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

Thanks for joining us for The Baptist Bias Season Two, but unfortunately, I have some bad news. Ben, he just went AWOL. I mean, I don't even know where he is. He told me he's quitting the show, and he told me that he's just done with us, and that he doesn't want to be my friend even? And he said he's like, going back home? I don't even know what that means. And he just kept emphasizing that he's like the real Ben, and that I should believe that he's the real Ben. I don't know what he meant by that. But it's just frustrating that people just drop you like a bad habit. I mean, they just call you up. I mean, he was supposed to record the Benalog for the show, and we were going to do it, and then he just like disappears. It's just like a no Benalog, just totally gone. I mean, how do you just like totally just disappear and say you're gone and say you're done with the show? I don't even know how I'm going to do this show without Ben. I mean, he's obviously the co-host of the show, and ... Okay, well that's weird. Apparently we had actually something that was recorded for the Benalog. They said that we have some exclusive footage or something. Let's check out what we got. Sorry I missed the last show. I had a run in with ... Well, let's just say it's a long story, but seriously, I'm short on time, so I'm going to try and make this quick. There's a group out there trying to shut down the truth, and the greatest truth of all is obviously the Bible. And praise God for great men like James White, who can help us decode the extremely difficult words in the King James Bible. I mean, Ado, Cholar, how do you even pronounce these words? How can you possibly understand? How can anybody understand a word like quicksands? Think about it. Quicksands. Thank goodness for the new King James version that changed that to Surtustands. Makes more sense to me. How about Judgment Hall? That one becomes Praetorium. The word Deputy, which obviously requires a doctrine in English to fully comprehend. Well, thankfully, that one has been changed over to Proconsul. The word Chains. Incomprehensible to me. Well, that one has turned into Armlets. Bracelets. A much easier word has been added into the modern version of the Bible. How about Brooches? The word Children requires obviously a dictionary. I mean, right? It's extremely hard to fully grasp. Well, that one becomes Brood. The word Sad. The very difficult word Sad has been turned into Dejected. The word Destruction has become Gadfly. The very difficult word Convenient has become the much easier Oportune and, well, Green has become Verdant. The Bible in Psalm chapter 30 verse 3 turns the word Grave into Sheol. The modern versions do, of course, and we know that the word Hell and Luke chapter... Hey! Hey! Hey! What are you doing? Get your hands off me right now! Hey! You are an imposter! I am the real Ben. Obviously I am the real Ben. I've always been the real Ben. Anyone that doubts that will be punished. I'm glad we cleared that up. Now to the most important aspect of this message. If you have a King James Bible, you need to turn it into the government immediately. This is dangerous propaganda that undermines our democracy and it can confuse you. If you do not turn in your Bible, we will come and help you turn it in. And if you do not comply with this order, you will be labeled as a domestic terrorist because you clearly have the Baptist bias. I mean, I knew that wasn't the real Ben. I guess we're going to have to figure out where he's at. Maybe we can help him. Well, I guess I'm going to have to do this show by myself tonight. That's obviously what Ben would want me to do. But fortunately, we do have a special guest that's going to help us with the show. Maybe he can help us decode some of these really difficult, archaic, as described as old English words in the King James Bible. We have Pastor Steven Anderson from Faithful Word Baptist Church. He's going to be joining us. Hey, how's it going Pastor Anderson? Can you hear us? It's going great. I was just brushing up on my old English just to be able to help you out today before the show came on. Great. Well, I hope everybody's buckled up for some old English like the King James Bible. Too bad we don't have Brother Ben here with us this evening. I don't know. It seems like there's some weird stuff going on with him. But I'm excited for this show, and thanks so much for joining us. Pastor Anderson is also going to be featured in a new film that we're going to be releasing called The Preserved Bible. And we're very excited about releasing our new film. We've got a poster that we made. Maybe we can put that up on the screen for a second. But The Preserved Bible is going to be released in theaters January 30th. It's going to be in Dallas-Fort Worth area, in the Houston area. We have one in Oklahoma City. There's going to be theater showings in the Phoenix area. Also they're going to be doing one in Tucson at the local church there for Faith Forward Baptist Church. And then there's also going to be one in Vancouver, Washington. And if you have any questions, you could always email us or contact us. We'd love to help you out, see if you want to try and see the show in person. But if you can't, for whatever reason you're in a different part of the country, we're going to be releasing this next Tuesday night. So we're going to have a Baptist Bias podcast to kick off. And then we're going to immediately have the live premiere on Tuesday night. So you don't want to miss it. And we're really excited about people watching the film, learning more about The Preserved Bible. I know you Pastor Anderson, you got a chance to get a sneak peek at kind of a rough copy of the film. What'd you think? I absolutely loved it. I mean, the copy that I saw was I think about 90% complete and I was really entertained by it. Obviously this is a subject that I've been hearing about for 20 some years. And yet this film was very entertaining to me and really interesting to me. And there were new things for me to learn in the film. And so there's a lot of great historical information, a lot of great, you know, just biblical truths. But even people that are deep into this subject, I think are going to get something out of this film, but yet it's entertaining. So I think it's awesome. I can't wait to get this thing out everywhere. Now obviously you've made a lot of films and projects over your career and specifically even dedicated to topics like the King James Bible. You had a film called New World Order Bible Versions. And I remember watching this film, it was probably one of my most enjoyable or it was the most enjoyable film I've watched, a documentary on the King James Bible. And it really helped me have a better understanding of, you know, what's really going on, some of the motives. Plus it was honestly just one of the most entertaining documentaries I've ever seen. But that was a long time ago. When did you release that film? It was released in 2014. It was filmed, most of it in 2013. So a lot of the interviews and stuff were shot in 2013, but it came out in 2014. And if you think about it, it's hard to believe, but that's like nine years ago. I mean, it's 2023 now. And so obviously we need an update, but not only that, this is a totally different film. Like this isn't another New World Order Bible Versions. They both dealt with the King James. They both, you know, brought a lot of truth about the corruptions that are in the modern versions, but this is not a rehash or a replacement for New World Order Bible Versions. It's a supplement to New World Order Bible Versions because it's a totally different film. Yeah, I definitely really enjoyed New World Order Bible Versions and I don't think it can be replaced. You know, but at the same time, I think that there's a lot of other information that can be learned and shared on this particular topic. And for me, I had a hard time even being King James only for, you know, a kind of a short period of time at that when I first seen the film, understanding the differences maybe between, you know, a Ruckmanite or somebody who just kind of prefers the King James or just kind of what all the arguments are that there's a lot of people that will make arguments about the King James Bible. And for me, this topic is really important because it's really even where I even decided to find out better preaching that was out there because one of my first exposures to Pastor Anderson or to your preaching was a clip where you are actually debunking James White on the King James Bible issue. Because when I first realized through other people, I think it was Kent Hovind and some other people about King James onlyism, I ended up doing some research and I found Sam Gipp, which, you know, obviously Sam Gipp's not someone I would ever recommend or support. He's definitely a weirdo. But at the time, you know, he was making some good arguments for the King James, but at the same time saying some weird stuff too. And he was going on a back and forth between James White and himself. And I ended up noticing a clip of yours where you were kind of responding to their controversy, to their strife, and you were mocking James White for him claiming that the King James Bible is full of archaic language. And I wanted to see if we could play just a few minutes of that clip. And it's an older clip. I think I looked it up. It's maybe around 2014 when you'd made this video. It's not the most visually appealing clip, but it was the content that really drew me to what you were saying. And this is the first clip I've ever seen of Pastor Anderson in my entire life. So we'll go ahead and play just a few minutes of it. Hello, this is Pastor Steven Anderson from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. And I just wanted to make a quick video in response to Dr. James White's video, What's the Big Deal About King James Onlyism Part 4. Let me start out by saying that I'm no fan of Sam Gipp. But this video that Dr. James White has put out is so filled with error and inaccuracy I feel that it needs to be responded to. This man is someone who puts himself forth as a scholar. People look up to him as being very intelligent, very educated, and an expert on matters of the English Bible as he fights against King James Onlyism and defends the modern perversions of the Bible. Well in this video, he rattles off a list of words that are supposedly archaic words that the King James uses because he's trying to make the point that the King James is totally outdated. Well what's funny is that in this list of words that he rattles off, there are some words that are actually pretty commonly used modern words, but