenting King James onlyism would actually say you cannot explain what words mean. How many times you had to explain what fetch a compass means? How many times you had to explain hinder not the, or let not the little children? You mean let not the little children, you mean suffer the little children to come into me and forbid them. Ever explain that? Ever explain what suffer means? Of course we're supposed to, we're not supposed to just read the Bible to people, we should also expound what the word means. I think you just answered the question. But if I'm talking to people, okay, and I'm using a foreign word that 99% of people don't understand, am I even speaking English? If I use the word Hades, am I even speaking English? Because if I take a dictionary off the shelf, Hades is going to be the underworld of Greek mythology. That's going to be definition number one. Well, I'll be happy to explain them in the context of any Bible verse that I use. But it's the New Testament writers that used Gehenna, which by the way was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem and I'm sure everybody had explained where that was too. So let me ask you this. Okay, the NIV uses the term Hades eight times because the term Hades is used ten times in the Greek New Testament. Eight times they translate it as Hades, or transliterate it as Hades, they don't, they leave it untranslated as Hades, okay. Two times they change it to something completely different, the grave, okay. And that is in Acts chapter two about Jesus Christ because in Jesus Christ it says he was not abandoned to the grave, neither did his flesh see corruption. In the King James in Acts 2 31, the Bible says this fakie of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. So in the King James, if I'm going to be King James only, if I'm going to believe that the King James is my final authority, then I believe that Jesus Christ's soul was in hell for three days and three nights. Now if I'm reading the NIV, I'm not going to get that. I'm just going to think we're talking about only the bodily aspect of his body coming out of the grave, not the fact that his soul came out of hell. Let me ask this, do you believe that Jesus' soul went to hell? Hades, not hell. There's nobody in hell. But a minute ago- It is wrong. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to say Jesus was in hell. Okay, let me say it in a way, okay. Let me ask you this, do you believe that Jesus' soul went to the same place that the guy was burning in Luke 16? No, of course not, because Hades had two compartments, everybody knew that. I don't believe that. Oh, really? I don't believe that. Where's the poor man in Luke 16? Where's the poor man in Luke 16? He's in heaven. He's not in heaven? He's absolutely not. He's in Hades. He's in heaven. No, no, see this is, you would never survive a debate with a conditionalist on this, because Hades- I don't even know what a conditionalist is, so I'm probably not going to- The people who deny eternal conscious punishment, it's a huge movement today. It's- Rob Bell, or whatever. Rob Bell, please. Okay, whatever. Someone's serious. That's the only one I've heard of. Okay, no, Hades had two compartments- Yeah, I don't believe that. It's a fact. Okay, what if I show you Old Testament scriptures of the saved being in heaven? Read the Jewish scriptures, read the Jewish- I'm sorry, read what the Jews themselves understood at the time of Jesus. The ones who crucified him? Look, no, no, when Jesus- Read what they understood? Yeah, what? You don't think that's relevant to understanding the background of the Old Testament? Well, they didn't understand Christ's message. So? So why do I expect them to understand anything else? So because they rejected Jesus means that everything Jesus said to them about the Korban Rule. How do you know what the Korban Rule is? Huh? How do you know? I can tell you what the Korban Rule is. From the context in the King James Bible, because it explains it in Matthew 15? Okay, where'd they get it from? You don't know because you won't look at those sources. The Korban Rule- Well, he's bringing up something that we shouldn't even care about because he's saying this is your stupid tradition. Oh, oh, we shouldn't even- But he's saying- he's telling them- hold on, he's rebuking them for their Korban Rule. Steven, this is why- He's not saying that. Steven, this is why I hope and pray that you will think about this. Because the fact that when I debate Roman Catholics, I can demonstrate to them the Korban Rule according to the mission. Do you know what the mission I was? Do you know what the mission I was? Jewish fables? The mission I was the traditions that Jesus was specifically talking about. He was rebuking them. And it's good to know what they were, so we have a background- I'm not interested in what they were, to be honest. Well then you can't argue against Roman Catholics like I can, because I'm gonna take the time to find out what was going on back then, and the point is- To be honest with you, I'm not interested in arguing with Roman Catholics. I am interested- Because I would rather preach the Gospel to Roman Catholics. I am interested in convincing them and explain the Gospel to them in a way that they can understand, not simply preaching at them, but preaching in a way that they can understand. But hold on a second. So let me just make this clear real quick. We have a fundamental difference in doctrine here. I believe that Jesus Christ was in a place- His soul was in a place of fiery torment for three days and three nights before the resurrection. I think it's heresy. Okay. So we have a fundamental difference in doctrine here, and it is based upon which Bible we're reading. Well hold on, my King James Bible says- hold on a second. My King James Bible says that his soul was in hell. But you know that the Greek word is hades. And you know that consistently that does not refer to a place of punishment. What's my final authority? It should be what was written by- But what is my final authority? Your tradition. The King James. Hold on. This is my final authority. Your tradition that those English words are more important than the Greek words from which they were translated. But hold on. My final authority is the King James Bible. Therefore if I open my English King James Bible, and in Acts 2 31 it says that Jesus soul was in hell, and in all 54 mentions of hell it's always a bad place, it's always fire and torment, then that- I cannot believe anything other than that. So when Jesus said to the thief, today you will be with me in paradise, that was hell? No, because the thief is going to be with the Father in heaven, and that speaks to the Trinity. He will be with me in paradise. That speaks to the Trinity. Jesus