Right.

I.

I definitely.

I definitely see the conduit.

And, and you're 100 right.

If, if you are.

If you.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Let's.

Let's get you.

Say that again.

I need that quote.

You are 100 right, Johnny.

Welcome to the show.

Hey, guys, thank you for having me.

Yeah, really engaging discussion.

Especially the fact that Tom said that I was correct on something because I, I gotta clip that because that's never going to be heard again in history.

Oh, it'll be.

It's gonna be heard because Andrew's gonna play it and.

Yeah, he's gonna, he's gonna sample it.

It's gonna be a part of the show.

Intro from here.

Yes.

I gotta remember.

Wait, wait, wait.

Tom, say that again.

Andrew was right.

Andrew.

I've never heard a dispensationalist say that, but thank you very much.

I 100 agree with you.

Drew, either you or someone out there, please, you gotta, you gotta clip this, this episode, because no idea.

I'm a hundred percent right.

He totally agrees.

Like, I mean, this is.

Andrew's not used to having so many people go, yeah, you're right.

What do you mean used to?

I'm not used to anyone doing that.

What do you mean?

I'm.

I'm only here now used to be called the heritage.

What is up?

I mean, we are agreeing just way too much here.

I mean, that's great.

Answer.

This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapaport.

Foreign.

We are live Apologetics Live here to answer your biblical questions.

Any questions you have about God and the Bible, we can answer them here.

Just remember, when you give us a really challenging question, I don't know is a perfectly good answer.

I didn't say it'd be satisfactory.

I just said I can answer every question with that.

I love that opening.

Let me, let me bring.

Let me bring Tom Drew in.

Do you guys like that opening?

That was nice.

You know, it is absolutely amazing what you could do with AI right now.

Oh, that was great.

That was quick.

I loved it.

That's like.

That's like his Ben Shapiro opening.

Yeah, just AI all the way.

No, the Ben Shapiro one actually is AI.

I admit that.

I mean, here's Ben Shapiro encouraging you to listen to the show.

Many people have questions about God and the Bible.

With so many different views about God and how to interpret the Bible, many people wonder where they can turn to get biblical answers.

Well, have no fear, turn to my friend Andrew Rapaport and His friends on Apologetics Live.

They can answer any question you have about God in the Bible.

Check them out.

Thursday nights, 8 to 10 o'clock p.m.

new York time at apologeticslive.com you can watch or join the discussion at apologeticslive.com and challenge him with anything.

Please ask him your really hard questions and tell him Ben sent you.

That sounds, that sounds like something Ben would say, right?

The only way I know that that's AI is because it's too slow for Ben Shapiro.

Yeah, so, so yeah, no, I did, I did have fun with that, that little clips that we had there.

I, I, I, I do appreciate that being put together.

And so, so we got some folks who are, who are coming in and with the topic tonight, King James Only we, we're gonna have a special guest.

We got, we got actually a couple of characters backstage and you know, let me first introduce and what I do want to do in the beginning I asked our guest if there's gonna be okay because I was not here last week and the two of you guys had a free for all saying all kinds of things about me and I actually, I, I took notes.

I took notes and there were some things I wanted to actually there were some things that I wanted to actually talk about because it would be helpful when you know, understanding what goes on in a debate because debates are different.

And so let me first bring in our guest, Luke Wayne.

Luke, how are you doing?

Wonderful.

Pleasure to be here.

It is nice having you.

So let me.

Luke is someone I knew know or knew I met I should put it that way.

We were, I was at the board on the board@carm.org Christian Apologetics Research Ministry.

Luke at the time was one of the writers researchers writers and he did a lot at the time on the issue of the King James Bible.

The position known as King James Only ism.

He, he has a slew of articles out at Carm.

If you go to Carm.org and we, we will have this in the show notes at least for the, the audio podcast.

I'll try to put it into the, into the video as well but afterwards but if you, if you just do a search the, the full title is carm.org religious groups and it's religious it's with dashes in between but it's religious groups and cults and then under there is religious groups topics and if you and then there's King James Onlyism.

So essentially you could find it if you just do a search for King James onlyism.

But on Carm.org.

but the title of it is the one you want is the introduction, the one that's King James Onlyism and it'll have on the top.

Well actually I could just share the screen and show you guys and, and this way I'm gonna do.

I'm doing it now so folks you could go and pull this up and be able to, to look at it.

But let me pull this up so we could share it so you guys can see for those watching.

But it's, it'll say carm King James Onlyism.

And it's an introduction and background information.

Then you'll see he deals with issues and all these links are different articles that Luke has written language and translation issues.

Then he gets into doctrinal issues with the King James Onlyism.

Textual criticism questions as far as the King James Only position.

And so you know, he has, I love this is, you know all the places where they say that, you know, things are removed from the, from the modern Bibles.

Right.

Are they really missing verses?

Then he's got other issues and answers.

Verses examine.

Examined in the King James Onlyism.

So you can see, and I'm scrolling through this so you can see how much work he has done.

Okay.

On this.

So it's something that Luke's done a lot of work on this.

Years of study.

And so, and so he, he's.

He.

We're going to get into that in a bit.

So I'm not, this isn't clickbait.

We're not just saying we're gonna, you know, the question we're asking tonight is is the King James Bible?

And, and later we're going to ask him why I said King James Bible versus King James Version.

But is the King James Bible inspired by God?

There's also a really rowdy character backstage.

Tom, Should I bring that character in?

You know, I don't know.

He's got a curly mustache.

Yeah, he's.

He's your co.

Host.

He's your co.

Open air theology.

Braden Patterson.

How are you sir?

I'm here, I'm here.

Ready to defend the King James Version.

Let's go.

Only the King James Version.

I thought from your background you would be wanting to defend the Jew Joseph Smith Translation.

No, no, I'm here to defend the King James and the Book of Mormon.

Don't they use that, don't they use.

The King James, Braden?

So your, your background for folks that don't know you, you were raised LDS church, Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints.

The, the church though does not hold to or readily use the Joseph Smith translation, they use the King James.

Yeah, I've always kind of been puzzled by that.

Is, have you ever.

I mean, do you know why they do that or.

Oh, you know, that's a great question.

First of all, I gotta say hi to Luke.

I haven't seen Luke in a long time.

We went evangelizing six, seven years ago now in Pocatello.

Just a heads up.

Maybe five years ago, who knows?

So I don't know if you remember that or not.

So.

Hi, Luke.

I absolutely do.

Yes.

Good.

Yeah.

Brandon.

Brandon, people, when people get to meet you, they have nightmares.

They.

They don't forget.

Listen, once you see somebody as ugly as me, you can't.

You can't get this out of this face, out of your.

Out of your mind.

Yeah.

So on the note of, of the Mormonism stuff, I believe it is because if I remember correctly, the.

One of the polygamist groups actually owns the copyright to the Joseph Smith translation.

Really?

And so the mainstream can reference it, but not have it be part of the actual quad.

From what I can recall, if that's.

I think I was even.

I think I was even taught that in LDS seminary.

Slight correction on that.

It was seriously.

The R.

The RLDs, which rejected polygamy.

That's right.

Led the main body out into Utah.

The rlds maintained the rights because Joseph's family, his wife and children remained a part of the rlds.

So they maintained the rights to the Joseph Smith translation up until, I believe it was just last year.

Wow.

In a deal between what's now called the community of Christ, which is really the rlds, and the LDS Church.

The LDS Church has acquired those rights now.

So it'll be interesting to see what they do with it now.

But thank you for the correction.

Was.

So you had.

After Joseph Smith died, you had Joseph Smith's son, who people thought should be the.

The new leader, and Brigham Young, who is a very charismatic, dynamic type of speaker.

And so basically they were both vying for the positions.

And.

And there became a split between his son and Brigham Young.

And.

And I would actually argue.

And, And I don't think Luke or.

Oh, you got your, Your Mormon bag there.

It's ready to go.

I got more books in my Bible than you.

Yeah, it's called a quad, which is.

It contains four books.

That's why it's quad.

Right.

So it's the.

It's.

It's the.

The Bible.

It's the.

They're both holding up books.

One's holding up a justice translation.

And so the quad has the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of great price, those four books in, in one one.

That's, that's what they would hold to as their, their scriptures.

And so.

But yeah, it's, it is, it is interesting that, you know, that they.

I didn't know that history.

So.

Thanks, Luke.

So let's, let's talk.

I told Luke I wanted to talk about a little bit about the debate.

Actually, you guys reaction to debate.

There were a couple things because I think there's some things, some legitimate things you guys brought up that I figured, hey, let's give some more background.

So I did want to say that the one, one thing was that the debate topic was not on which one is more biblical, but which one's more literal.

So when, when Tom said, you know, that I, I was wrong because it was.

Or I forgot how it worked, but he said that, that I lost the debate because Covenant theology was more, more biblical.

That wasn't a debate topic though.

So I still think that I won because I think that dispensational is more literal.

Wait, though, I, I did.

I never said that you lost.

Matter of fact, I, I think that you did win that debate.

Yeah, yeah.

No, at the end you guys were like, you know, but he's wrong because it's, it's more biblical.

That wasn't the topic.

See.

Yeah, the whole idea of them, him trying to say that that is the, if you hold strictly to a literal hermeneutic and then he's including all the typology and the symbolism and all that, well, that in and of itself is not literal.

I mean, you're actually making comparisons and comparing scripture with scripture.

So the whole, his whole argument was kind of off.

Well, okay, but his argument.

And, and because you guys were saying you didn't.

And, and this is, and I'm saying this for this purpose for those of you who are, who are watching, listening, right On Apologex Live, we don't just do apologetics.

We teach it.

We want to, you know, provide examples of it, but we want you to learn.

So when you're doing a debate, you have to know the other opponent's argument as well as he does.

And so he's arguing that he thinks it's more literal because his argument is that you need to use the analogy of faith to understand the Holy Spirit's meaning.

So he's using literal as, as the true meaning.

And it's kind of interesting because I was the one that quoted the definition of literal.

And I.

And I.

In.

In my opening, I used what would help support his argument.

Now you say, well, wait, aren't you trying to win the debate?

Well, actually, no.

Right.

That's.

That's not necessarily what.

You know, we want to help people understand the arguments.

But if you're going in there just to win a debate, maybe you shouldn't do it.

Right.

Okay.

So one of the things that I wanted to help clarify with it is you said as far as the interpreting of Old Testament.

And so I want to.

And.

And it was helpful for me because this is what happens after a debate.

You watch it.

Or in this case, I get to listen to Drew and Tom talk about it and go, oh, yeah, I should have clarified that better.

I should have made that point.

For anyone that hasn't done a debate, when you got that clock going, it is fast.