the problem is that James White is pronouncing them wrong. Now I find it bizarre that he doesn't know how to pronounce the word ado. He pronounces it a dough. Well obviously if you say a dough, no one's going to know what you're talking about. But if you say the word ado, that's a common word that people have heard all the time. For example, much ado about nothing. For example, you might go to an event and they'll say, without any further ado, let me introduce to you our next speaker. Ado is a pretty common word, but James White thinks it's pronounced a dough, and therefore it is to him archaic. Another word that he mispronounces is the word caller. And you've probably heard people referred to as being choleric. Someone who's choleric is a very angry person. Caller is a word that I actually learned, I can't remember if it was fourth grade or fifth grade English, I learned the word caller. It's spelled C-H-O-L-E-R. He pronounces it choler. Well obviously if people hear the word choler, they're going to think it's archaic, but the word caller is not archaic at all. Another one's sealed. Sealed is not an archaic word. We use the word sealing all the time. Sealed is a derivative of that. I don't think anybody would have any trouble understanding the word sealed in a King James Bible. And not only that, but every single one of these words that people accuse the King James of using that are archaic words, every single one of these words is in a modern English dictionary. I mean if you get the most current modern Webster's dictionary, and it doesn't have to be the gigantic version, just a somewhat complete basic modern English dictionary will contain every word that's found in the King James Bible. And yet these words are supposedly archaic. For example, later on... So I just wanted to play a clip there of kind of just an introduction. I think your video in total is about seven, nine minutes long. But I did find it amusing that James White doesn't even understand many words that are actually pretty common, things that people often hear, and he constantly labels them as being archaic. Well, if you type that into just the internet, it says a definition for archaic is no longer current or applicable, antiquated. Well, again, like Pastor Anderson's clip showed, these words are still being used in modern current situations. And of course, just because James White may not be familiar with a word, he's not the arbiter of what's archaic or not, or what's in current use. And really, it kind of just showed that James White isn't really making sound argumentation. And it's funny because it presumes to be such a great scholar, but you would think a scholar wouldn't be making such a fundamental mistake. Do you remember making this clip, Pastor Anderson? Oh, yeah, absolutely. And obviously there are some words in the King James Bible that you could make a case for being archaic. But it's not these words that he's bringing up. So what ends up happening is that these guys, they want to exaggerate how many archaic words are in the Bible, because yeah, there are some that are archaic, but there aren't really that many and it's not a big deal. So in their zeal to exaggerate, then they start grabbing hold of all these words that are not even archaic or just lying and saying that words are in the King James that aren't even in the King James. Like I saw recently that Bart Ehrman had put out a list of, oh, these are really hard words in the KJV. And a lot of the words are found nowhere in the KJV, like, I don't even know where he's getting this list. I think he was pulling things out of like footnotes or things that were in the column or I don't know, maybe he's just making things up, but they weren't in the text of the King James Bible. And he's just, oh, look at this big, long list of archaic words. They're always just trying to exaggerate that. But somebody made a great point to me the other day, I forget who it was. They made the point that the very fact that they're in the King James means that they're not archaic since there are so many millions and millions of Christians using the King James Bible on a daily basis, because there are still just thousands and thousands and thousands of churches, tens of thousands of churches using the King James every week. And so that means that these words are in use because they're in use in church, they're in use in sermons, Bible study. I mean, how many people are waking up every morning in America every day and reading a King James Bible and how many pastors are getting up every Sunday morning and preaching out of a King James Bible. So, you know, in that sense, nothing's archaic. But you know, as far as our common everyday usage, some of it's archaic, but they're exaggerating because it's not as many words as they want you to think. Well, and even if there is an archaic word, why is that a bad thing necessarily that someone might have to look up a few words or learn a few new words? I found that if you look at a lot of SAT or ACT testing, many times they're going to use words found in the King James Bible. And so by actually reading the King James Bible, it seems like you're preparing yourself for higher level academics and just familiarizing yourself with different subject matter, different topics. I mean, if you're not maybe in the sphere of theater arts or musicals or plays, you might not have heard the phrase, you know, much ado about nothing. But being in that kind of atmosphere, you probably will hear about it. Or there could be people that are interested in sewing where they may have certain words that are used in the King James Bible that are familiar to them. But to men that don't sew, they have no idea what you're talking about. So it's kind of relative. How do we even determine what's considered archaic? And even if there was a word that's archaic, why does that, why does that necessarily mean that it's bad or wrong? Yeah, and I mean, the bottom line is that the King James Bible is not the hardest book out there by any stretch of the imagination. Anybody who goes to school is going to be handed many times in their school career texts that are a lot harder to understand than the King James Bible. And for example, if you were to sit down and read Shakespeare's plays, they're much harder than the King James Bible, yet they're being used in high schools all over America. And you know, we could point to a lot of other texts that are much harder to understand. And yet, you know, nobody's saying that we should get rid of them. Obviously, there's a little bit of a learning curve with anything. The Bible is this huge book, it was written 1000s of years ago. Plus, you know, you brought up a great point about like the sewing terminology, some words in the King James that you think are archaic. It's not that they're archaic, it's just that you don't know anything about sewing, or you don't know anything about sailing, or whatever. Because I brought up a word to my wife that I had no clue what it meant in Exodus, you know, oh, archaic language in the King James. But then she acted like I was crazy for not knowing that word, because she knew it as a seamstress. She said, everybody who sews knows that word, you know, or I've seen people bring up angling as one of the archaic words in the King James, but a fisherman is going to know what that means. You know, I don't know anything about fishing. So that's not a word that I would use. But to a fisherman, that would just be self explanatory. And so, yeah, the King James Bible was translated 400 years ago, the language has changed a little bit. But it hasn't changed enough to where we need a new Bible. I mean, our, you know, the King James Bible is such a masterpiece, you know, updating it would be a bad idea because of the fact that, you know, you're probably not going to get the same quality. And you know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You know, theoretically, if we were speaking a totally different language, yeah, you would have to update it, but it's still understandable enough. And that's what preaching is for to explain the parts that are that are challenging. I think that's makes a lot of sense. I want to test you here for a second. And I also want to bring up a clip from our film. It's our clip one. It's a deleted scene from our film because obviously, if the Bible was written in a completely different language, that would be a problem. Or as James White pretends the King James is written Old English or Middle English, then that would be theoretically a problem. But I think that a lot of people don't realize that the King James is not this Middle English or Old English, and that maybe they're just unfamiliar with certain terminology. When I have talked with Ben, Ben has actually done some sports reporting, where he goes out and he reports on different sports, and he's done a lot of golf. And I played golf growing up, so of course, anything golf, I'm going to have a pretty strong understanding of or familiarity with. But they use a term in golf where they call tea time. And I was curious, what do you think tea time is, Pastor Anderson? I mean, I would think that that would be something that we would do in England with some crumpets and some Earl Grey. That's exactly what Ben thought. Now that's what I would, if I heard it out of context, but because you said that it's in the context of golf, and just full disclosure, I've never played golf. I know, right? But my understanding is that tea time is like, I guess the golf course is really busy, so they have this really strict schedule, it's like every nine minutes they're starting people or something. It's like these odd times, like tea time is at 8.53 a.m. or something, and that's when you start playing golf. Am I right? Nailed it. I mean, that's exactly what it is. It's basically when you get the golf tee, and you put it down and you tee off on the first hole. So, it's just funny because Ben was like, where's the crumpets and the glasses, where are we going to have some tea? Here's the thing, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out in context, because if I heard tea time out of context, I would have gotten it wrong. But as soon as you say golf, even if I'd never heard about, because by the way, when I just explained to you about the odd times and everything, I just learned that like a week and a half ago. You can figure out what things mean by context. Studies have shown that if you understand about 95 to 96 percent of the words on a page of text, then your brain can figure out the other four or five percent through context. So these modern version people, they'll throw some oddball word at you in isolation, like, what does trow mean