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

Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. This is part 3 in a video series responding to the King James only controversy by Dr. James White. This chapter 3 is called Starting at the Beginning. Now in this chapter he just lays down a lot of basic principles and he even says on the second page of the chapter that you may want to just skip this chapter. He says if you're already familiar with such issues as the languages in which the Bible was first written, the types of manuscripts that Christians used, basic errors that people make with hand copying documents and the like, you may wish to move on to chapter 4. Okay, it's a pretty long chapter though and he starts out by kind of just insulting people that are King James only. He says the KJV only controversy plays upon the fact that most Christians today are more than slightly fuzzy on the particulars of how we got the Bible, how it was passed down through the years and how it has been translated into the English language. So James White always likes to act like he's so smart and everybody else is so dumb and people that are King James only aren't smart and blah blah blah. So obviously that's not really an argument. So he gets into the biblical languages. He explains that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and that you know barely any chapters were written in Aramaic. So we're predominantly talking about Hebrew and Greek. Then on page 44 he again talks about how Greek far exceeds English in its ability to convey intricate meanings and delicate turns of thought. I disagree with that. English is a very expressive language. It's very unequivocal, very clear. It's every bit as clear as Greek and so I don't agree with him on that. But anyway then he gets into this part on disputes over translation and he makes a very important point here when he talks about how there are two different issues at work here. In fact I did a whole sermon on this recently. It was called Two Problems with the Modern Versions and number one is textual disputes and number two translation disputes. So when we talk about the differences between the King James Bible and the ESV for example or whatever the modern version there are two different issues at play here. There's the textual issue and there's the translation issue. So sometimes these versions read differently because they're coming from a different text. Sometimes they read differently because they're just translated differently. For example when you have the new versions leaving out entire verses like Acts 8 37 or 1 John 5 7 that's obviously not a translation difference. That's a difference in the underlying text. But then when you have and he gives some examples here I'll just use his examples. For example John 6 47 in the King James says verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Whereas the modern translations will say truly truly I say to you he who believes has eternal life. So what's missing? The King James says he that believeth on me has everlasting life. The new versions just say he that believes has everlasting life. So you know believes anything right? So anyway this is a textual difference obviously. The underlying Greek text of the modern versions leaves out on me whereas the textus receptus has the on me. Then he gives another example John 336 this is a translation dispute. It says in the King James he that believeth on the Sun hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Sun shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him. So the New American Standard you know representing the modern versions says he who believes in the Sun has eternal life but he who does not obey the Sun shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him. So one of them says that you're not saved because you don't believe and the other one says you're not saved because you don't obey. Alright that's a pretty big difference that's an important difference and of course the King James is right and the modern versions are wrong. Salvation is by faith alone and it's not believing that causes people to be unsaved but here's the thing they're both translating from the same underlying Greek text it's that one of them is translating it wrongly as he that does not obey because the problem with that is that that makes it sound like you have to do works to be saved you have to obey Christ you have to keep the commandments and do the good things that he tells you to do and not do the bad things that he tells you not to do when in reality the only thing you have to do to be saved is believe. What must I do to be saved? And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. By the works of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. The Bible defines the works of the law as obeying the commandments even negative commandments not doing bad things is the works of the law you can prove that by comparing Scripture in Galatians with Deuteronomy I'm not going to go into that I've done sermons on that and then there are good works which are the good things that Christ tells us to do and neither of them are required for salvation okay faith is required for salvation so those are examples of a textual dispute in John 6 47 and a translation dispute in John 3 36 so the modern versions are filled with problems not just because of bad text but also just garbage translation okay now then he goes into the issue of methods of translation in verse 46 and he explains that no translation is completely formal I'm quoting here even translations considered formal such as the KJV new KJV and