Okay.

It's just like, wow, where did the time go?

You have all kinds of things running through your head at once.

And so I should have clarified.

And there was actually a point where you guys talked about it and played a clip of it.

I either played a clip or talked about.

But where I realized I should have clarified, you know, the.

The difference between dispensational and covenant theology, I think when it is referring the Old Testament, is we would.

As a dispensationalist, I would look at the Old Testament, interpret that within its immediate context at first, and then look at the New Testament, interpret that within its context, and then see if that is giving clarifying information.

So I don't start with the new to read into the old.

I.

I'm going to start with the old, interpret that, start with the new, interpret that, and then look back and where it sounded like.

What was the note that I said?

You said dispensationalism.

Informs the old.

Yeah.

In.

Yeah.

And so.

Oh, I saw Dan backstage, and he dropped.

I was just gonna.

He's gone.

Yep.

So the.

I will say this.

There was a point where you guys pointed out that and you said I was wrong and you were right.

So.

And this is part of.

I.

I wanted to.

Can we record this part, too?

Yes.

What were we.

You have to do it, Tom.

You were right in saying that I was wrong and you should clip that.

No.

So.

So when.

When he brought up the issue of Jesus speaking of the temple being his body.

Okay.

There's two things that occurred.

One, I misspoke.

One, I said something wrong.

So the.

What ended up happening was at.

You know, when you're just given a verse and you're reading it and you don't have the luxury of.

I mean, the thing I appreciated he gave, he gave the opening.

So, so I, I knew his opening.

I actually had way too much information in my rebuttal to get to it and that I could have honed in a little better.

But when someone just gives you a verse and cross examination, you're bringing it up and reading it, and you have, you have one to two minutes to respond.

Okay.

So I said Jesus was referring to the temple being the physical temple.

That was incorrect.

And, and I actually tried to correct that afterwards, because if you listen afterwards, I, I ended up trying to correct that.

But when you only have a minute, I didn't want to take the time to say, hey, I was wrong.

I misspoke there, because you just lost like 15 seconds.

Right.

So that's something that, when you listen to people do debates, I mean, realize that they may not have time to say everything they want to say.

But I, I did try to correct that in there because Jesus was speaking of his, the body, he was at the temple.

And the Jewish leaders were thinking, so everything he was saying to the Jewish readers or listeners, they were thinking the physical temple.

And so, you know, I wouldn't have thought.

I don't think Jesus had a dual meaning there.

And I think I had said something like that, so that would have been incorrect.

But you didn't.

I don't have time to, to correct all that.

I don't know if you guys have any comments on any of that.

So.

Yeah, I thought that was good.

And by the way, that's very humbling of you to say that, so that's, that's good too, is that when we realize that when we misspoke for whatever reason, that we go back and say, hey, I misspoke and we need to go back because this is God's word.

But there was another part in the debate, we were talking about typology, and I think where we disagreed with you, and this is the biggest one, probably was referring to Isaac, that he wasn't a type of Christ.

And I think that your argument was that because it wasn't stated that he was a type in the New Testament, therefore he wasn't a type in the Old.

Yeah, and.

And I was gonna actually have that in the notes to get to.

So.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Because.

So let me just, I'll tackle it now.

The, the thing that I.

So from a distance, and this is where I kind of, I admit this is a little bit of me using humor but it's actually kind of true.

Oh, I see Dan backstage, so let me bring him in.

Well, it's about time.

Good career.

I'm like, I want to play.

I want to play.

You know, I could have done that, Dan, but, yeah, I just didn't.

So.

And now.

Now I end up forgetting what I was just saying.

Shoot.

Apology of type of Christ.

So.

So the.

The tongue in cheek that I do is, you know, with Presbyterians view of the.

The.

Their view of worship being a regulative principle, and folks don't know what that means in.

Some Presbyterians have a view.

Actually, not just Presbyterians.

Some reformed Baptists do, too.

They would.

They would have a view of worship that we only do what God explicitly says to do.

Okay.

And it just lost my mind.

What's the.

The opposite side of it?

Regulative and antinomianism.

Someone help me out.

It's a normative or regulative.

And you're all muted, I guess.

Okay.

I don't remember what it.

Okay.

But there's a regular principle which says you only do what scripture says you could do.

In other words, you know, only singing psalms, things like that.

Braden Patterson said normative.

Oh, I don't hear you.

Okay, hold on.

Did you.

I lose my audio maybe.

Because we all hear each other.

One moment.

Yeah, Try talking now.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Greetings.

You know, we just kick Andrew off.

I'm not hearing you at all.

How we do that.

I don't see you guys muted.

Oh, interesting.

You know what?

We.

We can really make this show interesting now.

So who knows what they're saying about me?

So what Andrew is trying to say is that.

All right.

Yeah.

Critique of him was absolutely on point and that he really has no disagreements.

He just needs to clarify everything that he meant to say.

I mean, that's all I'm.

I'm really taking away from this.

That's.

Amen, Andrew.

Yeah.

I think that's basically Andrew.

Amen.

Yes, Very good.

That's right.

And I think I heard Andrew say that he was now covenantal and that theology is absolutely 100 correct.

He's.

And I heard he's going to start carrying around a 1689 everywhere he goes.

That's fine.

As long as he's not baptizing babies, we're good.

And the 1611.

Right.

All right, I'm gonna get out and come back in because I still can't hear you.

All right.

There he goes.

He's gonna get out of here.

Now we can really take over, you know.

You know What?

He's raptured.

He's.

He's gonna be raptured here in a second.

There it is.

There it is.

The rapture is through.

He is out of here.

All right, now that Andrew's gone, we can really get on with this Apologetics Live episode.

Thank you, everyone, for tuning in.

We're glad that you.

Now on to the real.

Oh, just leave.

Leave him backstage.

You should have left him backstage.

Sorry, sir.

Did you have a reservation?

Yeah.

See, he's back.

I need.

I can move you guys around.

I did.

So.

So, Andrew, what we were all trying to tell you is that it's the normative principle.

Normative.

Thank you.

So, yeah, I don't know what happened there with the.

It was weird.

I couldn't.

Couldn't hear you.

So.

So, yeah, nor did you guys define them or should I define them?

We did not, but we can if you'd like.

Yeah.

Well, go ahead.

So, like you said, the regulative principle is only doing what Scripture prescribes.

The normative principle is saying, as long as Scripture doesn't forbid it, you can therefore do it.

Correct.

And so, example, you know, regular principle.

You're only going to sing psalms, hymns.

Yeah, well, yeah, but we would include all this.

I'm pretty sure hillsong doesn't count, no matter how you slice it.

Yeah.

Amen.

You will have instruments, the different instruments that will be used only stringed instruments.

Some will say that that's part of the regulative principle, where the normative principle will say, well, hey, if the Scripture doesn't say you can't use drums, then you can.

So that'd be a difference.

So.

So I say that, tongue in cheek, just to say I use that same sort of principle when it comes to interpretation.

If the Scripture says it's a type of Christ, then it's clearly a type of Christ.

Right.

And would you say that that is your.

That would be your main hermeneutic, then?

Well, no, that's not the hermeneutic.

That's just a.

It's a principle of interpretation.

Right.

Yeah, it's a principle.

So.

So.

And.

And it's really a safeguard in my mind.

Right.

Because how do I know something is a.

And a type of some.

That something is a type of Christ?

Yeah.

I definitely think that you can go too far in it and looking for.

For typology when it's not there.

That's.

Yeah.

But I do think so as a safeguard.

Yes.

But at the same time, I think that we could look at a scenario and I Think I brought up the, the principle of I could, we could say, hey, everybody, go grab your mitts, your, your, your, your gloves.

Let's go run around some bases.

We'll divide up in two teams.

And what are we playing?

Hot potato on a military base.

There we go.

Right.

So, so, and, and I think I, I think it was Jeffrey Johnson that talked that about that being a, a concept fallacy.

And so when, when the scripture implies it and all the ingredients of a covenant are there, for example, we should go ahead and call it a covenant.

So that would be our interpretive principle.

And one of the examples you used last week was of Adam.

You said the covenant of Adam, like the guidelines that the rules that God placed down for Adam, you would call that a covenant.

Whereas I look at that and I go, well, it doesn't sound like a covenant.

There are plenty of places in scripture where it does say, and God made a covenant.

Right, right.

Yeah, yeah.

It explicitly calls that out.

So it seems to me like when you have a, when you have so many instances of where God says, there's a covenant here, there's a covenant here, there's a covenant here, then it feels a little bit dangerous to say, well, you know, for lack of a better word, that over there is a covenant too, because it kind of sort of looks the same way.

Yeah, yeah.

And I think, I think, you know, this is where I think Tom and I are kind of agreeing with it is the fact that it's a safeguard.

Right.

And I think I said this in the debate.

If I didn't, you know, I, I meant to, but one of the things I, I, if I didn't say, I meant to say was the idea that the dispensational position is at least the safest position.

The Lord's never going to tell me that I took something and I, that I twisted his words or implied something he didn't intend.

I may not have gone far enough.

Right.

But I'd rather be on the.

Personally, I'd rather be safe to.

I don't want the Lord say, yeah, you, you twisted my words there.

Right.

And, and that's where, you know, one of the notes I had was you guys talked about, so I, I mentioned a dual meaning is not a contradiction.

Right.

So we have the Old Testament and a lot of where, as you're hearing Tom and I talk, folks, you're seeing, it's, it's really how we interpret Old Testament.

Right.

And, you know, so that's where God may have something for the, for the, the readers of the Old Testament that he is now in the New Testament going to give us more information on.

But, and, and the example I always use is he says out of Egypt I will, I will call my son in, in Micah that's referring to Israel.

But in Matthew we know that's referring to Christ.

But they, you know, no one in the Old Testament would have seen that as a reference to the Messiah unless scripture said so.

Right.

And now, now that scripture says so, we know that God had a dual meaning there.

So I don't know if that becomes helpful for folks to understand.

One of the things I did want to bring up is you guys, you guys got on me for bringing up Mormonism.

And actually Drew, Drew kind of said that I, I was wrong in doing it or it was a distraction or, or you thought it was a debate tactic, but there was a, the purpose in doing that.

And again, because of time, it's hard to bring, I mean, Luke, I think you've done a couple debates, right?

I think no you haven't.

Okay.

I thought you had done one.

One or two.

Okay.

But when you do a debate, it's, it's just really hard time wise.

So what I was trying to do was the, the analogy of faith where you, you read your.

And I'm, I know Tom's going to disagree with what I'm going to say here where you read in a meaning where you're, you're seeing the, this analogy.

It's not literal, it's an analogy.

