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

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 Only is in 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supposedly archaic words that the King James uses because he's trying to make the point that the King James is totally outdated.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 doe. Well, obviously if you say a doe, 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. A doe is a pretty common word, but James White thinks it's pronounced a doe 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, 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. 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 in the video he talks about the word shambles, and he goes on and on about how this is just a perfect example of a word that has completely and utterly changed in meaning. Because in 1 Corinthians 10.25, Paul is referring to meat that is sold in the shambles. And he says, this word means something completely different today than what it meant back then. I mean, saying my library was in a shambles today has nothing to do with how much meat is in my library. It has a different meaning. Folks, it's tough enough to learn English. Okay, well let me read for you from dictionary.com, because as I was watching James White's video, I just went over to dictionary.com and just typed in shambles. Here's the first definition that came up. Definition number one, a slaughterhouse. Check it out yourself, dictionary.com, I typed in shambles, the very first definition is a slaughterhouse. But James White is just unfamiliar with that definition. So because he's ignorant of words like ado, caller, sealed, shambles, that means that they're archaic, because he doesn't know them. Even though in a modern dictionary, definition number one of shambles is a slaughterhouse. Definition number two, any place of carnage. Definition number three, any scene of destruction. Definition number four, any scene, place or thing in disorder, for example, her desk is a shambles. Okay, so the definition that James White is familiar with and uses in the video is actually definition number four. In a modern dictionary, the definition that the King James Bible uses is definition number one. In addition, there's a second entry for the word shambles that says in British dialect, it means a butcher's shop or stall. So both the number one American definition and the number one British definition of shambles in a modern dictionary on dictionary.com is either a slaughterhouse or a meat shop or a butcher shop. So again, this is just not true, what James White is saying, that this word is archaic. It's not an archaic word. Not only that, but he uses an example about an Ethiopian immigrant saying, this poor Ethiopian, if you give him the King James Bible and he's just struggling to learn English, how's he going to understand the King James Bible with all these difficult words? Well, first of all, I could show you a list of all the difficult words in the new versions. I could show you in the new King James words like satrap, rock hyrax, terebinth, systrum, syrtis, words that people are totally unfamiliar with. But what's so ridiculous about this story about the Ethiopian guy is that if the guy is from Ethiopia and the guy doesn't speak enough English to read an English Bible, maybe the guy just needs to be given a Bible in the tongue wherein he was born. Maybe he just needs to read the Bible in, I guess, Amhardic, whatever language he speaks, probably the main language of Ethiopia. If a guy comes from Africa and he speaks Swahili, he needs to be given a Bible in Swahili if he's not proficient enough to read it in English. I mean, do we actually have to gear our Bible translation toward foreigners who don't speak the language? Wouldn't it make more sense to just translate the Bible into all languages of the world? And in fact, a lot of the people who come over here from another country who are not that proficient in English, you know, they'll go to an English-speaking church, but in their personal Bible reading, they'll read it in their own language, which makes perfect sense. They're reading it in the language that they know the best. So that's ridiculous to attack the King James because it can't be understood by foreigners who don't speak English. Well, it was never designed to be read by foreigners who don't speak English. It's an English Bible for English speakers, okay? But not only that, one last thing I want to point out is that 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. 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.