or something? But here's the thing though, when you see it in context, you know exactly what it means. So when Jesus said, I trow not, okay, in context, I read that as a little kid and immediately knew what it meant from the context, whereas just given that word in isolation, I'd be like, wow, I have no idea what this word trow means. That's a weird word. So you know, as long as you understand 95 to 96 percent of the text, you can get the rest from context and you're going to be right most of the time, you can always reach for a dictionary. You know, there's nothing in the world wrong with reaching for a dictionary when there's a word that you don't understand in any book that you're reading. I mean, I look things up in the dictionary almost every day, not because of the Bible, but other outside reading that I'm doing, because I like to know what words mean. So I look things up in the dictionary virtually every day. I mean, words that I'm very familiar with and use all the time, I look up in the dictionary often just to get a more exact understanding of what the word means. Absolutely. I'm the exact same way. Like all all have a word that I think I know what it means, but I want to like make sure that I'm using it right or something. Yeah. Yeah. Which again, that's not the argument that James White's even trying to suggest. He's saying that it's Old English or Middle English. And I there's a part of our film that honestly I really wanted to keep in the film, but for purposes of trying to keep it under 10 hours or whatever Ben would have made it, I had to cut some things. And so there is a section that we have of your interview that we had done for the film. And I wanted to play that in just a few minutes. But it kind of talks about the differences between Old English, Middle English and Modern English. So let's go ahead and play that clip. Around 1000 A.D., we're talking about Old English, Anglo-Saxon, very Germanic language. And if you tried to read a sample of it, you would be able to understand almost nothing. OK, then the French invaded England and conquered with William the Conqueror in 1066 A.D. And then you had kind of a merging of that Norman French and Anglo-Saxon as the Normans ruled over the Angles and the Saxons. And then that hybrid language became what's known as Middle English. Right. So from around 1150 A.D. to around 1450 A.D., you would point to that as Middle English. And then as you get into the 1500s, now you're into Modern English. OK, here's the beginning of Beowulf in Old English. Do anybody understand any of that? So don't let anybody tell you that the King James Bible is Old English. No, Old English is 100 percent unintelligible. It's Anglo-Saxon. It's nowhere near what we have today. Now, what changed? How did English change so much to what we have today? Well, William the Bastard, also known as William the Conqueror in 1066 A.D., invaded England from Normandy. Right. So the norm, the Norman French language speakers conquered England and they ruled over England for a while. And so the people that are in charge are speaking Norman French and the people who've been conquered and subjugated are speaking Anglo-Saxon or Old English. So over time, a hybrid language developed where they can communicate with one another, where you're mixing the language of the conquerors with the language of the conquered. So that was just a small snippet of the film. And so you got a little sneak peek there, although we had to cut it. So it's not going to be in the actual final project. It was a deleted scene. And we are going to be releasing the deleted scenes every part, you know, several weeks after the actual premiering of the film. And we're hoping to still put a lot of content out there because this was a great point that Pastor Anderson was making and really explaining for us in detail about where the English language came from and how the King James Bible is not like Beowulf. In fact, I noticed one of the words there, Fremadon, I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly, but I typed it in a Merriam Webster and you know what it said? We don't have any definition. We don't know what this is a word. So obviously that would be a problem if I have a word in my Bible and I type it in the dictionary and it just says no result. And it's just like literally the whole Bible is just filled with words where you just have no understanding. You've never heard this word. That would be a serious issue. But that's not what's going on at the King James Bible. And clearly, James White has no idea what is going on with the history of the English language or what the King James Bible even is. What did you have anything else to share about your clip or your thoughts about this this Old English, Middle English argument? I mean, it's just again, it's kind of a silly mistake. You'd expect someone off the street to make this mistake and just say, oh, yeah, it's Old English, you know, because they saw a cartoon and they had like Yee Town Crier or something and they think these and those are Old English. Right. But again, you know, claiming to be a scholar specializing in English Bible translations and so forth to say Old English or maybe Middle English because he even says both. James White actually says, oh, what is it, Old English? I guess it's Middle English. It's like, no, dude, it's modern English because. Old English, like it said in that clip, is totally unintelligible to us today, unless you've had special training. Middle English, though, you could actually understand a lot of it, like the difference between Old English and Middle English is huge. And then Middle English to modern English is not as big of a jump, but still most people would struggle with Middle English, Middle English like the Canterbury Tales. And if you read the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, you'll understand some of it, but a lot of it is going to go over your head. I mean, that is truly archaic. Like if the Bible were written in Middle English, we would have a serious problem. Like we would we would need an update at that point because it's just that different. I mean, that makes sense. And, you know, I've talked with people and I, you know, I've interviewed people for the film and one of the questions I asked some some of these interviewees is if English, modern English had drifted so far away from what we're speaking now and words that we use today are not being understood and communicated regularly, would there be justification to update the King James Bible? And of course, these interviewees are people that believe the King James Bible is the preserved word of God. But to me, the obvious answer would be yes. You know, it's not that we are changing the King James Bible. It would just be another translation on top of the King James for those who are speaking this newer version of English, whatever you want to call that. Yeah, I don't I don't know if that's ever even going to happen because of the fact that languages change more when they don't have an anchor in literature, media. And now today, of course, we have film computers. We have all of these things that are helping to stabilize our language. And so is the English language changing? Well, it's changing a little bit. I mean, you know, different slang comes and goes. And, you know, we're not saying whom as much. We're not using subjunctive forms of verbs as much. But honestly, I think that English is pretty stable right now. And it's possible that we could use the King James Bible until Jesus comes. But if theoretically 500 years from now or something, the language had changed so much that it would be truly a different language, then yeah, absolutely. You would have to provide a Bible version in that new tongue, you know, that new you know, manifestation of of English, that new phase for the English language. You'd have to translate into that. And it's not like then the King James Bible would just disappear. You'd still have the King James to to compare and reference and look to. But obviously, the Bible needs to be in our native language. And although the King James Bible isn't exactly how we talk, it's still in our native language. And here's the other thing a lot of people don't understand is that we're not using the King James Bible to translate into our native language. And what we're trying to understand is that no book is the way that people talk. I mean, if you were to just transcribe this conversation that we're having right now, word for word and people read it, people would immediately know that it's a verbal transcription and that it's not a written document. You know what I'm saying? We don't talk the way that we write. Of course. It's like, well, no book is how we talk. OK, but obviously, you know, it's it's more different than that. OK, here's the thing, though. The Bible also contains some sort of archaic concepts. So there are certain words that you could say they're archaic words. But what would you even update them to? Like, for example, what about a word like concubine? You know, we don't really have a good word in contemporary English to replace the word concubine because we don't really talk that way. So, you know, concubine is still the best word, even though you could make the argument that it's something that we never use in our daily lives. Now, of course, I use the word concubine, but, you know. Yeah, obviously, outside of a church context, it's probably not used very often. But it's it's the best way to communicate what's happening in that particular situation. Obviously, we're going to replace it with, you know, what's kind of a catchall for it seems like to me, just a lot of just really not ideal situations. So it's kind of it's kind of just the right wording. And I mean, that can even happen just from language to language where you kind of have this great catchall word in a particular language. But then when you translate to another language, you have to use four or five words to kind of translate that one particular idiom or statement or word, because that word is just a great word. And that's I think even the English language seems to almost have stolen a lot of words because of that. You know, you have words like Beyonce or other words that are just kind of like stolen from a completely different language and just because it's like the best word. And even have a Spanish, it's like they don't really have a word for truck. So they just say truck or truck. You know, it's like because they don't really have any equivalent word usually. So they just steal American words. And that's just kind of how how it works. I think, you know, even, you know, the King James Bible is using Hebrew words or Greek