NASB contain dynamic translations for at times there is simply no way to make sense of an entirely literal translation now he is right about this okay he explains that when it comes to translation there are literal methods and then dynamic equivalence methods now here's where a lot of King James onlius have been wrong over the years okay they know that the new versions are wrong they know they're bad but sometimes they don't know exactly why or what's wrong with them and so sometimes what you'll hear King James only people say is well you know the King James is a word-for-word translation and it's very literal whereas the new versions are just these really loose translations dynamic equivalence and they they they act like dynamic equivalence is bad and literal is good well they're wrong about that because of course as dr. white pointed out here the King James uses dynamic equivalence in many places and the modern versions are literal in many places in fact many times the modern versions are too literal and that's sometimes why they sound so stupid you know when you listen to the modern versions he have told the Oh human one you know they they call you human one instead of man they get so clinical and so literal in their translation that they sound wooden and and and awkward and they're bad translations so the King James is not this super literal word-for-word translation that a lot of people believe it is now it obviously is accurate you know and it is correctly translating what's there I believe it's perfect it's excellent but it's not word-for-word because a word-for-word translation is a garbage translation okay if you want a word-for-word translation just type a bunch of stuff into Google Translate and and look how ugly it comes back at you when it just translates word-for-word okay now I've actually worked as a translator my wife has worked as a translator and when you're doing translation the way you can tell that it's a good translation is that if someone read the finished product they wouldn't even know it's a translation okay have you ever gotten the instructions for something and you read them and you just knew right away this was not originally written in English okay why because it's a it's a garbage translation a good translation is one where you read it and you would think it was originally written in that language and that's how the King James is when you read the King James it's so good you would think that the Bible was originally written in English in fact people often make fun of people who are King James or children growing up thinking that the Bible was written in English but that's actually just a testament to how good the translation is that children think that the King James is written in English or I'm sorry children of course the King James but children think that the Bible was originally written in English because the King James is just that good I know when I was a little toddler and a small child you know I thought that God and everybody in heaven speaks English and that you know the Jesus walked the earth speaking English because it's that good well you wouldn't think that reading these modern versions they're so awkward and and wooden and sometimes overly literal so don't fall into the trap of thinking that the King James is this really literal translation and that the problem with the modern versions is that they're not literal enough that's not the problem with the modern versions okay the problem with the modern versions is that number one they're based on corrupted manuscripts and number two they contain a lot of bad translation and when we say bad translation it's not because it's dynamic equivalents necessarily although that's sometimes an issue but it's influenced by scholarship of wicked people heretics apostates and just Christ rejecting Jews I mean let me just give you an example okay like for example when you're reading the Old Testament the King James it talks about being clean versus unclean okay I mean that's pretty straightforward right what's clean mean it means that it's not dirty what's unclean mean it means that it's dirty so the Bible talks about being clean versus being unclean okay well modern scholarship of the Jews and so forth they believe in a thing called ritual impurity and they say oh well when it says clean and unclean that doesn't really mean you know clean and dirty it actually is talking about being ritually impure and so some of these modern translations will literally have a leper walking through the city and instead of yelling unclean they're lowing ritually impure or ritually impure that's ridiculous okay and it's based on Christ rejecting Judaism's inability to understand God's Word okay Jews can't understand the Bible they have the veil over their eyes as it says in 2nd Corinthians chapter 3 so they have come up with this bizarre concept that unclean has nothing to do with sanitation that's what they think okay when in reality the Bible has all these wonderful teachings about sanitation about how we should use running water and if somebody's sick wash the sheets wash the bed wash the house wash your clothes wash your body God's teaching us how to be sanitary they say oh this has nothing to do with that they try to claim that leprosy back then wasn't even contagious and that you know God just has them saying ritually impure because it's ritual impurity nothing to do with spreading germs or sanitation look they just don't want to give God credit for being so ahead of his time in the Bible and having all these wonderful teachings on cleanliness and sanitation that were way ahead of their