Speaker 1All right, everybody, welcome back to the Apostolic Classroom. I am your co-host, Stephen Gill, joined by my other co-host, Andrew Herbst. And today we are going to be doing an episode talking about Bible versions. And specifically, we're going to be talking a little bit about why we show a lot of deference to the KJV as opposed to other Bible versions and why, if you have questions about why that might be, we're going to do our best to answer those as we work through. But before we get into that, I want to thank our sponsor, Live Hill Nutrition. Live Hill Nutrition understands many of the listeners of this show, the Apostolic Classroom. They are pastors, teachers, leaders, men who are constantly pouring out themselves into the lives of others. And Live Hill Nutrition understands something important. If you're going to serve well for the long haul, your health isn't optional. Live Hill Nutrition is an apostolic company offering personalized one-on-one nutrition coaching that's sustainable and in alignment with your life. Their approach integrates health with your life. Rather than competing with your responsibilities, it's spirit-led, time-conscious, and intentionally designed with men and leaders in mind. Live Hill Nutrition provides programs that are simple, sustainable, designed to fit a man's schedule. When your health plan respects your time, consistency follows, and results come with it. Take the next step and complete a self-assessment online at livehillnutrition.net. Again, that is livehillnutrition.net. The link will appear in the show notes, so if you're interested, please go check that out. Thank you for sponsoring the program. Okay, so we're going to be talking about Bible versions. Something that's not controversial at all. No, yeah, I'm sure we won't get any bad reactions at all to this episode. I might just challenge
Speaker 2people at the foreground of this just to say, you know, we're not going to be attacking people. You know, Brother Mooney used to always say, attack issues, not people. And I think this is a good time to do that. This is, I guess, technically a bonus episode, but I think what we're really trying to do is just share our conviction of why this is our position. Yeah. And so I think there's a lot of fun arguments, a lot of fun. This is a great topic. This is a great conversation to have with people I've really enjoyed. I'll maybe just start off with a story and then kick it over to you because I know you have some fun things to share, but I remember I was invited to a Bible study with some people that. They were witnessing to a couple, and this couple, they were very, I don't want to say unchurched in a negative way, but they didn't grow up going to really any type of church at all, Pentecostal or not. And so I'm sitting there and this family wanted me to kind of start off the Bible study. And so I remember thinking of where I wanted to start, and right before I was going to start, the mom said, Okay, now, now, Brother Andrew, could you make a couple comments about translations? And I was like, in my head, I'm just thinking, okay, how can I explain the issue of translations to a couple that, I mean, if you were just to bring up very foundational or basic concepts of scripture or Sunday school stories, so to speak, they did not know anything. And again, I'm not trying to down them. They just had no history of going. And so I just remember seeing that he had, it was either an NIV or an NLT, I want to say it was an NIV. And I just started talking about in Bible translations, the readability issue, what's in the English is an issue that's further down on the importance level, on the importance ladder. And so what you really want to figure out is what is underneath the English. And there's different families, different groups. Of all of these manuscripts, if you get all the Bible manuscripts together, there's different groups that you put them in and the different groups, they kind of align, they kind of match. And I said, the one, the family, that's the largest, that has the best witness that has been historically been used by Christians that stretches hundreds and even a couple thousand years. There's so much evidence for it. In our last episode, we talked about it is spread throughout geography. It's used in the West, in the East, it's used all over the place. Those are the manuscripts. The manuscripts that the King James is built on, that's underneath the English of the King James. And I said, other translations follow a different, smaller family. And I did not draw attention to his Bible. I did not attack him or anything like that. I was just glad he was in the Bible study, right? And so I just said, there are other translations. And I think I use the example that we had hit so heavily on last episode with Mark 16. I said, some translations remove. And I use that example. And I just saw him, he just kind of went over to his Bible, found where Mark was. He's like, oh my word, look, my Bible does that. And I was like, in my head, I was like, yeah. Or I think I tried to say, yeah, you know, some, some Bibles do that. And I said, this is why I, you know, I'm, I'm, I have a King James here. But I said, I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're in the Bible study, but I tried to make it more. I'm glad they're there. You know, we, we want them to, to read the word and then hopefully get, you know, the closer, uh, to truth in, you know, understanding scripture. And so, uh, I, I share that story to say, this is a serious issue. One that I've had a lot of fun conversations with. And, uh, that, that same mother came to me a couple of weeks later and said, she was trying to witness to another person. And, um, she was in first Corinthians and she was using the King James and this other individual is not. And talking about speaking in tongues. The Holy ghost and this other translation was diminishing the, the work of tongues or not the work of tongues, but the necessity of tongues. And so translations do matter. And, and this, this issue of translations do not impact doctrine. Uh, I respectfully say that they really do impact doctrine. And so those are some issues we'll get into, but it's a fun conversation to have. And, and I'm, I'm glad we decided to do a bonus episode with this.
Speaker 1Yeah. And I would say too, if you have not listened to our episode, yet on new Testament manuscripts, please listen to that first before listening to this, because we're going to probably allude back to some of that, uh, in some ancillary way, uh, throughout this episode. And so, and that it would be helpful for you to have that first, but I agree with you completely. Um, Bible versions do impact doctrine. It was said recently, uh, and I won't, I won't say the name cause person doesn't matter, but it was said recently, uh, by very prominent individual, uh, in the book called critical by versions and in other translations, non KJV translations, that if a verse is omitted, it is okay because it appears elsewhere in the Bible. And that is fundamentally not true. Um, there are verses omitted in whether it's the ESV, the NASB, whatever there are verses omitted that they do not reappear. They're not included as an appendix. They're not in another book. They're not. My suspicion is the individual. It's probably thinking about the gospels and talking about narratives like that. There are, we can still piece together the narrative, et cetera, but the verses are not just missing from the gospels of, or there are verses missing from many books. And so, um, so that was something that kind of bothered me, kind of sparked my, my desire to do this conversation a little bit. And then I would also say too, that, um, before we go any further, if you're listening to this episode and you're already like panicking, um, we, we do not, um, defend the KJV on the grounds that the English of the KJV is perfect. Um, I think that maybe a misguided approach, um, in times past, you see this in some movements, they actually teach that the KJV is itself an inspired text.
Speaker 2Which is a derogatory idea to say King James only-ism.