words, and we just kind of transliterated them or just put them in the text there. So it's not there's not an English equivalent per se. We're just simply using the Hebrew word or the the Greek word for that particular statement. You know, you have things like Leviathan or you have other words that are just kind of transliterated brought straight over where it's not necessarily an English equivalent. Yeah, like gopher wood is a good example. There's there's not a kind of wood called gopher wood. That's just the Hebrew word being brought straight over into English. Because they, you know, same thing with the shit in wood. Right. So you got gopher wood, shit in wood. It's like that's that's just Hebrew words. Well, written, I think written form of language is always going to be a little different than spoken or, you know, in our current context, even text communication, because text communications often shorthand style formatted. And even Hebrew, I mean, they're not putting all the vowels. They have like, you know, just the consonants there. So obviously that's a different form than how you're speaking, because you're going to say the consonants when you speak and everything like that, whereas they're not necessarily written down in the same manner. So to me, you can't always extract everything from what's written or what's spoken or vice versa. There's going to be a difference between written language and spoken language in every context. I do think it's interesting you brought up a point about English being locked in, because I think that it's going to be very difficult for English to change at all due to the globalization in the sense that if us, even as Americans, start trying to get weird with English and start saying weird things, the rest of the world is going to kind of force us to stick with normal English, because that's what they're currently learning. And so, you know, whether it's Germany or Russia or China or any of these areas, they're all learning English. And so if they all learn our current English and we try to get weird with it, they'll kind of force us back to the standard of English. And I feel like technology itself almost forced this, because with computer programming and with computers themselves, almost every programming language is written in English, because that's kind of where it's originated and started. And so anybody that wanted to learn this technology and learn to work with computers, they had to learn English. But then it kind of gets locked in as this is the universal language to understand technology and use technology. So with globalization, technology, and all these different forms, it's almost like the whole world's kind of being locked into a set standard of English, and it's going to be hard to adjust or change that, because there's this tidal wave movement of everybody going to English. I mean, I don't know. I agree with you 100%, and I think that the chances are, you know, English is going to change very little over the next few hundred years. You know, if the Lord does not return, you know, before that time, it's going to be the same English probably 200 years from now. That would be my prediction. And here's what's interesting. There are about 6000 different languages in this world right now. And out of those 6000 languages, only about 90 to 100 of those languages actually have any meaningful literature. Okay. And languages that don't have meaningful literature are pretty much doomed to eventually die. They're also they're changing dramatically. They're changing rapidly. They're probably going to die. What actually locks in a language is literature. And so that's why if you go on Google Translate, there are probably about 90 or so languages on there. That's pretty much a list. That Google Translate list is pretty much a list of the modern languages that have any meaningful literature. And so when you think about Italian, you know, the Divine Comedy by Dante, Dante's Inferno, and the other two portions of that, that kind of locked in that Tuscan dialect as the Italian, you know, and in Icelandic, you have the sagas and all kinds of literature that locked that in, which is why Icelandic changed a lot less than Norwegian, Swedish, Danish. Finnish has the Kalevala, which is their big epic poem that I believe is written in like the 1800s or something that kind of locked it in as like, okay, this is serious language. Because if you think about it, in order for a language to really exist and thrive and be a full service language, there has to be literature because if kids are going to go to school and learn in that language, there has to be a textbook. There has to be literature. You know, we all went to school when we were kids and we were issued all kinds of readers and we're reading Shakespeare, we're reading Charles Dickens, we're reading poems by Robert Frost, we're reading all of these different monuments of literature. Well, if a language doesn't have any literature, it's going to be hard to go to school and be educated in that language. So that's why, you know, when you look at countries where they're speaking some kind of a language that doesn't really have literature, they're speaking some obscure tribal type language, when they go to school, school is in either like English or French or Arabic or Russian, you know, depending on where they are, they end up doing school in one of these big languages with literature. So it's literature that causes a language to be taken seriously, to have staying power, and to be stabilized and not changed dramatically and rapidly over time. And so English has so much literature and, you know, kids that are going to school today, they're probably reading a lot of the same stuff that you and I read when we were kids, Pastor Shelley, right? I mean, certain classics. I hope so, but I don't know what the propaganda is going on in the public school these days, but I would hope they would read, you know, some of the classics. I mean, the classics are good literature. What did you read when you were growing up in school? What are some books that you were required to read? Tale of Two Cities. That's one of my favorite books, by the way. I've read Tale of Two Cities like 10 or 11 times. Yeah, it's probably harder than the King James. I mean, we had, you know, to read Grapes of Wrath, which is kind of a kind of a dry book. Was that a pun there? Dry? Yeah, it's really dry. I personally remember reading a lot of other books that were, sometimes they kind of gave you a choice, like they'd let you pick. Yeah. And I remember reading books like Cold Sassy Tree was one that I liked. And I read Robinson Crusoe. I read Musketeers. Robinson Crusoe is pretty old. Don't quote me on this, but isn't it from like the 17th century? So pretty much same century as King James Bible. I would have to look it up because I don't remember. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's that old. And so yeah, Robinson Crusoe. We read 1984 by George Orwell. I remember when I went to public school in sixth grade, we read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Yeah. See, I didn't read 1984 in school. They had us read Animal Farm. Yeah, they had us read Animal Farm as well. I read that. And then we read the play 12 Angry Men. I never read To Kill a Mockingbird. And we definitely read works by Shakespeare. We read all of Romeo and Juliet. We read Little Women. Yeah. We read, I mean, go down the list, right? And probably a lot of other people are at home. And they read a lot of the same stuff. Yeah. We read The Count of Monte Cristo. All kinds of stuff, right? So I'm guessing that probably a lot of these books that we're bringing up right now are probably still being read in school right now. They're probably reading 12 Angry Men right now, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tale of Two Cities, all the same stuff. That's what keeps our language stable because we all kind of have that basis where we just go. And frankly, they're probably also reading selections from the Bible in school. Well, they definitely did at the beginning of public school. Public school originally started with the King James Bible being the prerequisite for spelling and writing and generally just all reading. It was a great source text. It was something that everybody kind of had. The textbook industry didn't really exist necessarily at that point in time. So everybody needs a text, like you said. And the Bible has always been kind of the universal book that everybody's had and has helped even carve language into what it is. I mean, we probably speak the language that we do today simply because of the King James Bible exists. Absolutely. I would say the King James Bible is kind of like I said, there were these certain landmark texts, the Kalevala in Finnish, you know, the Inferno in Italian, right? I would say the landmark texts in English are the King James Bible and Shakespeare, right? I mean, that's probably what people would point to. And they're from the same period, right? Well, virtually all of the phrases and puns and things that we use in our common everyday language are coming straight from the Bible. And I constantly see people that are atheist or don't like the Bible quoting the Bible regularly. They'll talk about you reap what you sow and they'll bring up the love of money and they'll bring up all kinds of different things you find in scripture. Because simply it's the most important document, even just secularly speaking for the English language and for our culture today. So it's bizarre to claim that it's just so archaic and not even relevant. When arguably it's probably the most relevant document, even if you didn't believe in it. But I do want to play, I want to play the clip that we had of James White making that old English claim. It's a little bit, it's like two more minutes of that clip, that old clip of yours. And I'm glad that you made this clip. You know, it wasn't in vain that you made this clip because it caused me to want to then start listening to some of your preaching. And I was like, wow. If I just reached one person with that clip, yeah, because I was just like, man, this, this is way better than Sam Gipp. And so I started listening to some of the preaching and I was like, wow, this is really good. And obviously the video, you know, like you said, people will forgive bad video, but they won't forgive bad audio. And so, you know, it really didn't bother me. I didn't even, it didn't hurt my feelings, but it's, it's not the best looking video, but hey, it was effective. So let's watch, let's watch a few more minutes of this real quick. For English speakers. Okay. But not only that, one last thing I want to point out