time so the Jews want to take away God's glory and just say oh it's a ritual impurity those are the kind of ideas that make their way into the modern versions okay where you'll change uncleanness to ritual impurity or something like that and that's just one example we going on on and on with just a bad scholarship and bad translations and doctrinal bias of wicked people that gets into these new versions okay like changing not believing to not obeying okay so you know he's right to point out that there are two issues at work here textual problems and translation problems and then also he's right to point out that this isn't about literal versus dynamic equivalence because you know the King James uses both the NIV uses both the ESV uses both and sometimes dynamic equivalence is better than literal okay because a good translation captures not word for word but it captures the spirit of the original the feeling of the original the it gets the word for word sometimes or when possible but often it's thought for thought okay but you know God says don't add or remove a word okay but obviously when you go from language to language there are gonna be words added and removed which is why there are words in italics but but you're not removing the substance of anything you're not removing any meaning okay obviously when you translate into another language you can't go word for word if you did it would be a horrible translation it would sound horrible and it would not make sense okay so he goes through and gives some examples of that of the King James using dynamic equivalence which I I agree you know the King James is right to do a dynamic reading in certain places then he gets into a discussion on textual criticism now he's basically just explaining what textual criticism is and he's saying a lot of people just don't like that it has the word criticism in it like we're criticizing the Bible or criticizing text he explains that's not what it means textual criticism means deciding which text is right and which one is wrong you know deciding which text we're gonna use in the Greek and which text we're gonna use in Hebrew now why are we as King James only is against textual criticism well the reason why is that we believe in staying with the traditional text that has been passed down not changing the Bible to go with modern discoveries okay so that what the textual criticism does is it digs up something new in the 20th century and then changes the Bible to go with that new discovery you know it discovers new manuscripts in the 1800s Sinaiticus Vaticanus right and then it changes our Bible to match those new discoveries well again I will never believe that the true Bible was buried under the earth for centuries okay so if it's something that was buried for over a thousand years it can't be the true Word of God because we believe that God preserved his word and that people have constantly been copying preaching reading using God's Word and so textual criticism is constantly digging up new scraps of paper and changing the Bible because they're they're constantly trying to get the Bible closer to what it actually was written you know they're they're constantly trying to bring the text closer to what the Apostles actually wrote we believe that we already have what the Apostles actually wrote we believe we've had it for the last couple thousand years so we don't need to go digging it up somewhere we already have it okay so that's the problem that we have with so-called textual criticism okay and he goes on to talk about you know his favorite manuscript Sinaiticus and and you know we'll get into that more later in the book but he praises it and shows a picture of it and it's the single greatest example of an unsealed text yada yada yada more pictures of Sinaiticus then he has a section called to err is human and he basically just explains the fact that you know all handwritten Bibles are going to have mistakes in them they're gonna have just human error scribal errors what we would call today a typo okay and it's not just handwritten manuscripts that have typos printed Bibles have typos too in fact every Bible that I've ever owned if you if I've read it long enough I have found at least one typo in it in fact I was just preaching less than two weeks ago and I was preaching out of 2nd Corinthians chapter 1 and I came to a verse that says Dominion and I had memorized this verse in the past and I knew it said Dominion but I looked down at my Bible and my Bible said domination and so I kind of stuttered and stammered but I wasn't really feeling well that day and I wasn't really thinking clearly so I just trusted what was written on the page and I started saying domination so for the next like three or four minutes in my sermon as I'm preaching I kept saying domination over and over again when it should have been Dominion but it was because my Bible had a typo in it where it said domination instead of Dominion you know if you read the Bible long enough you'll find typos in virtually every Bible just a letter will be missing or a one line of text will be repeated twice or something like that so you know yes to err is human and every Bible is gonna have typos in it or especially when you're doing it by hand they're gonna be mistakes so he explains that concept which is an obvious concept then he has a section called thousands and thousands of variants okay and he rightfully explains in here that the number of textual variants is a little bit exaggerated okay he says here and I'm gonna read the paragraph here it says next we must emphasize that 99% of the four hundred thousand