And so when you're looking for those, you know, I'm trying to think of good words to explain it other than analogy because it's the analogy of faith.

But that's this, it's the same thing that Mormons will do and every other group will do is to look for a way they, they, they read in, in the case we were just talking, you know, Braden could probably share more.

Well, I was going to say they read in like the Book of Mormon, read it into the Bible, but actually more they read Doctrine and Covenants into the Bible because if you don't know folks that the, the Book of Mormon is actually the Bible than it is to Mormonism because, you know, Brigham Young really changed Mormonism a lot after.

So, but, but the idea that I was trying to point out is that Joseph would rightly call out the hermeneutic of Mormons or other groups.

But I would say that it's the, it's that same spiritualizing that I have issue with.

Right.

And, and if, if scripture says, hey, it should be spiritualized, then it should be spiritualized, but I don't want to spiritualize where it's not.

And, and so what I was trying to do in that.

And, and part of what I'm doing now is just trying to explain my thinking in a debate, which is, you know, so if you guys listening get into debates, you, you, you want to think through these things.

But I was trying to come to something, a way that I could point out what I thought was a weakness of his.

His main argument, by giving us something that he would see is clearly wrong.

He would, he would see spiritualizing that Mormon, as Mormons do with the Bible as wrong.

But I, I was seeing that that's the same spiritualizing I would have issue with.

So are you.

But are you.

I guess the question is, are you equating spiritualizing the text with comparing scripture with scripture?

No, those are two totally different things.

Okay.

Because we would look.

So I, Our issue was is that.

I think I'll let Drew explain.

Well, I'll also go ahead and say.

Drew's issue.

I'm going to speak for Drew.

Go ahead.

Was.

I'll tell you if you're wrong.

Well, yeah, Drew's issue was is that when we compare scripture with scripture, we're actually comparing it with God's word.

We're not comparing it with a.

With another.

Another book.

We're not.

We're not comparing it with something that's totally error.

But see, and that, that's the, that's the reason I brook, brought up the Mormonism, because they would see that as God's word.

Right.

And.

And one of their arguments is.

And I forget the reference, but Braden probably will know it offhand.

But there's a passage from one of the prophets about the two scroll, the two branches.

And they'll say one is the Bible, one's the Book of Mor Mormon.

Ezekiel.

I believe it's Ezekiel 37 about the, the.

The stick of Judah being combined and in the one hand.

And so they would say that that's the Book of Mormon and the Bible in one hand being combined.

Yeah.

And so, so, so they, they use that said.

And that.

That was the point that I was.

And.

And there was something that I.

That I think Drew said.

And again, I said it wrong.

And I didn't actually catch it until you guys addressed it.

The, the claim that I said that the, The Book of Mormon was written before the Bible.

What I had meant.

What I had meant to say was that I meant to say that it was it the, the events were before the completion of the New Testament.

And that's so again, sometimes when you're, when you're, you got a lot of things you're trying to get out quickly that this is what happens in a debate.

And so I actually didn't realize I said that until Drew pointed it out.

And I was like, oh, that would be wrong.

And so, you know, we have to recognize that this happens.

Would you also concede and recognize that when you isolate and when you're too tight with text that we can actually have better information if we compare a scripture like, you know, whoever is baptized, whoever believes and is baptized, is saved.

If we take that alone, we're going to have better passages that we can go to that will inform us that baptism isn't included in justification.

Yeah, see, and this is the thing, I think you had a post and about, you know, the, the, the different views of covenant theology.

And I had said you mentioned scripture with scripture, but dispensationalism does scripture with scripture.

It's the how.

Right.

So the difference.

And I think I had to respond, I said the how would be I would interpret the Old Testament passage in its context.

Interpret the New Testament passage in its context.

And if they're actually talking about the same thing, then I put them together.

And that's one of the things that I, when I teach hermeneutics, I used to always use Harold Camping as how not to do it because like, I mean, basically no matter what rule of hermeneutics, Harold Camping broke them all, you know, and nowadays no one knows who's that, who that is.

So Brandon, I don't know if you.

Can see my small hand being raised.

Right.

I know I can't.

I do have a question.

All I saw, I have, I do.

Have a question for you regarding that, Andrew, because what happens if there's two implicit implicate.

However, whatever word we want to use their interpretations of almost contradictive outcomes to the reference of one scripture.

So for example, Romans 9 quotes from Hosea and Hosea in its, in its historical context would have never been understood in the way that Paul interprets it in Romans 9.

Correct.

And so what you have there is you have cases and I'm not super.

I, I'd have to look that up to, to not misspeak because I have time to notice.

Right.

But there are times where like the example that I gave of out of Egypt, I call my Son.

That's clearly the Holy Spirit saying this is a reference to Christ in the New Testament.

Now sometimes you could Have.

And I may get myself in trouble here.

I actually believe that Paul is the 12th apostle.

And people say, well, yeah, but we have the.

In Acts, they chose matthias as the 12th apostle.

But so how do I deal with that?

Well, it's a historical narrative.

And so there's rules for historical narrative.

One of the things is that historical narratives don't necessarily tell you what should happen, but what did happen.

So David had many wives, so did Solomon.

They shouldn't have, but they did.

Right, right.

So this, what we do know is the disciples.

The, the Bible is accurate in the fact that the disciples did do that, but nowhere does it say they should have.

So you're basically saying it was just descriptive.

I think I would say it's descriptive.

Yeah.

And.

And that's a great term, Tom, is for folks who, who may be new to that term.

There's two terms we use, descriptive and prescriptive.

Descriptive is describing events.

Prescriptive is instructions.

And one of the things.

Actually one of the things you're going to often find with cultic type groups, they almost always focus on the Old Testament and they take descriptive scriptures and make it prescriptive.

And, and that's a.

You, you.

And this is why when I teach harmonics, the first thing is identifying what type of genre you're dealing with because it's going to tell you what kind of rules to use.

And so, yeah, I would.

Even.

Even in the case of Andrew, just out of curiosity, even in that example, out of Egypt, I have called my son.

Even in its first context, where it's being quoted from.

Isn't that even at a descriptive.

That wasn't even prescriptive in its first.

And it would have been understood as Israel coming back to their land.

But then in Matthew and other references, it's referring to Christ coming out of Egypt.

So even in that case, I don't think that that, that undermines covenant theology in that way.

No, I didn't say it undermines it.

No.

But when we say scripture.

So let me give, Let me give an example we'll all agree with.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'm going to take scripture with scripture.

So Paul, Romans 9.

Well, all of Romans clearly says, you are saved not by works, but by faith.

Ephesians 2, 8, 9, all through Romans, Titus 3, 5.

So, so clearly.

But James, now we have another scripture.

James clearly says, if you don't have works, you're dead.

Right.

This is what Tom was saying.

If you.

I think it was Tom.

But you can't just take one passage.

Right, Right.

And So what I'm going to do with those two, I can't just slam them together because actually those two passages are not talking the same thing.

One's talking about regeneration, one's talking about sanctification.

So I would not put those two passages together because they're not meant to be together because they're two talking two totally different things.

Correct.

So, and, and so I just do that same thing with the Old Testament.

I'm going to interpret it, see if it has the same connection.

And then, you know, oh, hey, it does.

And, and then I'm going to, you know, put those together then.

And, and so it is a different way of, of how we approach the scripture, with scripture.

And like something you had said, we, we and dispensationals would hold to this.

And I, you know, I teach it.

If you guys want, on the striving for eternity YouTube channel, I'm saying that because right now, although the guys from Open Air Theology, we got to get you guys to get your channel set up here, so we're airing on your channel as well.

So.

But, but which I encourage you guys to go out and follow that channel as well.

Open Air Theology.

So we, we're both streaming together.

But the, on, on the Striving FR Channel, we do have a, a playlist on hermeneutics.

And I have one that's just five, five quick lessons.

I think they're like five minutes each.

And one of them is the principle Tom brought up of interpreting the, The.

You use the more clear.

Yeah.

Interpret the less clear.

So if I have a difficult passage if, if I'm going to be looking at Hebrews Chapter six, there's a lot in that.

You have to understand a lot of Leviticus to understand Hebrews.

There's, there's a lot behind that.

I'm not going to take a clear passage like Romans 8 that says you can't lose your salvation.

Take Hebrews 6 and say you can.

Right.

So the, the, the clear is going to interpret the less clear.

Right.

And so I said, let's see.

Tom said, the three, the Three Covenants is not the text.

I'm trying to read my own notes.

I don't know what I was pointing out with that.

So we'll just move on.

In my note, I was trying to take notes while listening.

And so I said, so I, I put a note of why I pointed out the comparison, you know, with the.

So I was addressing, trying to address in my.

Some of my comparisons, definitional issues between Joseph and I, and he was giving Examples.

Toward the end when, when we were doing the cross, the, the second round of cross examination, what I was trying to do and, and again, time did, I didn't have the time in a long, if you have a four hour discussion, you have more time to go through and, and pull things out.

What I was trying, what I saw in there was I was trying to get to this analogy of faith definitionally from Scripture.

And yeah, he was addressing it from examples.

And so we were talking past each other.

Well, in the text that he went to was not a good text.

We did spend a good amount of time talking about how that was not a good text to demonstrate that.

Right.

Yeah.

And, and where, and I was.

What I, and this is my perception.

Right.

And I said it right up front.

I mean, I didn't, I didn't, I didn't back down from what I thought, but I thought I did.

Respectfully, but I said I thought he was begging the question.

He was.

He starts with his analogy of faith to see it in Scripture.

So like when every time he, I'd ask for definition, like where does scripture teach this?

He goes, well, look at it here.

Here's an example, you see?

And that was the issue.

He's giving an example.

I'm like, yeah, but you need your analogy of faith to read that as an analogy of faith.

Like I'm looking for where the Bible says this is how to do it, which is what he said was in there.

But he wasn't giving that.

Right.

And so there at one point, Drew, you mentioned that I was playing tactics and, and I really wasn't.

Now I do, I will say this because, Drew, you've seen me debate enough times.

Like I have a different debate style with a brother in Christ than I do with someone who is an unbeliever.

And that's something I know that I do.

I do different.

A brother in Christ.

I will share my opening remarks with my opening statement and ask if they would be willing to do the same because I want them to have my opening statement so they have a prepared rebuttal.

I don't know what cross examination questions are going to come up, but when, when it's a brother in Christ, I'm more concerned with the, with believers understanding the topic.

Yeah.

With an unbeliever.

Okay.

Yeah.

Then debate tactics, you know, would work more.

Right.

Because.

Because I'm dealing with someone who's not always going to be honest.

Right.