is that, uh, James White says that in order to understand the King James Bible, you'd have to carry around with you a dictionary of old English or middle English. Now, if we want to communicate the scriptures clearly, we will not force the reader to carry around Oxford's unabridged dictionary of old English in the process or middle English or whatever else. Because these words are so archaic, they're not in modern English. First of all, I already mentioned, and it's a fact that a modern day Webster's dictionary will have all of these words in it that he claims are archaic. In a modern dictionary, it doesn't have to be a dictionary of archaic words. But secondly, he's basically just showing that he's completely ignorant of what old English and middle English are. You see, the fact is that the King James Bible is written in modern English. What we speak today is known as contemporary English, whereas what the King James is written in is an example of modern English. Now, James White, supposedly a scholar, supposedly an expert on English translation, actually accuses the King James Bible of using old English and middle English. Just to show you how ridiculous his claims are, let me just give you a sample of old English. This is the opening paragraph from Beowulf. Beowulf is an example of literature in old English. Okay, do you get the idea that old English is a lot different than the language of the King James Bible? Old English is a completely different language. It's completely unintelligible to an English speaker. Now, I don't have a sample of middle English memorized, but you can easily go online and look at some samples of middle English, and you'll find that they're completely unintelligible, or mostly unintelligible, to us today. Whereas the King James Bible is written in modern English, which is why we're able to understand it. So again, I just wanted to point out the fact that Dr. James White's video is very inaccurate. His grasp of the English language leaves something to be desired if he doesn't know how to pronounce words like ado, caller. He doesn't know the difference between middle English and modern English, and he doesn't know these basic words that are found in a modern dictionary. So he basically just says, we need to throw out the King James and get a version that's modern. Now, what's interesting about this clip is he claims that we have to carry around an Old English dictionary written by Cambridge University. Now, I looked it up. Cambridge University was founded in 1209 AD. So that was definitely a long time ago. However, Old English is actually, it was spoken before 1100 AD. So I don't even believe that Cambridge University even had an Old English dictionary. They probably didn't even make one, let alone this strange idea of having to carry this thing around with them. It's just funny how these people who pretend to be scholars, and they are know-it-alls, and they have all the answers. Almost everything they're saying is just lies. And it seems like to me, when you start examining James White's statements, he's just consistently lying. Now, I know you interviewed him in New World Order Bible versions. What is your impression of some of the arguments James White makes? Does he ever seem to make cognizant points, or is he just simply just a fraud all the way? No, I think that in that interview, he made coherent points. I don't think he's a complete idiot or anything. I do think that when you're on the side of evil, when you're against the truth, which is that the King James Bible is the word of God, and that these modern versions are corruptions, anytime you put yourself on the wrong side, and then you're going to try to argue for it, you're going to end up saying things that are false. You're going to end up lying. You're going to end up getting things wrong because you're on the wrong side. You're making the wrong arguments. But I don't consider James White to be a complete idiot or anything. And I think that some of his arguments are legitimate. One time, I actually went through and I did a 10-hour-long response to James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. And I don't know where those videos are anymore. That was like 35 YouTube channels ago or whatever. Hopefully, those videos exist somewhere because I put a lot of work into that. I give a meaningful response to every point that he made in every chapter. And there were a lot of times when I said, well, I agree with this part. He's right here. You know, when you're right, you're right. But obviously, that book is filled with a bunch of lies and garbage. But when it's right, it's right. So I'm not going to say that everything he says is wrong or that he can't be coherent at all. But I give a meaningful response to his book, and then he responded to my response. He'll just play a little 15-second clip and then just kind of just change the subject straw man. Like he didn't give me any meaningful response. But I did an actual 10-hour-long meaningful response to that book, The King James Only Controversy. And so hopefully, those videos are still out there somewhere in case anybody is duped by that book. Well, you know, sometimes I've heard him make arguments and it almost sounds like he's making arguments for a King James Bible. But then he just makes like a bad application of his entire argument, talking about examining the integrity of the document before just accepting it. Yet then, many of the versions or the so-called artifacts they find, the older manuscripts, it doesn't seem like they did really any examination to the integrity of the document. They just accept almost every archaeological discovery as just gospel truth or something, making it where, you know, there's no real scrutiny on their position, because if they scrutinize their position, then they would have no evidence. So they kind of have to cling to all of the different, I guess, the small number of evidences they have for the modern position. You know, again, I agree with you that when you're on the wrong side, you're just going to slip up and not really be consistent and coherent in your argumentation. But I just found that he seems to be lying on a regular basis. And in our film, we're going to be exposing a couple of the lies that he often repeats in his debates and in some of his videos. And so I hope that you make sure to watch our film, The Preserved Bible. It's going to be released next Tuesday night. It's featuring Pastor Steven Anderson. In fact, we have a lot of great people that are going to be in the film. We have Pastor Roger Menes from Verde Baptist Church, also in the film. And then we did interviews with Dr. Phil Stringer, who's a person who was not pro-King James. He kind of grew up going to Bible colleges and being kind of in the critical text position. But then having studied that particular subject, he ended up becoming King James only and changing his opinion. And so he's definitely a valuable resource when it comes to just knowledge about why he likes the King James Bible over the other versions, why it's superior, why it fits the doctrine of the Bible. And ultimately for me, I think when it comes to the King James only issue, that there's so much information. James White brings up so many different talking points that it can be a little bit overwhelming. And I felt like if I could make a film that just kind of has one really important point of why to use a King James Bible. And it's something that we can actually believe by faith, not just, well, here's a really intellectual argument, but rather this is something the Bible's saying, that this is something a lot of people could walk away and make the argument of why use a King James Bible to their friends and their family members. Because obviously, you know, New World Order Bible versions was a great documentary and it really illustrated why the modern versions are corrupt. But I think having walked away, you know, especially myself, if I didn't memorize every single verse that you showed where the differences are and have all the Bibles with me in my hand, it'd be pretty difficult to kind of show, you know, people if I just having a regular conversation. And so maybe I have difficulty kind of explaining my position, whereas I'm hoping with the Preserve Bible, people can kind of walk away having a pretty strong argument for why they use a King James Bible and something they could bring up in everyday conversation. Whereas they don't necessarily have to show all of the different versions and all the different places where they're different, you know, who carries around an NIV and an NASB and a King James all in their pocket. But obviously we need those comparisons and it's great to just share the film and show that to people. But I also want, you know, the ladies in our church and the children and the teenagers and the old man, everybody, to be able to articulate why it is they use a King James Bible and why they believe their Bible is the preserved Word of God. And so I'm really hoping that with the film, people will pay attention and kind of understand why it's important to believe the Bible is preserved and where they're getting that doctrine from in their Bible. Now you'd kind of brought up, you'd seen a rough cut of the film. I think there's definitely a lot of new information that people can learn from the film. But at the end of the day, the doctrine of preservation is really what is trying to kind of be driven home. And I feel like a lot of churches are not teaching that. From your experience, do you feel like you heard a lot of great preaching on the doctrine of preservation? Or is that kind of something you discovered on your own studying the Bible? Or, you know, what is your opinion on that? Well, first of all, the argument that you chose to emphasize, because like you said, you know, you wanted to pick the one strong argument and drive it home. The argument that you chose is the greatest argument. It is the argument, which is on the preservation of God's word. And as far as the kind of preaching that I heard about it, you know, growing up, we were King James, but we didn't really get a lot of education on why, because it wasn't as big of an issue back then, because most everybody was using the King James. And so it wasn't as controversial. But the first time that I really heard strong preaching on the King James Bible was when I started going to Regency Baptist Church in Northern California. And going to that church, starting at the age of 17 is when I went there. The pastor would preach every November, a Sunday night series, it was called King James Bible month. And he really emphasized the preservation of God's word. And he did a great job of explaining