Speaker 1Yes, exactly. They would say, they would say King James only because the KJV, it is inspired. Like they, that, that they were, that those translators were moved on. They were moved on by the Holy Spirit, just like the original, uh, writers and we don't believe that. Um, the KJV is a translation. It's a good translation. It's a translation that is much better than it has sometimes been characterized as. Um, it's, it often gets, uh, you know, um, decried for translation issues that are actually not translation issues, but beyond that, let's say that there are, let's say that there are English words that are either archaic or they're unclear, or they could have more than one meaning in today's code. Whatever it might be. Nobody is saying that the English of the KJV is necessarily the most comprehensible, uh, in 21st century or that is necessarily perfect in all of its ways. What we are, that is not why we defend the KJV. We defend the KJV because it represents the true manuscript tradition of the church. And there are no other, to my knowledge, no other modern Bible versions with the exceptions to alterations to the KJV. So like. Uh, KJ21, uh, KJVER, things like that. Um, with those exceptions, there are no modern new Bible translations that are being done that are based on the received text, what we call the RT.
Speaker 2And we believe, uh, maybe just a side note, there, there are other languages that, that are a faithful witness to God's word. Yeah, absolutely. But when it comes to, you know, the, the issue of the translators being inspired or not, uh, one thing that. Uh, goes back to my, my presupposition is that I believe that the word of God is, uh, inerrant, there are no errors, and that God has preserved his word. With that, we would, or at least I would explain my conviction being that we have a faithful witness to God's word in every generation. Absolutely. God has not cut off his word. And so, however, you know, it's a lot of times when that, I say argument, or that assertion is used, oh, you just believe the King James translators were inspired or something. Well, inspired or not, God preserved his word. And God can do that however he wants to do it. But we would try to articulate, or at least I have when I've been preaching or teaching on this topic, is that we have a faithful witness that God has preserved his word, and that whether it's in English, or maybe it's in Spanish, or whatever, you know, from the history of the church or Christianity, God has preserved his word so that people can read it.
Speaker 1Yeah. And that's what people need to understand is like, we are fully aware that you do not have to learn English to go to heaven. You do not have to learn English to read the Bible. Or Hebrew or Greek. Or Hebrew or Greek, exactly. And this is where people, it's a bit of a double standard where people will say that you KJV defenders, you think people should learn English. And it's like, well, you could turn down the critical scholars and say, well, you think people should learn Kona Greek and Hebrew. And it's like, well, you could turn down the critical scholars and say, it's like, what people don't understand is that when you're talking about Bible versions, a lot of people are under the misconception that a new Bible version represents a modified or updated English version of an older version. That's not what modern English versions are. They are not, this is not, when you, the ESV is not the updated English of the KJV. And I think that's how people think of it sometimes. Like they go to buy a Bible and they think to themselves, like I'm getting an English version. That's just, it's just updated English. It's the same Bible. And that's a good point.
Speaker 2And it really, it depends on the translation. Right. And as a young person, I think the first time I read the Bible through, I did read it in the NLT because I didn't know, I didn't know what, you know, I did think that the NLT was just an easier way to read the King James. I thought that, but as you're saying, that's inaccurate, but something like the ESV, there are certain translations that do have a history where you can trace the, the ESV through the NRSV, I think it is. And the NRSVUE is the new one. Yeah. So, so there are certain translations do have a history of being connected to older translations, which I think the ones we just mentioned go back to the ASV. But we're talking about all these different translations and it really comes down to which family of manuscripts
Speaker 1do they follow? Yes. And that's where the KJV stands alone in this, in this story is that there is only one English version that is a faithful witness to the Bible that was used, read and distributed by the church for over a thousand years. This, and that is represented in the KJV,
Speaker 2not in. And some people, you know, the, the NKJV is connected to the King James because of the text stream. And there, there's a few other ones that I know are out there, but I don't know I'm not as familiar with them. I need to be there. There's a few that are on my list to kind of dig into a little bit more than I have. But the, the King James, we would say that that is the most consistent historical tradition throughout church history. Not, not, excuse me, not just the King James, but what is underneath the English manuscript tradition behind it. Yeah. Whether you're talking about Latin, Greek, or what, pick, pick your language. The history goes back to, you know, very, very old and very widespread.
Speaker 1Yes. And so, uh, I'm going to, uh, before the end of this episode, I'm going to recommend two books to our readers that Brother Kilman had recommended to me that I read last year. And we're just very eye-opening on the subject matter. But before I do that, um, we're going to work through some of, uh, we're going to, this is gonna be fun. We're going to go through some, uh, passage by passage and show our readers, listeners, uh, some examples of why we have strong reservations about, uh, these, a lot of these newer Bible versions. Uh, but before we do that, I want to read a quote, uh, from a man named Theodore Litas. Theodore Litas was a Lutheran, uh, uh, scholar who, uh, passed away pretty young. Uh, he died in a car accident in, uh, early two thousands. And, uh, he, he wrote many books. Um, uh, one of the, uh, one, one of his books that I, I highly recommend if somebody really wants to get into the weeds on this conversation is called the Ecclesiastical Text. Um, and it is a compilation of essays that he had either written or presented or published over the years on the subject matter. And it was his, his academic, from an academic case, the, the case to be made in defense of the, what we would call the, uh, the RT, the received text, uh, which is the text stream underlying the KJV. So you might say it as he's defending the KJV. That's a little reductionist cause he, it's not, again, he would say that, um, the KJV, it is not to say that the English of the KJV cannot be ever clarified or improved upon. He's saying he's defending the text stream behind the KJV that what you were talking about underneath the text. And so, uh, he says this, this is, uh, this is in, um, another one of his books called Today's Christian in the Church's Bible. Uh, I love this quote. He said this, uh, quote, modern man is a manipulated creature. The merchandisers of the world have conditioned him to believe that he must have variety and multiple choice for everything from toothpaste to gravestones. He has reached the point that if he doesn't have variety, he must have variety. He does not have several options to choose from. He feels forced upon by some authority other than his own freedom of choice. No dimension of life is sacrosanct, including religion. Not only do we have a religion or denomination for every conceivable disposition, but now we have Bibles to suit any temperament. If you have not seen one that you like yet, wait a while, it will arrive. And who, I don't think I can say it better because it gets to getting to the heart of what he's saying there is, um, that because especially it seems like, it seems like, especially in modernity, we have been conditioned oftentimes to believe that we have a right to choose. We have a right to our preference in every category. Like whether you're talking about, uh, in, in a material sense, like he said, he used the example of toothpaste and gravestones. You're going to get 50, 50 different choices of toothpaste and pick the one that you like. 50 different gravestones, pick the one that you like 50 different, you know, countertops and, and, and, and, you know, types of food and microwaves and dishes. And you, you, you are going to, we've been conditioned to believe that we ought to have a virtually unlimited selection to choose from. And that's mostly a Western problem. But he, he relays this into the, into the conversation about denominations and Bible versions is that we have now a denomination for every disposition effectively. And Bible versions are very much the same way is, is that it, we've gotten to the point now where a new version of the, of an English Bible, a new version will come out to suit just about any temperament, any vernacular gender, sometimes gender neutral, as we'll get to with the NRSVUE, um, and the new NIV. Uh, there are, there is a new Bible version to suit just about any person's personality. And the question he's asking in the book is, is that right? Like I, at some point, when do we have to ask ourselves, are we, are we really reading the Bible or are we reading a very manipulated version of, of a book that represents the Bible in some way? Like it's, you know, how, how far removed do you have to get from the Bible? And it's still the Bible.