variations are irrelevant to the proper translation and understanding of the Greek text even the most liberal textual critic agrees here unlike in the English language differences in word order especially in Greek often are completely irrelevant in fact in Greek one can say the same thing in more than a dozen different ways using differences and word order cases etc combine this with differences in spelling and other minor variations and the number of meaningful New Testament variants drops to a more realistic number of 4,000 this represents about 2.9 percent of the text or one meaningful variant every three pages or so of the New Testament okay so what he's saying here is that when people try to talk about just how there are just so many different variations in the text often what they're referring to is something as simple as a misspelling and you know the word misspelling is not even accurate because today in 2019 there's a right and a wrong way to spell every word I mean every word has a right spelling and most of the time there's only one right way to spell a word whereas in the olden times people didn't really care about spelling if you read Tyndale's New Testament he spells the same word three different ways on one page okay why because part of it was just how it looked they just thought that it would look better sometimes to make the lines longer or shorter or how they fit on the page so sometimes they'll use one spelling to make the word a little longer just just to look good on the page sometimes they use a shorter spelling so it was like an art form for them spelling was like an art where they would just use different spellings depending on how they wanted it to look like a poetic use of spelling okay so in the olden times spelling was not as fixed and rigid as it is right now so two manuscripts will have different spelling and people claim oh it's a variant it's different punctuation word order and in Greek the word order typically doesn't matter as much as it does in English where we have to have things in a certain order in Greek you can move things around and there's no meaningful difference so the vast majority of textual variants are meaningless they have no relevance at all okay and by the way let me just stop and say this people who attack the King James say oh well the King James version of 1611 is totally different than the modern King James that's not true because there is no meaningful change between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition that we use today typically if you buy King James today use the 1769 edition there's no meaningful difference folks it is the same words now the spellings are different the punctuation is different and there are typos that have been corrected because the original 1611 had typos because every Bible has typos right so typos were corrected spellings punctuation capitalizations were changed but there is no meaningful change from 1611 to 1769 so the King James is the King James folks now if you get a new King James it is dramatically changed and it's complete garbage but I've even seen a new King James at the store that lied and said oh this is just the fifth in a series of revisions to the King James you know the King James been revised four times this is the fifth one yeah except the first four were spellings punctuation and capitalization they didn't actually change the words okay so anyway he's just explaining that most textual variants they're meaningless and when people try to say oh the textus receptus they're all these variants between different editions of the textus receptus it's this kind of meaningless stuff typically the vast majority of it is spelling punctuation capitalization word order and other things that don't matter okay so anyway he says that you know it's really only 2.9 percent of the text that's different or one meaningful variant every three pages or so in the New Testament now so he's saying you know when you read the New Testament it's only every three pages that there's a meaningful difference in the modern versions text versus the King James text well first of all that's not quite true that it's a little bit more than that but even if that's let's just say that's all it is okay well if you have a major difference every three pages and if the differences affect doctrine which they do you know that's a lot of problems because the New Testament has a lot of pages right you know I've got a typical Greek New Testament here and it's got 480 pages so if there's a meaningful difference every three pages then we're talking about 160 meaningful differences okay but he's saying well you know ninety seven point one percent of its right on well that's not good enough you know it's got to be ninety nine it's got to be ninety nine point forty four as the old ivory commercial said you know ninety seven percent is just not gonna cut it and then he goes into an example of a difference you know that that is let's see does he consider this a meaningful difference all right here we go okay he says this is not a meaningful difference okay first John 3 1 King James behold the met what manner of love the father had bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God therefore the world knoweth us not because it knew him not the ESV says see what kind of love the Father has given to us that we should be called the children of God and so we are the reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him first of all the ESV sounds lame but it also adds this phrase and so we are so the King James says that we should be called the sons of God the ESV says that we should