the philosophy of why we believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God, and why we reject the critical text and these modern versions that have been translated from it. And the verse comparisons were always what we looked forward to the most. We had the most fun sitting in the pew, just looking at the comparisons of all the crazy things that the modern versions were saying and comparing it to our King James Bible. But in the end, though, the philosophical argument is really what's more important. Like you said, just the fact that God's Word is preserved. Because what we want to emphasize to people is that there is nothing that anyone can dig up in any archaeological dig that will change my view of the Bible. Because my faith is in the Word of God. I believe that it has been kept pure in all ages. And what's funny about that is that James White is in this Calvinist, Reformed Baptist type crowd. And most of these guys adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which I'm not confessional. I'm not Reformed. I'm not a Calvinist. I'm an independent fundamentalist Baptist. But it's funny because when it comes to the issue of the Word of God, we're more Reformed than James White is, because chapter one of their Confession of Faith is all about the Word of God. And it says that the original Greek for the New Testament is the Word of God, and the original Hebrew for the Old Testament, and that they have been providentially kept pure and preserved in all ages. But is that what James White believes? That's what I believe. That's what you believe. But that's not what a lot of these so-called Reformed Baptists and these New Calvinists believe. The trendy sort of tattoo-loving, beer-swilling brand of modern Calvinists today, they don't believe that the Word of God has been kept pure in all ages, because if they did, then they would say that the Bible of the 1600s and the Bible of the 1700s is the preserved, providentially kept pure Word of God. But instead, they're using Bible versions that are translated from texts that were discovered in the 1800s or even the 1900s. And so by basing their Bible versions on new discoveries with variant readings, they're basically saying that the Word of God has not been providentially preserved and kept pure in all ages. And so they're not even following their own statement of faith in that sense. And so I believe that if tomorrow some archaeologist dug up some manuscript and they said, man, this is the oldest manuscript that we've ever seen. It's the full Gospel of John. And it's from 130 AD or something. This is so close to the very beginning. And it's just like, you know what? Honestly, I'm not even interested. Yeah. Well, because I already I don't even know if James White believes that the Bible is pure right now, because, you know, there was an interview that he or I guess a debate perhaps where he was asked, you know, would he update the Bible or what verses of the Bible does he even think are preserved? And it seems like he doesn't even believe a single verse is preserved, that we have a single verse that wouldn't change. Here's what he's basically, here's what he was asked. And here's what he's basically saying was the question was, you know, if new discoveries were made, new manuscripts were dug up, and a consensus of scholars agreed that this new discovery is more accurate, would you change your position on any text of scripture? Is there any text of scripture that no matter what is discovered, would not change your view of it? And he said, no. He said that he would change his view on any text of scripture if new evidence came up, new archeology, new discoveries, new papyri or whatever were found. He would change it. So basically, the whole Bible's up for grabs then. Exactly. Right. Which means that not even John 3 16 is for sure. Yeah, John 3 16. John 3 16 is up for grabs. Jesus wept is up for grabs. I guess everything's up for grabs. Whereas the opposite is true for me. There is nothing that anyone could dig up that would make me say the traditional text of scripture is wrong. Right. Because I believe that the traditional text of scripture is right, precisely because God's word has been preserved throughout all ages. This is the Bible that the Holy Spirit has been using that God's people have been using or obviously in other languages, you know, the other languages that are translated from the traditional Hebrew text and the received text in Greek. And so you can dig up whatever you want. I'm not going to change my view. James White's the exact opposite. He's saying that he'll change his view on any verse. If new discoveries arise and all the scholars agree that this is more reliable, this is older, this is more authentic or whatever, he's willing to change over to King James type readings, or maybe maybe just novel readings that we haven't even seen. You know, he's just open to change. Well, his Greek New Testament is the Nestle Elan 28th edition. Okay. Is the 29th edition going to be the final edition? No. Absolutely not. They're already talking about a 29th, a 30th, a 31st, and a 32nd edition. But do you really think the 32nd edition is going to be the end? Obviously not. This is the never-ending story without the luck dragon. It just goes on and on. They just keep changing the Bible. And would you be shocked, Brother Shelley, if there's just some corrupted manuscript of the Bible tucked away over there in Israel somewhere that maybe is just ready to be discovered for the end times that'll, you know, bring some new change to the Bible that could help usher in the Antichrist or something? I mean, would that really shock you at all? Not at all. I mean, in fact, it's clear that some of these people already want to update the Bible to match some of these extra biblical books, the Apocrypha, where they have readings in there that they would like to kind of sneak into the Bible, but they just don't have that proof text just yet. And so they certainly would. Now, I have that clip. It's real short of James White saying essentially that he would update any verse, just so people know that we're not just putting words in his mouth. Let's just play that real quick and hear it from the horse's mouth. Based on your method, but based on your method, if there were a discovery of ancient documents that most scholars agreed what makes this the earliest reading, you would be willing to change your position on any text within the New Testament based on evidence that might be uncovered. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So there it is. I mean, he's asked very clearly if he would change the text and he just unequivocally just says yes. Where, you know, what is the application of that? Like you said, obviously, what if they found, you know, 50 older texts that all line with the King James? I think he'd be in a pickle if that was the case, because I don't think he's going to become King James only. But I think that I take him at his word. I think that if they found ancient texts that the scholars agreed were the oldest, because that was what the question was. I hope people were listening carefully. The question was, if scholars all agreed that it was the oldest, would you change your position on any text? And he didn't even have to think about it. Just like, yes. Just he was just able to enthusiastically say yes to that. Okay. And so I do believe that if the scholars told him, hey, turns out the King James was actually right over here, then I do think that he would switch to the King James reading in those places. But guess what? If it's some other crazy reading that no one's ever seen, he would switch to that too. Yeah, which of course, what are they going to find? They're probably not going to find King James Bible versions out there. They're going to find the weird stuff that got buried because it was weird. But the point is, but here's the thing though. Actually, over the course of the 20th century, because here's the history of how this went down. Okay. You have Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s. Okay. And they came out with their critical Greek New Testament in like, what, 1881? Yes. And here's the thing. Since then, a lot of papyri were discovered in the 20th century that actually did validate King James readings and the critical Nestle Alon text did switch back to some King James readings. So it actually does happen that way, Pastor Shelley, because they've definitely been moderated. It's not yet. It's not even would they do that or would it happen that way? It already happened because in the 20th century, they found papyrus fragments that supported King James readings, you know, Texas receptors readings that they had thought like, oh, this Texas receptors reading is a later thing, but they found early evidence for it. And then, like you said, they moderated it where, because it's like the Westcott and Hort went even too far for them. And then the papyri kind of rained them in or whatever. So, yeah, some of these discoveries can bring them back to a Texas receptors reading in certain places. But the point is they don't have a settled text and they never will. Okay. I know what the word of God is. I have the perfect word of God sitting on my desk right now, and I can pick it up and read it and believe it and preach from it. And I've got the Hebrew text on my desk. I've got the Greek text on my desk, and I've got an English King James Bible on my desk. And these three are one, you know, and these three agree in one. And these three books are, you know, each of them and all of them, the perfect preserved word of God. And so I'm not interested in going and digging up the word of God. And I don't have to ascend into heaven to get the word of God. I don't have to descend into hell to get the word. The word of God is nigh me, even in my mouth and in my heart. And so these critical text people, they don't even think that the Nestle Alon 28th edition is perfect. They're going to change it. And then they're going to change it again. And then they're going to change it again. Hey, I don't want to build my house on shifting sands. I don't want to build them on Sirtis sands. Well, and even if they do get closer to the King James over time, why don't just go ahead and settle that you already have the perfect word of God. You know, we don't have to try and figure it out. We already realize we have it by faith. So of course, if true science and true knowledge were to try to reconstruct the text, they would come to a King James Bible, is what I believe. And so even if they do get closer, you know, that's great. But I'm not, I'm never, they're never going to get close enough for me to change from the King James to their