Speaker 2Are you telling me you don't like the cotton patch version of the Bible,
Speaker 1the country, if you've never read that? No, there's what, there's one too called word on the street. I think, yeah, it's like the Bible and Ebonics or something. Yeah, it's crazy. Um, so for those that may be unfamiliar with the King James version and other Bible versions that are out there, uh, I want to read, uh, some examples to you. These are some, uh, Bible verses where it's just some comparative reading. Uh, I just chose the ESV, but this, these same discrepancies appear. I'm not just picking on the ESV. There's, there are others. Um, so, so you can kind of get a sense of what we're talking about. Uh, revelation chapter number six verses 15 through 17 in the King James version says this quote, and the Kings of the earth, the kings of the earth, the kings of the earth, the kings of the earth, and the great men and the rich men and the chief captains and the mighty men and every bond man and every free man hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains and said to the mountains and rocks fall on us and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne and from the wrath of the lamb for the great day of his wrath is come and who shall be able to stand in the ESV revelation six, 15 through 17. Wait, go, go back. Oh, go ahead. Just reread that, that last line just
Speaker 2to emphasize it.
Speaker 1Yeah. In revelation six, 17 for the great day of his wrath is come and who shall be able to stand his wrath. Yes. Okay. In the ESV, it says, then the Kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful and everyone's slave and free hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains calling to the mountains and rocks fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the lamb for the great day of their wrath has come and who can stand whose wrath their wrath. Yeah. And so you might have caught if you're listening closely in the kjv the end of revelation 617 says for the great day of his wrath has come in the esv it says for the great day of their wrath has
Speaker 2come now why is that why is there an emphasis on the singular of of his the lamb versus their right an implication of the trinity there because what is underneath the english that's what the greek says the greek gives it in the plural in the family of texts that the esv is based off of but in the manuscript family that the king james is based off of it is in the singular his
Speaker 1wrath yes and this this gets back to like so the majority witness if you were looking at greek manuscripts and you're trying to decide who's right the majority witness is his wrath there are manuscript there are versions there there are manuscripts greek manuscripts out there that we would call the minority text that were not generally used by the church and are not considered uh well their minority by definition there there's not as many of them um that read for the great day of their wrath has come and who can stand and so you have to make a decision there is are we reading it singular his or are we reading it plural there there are other examples i want to go through here so um one that uh is brother killman's part up a lot before and i think it's a fun one john seven and eight yeah so in the kjv if you go to john chapter seven verse eight uh jesus is speaking and he says go ye up unto this feast i go not up yet unto this feast for my time is not yet full come in the esv if you read john chapter seven verse eight it says this jesus speaking you go up to the feast i am not going up to this feast for my time has not yet fully come now it might seem like a small difference but in the kjv where it says i go not up yet unto this feast and in the esv it says i am not going up to this feast you have two fundamentally different statements by jesus and you might wonder why does it matter well the reason that particular passage matters so much is because jesus did in fact go up to the feast later and so in the kjv i go not up yet to this feast is comprehensible with the rest of the story jesus didn't go up yet he went later in the esv jesus says plainly i'm not going to the feast and so you might say that one version turns jesus into a liar and uh that is of course problematic for for all
Speaker 2kinds of reasons and and so looking at verse eight in the king james i go not up yet unto this feast that's in the king james and then two verse later two verses later he goes up he waits for his brother to go then he goes in the greek and other translations that word for yet is not there it's omitted in some translations i've seen they give a footnote that say some some manuscripts include yet but that is a footnote it's not actually in the text yeah and why this is significant and i know you've got some other examples here we can see that when you look at a lot of the the ancient controversies giving the to who jesus is what he did etc a lot of the early we would say christological controversies and early debates about the identity of jesus and then you look at early um scribal debates they're they're verses about jesus they're verses about who he is they're verses identifying him his work and so back to this issue of well translations do not impact doctrine they really do in in a respectful way they they really do impact um what you say about jesus and in and this is obviously a very big case because if he's a liar he can't be the lamb and i know i've heard a couple people say but yeah there's a there's a different verse that includes yet you know about his kingdom and you know his time's not yet come all that but the problem is is that when he is specifically talking about going to the feast he says i am not yet going and then he goes but and so that word yet is so critical to have in his direct sentence of when he's going so you can try or you know i'm not trying to say this in a condescending way but you can try to maneuver and try to say well the text could mean this it could mean that but you don't have a word that's there that really changes the whole impact of the passages you were just saying so these early christological issues are tied to passages that deal with identifying jesus and who he is and what he did so very important
Speaker 1yeah and so these are just in the gospels i i want to give this example first corinthians chapter number 15 verses 45 through 47 this is a big one for two reasons um in the king james version it says this quote and so it is written the first man adam was made a living soul the last adam was made a quickening spirit how be it that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual the first man is of the earth earthy the second man is the lord from heaven if you read that same verse in the esv it says this quote thus it is written the first man adam became a living being the last adam became a life-giving spirit but it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural and then the spiritual the first man was from the earth a man of dust the second man is from heaven you might notice if you're looking for the discrepancy there in the king james version it says the second man is the lord from heaven in the esv it just says the second man is from heaven now what really burns me up about this one in particular is that our oldest witness to this in a complete collection papyrus 46 which is our oldest collection of paul's epistles which includes a book of hebrews our oldest collection of paul's epistles includes the phrase the lord it says the second man is the lord from heaven in a later manuscript tradition namely codex synaticus it says the second man is from heaven now the reason why it annoys me is because modern bible versions omit it on the grounds that best manuscripts omit ignoring the fact that the oldest witness to this is the second which they claim is why they show deference to synaticus and vaticanus the common idea is that older is better that's what they that's their argument that's not my argument but their argument is that older is better and in this particular case they ignored the older to get to a different translation a different rendering than than the one that they liked and so uh that that one really annoys me um do you want to do the david and goliath one too or do you want to move on because i have another i have another slide one i'll share yeah please do