was dead for three days and three nights. And here's the thing. Okay, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He said that they were not dead but living. He said God's not the God of the dead but of the living. So if Jesus Christ went to the same place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that would mean that he wasn't even dead. He would be living. Wow. Hell is the place of the dead. So you think Jesus- So Jesus went to the place of the dead. Well what's the punishment for sin? So Abraham, he gave his life. He didn't have to go to hell- I believe that he went to hell for three days and three nights. He was a burnt sacrifice. Every sacrifice is a burnt sacrifice. I consider that ab- Okay, hold on. Why is every sacrifice a burnt sacrifice? Okay, I'm not even going to bother anymore with that because we're- Why was the Passover roast with fire? You won't even listen to the fact that Abraham is in a place with the leper. In heaven. In Hades. I believe that he was in heaven. There's nowhere that says that Abraham is in Hades. So because here is a perfect example of where your commitment to an English rendering that you've recognized is inaccurate to the original- No, I did not say that it's inaccurate. You said that you saw a difference between Hades and Gehenna. I'm saying I don't believe that in the English language the distinction between Hades and Gehenna is necessary. I believe that the word hell- So before- Hold on. Aren't there two words in Greek that could be translated as the same word in English or German or Spanish? I'm saying that the word hell is an accurate translation of Hades and an accurate translation of Gehenna. That's what I'm saying. So before the English language, if all you read was the New Testament in Greek, you would have been misled here. No, I don't believe so. Because you never would have come to your conclusion. No, because if you were reading the Greek New Testament, you'd read Luke chapter 16 that Hades is a place of fiery torment, and then you'd read the same author Luke tell you in Acts 2 31 that that's where Christ's soul was. Why do you think Christ's only hope- Except you would see that Abraham- Christ wants to get out of there. You would see that Abraham- He says his soul, flesh, and hope because he's not going to be left there. He's not going to be left- If it's a good place, why does he not want to be left there? He wants to get out of there. Okay. All right. Why was the Passover roast with fire? Why is every sacrifice a burnt sacrifice? We've- So you know what I've just proven though? I've proven- Circularity? No, I've proven. I've proven that a person who has the King James Bible as their authority is going to have a difference in doctrine from someone who has the NIV as their authority. Only because of your traditions. You do not have to interpret it that way. The word hell is used 54 times. It's always used the same way. You do not have to interpret it that way. Look, according to your doctrine, the King James is wrong to put the word hell in Acts 2 31. That's not even a doctrinal issue. That's just a simple translation- Okay, according to your opinion, you believe that the King James Bible is wrong to use the word hell. Yes, we recognize the difference between meaning and hell. Although 99% of people would disagree with you, because 99% of people outside these doors, if I asked them, if an unsaved person dies and goes instantly to a place of fiery torment down in the depths of the earth, what is that place called? 99% of people will say that place is hell. That means that that's what the English word means. When you start using all the folks out there to determine what's right and wrong, we're no longer doing anything- Hold on a second. I'm using that to determine what the word hell means in 2013. Well that's not- What does the word hell mean? Those people out there don't determine those things. I think we've- Okay, all right. I think we're done. We got it. We've done it all. I mean, you act like I'm alone on this doctrine. No, but I do consider it theoretical. But am I alone on it? That's not the definition of heresy. I'm not saying it is, but you're acting as if this is a strange doctrine. Well, Kenneth Copeland believed it. Yeah, Kenneth Copeland believed it. Oh, okay. I mean, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church believe it? Not that they're authoritative of anything. No, not in that sense. Isn't it in the Apostles' Creed? No, not in that sense. Descended into hell? That's not in the Apostles' Creed? Well, again, but not in the sense of they recognize the two compartment nature of Hades. Oh, okay. So when they said descended into hell, they're talking about Gehenna? No. Which is what you're saying is the only legitimate meaning of hell? No. Are you saying that the Apostles' Creed is... Stephen, you're not even listening to me anymore. I am listening. No, you're not. I get what you're saying. No, you're not. Are you listening to me? Yes. I have. The Apostles' Creed. I have. Who translated it into English? Yeah, I understand. Why don't you want to answer? Because you're not listening to me anymore. I am listening to you. We had a good conversation at that point, but we're not anymore. But I totally understand your point. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. I just don't get it because I totally understand your point and I'm acknowledging it. We're done. We're done. We're done. That's why you don't want to talk about that. Well, when you've beaten the horse to death, there's no reason to keep hacking away at it. Well, I mean, I just, I believe that you've been demonstrated to be wrong and that's why you don't want to talk about it. Well, you know, I've been down this road before and once... Obviously, we have to end it at some point, but I just, I feel like you just throw up your hands at a point that was pretty important and act like I'm just bringing up, like you're acting like I just, you know, brought up the fact that the tooth fairy's real or something. I give you the last word. Yeah, okay. I give you the last word. I'm just, you make it sound like I believe in the tooth fairy because I believe in something that a lot of people believe in, which is, you know, I'm not the only person, like you said yourself, Kenneth Copeland, I mean, not that he's somebody that I want to be associated with, but you're acting like I'm just coming up with this out of nowhere and that's just not true. It's a legitimate argument that I'm making, that millions of people agree with me on. Can you stop at some point? Do you have the capacity? That's the question now. We've had a good conversation. We've had good... Well, I appreciate you taking so much time to talk with us. Honestly. I appreciate it.