Drew, when we had the, the, the orthodox rabbi.

Yeah, right.

What did I do?

I mean, and I, we did A show where I explained what I did, right?

I was, I was getting aggressive with him on purpose.

I knew what I was doing.

The audience was like, oh, that was different for Andrew because I knew how he was and, and I understood how he was.

The, the argument, the way of viewing argumentation, so.

Because in other words, it's a Jewish thing, baby.

You wouldn't understand.

Yeah, exactly.

The, the other.

I only had a couple, just like two, two or three more comments.

I said, I, I have a comment here saying I, I thought my opening was a good argument for dispensationalism.

Joseph even wanted to read because you mentioned that Joseph's.

Joseph didn't do a good defense of covenant theology.

I don't think Joseph was trying to do that, though.

Joseph was trying to give a defense of why covenant theology is more literal in the way he was using the word literal.

And so when I gave Joseph my opening, he even wanted to.

He, he told me, he's like, I want to rewrite my opening because I made a strong defense for dispensationalism, right?

And he want.

He was like, I gotta give a better defense for covenant theology.

Now, I don't know if you guys knew that, but now knowing that, you realize, wait, if, if he strengthened the argument, it didn't, it didn't strengthen it for you guys, it did seem.

But I didn't know how to argue other than to argue what dispensationalism is, because I didn't know until I read his opening statement what his argument really was.

And I mean, the thing with the whole debate, so you really have to listen to it, and especially like, certain parts a couple of times, because there's parts where you're just, you're listening, you go, I don't understand what's being said.

Like, I don't get the point he's trying to make.

But even in, like, the topic, you know, which one is more literal?

Like, listening to Joseph, I, I wasn't convinced that his position held up.

And, you know, which is why when I text, when I text you guys, I, I said, well, is this his first debate?

Because it just seemed like a little bit timid.

Wasn't sure about what he was saying or how to argue what he was saying.

And so at the end I was like, well, I wasn't convinced.

Like, I'm not convinced by Andrew, but I know what Andrew believes.

And so I'm not convinced by this guy saying the covenant view is the more literal view.

It just, it didn't do it for me.

Actually, you bring up an excellent point for folks just to point out, and that is when you're, when you're doing a debate or discussion, I think a lot of people are trying to win a debate to score points rather than communicate what they believe.

Right, right.

And what that does is it leaves, it leaves someone walking away with, going, I don't understand what, what they're saying.

My pastor actually watched the debate and he said, he goes, after two hours, I still don't know what the guy's position is.

That's, that's kind of what we thought, too.

Yeah.

My question is through, through all of it.

If we're, you're actually, you have your principles of interpretation and you're, you're.

You come up with a, a way to read the Bible.

And I guess the biggest question I would have, honest question, is that why for so many centuries with this, with this literal hermeneutic, with this literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, did not the best theological minds come up with the dispensational system for 1800 years?

That, that is one of my biggest questions.

Yeah.

And I, I would argue if you consider, you know, Augustine a brilliant mind.

He, he held to that view.

He also held to a very spiritualized view.

So we both can hold to him.

Right.

I mean, that's the thing.

He held to dispensationalism.

Well, he, he couldn't, he didn't hold to reform theology by, by that argument.

Well, I'm saying.

So when you, you know, R.C.

sproul makes a point when he's talking about Calvinism, you know, when you have a group of theologians and we're talking and he named five of the best theologians, Luther, Augustine, you know, and when these five agree, he's saying, you know, you would have a hard time.

The issue is, is that for 1800 years, nobody agreed.

No, I will say I wouldn't, I wouldn't agree with that.

The, the.

Because they're.

I.

Augustine.

The reason I bring him up is he believed in a literal thousand years.

Drew brought up and I was going to get to the, that the thousand year.

But wait, wait.

He was all millennial.

His.

The literal thousand years was.

He was saying, I'm in the millennium.

Yeah.

And that's the whole thing.

So what this, and this is when a couple weeks ago, if you guys go back and listen to the discussion we had about, you know, who are the Jewish people.

Right.

What did I start out by doing in that episode going through historically, what did people know at the time?

Right.

Yeah.

The early church fathers did, first off, they, they weren't worried about trying to nail down all their theology.

They were more concerned with staying alive, not being fed lions.

Right.

So, so they didn't have the luxury and the comfort to sit back and think through things.

Right.

The later early church fathers had more time, but they were also influenced by unbelievers because all of a sudden it's their unbelievers work their way in.

Because, you know, when the emperor says we're a.

Right now, all of a sudden everyone wants to be Christian because the government, the, the emperor is giving you houses and money and, you know, cushy job.

Right.

And so we, now, we had a lot of unbelievers who were involved in councils.

You know, hey, we get, we get guys like our, you know, rna.

Right.

And so.

Or Arius.

Sorry.

And so what you end up seeing is we, we can't hold the, the people from 2000 years ago or 1500 years ago to the, the more precise terminology that we would use today.

So this is why I say with Augustine, he believed in.

He looked at the thousand years as literal, but he thought he was in it.

So both pre millennialists and amillennialists can go back to the same guy saying, he taught our position.

Why?

Because he wasn't trying to.

He wasn't.

There wasn't even an argument at that time for amillennial or premillennial.

And what we have to realize, you.

Couldn'T say that he was pre millennial if he said he was, because that.

Would mean he believed Christ returned and then brought the millennium.

The issue being, the, the issue being is he hadn't worked it out yet.

Right.

Much of our theology is when heresy comes in.

So when you have someone saying Jesus, like in 1800.

Yeah.

In the charismatic movement.

Diversion.

Quick.

Good job, Andrew.

That was quick.

Hey, for those who want our theology throwdown, which is where all the Christian podcast community podcasters get together, the topic this month that we're going to do end of April will be charismatic gifts.

So that'll be fun.

We get people on both sides in there.

So.

But, but what you end up seeing though is we have to put all of these people in their own time period and say, you know, did Augustine have a eschatology?

Not really.

Right.

Not like we have today.

Right.

I, I would, I would disagree.

It's nowhere near.

So you believe that he thinks he would speak in the languages and the preciseness that we speak today.

Well, here's.

I think Andrew brings up a good point and that when we look at church history and we're, especially when we're doing study about the specific theological topics, we always want to go back to like the early Church Fathers, the Apostolic Fathers, and see what they said about certain things.

But Andrew's correct in saying they, they didn't deal with all the topics.

Right.

You know, there was certain time periods where they dealt with certain things, like the Reformation dealt with something, Scripture, for example.

Right.

And so you may look at a time period and go, well, I don't see.

And some people will make this argument.

They go, well, I don't see them say anything about this, therefore we can hold to this.

And you know, they didn't think it was an issue.

Well, no, no, no, that wasn't an issue at the time.

Which is why you don't see anything written on it.

Correct.

In fact, you know, who is the, the first group to come up with the term?

And this is going to, you know, ruffle Dan's feathers, but the first group to come up with the term creation science.

I'll be curious if Dan knows the answer to this one.

Christian Science.

Probably Jehovah's Witnesses.

Close.

Seven Day Adventists.

Which, which is really kind of funny because the founder of the Seven Day Adventists argued the reason not to eat meat was because that would make you make men more animalistic and they'd rape women.

Evolutionary thinking, but.

Yeah, so.

So the fact is, is that, but why did it take so long to come up with the idea of creation science or arguing for a seven day creation?

Because it was only in the light of evolution.

Right.

When that pops up now we have to defend a biblical faith and we have to define it.

And so you're saying that before, before it was, before a position was challenged, it was, it was just kind of accepted and nobody really, it just taken for granted.

Yeah, I think that's what Andrew's, I think that's Andrew's main point and getting at like our theology gets more defined when we deal with heresies, as heresies creep into the church.

Now we're dealing with arguments we haven't dealt with before.

And so the topics get more defined and drawn out.

So you're looking at the polemic for the day.

Yeah, I mean a great example is if you get my book, what do we believe?

The chapter on the church.

What I do there is go through history undefining what the church is.

Because the term ecclesia or church became more and more precise through history.

Right.

It went from being, I mean, ecclesia was Just a gathering for voting initially, and then it became the gathering for the worship of God.

And then, you know, during the Catholic Church realm in the Middle Ages, it became, you know, this visible, invisible church.

And then you have the Puritans, and it's.

No.

You have to have the preaching of the word.

You have to have the ordinary audiences, and you have to have church discipline.

Right.

And so each generation.

Well, not generation, but each time period, it became more and more precise as error crept in.

Now, I just want to wrap up with.

With a couple more things, because I.

I told Luke at top of the hour, we're gonna do King.

He's.

He has six hours of material for us, so actually, he actually could.

He actually could.

But so the.

The question.

And we don't have time.

The question I wanted to ask Drew is when he comes to Revelation, when do you take it literal?

When you take it figurative?

We're gonna have to hold that over, but I'm gonna.

Just.

For time's sake, I'm gonna end with just one more thing.

Drew.

Drew said one thing.

That literal.

That.

That thousand in the Bible is always figurative.

That's an argument that Matt Slick used to make, and he does not make anymore because I.

I sat down with him, and we went through scriptures.

Thousand is used literally many times.

And that's.

Why did I say it's always figurative?

Yeah, I think he said always.

Oh, if I did, I may have misspoke.

I mean, like, because when I.

When we started, I said, you know, I gave a definition of literal, which is according to the.

The literature.

Right.

The genre.

And so when you're looking at, like, metaphors and things, how the person is speaking, you would say, well, this person speaking metaphorically.

So if they're using thousand metaphorically, it would be.

It wouldn't be in a wooden sense, like an actual thousand.

Yeah, it would be a great period.

But, you know.

Yeah, I would agree that there's places where, like, if a thousand is used and they're talking in a wooden sense, like, yeah, this is 1000.

Yeah.

Matt changed it to saying that wherever thousand years is used, he says it's figurative.

But I.

I actually disagree with that as well.

There's only four.

There's four uses of it.

Two of them are in First Peter.

But I.

I would argue in First Peter, he's using it in a literal sense, meaning it's an illustration.

But he's comparing a literal day to a literal thousand years and a literal thousand years to a literal day.

Sure.

It only makes sense if it's an illustration.

So, yes, in that sense, it's not literal, but the illustration only makes sense if you use it literally.

And so I go back to context with that.

I actually did notice one more comment that I was going to make because this is Tom's favorite subject.

The subject of evangelism came up.

Oh, yeah, that is.

And so was I wrong?

I thought you were getting ready.

I thought you were gonna go.

My polemic against dispensationalism, my favorite.

But it's not.

So the question why, like, why dispensationalists?

It was some.