Speaker 2go ahead okay so shout out to my sister actually amber for bringing this one to my attention a while ago uh in luke 2 we i feel like i say this a lot to students but we need to read we should read luke 2 not just at christmas time there's so much fun things in luke 2 that point to the the kingship of jesus i'm sure i've said this a ton when in our previous season but in luke 2 verse 14 the angels say glory to god in the highest and on earth peace goodwill toward men right just blanket statement men peace on the earth that's the king james if you look at something we'll just keep highlighting the esv it says glory to god in the highest and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased yeah so peace is only for certain people and when you dig into the greek there's only one letter that is different in the greek between the king james and the esv what is underneath the esv there's only one letter that is different and that changes the whole meaning of the verse now the esv i i've looked at a few things and the esv does have some strengths i do like that it is uh often uh what we would call a word for word translation formal equivalent formal equivalent literal some there's different ways to describe it that they're they do the translators did some great work in in certain areas but it is a very heavily reformed influenced translation which directly comes out in verse 14 here that peace is only for those with whom he is pleased meaning a connection to predestination
Speaker 1it is a it is a it is a fundamental piece of reform theology that there is not just an unconditional election but there is a limited atonement yep and so that's two pieces of calvin's tulip so you are correct is that we could read this and let's say that a translator who was given to reform thought that he had a manuscript in front of him that he felt allowed him to render his his wording in another way and again we can make an argument strongly that he did not have that liberty but they can reword this in such a way that it does frame itself neatly around reform thought and that one in particular is egregious because the difference is not subtle like the difference is not okay peace and goodwill toward men and then one version says toward people that's not like that right it's it actually changes the meaning of the verse that one letter there and there are others one this was so fun i substituted uh when a sister mass class earlier this year their introduction of the bible i probably scared the students but well i went through some of these and i made them go to i think it's matthew 17 in the esv where it says this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting and in the king james of course i read it in the king james version this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting and uh i made them you know look at an esv and uh i just read like the verse before the verse after and just if you if you if you have an esv you know this is the case i think it's matthew 17 20 21 22 in the esv it goes matthew chapter 17 verse 20 and then the very next verse it says 22 it actually eliminates 21 completely and so so the numbering it's the reason they did that is because they need the number system to match all of the verses and they need the number system to match all of the verses and they need the number system to match all of the verses and they need the number system to match all bibles because that would make the bible incoherent for students and for preachers and like you have to have a uniform reference system which is interesting is that they think you need a uniform reference system but you don't need a uniform to anyway so they because they know they need the uniform reference system they just numbered it 2022 they skipped 21 in the kjb obviously 21 is there and so it says this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting when i skipped it you could literally feel the air leave the room like this because it's like all freshmen it's like the students were like like that and i was just like what you guys didn't know that like when you read the esv you can just you just take stuff and and what is the justification for removing the verse this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting they say the esv uh compilers will say because it does not appear in two manuscripts now you have to ask yourself is that a justification for removing it from the bible when it does appear in over a thousand witnesses yeah and so this that is one example where it's just egregious like and and real quickly very quickly i want to go through lest you think that we're just picking on a couple of
Speaker 2verses well and i'm sorry just go ahead just to make sure because i can hear people maybe having this this question in their mind saying well okay but those two manuscripts are are very old etc and we we dealt with a lot of that in the last episode that you talked about but you know there there are when it comes to textual studies there are i would i would posit that there are a lot of there are a lot of assumptions that go with a lot of modern thinking toward um toward documents and and textual studies because the assumptions that are are placed toward those two documents well they're the oldest you know they the assumption that we hit before that shorter verses are a direct connection to how old they are so if they're shorter that means they're older than the longer verses you king james guys they actually added to the bible instead of removing from the bible but when you when you look at the evidence when you look at the early witnesses we talked a lot about this in our last episode but just to recap a little bit when we say oldest documents that's one thing but saying an older witness is another and when we're talking about older witnesses we have quotations and and pieces of manuscripts and other other languages not just in the greek but all over the place that are older than these two manuscripts yeah that show the witness is older than these two so just to assume that these two are the the greatest and the best as you know in the footnotes of these modern translations the oldest and best manuscripts say this yeah you ask the question why are they the best why why are they considered the oldest and what we're trying to say is we get that they're old but there's other witnesses that are older than that
Speaker 1yeah i'm not impressed that they're the oldest codices codices codexes whatever you want to say i'm not impressed that they're the oldest codices codices codexes whatever you want to say i'm impressed by that because that is a very arbitrary standard that doesn't actually mean it doesn't get to the point of what we're asking we're trying to figure out if the verse itself belongs in the scripture or was considered scripture so what you're left with is if your standard is these are the oldest codexes that we have from and they both date to the fourth century then you are if that is your standard by which you measure all of scripture then you don't have a bible at all until the fourth century you would have to eliminate 300 years of history that predate those manuscripts because
Speaker 2from there until 1881 you also don't have a bible because these these bibles were not being used
Speaker 1from that time codex codex vaticanus and codex sinaticus were not discovered until the 1800s and one was found in a waste bin in a convent that would be sinaticus the other one was discovered in the vatican life and the other one was found in the vatican life and the other one was found in the library collecting dust and i think it's still there today um these two these two i can't just can't can't decide i can't decide which word i want to use so i'm just saying codexes but codices these two uh manuscripts these were not used by the church at all for over a thousand years nobody used they knew about them because somebody wrote them and they these were they they do the irony of it is that they actually do demonstrate for us they have a these two vaticanus and sinaticus they do have a uh i'll say a lexical relationship a syntactical relationship to certain writers of that time most of which were heretics and that's it that's the other irony nobody wants to talk about is that much of the because codex sinaticus and vaticanus do not agree with one another these are not identical so don't if you say well sinaticus and vaticanus you got to pick one because they're not identical but the in the places where they show discrepancy like for example first timothy 316 god was manifest that is omitted from these two copies colossians 114 was sorry first timothy