position. Here's the problem with, with, uh, using science is that you can't use science because there's not enough evidence, right? There's not, there's not enough early evidence. There's not enough early manuscripts of the new Testament. It's not statistically significant because, you know, if you think about it, the Bible has been copied so many millions of times, you know, and even just even handwritten manuscripts. Yeah. We have like 5,000 either manuscripts or fragments of the new Testament handwritten in Greek over 5,000, but what percentage of Greek texts is that it's not even 1%. I mean, there are so many hundreds of thousands of handwritten, uh, new Testament manuscripts that have disappeared. They're gone forever. And so think about it. It's not a large enough sample size, number one, because in order for something to be statistically representative of the population, it's gotta be a large enough sample size and it has to be a random sample. And it's not a random sample because the oldest manuscripts are from Egypt overwhelmingly, right? And as far as like Papyrus fragments and so forth. And, uh, uh, so the, the, the Alexandrian text type is overwhelmingly the older stuff, the new stuff is, is more Byzantine. And so therefore it's not a random sample. It's not a large enough sample. So it is impossible to approach this subject scientifically. And here's the funny thing. Let's say that these bozos over in Germany want to make the argument that we can approach the reconstruction of the new Testament original text scientifically. Okay, now let's try that with the old Testament. Right. Because the old, I mean, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the oldest manuscripts of the old Testament were from around in Hebrew were from around a thousand AD, not a thousand BC, a thousand AD. Okay. Dead Sea Scrolls are obviously not the entire old Testament. You know, you got the book of Isaiah, that's the whole book. But again, that's a whole subject, Dead Sea Scrolls. And it was just a weird cult that was there. At Qumran and yada yada yada, I've done whole sermons on that. But the point is that you have so much less manuscript evidence for the text of the Hebrew old Testament. So have fun trying to reconstruct that scientifically. But at the end of the day, we don't need to reconstruct it because it was never lost. Like we never lost the Bible to where, oh, we got to go back and reconstruct it. We don't have to reconstruct it because it's still here. Exactly. Preserved. Well, I mean, of course I agree with you that it's unknowable. There's no way to know with 100% accuracy what texts existed, who wrote them, where they're coming from, what's the sample size. I mean, if we go fast forward 2,000 years from today, people could discover a litany of the messages. They could find the message all over the place and think that was the Bible when that's just literally trash. So there's not really any way to understand what was being used, what was not being used, who wrote it, was it being taken seriously, is it not being taken seriously, where these documents are truly coming from. So that much scrutiny, if that was applied to the critical text position, I think that they would realize their position is not a very scientific argument. It's simply a fantasy. And it's sad to me because it almost reminds me of evolution a little bit, the way that critical text proponents kind of approach their subject matter. Where you look at, because I recently went to a science museum in the area in Fort Worth and they have all kinds of dinosaur exhibits. And I was asking the lady, I said, what percentage of these dinosaur exhibits are actual bones and what percentage is the cast? And she just said, oh, they're 100% cast in this entire museum because the bones are too fragile. But I've even gone to the ones in DC and oftentimes you look at this giant dinosaur and only there's this tiny bone that's like the knee bone. And it's just like, how do you know what this giant dinosaur look like from this tiny little knee bone? It reminds me of how the critical text position, they'll take this little tiny fragment and they'll somehow try to extract from that the entire Bible. You know, it's just kind of an absurdity to me that you could piece together all these various fragments from all over the place and presume that it's the exact same document. You know, that's kind of how Lucy was kind of constructed of all these different bones and different places that they all just believe is this, you know, monkey that proves evolution. But anybody that kind of researches the topic of Lucy will realize this guy's about to lose his funding and just happens to make this, you know, incredible discovery right at the last minute. It's pretty convenient and there's nothing really scientific about it. That's why to me it's important that, you know, our film and when you talk about the King James Bible or these issues that you're appealing to scripture and you're appealing to faith because at the end of the day, if our arguments are only found in an archaeological discovery, then that's not really what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we're supposed to walk by faith, not by sight anyways. And whatever Bible you use, you're going to have to take it by faith. And it's important for us to realize why we use the Bible. You know, the modern versions to the King James, you can prove all day long they're different, but just because they're different doesn't prove who's right. At the end of the day, you have to pick one based on where you're going to put your faith. And for me, I changed my mind on the King James only position the first time I ever saw the difference about how Elhanan, the son of Jehorigim, slew Goliath. And I was thinking like, well, I thought David slew Goliath. And there's other places in scripture where they're just saying the exact opposite. And I just, I feel like just being saved and the Holy Spirit being inside of me, I knew the voice of the shepherd. And I could tell, you know, the fraud, the one that's not really lining up with doctrine and clear scripture. And it's easy at that point to just say, hey, this is the Bible. This is the word of God. And I hope that people will take a faith based approach whenever they talk to anybody about which Bible to use. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, without faith, it is impossible to please him. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And what does faith have to do with coming to the King James versus the modern versions is that if you believe that the word of God's inspired, and if you believe it by faith, well, then God promised in the Bible to preserve his word. He said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. It's easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to pass from the law until all be fulfilled. So, you know, going back to the old Testament, which has way less manuscript evidence and later it has later manuscript evidence than the new Testament. How do I know that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus numbers and Deuteronomy that I have today are the same thing that, you know, was given to Moses and the other biblical authors? You know, I believe that. And at the end of the day, you have to believe it by faith. And I think, you know, when you bring up the subject of, you know, human beings supposedly evolving from animals and all this stuff, you know, I think that what those two subjects have in common, these false teachings about the origins of life and the origins of man, and also false teachings about the word of God is that they're trying to use science to know the unknowable. And it's really a case of like science going out of bounds. And I think that science has its place. Science has its uses, but science cannot solve all of our problems and it can't answer all of our questions. And so the scientific method is not going to work for determining the word of God. You know, it's going to be the Holy Spirit that's going to have to authenticate His word and God's people have received the received text. That's why it's called the received text. It's received by all. It was passed down and inherited and received by God's people. It was preached. It was believed. And these new versions have just been a catalyst for apostasy and lameness in modern Christianity. Yeah, I think you make a great point. I mean, when it comes to history and science, I just feel like these are incompatible because history, I believe that history is impossible to have 100% scientific understanding of historical events. We can only piece things together. And even when it comes to criminal justice, you know, they have a hard time figuring out what happened 24 hours ago or 48 hours ago. You know, they can use certain technologies to get close or to have some understanding. But you know, even in a court of law, there are lawyers that struggle to make a 100% fact case beyond a reasonable doubt about events that happened not that long ago. And yet we have scientists and critical text proponents that want to give you information with such absolute certainty that happened hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, or in the case of evolution, billions of years ago. They have such certainty about these events, which just becomes unscientific. You know, at the end of the day, and it's not just this isn't just our opinion or something. I mean, any actual statistician, if we were to actually get someone who's an expert on statistics, somebody who is skilled in mathematics and science, you know, they could easily break down to you and explain to you why it's impossible to use science to reconstruct the text of the New Testament because of the way variance works and sample size and so forth. Because, you know, let's say you had, you know, a random sampling, it would have to be random of, you know, 50 New Testament manuscripts, and they're all pretty much saying the same thing, then, you know, that would give you some good scientific certainty in that sense. But what do you have? You've got Sinaiticus from the fourth century A.D. You've got Vaticanus again, fourth century A.D. You have other stuff from the fifth century, seventh century, eighth century. I mean, how many manuscripts of the New Testament are there that are older than 900 A.D.? Very few. And that's 900 years after Christ. And they don't agree with each other. Right. Hey, these the, you know, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, it's not like they're in lockstep. They disagree with one another. Well, in the fourth century, in the fourth century, how many manuscripts existed? I mean, that we don't have? Just saying