With, with, you know, why we'd, I forget how it was worded, but I, I, it was interesting because I, it was sounding like, why would we evangelize?

Or, or, and, and the, the thing I, I, I was ended up thinking of, you know, when R.C.

sproul talks about evangelism, one of the things that R.C.

says, you know, as people say, well, Calvinists don't evangelize.

He had a great argument for that.

He says, you know, why do, why do we do it?

Because God commanded it.

Yeah, like, that's enough.

That's right.

Right.

And so, you know, and I didn't write down what specifically guys were talking about, but it was, you know, like, there's times where it's just, hey, if this is what God commands, we obey.

So I wanted to wrap that up.

I'm gonna quickly play a commercial, and then we're going to get into King James only.

Or we could just make fun of, you know, Braden's tiny hands.

But those are small hands.

Those are some small hands.

So for folks to understand, I, I, there was a, an ad that I had done in the past, and, and you know, somebody responded to that ad with his own ad, and so the only right thing to do was to respond back.

So I did an ad and, and we'll, we'll see who it is.

Then I'll, I'll tell you the I, I'll tell you his response, but let's did it play.

There we go.

Let me make it bigger.

There we go.

And here we go.

Some men think being a real man is having a crown that says you're king of the odd mills, something.

I got a belt like a wrestler because I'm the king of the reform podcast.

But real men drink their slowly just coffee.

You should try it sometime, Keith.

Squirrely Joe's coffee, the official coffee of the cold plunge.

Get some striving for eternity.org Coffee today.

And so bonus points for any.

Where'd we all go.

There we go.

Bonus points for anybody who can find the Easter egg.

Oh, Lord, I have to go watch it.

I will.

It will be on our YouTube channel later.

There is an Easter egg in there.

A little fun one.

Once you see it, you'll probably never.

You'll.

You'll always see it.

But.

So.

Yeah, this.

So there's a new commercial.

You guys like that one?

Nice.

Good job.

I don't know that I want to explore where that Easter egg is, but.

No, you.

Is it under the water?

I hope not.

No.

Okay, so the Easter huevos.

The.

The.

The.

That was me responding.

You know, I did the.

The one about respect.

The.

From Squirrely Joe's coffee named Respect.

And so Keith Foskey did one about real.

The real men or the.

The.

You know, the.

The.

Where he's got his son drinks the coffee before playing baseball, and he suddenly becomes a man because he had Squirrely Joe's coffee.

So.

Yep, I'm sure Keith is going to come back with a better response, so.

He usually does.

All right, so let's talk.

Let's talk about King James only.

And I know this is a big thing that everyone's been doing online these days is they're using AI and creating different.

Different people that they have.

And so, you know, you're seeing Drew, and he's got himself as an action figure.

Well, someone did it.

That first one didn't turn out right.

No, it didn't.

Yeah.

Look like Creflo$.

So.

So here's.

Here's what I found.

Someone actually did this.

The King James only.

And I'm going to see.

You know, I think there's errors in this.

So here we go.

Someone put this one up as a King James onlyist.

It's a JJV Only.

He's got a hat that says kjv.

He's got a.

He's.

He's a grumpy old heavyweight guy with a big burly beard.

He's got a T shirt that says 1689.

He's holding a holy Bible.

He's got a Coke in his 11.

It doesn't say 1689.

All right, 1611.

I had a better date on my mind.

Sorry.

He's got.

He's got.

On the side, it says, if it ain't KJV, it ain't Bible.

Paul spoke English.

Romans 5, 4 is my life verse.

Then it says at the bottom, wears pants while swimming.

Wears pants, Wears pants while swimming.

And so I see problems with this because I don't think that's really a Good illustration of what KJV onlyest would be.

Now, they would definitely be in a suit.

Thank you.

They would definitely be clean shaven.

Correct?

Yep.

I don't think he'd be holding a Coke.

He might not even be wearing a hat.

Yeah, I wouldn't be wearing a hat.

He'd have a haircut for sure.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

He'd have some kind of high and tight or maybe a nice part from the side.

It would look like a FBI agent.

And.

And they're usually thin too.

Yeah, yeah.

So I don't know.

Absolutely.

You see?

Yeah, usually the ones I run into, they're like, you know, super thin.

Now I've seen some that can only hold up their britches with suspenders.

So what was the guy?

He was a big heavyset preacher.

And because I use the King James Version, every bit of it, I believe it.

He said I could correct the Greek with this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that guy.

I know you're talking about.

Yeah, so.

So, yeah, so, I mean, that's the picture that I was like, AI AI generated.

I mean, that was exactly opposite of what I would think of whoever created that when saying to AI create.

That looked more like an American non denominational from the.

Definitely from the south for sure.

Yeah.

One too many fried foods.

Yeah, the guy's belly looked like he wasn't drinking Cokes.

It looked more like he had one too many beers.

Send on Saturday and he's got to make it.

Right.

That's right.

So, Luke, you know the, the idea of King James Onlyism, how about you first let us, you know, let folks know what, what this is.

And I did say I want to, you know, what is the difference with some of these folks between the King James Version and King James Bible?

Right.

Because the guy had a shirt.

1611.

What's that referring to?

So, all right, so, yeah, King James Onlyism is not a single movement, it's not a single organization.

King James Onlyism is a broad ideology and there are a lot of different sub camps.

And so when you're talking about King James Onlyism, what would unite all the various forms is the basic idea that the King James Bible is the only true version of the Bible or translation of the Bible which Christians ought to be using today.

It is the.

According to this ideology, it is the pure, unadulterated and cannot be translated any other way, cannot be improved upon.

It is for all time.

That is what you should be reading, at least in the English language.

Some King James Onlyists would actually say that people who speak other languages should learn English to read the King James, but that's not a universally held position.

Again, there are a lot of different camps in this, but the basic premise is that the King James Bible is the one and only translation that anybody should be reading, at least in the English speaking world today.

So you said difference between KJV and, and kjb, King James Version, King James Bible.

Many King James only is.

Are totally comfortable using either of those terms.

But there are certainly King James only as to believe, because the King James isn't a version of the Bible.

To them it is the Bible.

And so it is the kjb, the Bible, not the K, not the King James Version, of course, Version.

In this, in the context of translations, it's just another word for translation.

When you talk about ancient languages, which we will a little bit later on.

The New Testament's written in Greek.

The Latin Vulgate is a version.

The Syriac pashita is a version.

Why?

Because it's a translation into another language.

That's all Version means.

But they think Version means.

Oh, there's different Bibles.

Well, there's not different Bibles.

There's just one.

So the King James is the Bible and all these others are versions or they would even say perversions of the Bible.

I've got a question.

So, yes, sir.

When talking about KJV versus kjb, would this also be kind of a distinction between those who would hold strictly to maybe like a 1611 versus 1769 Blaney revision?

Virtually no one in the world today who is actually reading a 1611 Bible.

There are some who think they are.

Right.

But if you go to the store and buy a King James Bible, unless it's a facsimile edition of the 1611, what you're reading is the Blaney revision.

And there are plenty of King James only as who are totally knowledgeable of that fact and accept that this was a per.

They.

They downplay the differences and we'll accept that this was a process of fine tuning the spelling and getting the syntax just right.

And that over that, that brings us to, you know, what we can read today, but that they're still the same translation.

There's truth to that.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead, please.

Yeah, I was going to ask you, can you walk me through the timeline?

What has changed since 1611 and.

And what we have now today with the KJV?

Oh, yeah, sure.

So the 1611, that's the original time that the King James Bible was published.

It was actually issued by two different printers that year.

And so you can find King James 1611, King James Bibles that read slightly different to each other.

How does that happen?

Well, they were using a printing press, and so the printers have to put in all the typeset and then make all the copies and bind all the pages.

And then it gets even crazier because sometimes you have pages from one printer and pages from another printer that get bound together into a single volume.

And so you could find all kinds of slightly variant readings of the King James Bible immediately, the moment there was a King James Bible.

And so up until we have photocopiers and computer printers and things like that, it was not as stable a text.

It was more stable than when it was handwritten by scribes.

But you still have a lot of variation.

And the thing about these printers is that when they're trying to correct copy errors, sometimes they're correcting translation errors.

In other words, what they're correcting is actually what the translator meant for it to say.

And so you have the trans.

The.

Each printer who's involved in this process over the next couple hundred years is introducing variant readings with each printing that then a neck the next printer has to look at and be like, oh, I gotta fix that.

The problem is, is that there is.

There never was in the entire history of the King James Bible a master copy that everyone could go back to and say, this is the King James Bible.

And even today, in our modern printed editions, there are.

There is a very, very tiny, tiny variation between the Oxford and the Cambridge edition of the Blaney revision of the King James Bible in which there will be tiny, insignificant wording differences in three or four verses in the entire Bible.

And so even today, there is not an exact standardized text for the King James Bible.

Wow.

I'll be done.

Interesting.

Yeah, I.

I have, I.

I have here A.

A 1611 edition.

And I remember going to church.

We had a guy that came to church, and he said he believes that the 1611 was inspired.

And I said to him, you know, I said, so you're saying not a single letter, not a word, not a letter is.

It's exactly as God intended it to be?

He says, yes.

And I said, and that's what you're reading?

Yes.

I said, you coming back for evening service?

He said, yeah.

So an evening service.

He comes up and I say, hey, can I see your Bible?

And I opened it up, I went, hey, that says it's the authorized Version.

That's not the King James 11.

I handed him this, the 1611.

And he opened.

He I gave it that for him to use during service.

And I don't know that you'll.

You probably won't be able to see it.

Let me see if I make my.

If I zoom in on me and hold the book up.

Those of you with really good eyesight, you try reading that.

And it's.

I mean, the letters are different.

Yeah.

Braden is holding up a page that he's got.

It's.

It.

So it's a more.

It's a more gothic style font that makes it difficult to read.

The spelling conventions are completely different, and so it's very difficult to.

There are some forms of letters that we don't use anymore that show up in the original 1611.

It's.

It's very difficult to read.

Yeah.

The reason it was updated.

Yeah, I mean, actually, what people don't realize is the English language was not standardized until the King James Bible.

The King James Bible, later editions are what standardized English.

Our English is.

Is bound.

Is literally bound around a later translation of the King James Version.

Yeah.

Wow.

Yeah.

Ephesians 1:23, for example of this, which is his body, the full Nell of him that filleth in all.

In all.

I guarantee you that the King James versions today do not have filleth.

No, it doesn't even have a th on the end.

It's fulel.

It's.

Yeah, it's.

Oh, really strange.

Yes.

And this is a 1613 edition.

I'll be doing it now.

Now, all of this.

Is that an original page right there?

Britain.

Is that an actual.