Speaker 2316 says he was manifest yeah it substitutes since not god was manifest and that's an important issue for us as as oneness believers because yeah paul's saying it was god that manifests not
Speaker 1he is in the i would even say let let's be charitable here because when i read first timothy 316 of course we said god was manifest in the flesh when we read in uh early church history and we see the christological controversies that were going on at that time it is hilarious to me that sinaticus and vaticanus so often bear witness to particularly to gnostic traditions arian traditions they often uh they're in the ways that they're different it's like they're not different arbitrary ways they're generally different in theological ways exactly one of one of which being first timothy 316 so i don't actually i don't i don't have to come to the conclusion that well they said he because they want to say they didn't want to say god because they were trying to denote a trinity i get the sense that it could have very well been the opposite way because there was plenty of people who did not believe jesus was god there was that that was its own heresy at the time those those christological christological controversies i was referring to earlier yes and so and sinat and if if you don't believe me again there's there's tons of books that you can read on this um i i'll again i'll recommend a few before we leave but um codex sinaticus and vaticanus it's not like these were two treasured manuscripts at the church that well preserved that they were they are full of errors they are riddled with problems and they often have major theological differences with the bible we have today which is why they're not used one of which uh yes first timothy 316 i mentioned colossians 114 the phrase redemption through his blood is omitted in these two manuscripts luke 2 and 33 um i don't remember which manuscript this one's in um in luke 2 and 33 referring to joseph it says it's talking about the relationship between joseph and jesus and in luke 2 33 in the king james version it says joseph in the vaticanus and sinaticus it says his father now you'll notice that in the kjv and by kjv i mean the manuscript tradition behind it joseph is always as supposed you know the the father of jesus he's always the he has never directly called jesus's father in that sense um that uh in luke 2 33 uh specifically uh there is a a huge problem with that with the way that it's word i'm actually gonna pull that one up right now because i don't remember which one that's in um some other uh other verses that might be important um john chapter number seven from um from joseph and sinaticus it says joseph is the father of sin and sin is the father of sin from john 7 53 to john 8 11 that entire segment so john chapter 7 verse 53 all the way to john chapter 8 verse 11 is completely omitted from codex sinaticus and codex vaticanus john chapter number five verses three through four is omitted i don't remember from which one but completely missing in matthew 125 uh in i believe it's sinaticus mary is not a virgin uh this is one of the worst ones i actually i i read this one in um uh i think this is in the revision revised bergon's book but it says if you go to john 143 in a critical edition esv nasb whatever it'll say simon son of john instead of simon son of jonah the one of the reasons why that's really aggravating is because it will say simon son of jonah in the other gospel accounts so in whether it's matthew mark or whatever it'll say simon son of jonah in the other gospel accounts so in whether it's simon son of jonah in the other gospel accounts so in whether it's simon son of jona in the esv but simon son of jonah in the esv but simon son of jonah in the esv but in john they'll say simon son of john in john they'll say simon son of john in john they'll say simon son of john not only has this been recognized as an not only has this been recognized as an not only has this been recognized as an egregious translation error by somebody egregious translation error by somebody egregious translation error by somebody who did not know what they were who did not know what they were who did not know what they were translating didn't realize that Jonah is not another name for John, and you can't just substitute those out one for the other. But the ESV, this is important, the ESV compilers, they knew that this would, in and of itself, that would create an internal contradiction within Scripture. They knew if you go to John, it says Simon, son of John. And if you go to Matthew, it says Simon, son of Jonah. It contradicts itself. We don't care. They would say that they're not seeking reconciliation there. They're just going to say, yeah, then the Bible contradicts itself. Big deal. They did the same thing with the who killed Goliath. Is it David or is it Elhanan? They know the story of David killing Goliath, and they understand in this verse that if they render it this way, it says Elhanan killed Goliath. They don't care. The idea is that the Bible can contradict itself, and they're fine with that.
Speaker 2And so. Yeah, well, zoom in on that for a second, because you have obviously the story of David and Goliath, but then in. In 2 Samuel and even in 1 Chronicles, do you have that text up here? So, say it again. The who killed Goliath? Do you have that one up here? Yeah, yeah, I have that one up here. I guess just to give reference. Yeah, I didn't do. I would just. We were going quick, but here. Because I don't want to shoot from the hip. There's the KJV. Yeah. So, in. Yeah, 2 Samuel 21, in the King James, it talks about Elhanan killing the brother of Goliath. But if you go to the critical text underneath, it would say that Elhanan killed Goliath. Yeah, not David. Not the brother of Goliath, but Goliath himself. Correct. And so, that. Just to give a reference there, 2 Samuel 21, of what you're referring to. But the inconsistencies in the translation, I think, is a good point, too. Because in John 1.18, you know, the King James would say, you know, the only begotten son. In the critical text, which, if you look at modern translations, the Greek that's used underneath it, it's the only begotten son. The English there, it says the only begotten God. Yeah. But only a handful, the N-A-S-B, and maybe, I'm trying to remember if that's the only one, but for sure, that one does. It is faithful to the rendering, and in the English, it says the only begotten God. But pretty much all the other modern translations, they change it to say the only begotten son. Right? How can you have an only begotten God? I think you meant that in the reverse, right?
Speaker 1That the N-A-S-B renders the only begotten son, and all the other modern versions.
Speaker 2Well, let's fact check it, because I'm pretty sure that. Or is it the other way around? I'm pretty sure that the N-A-S-B is the only one that is actually consistent with that verse. Let's look it up, though.
Speaker 1While he's going there, I'll remind, as well, in Luke 2 and 30. You're jumping all over. I'm sorry. That one was my fault. In Luke 2.33, in the ESV, it says, If you read that in the KJV, it says in Luke 2.33, Again, that matters, because there does seem to be. Especially in this particular. Luke 2 is the birth. Like, we're talking about birth narrative here. There is a concerted effort to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God, and so that complicates things quite a bit. But to the one that you're talking about, this is one of those Christological controversy questions that comes up of, like, why is it translated the way. Why is it that it's translated? And you have to acknowledge that while in the majority manuscripts, and, of course, all through over a thousand years of tradition, we know, the text says only begotten Son. Only begotten God was a Christological controversy of the first two centuries, and it does appear in Gnostic manuscripts. It appears in all kinds of ancillary writings to the first century. And now there are modern Bible versions who are. They're showing deference to these. When I say minority manuscript, I've got no problem with the fact that they're. Obviously, they're old. I've got no problem with the fact that they're. My issue is that they are this lonely witness to this translation. They're this lonely witness, rather, to this version that nobody used, everybody thought was heresy, and the rest of the Bible contradicts. Did you find which version was.