be called the children of God and so we are okay now obviously the ESV is the one that's wrong here you say why is that well because the King James is the standard but I digress well it says in verse 2 beloved now are we the sons of God so you already get that from verse 2 anyway that we were not just called the sons of God but we are the sons of God you get from verse 2 but he's saying you know that this addition in the ESV is not a meaningful addition and I would say that you know it doesn't change any doctrine this particular example doesn't change any doctrine or affect anything but it's still adding something to the text that shouldn't be there and the Bible says add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar so even though this is not meaningful according to him I would say it is meaningful because it does change the meaning because it added a phrase it doesn't affect doctrine but I would call that a meaningful change because he added a sentence that isn't in the original so it does change the meaning okay even though it doesn't affect doctrine those are two different things then a little bit later on he quotes the great scholar dr. AT Robertson whose familiarity with the most intimate details of the Greek text is abundantly verified by his massive 1454 page a grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research indicated that areas of real concern regarding textual variants amount to a thousandth part of the entire text so James White said first that it's about 3% of the text but then he quotes this great scholar is so intimate with the Greek his 1454 page book proves it this guy claims oh no the the real concern is only a thousandth part of the text well that's not 3% that would be 0.1% so this guy's claiming that only 1,000th of the text is really a meaningful variant okay let's stop and examine that claim okay well there are 7,957 verses in the New Testament let's just round that off and say that there are about 8,000 verses in the New Testament so according to him it's only one in a thousand okay well then there should only be eight problems in the whole New Testament right well here's the problem with that there are 16 entire verses removed from the modern versions because of textual variants so just alone the entire verses that are removed there are 16 so how is that 1 1 thousandth when there are only 8,000 verses that should only be eight problems well there's 16 whole verses and there are hundreds of other meaningful changes okay the 3% figure is a lot closer to the truth than this bozo claiming well you know don't there's nothing to see here folks don't worry about all these missing verses don't worry about all these differences in doctrine entire phrases entire sentence is removed you know it's it's like one out of a thousand verses that's wrong no this guy is is full of baloney no no one could actually say that it's one in a thousand meaningful textual variants that's why you know white has to say oh he has to like praise this guy and give all his qualifications because what he's about to say is so stupid that it's only one out of a thousand that's so demonstrably false when there are 16 entire verses removed in the modern version not only that forget just in the modern versions the Westcott and Hort text Sinaiticus Vaticanus they also remove what 12 entire verses from the end of the book of Mark so mark 16 9 through 20 is gone well there's 12 more gigantic huge problems entire verses missing but I guess according to this dr. AT Robertson those don't matter those 12 verses being chopped out or how about the section in John chapter 7 verse 53 to John chapter 8 verse 11 12 verses more removed so that's 24 verses plus the 16 that are actually removed from the modern versions so you have 40 entire verse omissions and there are way more than that folks I'm just bringing up some examples but he's trying to claim there's only eight meaningful differences in the whole New Testament that should cause us concern no there's a lot of problems it's it's more like a few hundred okay so why does he even quote that bozo he contradicts what he just said on the previous page about saying it's about 3% then he quotes this bozo and try say well it's not even that it's like one out of a thousand that's ridiculous any anybody could prove that wrong easily and then he says the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different New Testament manuscripts would not fundamentally alter the message of the scriptures so what James White says over and over again is that the changes in the modern versions don't affect doctrine if we took the the most different manuscripts it still doesn't affect doctrine and of course we demonstrated over and over again in our film New World Order Bible versions that the changes in the modern versions do affect doctrine they affect salvation they affect doctrines regarding hell and the Trinity and all kinds of different things okay so then on page 70 he starts to get into the different text types and families so when we look at the almost 6,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and when we say manuscript we mean a handwritten document like Spanish mono is hand right manually written written by hand manuscripts so almost 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and they're divided into four different families of manuscripts or text types okay so text type number one is the Alexandrian text type found in most papyri and in the great unseal codexes Aleph and B also known as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus text type number two is the Western text type