I mean, there were no use.

They had V's instead of use.

But all of this said.

I want to be really clear that I'm not actually criticizing the King James Bible.

This is useful history to know.

It helps humble us when we try to be only ists about anything to realize how much variation there really was.

But that said, when it comes to Bible reading, the King James is one of my top three translations I've.

I've.

That I read still every year.

It is my favorite audio Bible translation because it was actually written to be recited, not to be just read silently to yourself.

And so it still sounds great when read out loud.

And so I.

It is my.

My very first.

I got into audiobooks early back when it was a huge, like photo volume of cassette tapes.

And I was driving around listening to the King James Bible read by James Earl Jones as a.

In high school.

And so I.

I love the King James Bible.

You know, to be critical of is King James only is.

Yeah, for sure.

My wife listens to Alexander Scourby.

And.

And she.

She has a King James Bible.

You know what's interesting?

There's.

There's a lot of times that we'll be at our church and our past will be preaching and going through the Greek and we'll be looking at what is said in the original Greek and what is the English translation for that word.

And she'll.

And this is her Bible right here, her King James Bible.

And I'll have my LSB or NASB or ESV next to me.

And she's going, look, it's the right word.

It's the right translation of the Greek word.

She loves her King James.

She's not a King James.

Only this, but she loves her King James Bible.

Yeah, Luke, going back to what you were saying, you know, about loving the King James translation, I was listening to Dan Wallace teach on this, and he said, you know, people ask me all the time, he said, well, what versions of the Bible should I have?

And he's.

He listed off like, several different ones that are for several different purposes.

And he said, but I believe everyone should own a King James because of its elegance and its poetic feel for when you read.

Just brings, you know, kind of a joy when you're reading it.

And that's how it was supposed to be.

Supposed to be.

Some of it is nostalgia because people who grew up on.

On the King James and, And, you know, I want.

I'm gonna ask Luke about that in a bit because that's.

That does.

I.

He made a really.

That's in one of the articles.

I forget which one.

I read it and was like, I never thought that he.

He makes this great argument of how nostalgia is why some people went to King James only.

And he brings out other languages where the same thing happens.

But I.

The other thing is, you know, Luke brought up something.

Is the King James Bible was translated at a time when people did not read and write generally.

And so it was as he said it was.

It was translated to be recited.

It was actually translated to be memorized.

Dan Wallace, when I took a class with him, had mentioned this and said, you know, and it made me realize, like, I always wondered when I.

When I.

Most of my Bible memorization was King James, new King James.

And when I switched to the esv, my Bible memory got really bad.

And I.

And I thought it was because I switched translations until I was in class.

And he was.

He said that it was the King James and the new King James trying to be faithful to.

It was translated to be memorized.

By an.

People that didn't know how to read and write.

And all of a sudden I went, oh, that's why it's just easy.

Like try memorizing the New American Standard or asv.

It's very difficult.

Yeah.

It's not.

It's harder.

Yeah.

And so, but yeah.

Why.

Actually, since I mentioned it, Luke, maybe you could get into, you know, this idea, the nostalgia of the, the language of, of the, the version and, and how you saw this with other, other translations in other areas of the world.

Yeah.

So you have, throughout history and in other parts of the world, even today, you have these traditional translations.

They laid the foundation for Christian communities and churches many generations ago.

They have been the standard.

It's what you were raised on, it's what your grandparents were raised on.

And so it, I don't mean this mockingly, but there to, to your ear, that's what the Bible sounds like.

That's what God sounds like.

And so when you hear a modern translation that has revised it into plainer English, that's more like what you speak.

It strikes you as almost sacrilegious that God's not supposed to sound like that.

That's not his voice.

And I feel for that.

I get that.

This is why when Jerome first translated the Latin Vulgate, there was a, there was a lot of controversy one textually, and we'll get into, you know, textual basis later, because he used the Hebrew Old Testament instead of the Septuagint, but he was producing in the common Latin of the day, in fact, Vulgate, that's what that means.

It's the vulgar language, the common language of the day.

At the time it was extremely controversial, which makes it interesting that a thousand years later, when the Latin Vulgate had now become the new standard.

Now that's the, the new oliist translation that when you're, when the Reformers and even the pre Reformers like Wycliffe and the Lawlerts are producing these new vernacular translations into German and English and Spanish and was offensive to people not just because, oh, we want to keep it in Latin, but because your language just sounds so crass.

I mean, let's be honest, English is a rough language.

It's not a, it's not a pretty to the ear language.

And Latin is beautiful.

It's a musical language.

And so to people listening to that, it was.

You are attacking the Bible by even putting it in English at all.

This is a barbarous language.

And so they were very, very.

No, it's got to be.

And Then all those Reformation era translations, Luther's Bible ended up with communities.

In fact, you could go to Amish communities in the United States today that even though they speak a later form of German, Pennsylvania Dutch, they don't translate the Bible into their own German.

They still use the old Luther bible from the 1500s.

They don't understand what it says, but it doesn't matter because it, that's the way the Bible's supposed to sound.

There's this faithfulness to that in Spanish.

There's an old translation almost as old as the King James that in many communities holds that same place.

And so this is a very common human instinct, and I sympathize with it.

Bible translators have been fighting against this human instinct for as long as there's been Bible translation.

And so this is.

King James onlyism is not unique.

It has its own unique flavors, but it is a phenomenon that we find around the world and throughout history.

Yeah, I, I think one of the things that, I mean, people just don't realize how the.

Because they hear it, like you said, they think this is the voice of God.

I'm going to say this, and I'm sure everyone in the audience is going to think of a person when I say this, but you probably know that person that speaks English in a 21st century type of style, but they pray.

Suddenly they go into an Elizabethan English when they pray.

Joe Bicky.

Oh, you know, the, the these and the thous come out.

And by the way, most people don't use the these and that correctly.

Okay.

And so it's just really, it's interesting because you end up seeing that behavior.

And so that's just something that I, you know, that really, to what Luke was saying, you have people that do that.

You think they do it.

And I, and I've known, I mean, several people popped in my mind, not only Joel Bicky, but actually do it for the wrong reason to try to sound more, you know, theological.

I'm, you know, almost pious in a.

Way that probably exists, but I think there's a whole lot of people who, that, honestly, they just believe they're being reverent, that, you know, and, and that's when it comes to interaction with King James Onlyist.

The what?

Often our picture of the King James onlyist is the, the fiery, cultic King James Only is heretic that gets all the airplay on, you know, on the Internet.

But your average King James onlyist in the street is not that at all.

They genuinely love the word of God and they want to honor and respect God and his Word.

You know, literally just today, you know, when I.

I'm at work at the office right now, and I'm walking around the office building and I found this right here, a gospel tract from a local King James Only church that they went and left in places around my building here.

And you know, I read through it.

The gospel in there is fantastic.

I hope people read it.

And I know that it's a King James only church.

They're my brothers.

They're my brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is a.

This is a family matter.

And so I don't want to treat King James only ism as a whole like we're talking about a cult.

There are cults that are King James only.

And there is what I would call a cultic side to King James Onlyism.

And it is influential, it is powerful and we do have to take it very seriously.

But when you meet the average everyday King James only established the street.

Even though they might be kind of fired up by the cultic guys, they really are your brother and sister in Christ who want to honor the God's word.

And that's important ideas.

That's some great.

And you know, because.

Guilty.

I'm guilty of that immediately.

Immediately.

When I heard we were going to do the show, I was thinking of the bad guys on.

On the Internet, you know, and stereotypical.

Not thinking.

I wasn't thinking brothers.

So that's.

I'm glad that you brought that up.

You know, you mentioned earlier about the.

There are folks though, and I think.

I think it was Braden that brought it up.

I came here.

But you know, the people who say, well, I can.

I can correct the.

The Greek and Hebrew by the English.

If folks like.

Maybe it's the first time you ever heard someone say that, but I've actually heard King James only say that a lot.

So what do they mean when they say that?

Are they.

Because.

Because this is what I've heard someone think.

Someone said they thought that the person was saying that the King James Bible came first and then the.

The Greek and Hebrew were translations from that.

That's not what they're saying.

But what are they saying when they say that?

And then after that I want to get into some of the textual criticism.

All right, so a couple things there.

You know, there's two different views that those kind of comments can represent.

And one of them would be the reinspiration view, which is that the King James Bible was inspired by.

So that the English has.

It is itself the God breathed word of God.

It's not a translation.

It was actually God inspired.

Even if the King James translators didn't know that that's what was happening.

God inspired that process.

So that what came out is the truly purified word of God and is the, the most pure example of the word of God that church history has ever known.

And so that everything before it is inferior to it.

It.

That view exists.

It's a minority.

It is not the majority view among King James only is.

But that view does exist.

Others would more likely be saying that any Greek or Hebrew manuscript that you're going to appeal to that doesn't agree with the King James is a corrupted manuscript that the original Greek and Hebrew that was written by the pens of the prophets and apostles that completely with the King James.

But we don't have the autographs.

All we have are these later manuscripts.

And they would say those manuscripts have been sufficiently corrupted that we can use the, the King James Bible today as a corrective to.

You never should be challenged by, well, this doesn't agree with the Hebrew.

This doesn't agree with the Greek.

So what The King James Bible is what's correct.

And any of those manuscripts that disagree are wrong.

Now that's a more common, that's a much more common viewpoint.

Yeah.

Than the reinspiration view.

I think the re.

Inspiration view is dangerous because I mean, you know, I've actually had a pastor who told me that, you know, he reinterprets the, it's, it's the.

What he said to me was, yes, God wrote it in Greek and Hebrew, but when he, when he wrote it in English, the Hebrew and, and Greek were done with.

Wow.

He said, now we have God's inspired word for us today.

And I said, well, why did he have to do it in English?

He's like, well, that was the common language.

Just like Hebrew was the common language for Israel and Greek was the common language for when the church was around.

English is, is the international language.

So what he, what he does is his like when he sends missionaries out to foreign mission fields, they teach people English to understand the Bible.

And so they will actually, you know, kind of like the Catholic Church used to have.

The Bible was in Latin and all their services were in Latin.

But you, you, you don't know Latin, right?

So you have to, if you wanted to know the Bible, you had to know Latin.

And, and he made the argument that to, to not have God's word in the, the language of the day would be to force people to go back to Latin.

So I do have a, I know you want to move on to the, the textual critical stuff, Andrew.

But just real quick, what is it about the King James that brings people into that mindset?

Like when they.

Because I know there were English versions before the King.

Is it specifically about the King James that makes them hold to that view?

Fantastic question.

Let me give you a quick history of English Bible translations that'll give you a view on that.