Speaker 2Yeah, so what I was. I'm glad I looked at this just for accuracy's sake, but the NASB talks says. No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father. So it includes the. What I would say is just truly this is heresy at this point. Something like the NIV would say no one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son who is in himself God. And then the ESV says something a little bit similar. And it's funny, it's like when you're. One second, sorry. I just. Just to give kind of the. Different translations. It says no one. This is the ESV. No one has ever seen God, God the only Son, who is at the Father's side. So that one's a little bit. That one's a little bit similar. But of course, the King James says, no man has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, right? So in reference to that Old Testament idea that the Davidic King was not just going to be the Son of David, he'd be the Son of God too. He's a very special one. He is the only begotten Son. The begotten Son. This is the King we're talking about. So sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 1No, no, no. That's important because there's two problems there. Number one, only begotten God. Is there a Trinitarian on earth that believes that there is a begotten God? Is God the Son begotten by God the Father? He's therefore no more co-eternal? I know that I wrote one of my papers for our book on this, is this idea of eternal generation, of the eternal beginning, which is. Insanity, but of course that is, that it's heresy. And the, I do, I do love that the ESV really tried to work in that only begotten God, the Son. There were really, that burns me up for a couple of reasons because the phrase God, the Son does not appear in history until after Justin Martyr. I think in the writings of Justin Martyr, we see that phrase, God, the Son of God. And yeah, it's in First Apology. Yeah, he says, God, the Son of God. That phrase is nowhere in the New Testament. But what the ESV, like these same people who push their glasses up and tip their noses at everybody about how you're not, you know, you're not thinking academically and you're so beholden to your theology that you can't see through, you know, that this is obviously the right textual rendering because of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, are importing their theology into a passage that not only has it never been that read that way, it's not there. And you're just saying things like you're just taking, bringing this and bringing your theology into the verse because you need to be able to say God, the Son to uphold, to prop up this Trinitarian idea because the fact that the phrase God, the Son does not appear in the New Testament is actually pretty problematic for a lot of Trinitarians. Because he is called the Son of God, well, that matters a lot to a lot of people. And it drives me nuts because it's often the same people who accuse others of not being academically honest and importing their theology and being driven by whatever, their doctrine or being driven by agenda or bias do themselves, do the exact same thing. And they demonstrate that bias in a number of ways. One of the ones is God, the Son, but this is hilarious. But another one is the contradiction issue is that you are selectively making sure that the Bible contradicts itself by Frankensteining manuscript traditions together that were never used. And that's what happened with the verse I read, the Simon, son of John, son of Jonah, where it is rendered. Simon, son of John, they had to actually take that version of it out of one manuscript tradition and combine it with another manuscript tradition and put them together. So nobody had ever actually read it that way. Which is called
Speaker 2the eclectic text. Collecting or bringing text streams together that do not appear in history at all. I mean, you have the book right there by I think Wilbur Pickering, the identity of the New Testament text. He spends a lot of time going through the history of what we might call the New Testament text. Or what is often called the eclectic text. I can hear a lot of people, critics of the position that we're holding just in conversation, talking with people. There's a figure that was alive at the same time as Martin Luther named Desiderius Erasmus. And Erasmus was a brilliant scholar by the standards of the day, travel all around, taught in many places. And I don't want to get too far into the history with him. The only reason I bring him up is because he was someone, I guess I don't want to, I keep having things come into my brain. But the Renaissance brought back this idea that we need to get back to the original texts. We need to get back to what the Greeks and Romans were saying. And then the next generation said, well, we've got the Latin Bible, but the original New Testament was written. Let's get back to what the original text was. And so Erasmus was able to collect for the first time in a long time the Greek manuscripts. And this is what the King James through time, a hundred years later, what the Greek text was based off of. The reason I give this a little bit of history is because what I hear I hear people saying is they attack Erasmus we're not going to get into that today. For the sake of time, we've been going for about 45 minutes here. It has a lot less to do with the KJV than people. It has a lot less. But then I hear other people say, well, you mentioned the Textus Receptus is what he had basically collected. And again, when we say text families or text dreams, we're not just talking about the Greek, but we're talking about many, many manuscripts. And it's not just the Greek, but it's many manuscripts that were used by Christians for hundreds and over a thousand years. And so I say that to say, if Erasmus was the first one to collect the Greek into one text, then how can you say there's this tradition? Well, again, they were using Greek. They're using all kinds of.
Speaker 1He was identifying what was used, not choosing what was used. It gets back to the canon question. It's like they didn't decide what the canon was. They acknowledged what
Speaker 2it was. But some people would say, so if Erasmus compiled this Textus Receptus, kind of the argument would go, well, which Textus Receptus? Because it went through so many revisions. And there's some work to be done there. There's some fun conversations to be had, some things to talk through. But there is a. Just to keep saying it, there's a consistent paper trail that goes through to show these golden threads throughout scripture. And when you say, which Textus Receptus? That's really not a very good argument, because for the most part, you have the changes that were made are updates of words or uniform spelling, things like that. And again, I know that there's a few things that maybe we could bring up, but attacking Erasmus or attacking the Textus Receptus, as there's so many different versions of it, it's not like there were these massive differences. If you're grabbing books, grab your Edward Hill's book too. That was the one that I wanted to point out. Can you reach it? Yep. This is going to be funny. I hope he's getting everything. I hope all of our viewers really enjoyed that. I reached so far. Yeah, we got a lot of books. I probably could have reached it easier, but I wanted to see you stretch over it. So anyways, I guess maybe I said a lot there without saying very much, but just. Just trying to articulate that there are resources to dig into that explain the issues of Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, just to try to mock and say, well, you're attacking all these translations, but then you have so many versions of the Textus Receptus. It would probably be valuable to look at what changes were actually made with those different editions, because I don't think they're as big as people kind of postulate them to be.
Speaker 1Yeah. And they're definitely not as big as the ones that were made by the ESV and ASV. And something else I want people to understand, too, is that I have no idea if these are covering our faces or not. Okay, so our issues are not just in practical matters of like, well, we believe in, obviously, inspiration and things like, yeah, that's all important. It's maybe the most important, but something else that you need to remember. These modern Bible versions, and this has really worked out very well. This book right here, the Ecclesiastical Text by Theodor Liedis, it's dense. It is very academic. This is a goldmine. I mean, this book absolutely.