found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages especially Latin number three is the Byzantine text type found in the vast majority of later unseal and minuscule manuscripts and number four the Caesarean text type disputed by some found in papyrus 45 and family one abbreviated f1 okay so he breaks it into these text types and then he says the two ends of the spectrum so to speak are the Alexandrian and the Byzantine okay those are the two extremes well here's the thing the King James Version is based on the Byzantine text type the modern versions are based on the Alexandrian text type and these are as he says the two extremes now what is Alexandria Alexandria is a city in Egypt and it shouldn't really surprise us that all of these wicked Bible versions are coming from Egyptian manuscripts because of the fact that Egypt in the Bible is a place that spiritually symbolizes that which is wicked in Revelation chapter 11 it talks about that city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified they're always go down into Egypt and Egypt represents the world it represents sin it represents wickedness and so forth so that's where the modern version text type is coming from Alexandria Egypt okay the Byzantine text type is the one underlying the King James he says here most scholars today in opposition to KJV only ISM would see the Alexandrian as representing an earlier and hence more accurate form of text than the Byzantine text type so why is it that James White and other so-called scholars favor the Alexandrian text type the answer is because they have some very extremely old examples of the Alexandrian text time they have these very old papyrus fragments of little scraps of a verse here verse there or sometimes you know larger portions from Egypt and then they also have their beloved Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which by the way are from the 4th century AD so they say well these are older and more reliable well the 4th century AD is several hundred years after the fact folks so that's plenty of time for them to be corrupted and changed so this is a philosophical difference between King James only and the textual criticism crowd what's the fundamental difference I keep coming back to this folks the fundamental difference is that we believe in the received text that was passed down to us they believe in digging up something that's been buried for over a thousand years and changing the Bible based on new findings that they just dug up recently okay so because they say well this is older older does not necessarily mean better or more reliable just because it's from 300 years after the time of the Apostles versus 700 years after the time of the Apostles folks that's still way later okay it makes more sense to believe that the one that God has used over the years that's been copied and preached and read and used and it's been used to win people the Lord for centuries is the right Bible not the one that had to be dug up by an archaeologist in the 19th century or even the 20th century okay the true Bible was not buried folks I'll never believe that it's nonsense so you know the King James only crowd promotes the Byzantine text type the Alexandrian text type is promoted by the modern version crowd there they're the spiritual Egypt folks with their Egyptian corrupted Bible okay on page 72 he says the Byzantine text type represents the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts available to us today so the vast majority of manuscripts are the Byzantine text type the one that lines up with the King James it's this small minority of Egyptian garbage that the modern versions are based on okay page 73 says another common kjv only claim is that the Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by heretics they point to men like origin who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists would find more than slightly unusual yeah you can say that again since origin cut his own nuts off okay but I digress origin of course was just a complete heretic wicked person who castrated himself and and believed all kinds of goofy crazy things and wicked things and and and yeah he was a Bible corruptor he is behind a lot of the corruption in the modern versions and other heretics like him corrupted the Bible whether they did it on purpose or not maybe they were demon-possessed when they did it but the devil's behind it folks and the devil used wicked men like origin to corrupt the Bible okay verse page 74 he talks about the fact that the Byzantine text type is fuller or longer than other text types and that this is taken as evidence of a later origin so they're claiming that the Byzantine text type is later and less reliable because it's it's fuller it's longer so they think things have been added to it whereas we would say that the Alexandrian text have omitted things they've removed things these guys believe it's more likely that stuff was added then removed okay which obviously they're wrong he talks about on page 76 expansion of piety that basically people were just adding words to the Bible in order to give God more glory so you know if it says Jesus they'll put Lord Jesus if it says Jesus Christ they'll put Lord Jesus Christ you know if it says Lord they'll put you know Lord Jesus Christ or what you know that they're expanding it to give more glory whereas we that are of the King James only persuasion would say that the Alexandrian text are omitting titles they're getting sloppy and omitting titles and and and taking up because if you look at the modern versions versus the King James they omit Lord scores of