And then before we move to textual criticism, I actually want, if you'll let me, to move to something I think is more foundational, because in the end, I don't actually think King James onlyism is a text critical issue.

The new King James, the modern English version, the mev, these are based on the same manuscripts, right?

The same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James is.

So it's not text criticism between those two.

And yet a King James onlyist will love the KJV and hate the nkjv, hate the mev, if they've ever even heard of it.

But the.

There are modern versions that are translated from the exact same texts, and a King James Onlyus will still reject those.

So it's not really about text critic criticism.

So we'll still talk about that because I know people want to.

But at the end of the day, King James onlyism is not a text critical issue.

Is it an idol issue?

Is it an idle issue?

No, I think it is.

It's having an unbiblical view of translation.

And I think the Bible actually, the Bible actually gives us a biblical view of translation, believe it or not.

So we'll get, we'll circle back to that.

First, I want to answer my brother's question over there.

Do you think it could be an idol?

I think it could be.

For some, it's for some, but I wouldn't say that the entire movement.

Oh, no, no, no.

Yeah, the entire movement is engaging in KJV idolatry.

But yes, I believe for some it absolutely could be.

In fact, I would go further and say for some it absolutely is.

But, but that said, Drew your question about the history there and why the KJV has this unique status.

And so that's because it's, that's a historical matter.

So you have England in, in England, vernacular translations actually have a deep history that they don't in many other parts of the world.

And so we have back in the 9th and 10th century English translations of the Gospels, of the Psalms and some other specific texts.

By the 11th century, you've got the, the hexateuch, so the five books of Moses, plus Joshua translated into old sex and English.

You have continued attempts at translation portings portions of the Bible through the Middle Ages until you get to the first full translation.

Genesis to Revelation of the Bible is the Wycliffe Bible, which is.

But all of these are translated from the Latin Vulgate because that's nobody knew Greek, nobody knew Hebrew, they knew Latin and so they would translate from the Latin into English.

So we have a deep history of English Bible translations that a lot of people don't know about.

But then we get to the Reformation and then that's when the printing press has made Greek and Hebrew texts affordably available across Europe and the British Isles.

And so now these Hebrew and translate from the original languages.

So we have of course William Tyndale.

He dies before he finishes the Bible.

Right.

One of his associates, Miles Coverdale, produces the first full English Bible post printing press.

However, it's not entirely from Greek and Hebrew.

Coverdale knew 0 Hebrew, so he translated from Luther's Bible and occasionally from the Latin.

So it's a translation of a translation in all the parts that Tyndale hadn't finished.

But his was beautifully written, much better English than Tyndale.

Then you have the, the Matthew Bible which is basically a harmony of Coverdale and ten and Tyndale, which is funny.

Because wasn't it was Henry VIII that put Tyndale to death for his Bible translation.

And then Tyndale's associates took his work and got it commissioned for the Matthews Bible.

And so it got printed anyway commission.

The Matthew Bible was still, it was still illegal.

The first leak was right after that.

Coverdale was commissioned to produce the great Bible, which is actually the first authorized version.

The first authorized version is the great Bible, which was a revision of the Matthew Bible.

That's really what it was.

It was just a revision of the Matthew Bible done by Miles Coverdale.

Then you have the era of Bloody Mary.

The Protestant scholars have to flee England to Geneva and take refuge there where influenced by the scholarship of Theodore Beza, they gather together and they produce a new translation, the Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible was the first English Bible to be translated entirely from Greek and Hebrew.

Not a single portion of it.

That was a translation of a translation.

It's entirely from Greek and Hebrew.

It's also the first Bible to include our modern versification system, the first English Bible to include our modern versification system and the first English Bible to be a study Bible.

It had study notes all through it.

And though that made it wildly popular, it way outsold any of The Bibles that came before it.

And it was mainly about the notes.

So when you get to King James, he agrees the one thing he agreed with the Puritans on, he disagreed with the Puritans on everything except that we needed a new official English Bible translation.

And, but the main reason King James was on board with this was not because he, he really wanted a better translation.

He, he didn't care as much about that.

What he wanted was to get rid of those Geneva Bible study notes because some of them he considered anti monarchical.

Right.

But they were opposed to monarchy and he didn't want that.

So he commissioned the King James Bible to be translated.

It was the most scholarly approach to Bible translation that had been done probably in the history of the world till that point.

The way they divided into committees the level of scholarship that they had in approaching this.

Very well done.

It had its problems, but it was very well done.

And then you have that, that's published and it, it's a popular Bible.

But actually to begin with, the Geneva still outsold it.

Right.

Because people wanted the study notes.

And in fact you even have these weird Franken Bibles that are KJV text with Geneva Bible study notes the printers were putting out because they knew they could sell.

Where can I get one?

I would like to have one of those.

What is actually more, more accurate, Geneva or KJV if you were to actually look.

Depends on the text.

Okay.

You can't, you can't give a blanket answer to that.

There are places where I would side with each of them on the, on the parts where they disagree.

But the, but the King James translators use the Geneva B.

So there's some places where they're word for word identical.

They referenced it.

They took all the Bibles that came before them and they didn't throw them out and said we just need to do something better.

They referenced them.

In fact, people have estimated that somewhere up to 75 or 80% of the king James Bible is just modified.

Tyndale.

Yeah, Tyndale's words carry through incredibly well.

Sometimes modified, sometimes word for word.

So, so then what happened?

How did the KJV finally overtake the Geneva?

King James made the Geneva illegal.

He banned it.

So, you know, the general populace did not really care between the two as far as the text of the Bible goes.

They just wanted to own a Bible.

And so once the Geneva was illegal by default, the KJV won and outsold and became the default translation for the next few centuries.

Sorry.

One of our commenters says if most KJV only knew that an R, a Roman Catholic priest was behind the King James, there would be a mass exodus, I believe.

And, and so part of that, the history to what Luke is saying is understand the history.

So you, you had, you had a, a quasi Roman Catholic, right?

Because you had, you know, the king that wanted to divorce his wife.

So he's basically, he, he wants to throw the Roman Catholic Church out, but he wants, you know, he wants to be able to, he keeps all, everything, but he wants to be the King of the Church, the head of the Church instead of the Pope.

Right.

So you have Anglicans.

That's how it starts over, over the issue of wanting to divorce and marry someone else.

You end up having, after that, this, this religious war that went on with Mary Suter and the others where you had a Latin Vulgate, it's, it's Catholic, this is the Bible of England.

And then all of a sudden you have the, the Reformers come in and you get a queen who is more prone to.

The Reformers, removes all the Latin Vulgates, replaces it with the Geneva Bible and then it goes back to Catholics within.

Right.

And so you had this battle where they're fighting over ripping out all the Bibles.

Replacing them and ripping out all the Bibles and replacing them.

Part of what King James wanted was to put a piece between the Catholics and the Protestants, the Reformers.

And that's why if you do have a 1611 version and you believe it's inspired, you also have in the 1611 version, the Apocrypha.

Because what King James wanted was a book that both groups can hold to.

So for the Reformers, it was in English so the common man could read it.

For the Catholics, it included the Apocrypha.

So if the 1611 was inspired, then you agree with the Roman Catholic Church on the number of books in the Bible.

Right.

Just something to think about if you're holding to that position.

Yeah, I mean, to be fair, the Geneva Bible and some of, and you know, pretty much every complete Protestant Bible in the English language up until the 19th century actually had the, the Apocrypha printed in it, not, not just the official one sanctioned by the Crown, but it wasn't because they thought it was inspired.

It was almost for the same reason that we would put maps and concordance and things like that in our Bible today.

They believe that it was historically and interpretively useful to have those texts, but they were, they were relegated to an appendix.

They weren't placed in the Old Testament where a Roman Catholic would place them.

And this is true in the 1611 as well.

It's relegated relegate the Apocrypha to an appendix.

So it was not considered scripture by the majority of those who were reading it.

But yes, the.

The crown was seeking a middle way that would bring the whole, you know, whole population together in the Church of England.

And.

And that certainly played into some of those decisions.

But my point, the inclusion of the.

Apocrypha is a little bit more complicated than that.

Yeah, well, my.

My point of the inclusion of the Apocrypha is on those.

Those who say it's inspired.

Right.

Because if they're saying that that English translation is inspired by God, then he inspired the Apocrypha because it's included.

I have no problem with it being included as an appendix as.

As many as do.

But we don't call those inspired.

Right.

Right.

For those who do, they gotta do.

And, you know, it's actually quite surprising because most people don't know what's in there.

I actually had.

Because the.

The Seventh Day Adventists also hold to a King James only position and.

Or many do.

And I had a guy that.

I brought that up.

I said, you know, this.

The 1611 had the Apocrypha.

And he was like, no, it doesn't.

No, it doesn't.

And we're on a college campus, and he.

He ran off, went to.

Because this is before you had, like, the cell phones that we have today where you could just do searching so easily.

He ran off, came back to me and said, you're right.

He didn't know that.

He probably ran off and did some study, like go do some searching on the Internet and went, oh, wait, yeah, that's amazing.

I mean, so that time and then two weeks ago on the show, you were.

You've been white, right?

Twice.

Two times in a lifetime.

Hey, Andrew.

You guys, I gotta get on the call here in a minute, so I gotta drop off.

Okay.

I got to go to Tom's.

I was gonna say that.

Hey, see you guys.

I love you guys.

Thanks, guys.

And there goes open air theology.

Wait, I love what Brandon.

Brandon doesn't know.

Braden does not know how to use his computer.

He.

He probably doesn't even know what he just did to make himself sideways.

I have no clue what I just did.

I really don't.

He's gonna go out to open air theology from now, and he's gonna be sideways.

Huh.

So, you know, let me mention, I did put this up while you were speaking earlier, but I.

I didn't mention the current ministry I mentioned you, I, you and I know each other through carm.

Your current ministry so folks can check it out is Canyon Ministries.

And this is a ministry if any of you want to go there's a really big canyon.

And if you ever want to go to the Grand Canyon because it's pretty grand, here is their, their ministry where they give guided tours through the Grand Canyon and is very, you know, teaching a biblical creation through the, through the canyon.

So want to encourage you guys to check that out.

I will, I will say that Luke and I have just, have talked just with the way my life is right now.

We were planning to go out to him to do a tour with him to, to kind of lay the groundwork.

The plan is hopefully next year or it may end up being the year after now.

But we want to do a striving for eternity trip to the Grand Canyon with Canyon Ministries to, to guide and, and let you see everything that's there in the Grand Canyon and how it show it supports what scripture says.

So just want to give a quick plug for canyon ministry.

How far away is the Grand Canyon from like Las Vegas?

Probably three, four hours.