Speaker 2Let me plug this one and the Edward Hill's book for a second, because one critique that I have heard against our position is that our position is just held by preachers, or it's just held by people that don't really know what they're talking about. These two guys are textual scholars. These are two very credentialed, Liedis and Hills, or very credentialed individuals. And even Wilbur Pickering, I believe, is another one. But I don't remember off the top of my head what his credentials are. But these two are definitely educated in studying manuscripts. These are not just random individuals. So I really plug those two. Yes.
Speaker 1And in this book, in the Ecclesiastical Text by Liedis, he recommends, I say recommends, he very. very much honors and recognizes the work of William Burgon. Excuse me, John William Burgon. This book called The Revision Revised, this was written in the 1800s as a response to the release of the RV, which the RV, the revised version, was the first major modern departure from the KJV in English. It was like the first, and it was the first to include or depend on Sinaiticus Vaticanum. Sinaiticus Vaticanus. It was kind of like the. It's the grandfather of our modern translations. All of these modern translations. And one thing that Liedis does really well in the Ecclesiastical Text, other than. I mean, he works through Burgon very well. He dispels some myths about Burgon, the idea that he was KJV only and all these things. And that was not necessarily Burgon's position. Burgon believed that the KJV could be improved upon, but he was a strong defender of the text tradition behind the KJV. The other thing, though, is let's say, you're not convinced by the text tradition conversation. I think you should be. I think academically it's the most honest, but let's say you weren't convinced by that. Let's say, nope, manuscript tradition doesn't matter to me. I need what's easy. Something else that Liedis really works out in that book that I think would be valuable for people to consider, the KJV is different from other English versions in another way. The KJV Bible, the rights to print it were. They were held by the Crown of England and released centuries ago. And because of that, the King James Version enjoys a liberty in printing and distribution that other Bible versions don't. In the United States, there are copyright laws that attend to all book printing, publishing, translation. There are strict copyright publisher trademark laws that attend to all these things. And because of that, a lot of people don't know about the KJV. A lot of people are unaware. Let's say that you are somebody who is wanting to release a new edition of the Bible. You have a team of scholars and we want to release a new translation. Under modern copyright law right now, especially in North America, if you want to release a new translation, a new version of a Bible, it has to represent something like, I might get the exact number wrong, but it has to be something like a 10% discrepancy, 10% difference in content for it to be considered a updated edition that can be distributed and sold. Okay, why does that matter? It matters because the Bible is the best selling book in history by far. It is not even close. It blows me away when I look at the numbers today that this is, it didn't used to be the best selling book in history. It is still the best selling book in history. And for a long time, the KJV enjoyed the top of that list in English. It was the best selling English version. As new Bible versions come out, there are modern English versions now that are starting to top the KJV in the United States, particularly in the United States. And one of the reasons for that is the saturation of the market is that there is, whether we want to admit it or not, whether we want to believe that people are motivated by money or self-interest or not, it is just a simple fact that there is a monetary interest in Bible printing. There is. And when these updated editions come out, oftentimes it is not a team of translators sitting down saying, we have to fix this egregious discrepancy for the Bible. Most of the time, they don't care about doctrine anymore. That's not a chief concern of most scholars. They're not particularly concerned with preserving a theology in many cases, though not all. They have a vested interest in distinction, that it has to be different. And so if you are presented with a Greek phrase or a Greek word or a Hebrew word, and it could be rendered in another way, and you can re-render enough verses to create that 10% discrepancy that you need, you've got your updated edition and congratulations, you're going to sell millions of copies of something that, is it actually a translation of the Bible, or is it a re-render what it could say? And there's a difference between what the Bible says and what it could say.
Speaker 2Yeah. And I think you're right. But there are certain, I think, scholars, like I'm thinking of John Oswalt, and I'm trying to remember, I think he was on the committee for the NLT, if I remember right. You probably need to fact check me on that too. But he has been involved in Bible translation. I think someone like him would say that, you know, he's been involved in that. You know, we're trying to be as accurate as we can be, things like that, that he would be concerned about accuracy. Sure. But there's always, so I think, I think it depends on, on which.
Speaker 1And I'm less concerned about the translators that are hired. I'm more concerned about the publishers and the corporations that are behind it. That is very, very difficult. You can't, it's very hard to square that circle because as Lita said in our opening quote here, if you have not yet found a Bible version to suit your temperament, just wait a while, it will arrive. And there are hundreds, there are, there are hundreds now. And there is no good explanation for that. You can't, you can't keep explaining it away by, we don't understand the English. There are so many comprehensible English versions out there that is starting to become confusing. You know, like is the ESV really harder to understand than the NLT or the NASB? No, of course not. And the other thing to consider too, is the, the, when we get back to secular motivations behind translation, there is a vested interest, not by all again, I'm not, I'm not interest in many Bible versions uh, many translators, teams, publishers, whatever, that have a desire to see certain aspects of biblical doctrine change. And to do that, they change the text. One of these being one of the more egregious in the last few decades has been the, the updated edition of the NRSV and the updated edition of the NIV. In the updated, the NRSVUE, uh, they have adopted the course of neutralizing all the gendered pronouns that are masculine specific. So if you were reading a passage and it would say, he, man, mankind, et cetera, they will re-render it in a general sense. They, them, they, they will neutralize gendered pronouns. Um, even to the extent we're not just talking about in cases where the audience is definitely mankind. We are talking about in instances where the word is him and it will re-render it from him to like, in some cases, they or them. It is not a translation. There, there is no way to read the Greek and come to the conclusion that it says anything other than him. It is a theological decision to be inclusive or what they would say is inclusive. Um, again, this is most prominent in the NRSV updated edition and in the new NIV where they have neutralized gendered pronouns. And I think we can all look at our culture right now and see what, what the motive behind that is. Like, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, oh yeah, a more inclusive Bible, whatever that means. Like, you know, that's maybe that we can make money on that. And they have. And so, uh, that's something to consider as well. The last thing I'll say, and I'll, I'll kick it over to you to close the last two books. I would recommend if you want a, uh, a really solid, uh, uh, like solid, but brief, I'll, I'll describe it that way. A solid, but brief history of the King James version. If you like, if you're just like one of those people that you're like, you know, I, I put together, I don't actually know its story. I've just been told that it's outdated and that like the English is corrupted and all that. Okay. Or that the translators didn't know what they were doing. Right. Yeah. Yeah. That's another one. Yeah. I, I, so I recommend this book right here. This is called manifold greatness. It's published, uh, through the, uh, through Oxford's library, Oxford university's library. The editors for this one are Helen Moore and Julian Reed. Um, manifold greatness. So the making of the King James Bible, this is great because it does take you through a very cursory, uh, like if you just need, like, you need the story of the KJB as how they refer to it, it will give you that, but it, it actually gets pretty specific in understanding the difference between formal equivalent and functional dynamic, which we've not really hit. Yeah. Like this episode,
Speaker 2but the difference between word for word translation and thought for thought translation. Um, and some translations are based more off of what's kind of the idea here. What's the force of the passage and IVs like that. And then other translations are more concerned about let's, let's be as close to the original language as we can. And, and what I think it would be, I've not read this one, but what I love about books in this genre, this vein, we could say is that there there's, there's so many attacks against the King James, you know, what it was just based off of this, the Bishop's Bible or King James was a homosexual or so many, so many attacks. That really are not very good arguments. And I, and I say that I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all or just, just make people
Speaker 1feel like those are often know-it-all arguments. Like those are, those are the arguments that come from the know-it-alls is like the, well, didn't you know that they just use the Bishop's Bible? It's like, well, I do know that they use the Bishop's Bible, but are you, if, if what you're suggesting is that the KJV is the Bishop's Bible or that it was dependent on it, you're wrong.