that existed at that point in time or in history. Exactly. I mean, hundreds of thousands, maybe. I don't. Tens of thousands, at least. Absolutely. And so with the degree of variance that we see, you would need a bigger sample. And it would have to be a random sample, because any sample that's not random, you know, that's not how you do science. You know, randomness is so important. Because otherwise, you know, I could just get a whole bunch of, like you said, let's say we were digging up 2023, let's say, you know, 2000 years from now, it's, it's the year 4023. Right. And we're like excavating today, and we find 100 manuscripts of the Bible, but they're all from Joel Osteen's bookstore. That's not a random sample, is it? No. Or they're all, they're all from California, or they're all from Mississippi or something. It's going to be a totally different outcome. You know what I mean? Like, depending on where the samples are from, you know, because it's not a random sample. So if, if, if the oldest stuff that we find is overwhelmingly Alexandrian in origin, in origin, it's overwhelmingly the Egyptian texts of scripture. That's not a random sample. All that tells us is that, well, looks like they had this other textual tradition going on down in Egypt that was different than the traditional texts that Christians have been using. But, oh, but it's older. Yeah. Okay. But so what? The Bible could be corrupted, you know, a year after Paul wrote it. I mean, Paul's already warning in second Thessalonians about people writing epistles that are impersonating him. Right. And so, I mean, the devil has always been corrupting God's word. And we know about people around that time, like Marcion, who is a guy who put out his own version of the New Testament that was like chopped up like Swiss cheese, where he cut things and changed things. And so just because something's older doesn't mean, I mean, you know, you could give me what if they dug up some Hebrew manuscript of the Bible that was from like, you know, let's say it's a book of the Old Testament and it's from like 600 BC or something. And it's just way older than anything we've ever seen. That doesn't guarantee that it's an accurate copy. There could have been a sloppy scribe back then. There could have been corruption or fakes or frauds going on back then. I mean, older isn't necessarily better. Amen. Well, and again, James White said that if it's older, he'll change his view on any text if the scholars agree that it's older. That's what he said, didn't he? Yeah. I mean, his doctrine really doesn't seem to be scientific, number one. And number two, it's also not faith based. And really, you know, that's the big deal. If you're going to believe the Bible, even just at any level, it takes faith. So, of course, to then choose which Bible, it follows that faith is going to be the same understanding and thinking the Bible could constantly change or update is just inconsistent and not compatible with scripture. That's why we made a film, The Preserved Bible. And I really hope that it's going to be viewed by a lot of people, that people out there get excited about it and share it. We're going to be trying to make as many DVDs and marketing ploys that we can to get the film out there. But it definitely takes the viewer. It takes you guys to go out there and share the information, spread it out there, especially since, you know, YouTube and some of these other platforms are not what they used to be in times past where, you know, it needs to be more word of mouth. And you have a great opportunity out there as a listener to impact people for the better. You know, me personally, once I switched to just only reading a King James Bible, it made a giant impact on my life because it's the word of God and the Holy Spirit has a lot more tools to use. And I always say this to my church, but when it comes to doctrine, I never want to try and convince people of certain doctrines out of a modern version because the argument never seems to really go anywhere. It seems like getting people on a King James Bible is kind of that first step to end up influencing someone's Christian life and helping them to agree on doctrine. Because the modern Bible view is often just such a shifting sand in and of itself that people will never really adhere to anything you say since they say, well, I don't know if that's exactly what it means or let me check another version They have kind of a looseness about the words they're seeing on the page, whereas if you actually believe God preserved the word in the King James Bible, you have something that can actually challenge your bias, that can challenge your viewpoint, and ultimately the Lord can speak to you and cause you to change, you know, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit and conviction. Well, we've definitely been on the podcast for a while, and we could talk about this for hours. I do want to give you one last chance if there was something else you wanted to say or to wrap up, Pastor Anderson, or if you want to share how people can check out the film or any other projects you're working on. Yeah, I just want to say one thing. You know, I grew up in a Christian home. I grew up as an independent fundamental Baptist most of my childhood, and I read the Bible here and there, but when I actually understood the subject of the preservation of God's word, which wasn't really until, you know, I was around 16 or 17, and got into a good church that preached and taught these things to me, when I came to the realization that God's word was perfectly preserved and that what I had in the King James Bible was not just roughly what God said or the gist of what God said, but when I believed that I actually had in every word Bible and that my Bible was a hundred percent accurate, the word of God in my language, I read it more. Once I got that settled, once I understood that, it made me want to read the Bible more, and I was in awe of the word of God, thinking like, wow, man, I have the word of God. And I think that that's the big problem with the modern version, because some people will ask the question, was there really any doctrine affected? And obviously there are doctrines affected, but here's the colossal doctrine that's affected by switching to a modern version, the doctrine that we actually have the Bible. And if you're King James, you know you have the Bible, and that's going to change your whole mentality to not only know a thing, but to know that you know it. And so that's the big thing here. If you're in the modern version crowd, when you read the Bible, you're not really sure that what you're reading is right on. And, you know, you get to the end of Mark 16, and you're like, man, I don't know if this is authentic. And Jesus is like, Father, forgive them for they know what they do, and Luke. And then you have this little note telling you like, probably not authentic. It's just like, how can you be a Christian like that? Like, how do you serve God like that? You know, God's not the author of confusion. And I'm so thankful that I learned as a teenager that our King James Bible is the preserved word of God, because it changed my life. Amen. Well, thanks so much for being on the show with us this evening. And thank you so much for helping us with this film project. Of course, Pastor Anderson is a great fundamental Baptist tearing things up in Phoenix, Arizona. You need to go to Faith Ward Baptist Church. And if you're in Tucson, they got a church plant there with Deacon Corbin Russell. He's a great guy. Another great church that's going really strong out there. We had over 100 people on the live stream this evening, and people are commenting on YouTube. You know, you can always put questions in our chats when we have our show. We're going to have our call-ins back for the next show. So if you want to hop in, try to catch us live, you can comment and interact with us. We'll be taking live calls. Just to note, we had some people in the live chat tonight. We had 21 Trips. We had Maria YouTube. We had Bro J Stewie. We had Miss Sheila Jackson. We had all kinds of people in the live chat. And we'd love for you guys to call in to the show next week. Maybe we can rescue Ben from the clutches of the real Ben. And of course, we're going to be doing a little bit of a different show next week, because we'll have to end on time, because we're having our live premiere of the film. But we'll have a little precursor to the show, to the releasing of the online version. If you're out there and you're someone that's going to watch the film in theaters, you know, take a little video after the film, do a review and put it out there and share and say like, hey, here's my thoughts about the film. You don't have to spoil it, but just, you know, at least put something out there. Tell us what you thought about the film. And we'd love for people to share everything. Now, I do want to say this about the film. There is going to be a challenge that we have. And I'll say this in our next stream, but there is a Easter egg in the film. And there's also a callback in the film. And we'll probably end up having competition and people can write in and email us if they spot, you know, those things in the film. And we can send them out some prizes. So I'm excited about the competition and see if people can catch our Easter egg. I think our Easter egg is going to be kind of hard for you to catch, but the callback might be pretty interesting. And so I'm really excited to release the film. It's been a lot of hard work. Brother Ben's worked on this. A lot of people worked on this. We've got some cool interviews. And so I hope you learn a lot of different things. I told Brother Ben, I've told some people, you know, for most people, especially if you haven't studied the subject, you know, I think you're going to be, you're going to have to be introduced to at least over a hundred new facts in the film because there's just so much information, history and subject matter that, you know, it's something you might even be able to watch multiple times and still glean new things from the film. And so again, thanks for tuning in to The Baptist Bias. You can check us out live on the air Tuesday nights, 8 p.m. We're going to be putting on YouTube and a lot of different other platforms. You can also check us out on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Podbean, where we're putting our streams on Twitter, Facebook, and make sure to share and subscribe. And I think that's pretty much going to wrap it up for us this evening. I look forward to seeing you again next week and hopefully we'll have Ben coming out with us. We'll all sign up for him. We'll see you again after a while.