times they omit Jesus scores of times they omit Christ scores of times so they're constantly downgrading the title whereas the King James has it intact the textual critics will say well no no this is an expansion these terms are being added so he explains that and then he has a section at the end called a final word on the New Testament text he says KJV only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the King James Version the final authority in all things do not believe in the preservation of Scripture and yet that is what we're saying because James White doesn't believe in the preservation of Scripture he thinks that we have to keep digging up new things to try to somehow reconstruct what the Bible said when the Apostles wrote it I mean if we dig up something tomorrow that scholars date and test and say this is older and more reliable some papyrus is found James White will literally change his Bible to match that papyrus I mean that they'll they'll come out with a new edition of his Greek New Testament folks so yeah how can you say you believe in the preservation of Scripture when you want to change Scripture based on findings in the 19th and 20th century and even the 21st century they're ready to change it again folks well you know you keep using that word preservation I don't think it means what you think it means you know if the if the Bible's been preserved unto us we don't have to go dig it out of a hole somewhere and find something new to somehow reconstruct the original when we see how God led his people to recognize the canon of Scripture the listing of the books that were inspired over against those books that were not we note that he did not therein engage in any celestial fireworks no angels showed up with golden tablets marked divine index instead God worked with his people over time leading them to recognize what he had already done through the act of inspiration the same is true regarding the protection and preservation of the biblical text now I agree with that right there he's saying right there look how do we know which books are part of the Bible and which ones aren't because God's people can recognize what is inspired from what is not inspired okay I believe that okay that's why I believe the King James because the Holy Spirit tells me that the King James is the Word of God when I hear the King James Version the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that that's the Word of God I hear the voice of the shepherd I recognize the voice of the shepherd and when I read the Apocrypha that's not the voice of the shepherd when I read the Book of Mormon or the Quran or the Tao Te Ching it says that's the voice of strangers but when you read the Bible it's the voice of the shepherd when you read the Gospel of Thomas the Book of Enoch it's garbage the Holy Spirit will not testify unto you those things when you read the King James Bible God speaks to your heart and you know that it's the Word of God okay so you know he's acknowledging the fact that that God leads us but yet when I told James White that the reason I believe the King James Bible is that you know it's the boy I recognize the voice of the shepherd and that the new versions are false because you know I hear them and I can tell that they're false because the Holy Spirit guides me into all truth you know he acted like that's a ridiculous reason he didn't accept that reason okay but yet in his book here he explains well that's how we knew which books are right and which ones aren't the Holy Spirit's guidance well you know it's kind of a double standard here because he says that God leads his people to recognize what he's already done through the act of inspiration so how do we know the King James is inspired because we read it and it has the power of God it's the Bible that has power it's the Bible that gets the job done what's the fruit of these modern versions a bunch of liberalism and garbage and lame watered-down churches look all the best churches are preaching out of the King James folks best according to who best according to the Holy Spirit friend and if you are sincere the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth and when you read the King James Bible the Holy Spirit will speak to you and you will hear the voice of the shepherd whereas these modern versions are the voice of a stranger okay and so after that part he then has a 10 page section that's kind of not relevant it's something that was added in this edition it's not in the original 1995 edition of the book he added this for 2009 and basically he's just explaining that he's better at debating Muslims because he's not King James only you know that's what he wants to explain how he's so good at debating these Muslims and how King James only is they're not gonna be able to debate the Muslims you know I don't want to debate the Muslims I want to preach the gospel to Muslims and you know debating people doesn't get him saved I mean arguing with Muslims isn't what gets them saved folks you got to preach them the gospel it's the power of God's Word and the power of the gospel story that's gonna bring salvation it's not a bunch of archaeology and textual criticism that stuff just doesn't win people to Christ folks so anyway that's chapter 3 in the book and again it was a chapter that he even said you could skip because it's just a lot of basic things about the authorship and transmission of the text so in the next video we'll get into chapter 4 called putting it together where we get into a lot more specific things between the King James and the modern versions God bless you have a great day