Speaker 2But they, they had rules that the translators had to follow. These translators knew not just the biblical languages, but that like the, the related languages, the mother languages, they, they were not ignorant by any means.
Speaker 1Another thing too, is they, they, I think a trope that is often thrown out there is that the, the KJV translators did not, they didn't really understand the difference between formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent. Like they were just, they're just translating and it's mostly theological and blah, blah, blah. None of that's true. This book actually goes through the notes that were taken where they would actually render a passage in two different ways. And then debate it. Debate it. And one in formal, one in functional and show why they chose formal equivalent. They, they strongly considered the possibility of thought for thought and abandon it. And they explain why, um, how the KJV preserved parataxis in the Hebrew, uh, the KJV translators, their relationship, you said to the classical languages, the idea of course, and I hope this is, this should be apparent, but maybe it's not. The King James version translators were much more closely acquainted with the classical languages than anybody living today. Greek, Latin, they were experts. There are Greek and Latin experts today, but their expertise is mostly, uh, relegated to, uh, a credentialed expertise. A, I have checked the boxes in academia. It's not a language that they speak, live, write every day. These, these guys were going to school where they only spoke Greek. They were going to schools where the lecturer only taught in Latin, not, Hey, I'm going to teach you the alphabet. You're going to learn some phrases and then translate some things and get your certificate. It's not like that. These guys were very well acquainted with the classical languages. And so, um, this, uh, this is a good one. The other one I'll recommend, uh, here is, uh, it's a little bit, uh, uh, more recent, um, David Norton's a textual history of the King James Bible, uh, Cambridge university press puts this out and, uh, similar, uh, in some ways to the making of the King James Bible, but much more in depth. Uh, so this one, uh, this is when it says a textual history, he is going through, uh, the actual relationship of the, manuscripts of antiquity to the KJB, how they were selected, um, why, why they're preferred, et cetera. So more of like a general overview, more in the weeds is how I would describe that. Awesome.
Speaker 2Another one. And I also know that people are probably going to ask us, can you put these in the, in the show notes? And we do not do a good job of putting our book recommendations. So, so maybe, um, I'll just give a couple of these names right now. So maybe it's place is Dean John William Burgon. So he's going to be a little bit older, but his information is still fantastic. Theodore Litas, Theodore Litas, and then Edward F. Hills. And you can find their books and resources pretty easily. I think the Edward F. Hills book, I know that there's a PDF online, probably if you just Google it, you can find it. But otherwise, Reformation Heritage, the website, I love that website. I buy a lot of books off of Reformation Heritage. But also a name that I would recommend that you YouTube, he does have books in print. But Maurice Robinson, Maurice Robinson, I would recommend just YouTubing him. He has a lot of interviews. And he's he's a great another very credentialed textual scholar, not just some random, whatever, you know, he, he, he knows what he's talking about. So he's a lot of fun. Last thing that I would recommend is, I hear some people say, well, the King James is just too hard. What do I do? And I would push back against that a little bit. But if you need something, if you're wanting to, to try something apart just from the King James, look up the King James ER, King James, I think it stands for easy reader, but King James, ER, you can find that on Amazon as well as a, there's a maybe it's Christian, christianbook.com. Maybe I'm trying to remember, it used to be $10 to find just kind of a paperback Bible of the King James ER, I think that that price has gone up a little bit, but I have found it for around a $20 range. And you can find that there is also
Speaker 1the 21st century King James version or the KJ 21 is what it's, it's just, you can, if you just search KJ 21 on Amazon, this is another one that's been what recommended it's between six, it looks like between 40 and 60 bucks. Honestly, that's cheaper than if you, like, if you're going to buy a nice Bible, like you're going to spend, you know, I'm not as familiar with that one.
Speaker 2I might, I'll have to pick that one up myself, but the, the ER, what I like about the KJV ER is that of course it, it, it follows the, the text families that we've been talking about that is still based off, the King James and really what is primary purpose or primary benefit of having is that it will take some of those words that are often considered older archaic. It will underline them and put a more modernized word underneath it. So you're not really changing the text. It's just trying to help you with some of those words that might be a little bit more challenging to modern ears. And so I really like presenting that as an option because again, if anything, if you disagreed with us and you actually made it to the end, thank you for listening. But also if, if, if you are on the opposite position, hopefully at least the idea that the translation issue is more than just readability, hopefully we've been able to display that a little bit and then show our conviction of why we hold to the King James. And, you know,
Speaker 1and caveat too, I know you said it earlier, but we'll just remind people, we're not saying that the ESV or the NASB that they get everything wrong 100% of the time. There are times where the ESV doesn't even know the text tradition behind it. The rendering is good. Like there, there are times where the NASB or the ESV, they get it right. The problem is, is that the layman is in the unenviable position of trying to figure where they got the rendering they got and why it was translated the way that it was. And you don't really have to worry about that as much with the KJV. Yeah. Obviously, so. Praise God. All right. Love the Bible. Yeah, love the Bible. All right, well, thank you all for joining us for this episode. I enjoyed this. This is like one of my favorite conversations. I feel like I have it a lot lately, but hopefully everybody gleaned something valuable from it. And we'll see you all next time for our next installment of the AppStyle Classroom. So thank you.
PodcastTranscript AI