Oh, so most people choose to fly.

Most people choose to fly into Phoenix where it's only, only, only two and a half, three hours away.

You can fly straight into Flagstaff, but it's much more expensive.

But yeah, however you get here, if you're on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, we would love to take you.

We do all sorts of backpacking, hiking, river trips and daily tours that we drive you in climate controlled vans.

Whatever your comfort zone is, we'll get you out and show you from a biblical and creation perspective.

Grand Canyon.

And we even have all day tours where we hit other parks.

We could take you to see dinosaur tracks.

We could take you to see ancient Native American ruins and volcanoes out here and talk about all of that from a biblical and creation perspective.

So it's a blast.

I love that this is what I get to do for a week.

That's pretty cool because I've got to go to Las Vegas for work coming up and if it was close, I was gonna suggest co worker like hey, let's go over there.

But I think you should do it.

Well, Kathy, Kathy looks at the rafting and what does she say?

That's a big cold plunge, Andrew.

Well, you know, that would be a great time, Kathy, for me to mention one of our other sponsors which is plunge.

If you guys, a bunch of you know that I do the cold Plunging, it's great for health and I'm trying to look for where that we have that the banner's not showing up.

There we go.

So there we go.

If you want to, if you do want to get into cold plunging, I could talk about some of the benefits of it.

It's great for your health.

It can be problems for your health if you have certain heart issues.

So you definitely want to talk to your doctor if you have issues.

It is hard to do.

It'll be the hardest thing you do all day, but you feel great all day afterwards.

But if you do want to get a cold plunge and support us here, you just go to plunge.com and then the slash Drew.

I think it may need to be in all caps, but drew D R E W 38817.

I'll be changing that by next week and I'll have something easier to remember.

But if you go there and want to get a get yourself cold plunge, if you have any questions with that, just contact me.

Be happy to answer questions with cold plunges because yeah, I had a bunch when I got started, but they're really good for you.

So.

So let's get back to.

I know.

Well, is there anything else you want to do talk about before we get into textual criticism?

Because we got about 15, 20 minutes left and I know that's where a lot of people think the issues are.

But let me just lay, I'll give the short version of this.

You guys can tease it out if you want.

But if we look at the New Testament, every time that the inspired New Testament authors, or even in the preaching of our Lord Jesus himself, when they quote the Hebrew Old Testament Testament, they do it in translation and yet they don't treat it as this is an approximation of the word of God.

It's always Thus saith the Lord or in the book of Hebrews, you see the Holy Spirit said and they quoted in translation.

So the word of God is the word of God even in translation.

Unlike Muslims who believe the Quran is not the Quran unless it's in the original Arabic, we Christians have never believed that.

We've always been a translating people and we believe God's word is still his inspired word even when you translate.

Now that said, if we look at the attitude how and what kinds of translations that the New Testament authors are willing to cite as the word of God, you can quickly figure out that they're not King James only.

It's in fact just pick up your King James Bible and read through the New Testament.

And every time you see a New Testament author cite, thus saith the Lord or the Holy Spirit said and quote the Old Testament.

I want you to flip back to your King James Old Testament and read that same verse and see if the New Testament writer is quoting it word for word from the, from the King James Old Testament.

What you'll find is even in your King James New Testament, it's not the King James Old Testament that they're quoting.

They'll be quoting from translations like the Septuagint that have differences.

They'll be giving very loose paraphrase instead of the very literal word for word.

They'll be doing all kinds of things, things that you as a King James only is would not do because they have a different attitude towards translation than you do.

But it's not a different attitude than King James translators themselves said that the king's speech is still the king's speech even in the meanest translation and the worst, most crass translation.

It's still the king's speech when you take it from the English and put it into French or German or Spanish.

And they use that as a comparison to say that any solid translation of the Bible is the word of God and should be treated as the word of God.

And we see that attitude from Tyndale.

We see it in Coverdale, we see it in the Geneva Bible translators.

And if you read the preface to the original 1611, you'll find that attitude occurring again and again.

And they'll appeal to the fact that the early church would collect the different Greek versions that the Jews were using, whether it be the Septuagint or some of the later versions like the Theodosian and Sabbacus and things like that.

And they would put them in parallel columns and they would study them together and felt enriched by having multiple translations.

In fact, Miles, Coverdale goes so far as to say that the best commentary you can have is a second English translation.

And so this is the attitude that the King James translators had, this is the attitude that the New Testament translators had who were translating the Old Testament into Greek or quoting existing translations is that they didn't mind quoting from translations that did not use the same base text, that had textual variants.

They didn't mind quoting from translations that were more paraphrastic or more literal.

They didn't mind that variation and they still treated it all as the word of God.

And if the.

The apostles of Jesus Christ and even in the preaching of our Lord himself, if they're willing to treat translation that way, then so will I.

Yeah, yeah.

And that's an important point for any people don't recognize.

You know, because I think a lot of people think that we have the view, as you mentioned, that the more the Muslims have, you know, we.

We don't.

We.

I mean, we might have original autographs, not copies, but we wouldn't know.

It'd be.

It'd be hard to tell if we actually had an original because it just might be an early copy.

Right.

So, you know, it's.

It's.

We're.

We're working off of copies, usually copies of copies.

And you're gonna have textual variances, but, you know, for the.

For the Muslims, what.

What many of them don't know is they have textual variances as well.

Yes.

You know, there.

There was a guy when I was in the UK and he would.

He.

He would go to Speaker's Corner and set up.

He'd have all these different Qurans from different areas.

And each of the different areas had their own version of the Quran where.

So they'll say, there's only one.

But, you know, even.

Even when they started to write down the Quran because it was all memorized verbally.

And so when they.

When a bunch of the soldiers start dying and they.

They were like, well, we better write this down before it's lost.

They wrote it down.

And the.

The, you know, their imam, the.

The Uthman was.

He was.

He was the.

The caliph at the time.

And he actually gathered them all together and says we have to burn the abhorrent texts.

Well, how do you know he burned the right one?

They had variances.

The fact that they burned any of them shows that there were variances.

You know, but.

But that's where we don't like.

Like looks.

We don't have the problem with the variances that.

That gives us more study.

In fact, I would argue when we look at all these variances, it helps us to know that, yeah, there were changes, but we know where most of those changes are now because we keep finding more and more manuscripts, but we're not finding more and more variances.

A variance is just a change of, you know, from one copy to the other.

Yeah.

Now, so Luke, you said, you know, there's not really.

It's not a textual critical issue, but people make it a textual critical issue.

So why do they make it a textual critical issue?

Even in, let's say, someone like us who would hold to, maybe the nasb, the lsb, esv, a more modern translation, and we're talking to someone who is a kjv, onlyus why is usually the first path to go down the textual critical issue?

I think because it is it on the surface.

From their perspective, it's the most compelling.

If you can say that the modern Bibles are all based on corrupt manuscripts and that the KJV is based on pure manuscripts, that's a much easier pill to swallow than saying that Elizabethan English is the only English that the Bible can be translated into.

You know, when you, when you try to argue it any other way does not reach the, the average everyday person.

Well to claim that it is that, oh well, the problem with these modern Bible translations is that they're based on corrupt manuscripts.

And so that is a very compelling sounding argument.

And if it were true, we'd have to like that that would matter.

That really would matter.

The problem is twofold.

One, it's not true and two, again as I mentioned earlier, even if it was, we have modern translations that are based on the exact same Greek and Hebrew as the KJV anyway.

So you still wouldn't be have to be a King James onlyist.

You still could go ahead and be read the new King James read the mev.

There would be other translations available to you besides the kjv.

So that even if the King James Onlyus was right about everything they say about manuscripts and they're not, but even if they were, it actually doesn't prove King James onlyism.

Right?

Yeah.

And, and again I, I don't know that we mentioned this at the beginning, but there is a difference between King James only and only King James.

So King James only is the, the belief that the only Bible you should be using is the King James because that's the one that God wants you to use.

All others are work of Satan.

All other translations versus someone that just says they're only King James.

They, they, they prefer it look that Elizabethan English is a more precise English than what we have today.

A real interesting study is when I, when I the Tanners and you know, I know Luke knows who they are very active in, in Mormon Mormonism and, and pre, you know, exposing what Mormonism teaches.

They did a, Gerald Tanner did a, a paper on the usage of the Elizabethan English in the Book of Mormon and the argument he was able to show is that the way you know that this was not from God was because Joseph Smith the only time he seemed to get the these and thou's right is when he was quoting from the King James version of the Bible.

And so he didn't know the proper, you know, the precision of the, and down when to do that.

And so it just one of the things.

So it is a more precise, it is more precise than the Eng.

Than some of the English versions we have today.

I, I'll grant that.

But there's also other issues with it where, you know, just the, I think the, the, the Greek manuscript that it was based off of was not, it was not even as good of a Greek that could have been in that day.

You know, it was based off a manuscript where Erasmus.

Look, when you had a printing press, it's not like today where everyone can just do self publishing.

Publishing was not easy.

It was time consuming.

You had to put every letter into the printing press and then stamp it.

It was a very time consuming thing.

So first to print was the winner.

And so there were two, actually two Greek manuscripts being done.

Erasmus rushed it and so he had more Greek manuscripts he could have worked with, but that would have taken more time.

And he wanted it first to print because that made him the standard.

And so the King James is based off of what's referred to as the Texas Receptus.

It's, there's, there's much better Greek that could have been used and much more study that's been done since then with the many thousands more manuscripts that we have now.

So let's break that.

Go ahead, Go ahead.

Well, I was about what Andrew was saying.

Like, I have a, because I, like, I know that, but I've always had a question about that is after he was the first to the printing press, right.

And he did five, he did four more editions after his first one.

Yes.

Why didn't he then slow down and then get better manuscripts to fix the errors that he brought in in his first manuscript?

Well, he actually did, for the most part, he did.

So if you look at his later editions, he actually did acquire more manuscripts, but not a lot more.

Right.

And so, you know, by the, by the end, by his fifth edition, he had, he had probably about a dozen manuscripts, but they weren't all for the entire New Testament.

So he probably had, you know, I, I have the numbers published in an article.

I don't have it up in front of me, but maybe like four or six manuscripts of the Gospels, two for Acts, you know, three for the Pauline epistles, that kind of thing.

Right.

But what he never went back and fixed was revelation.

Revelation.

Because he didn't, he, he barely believed that the, that the book of Revelation was inspired.

He just didn't care much about it.

It.

And so, you know, like the manuscript he had of Revelation had gaps in it and he just back translated from the Latin.

Latin, yeah.

And so now honestly, he did a shockingly good job in most, but he did introduce some readings that had never been known in the entire history of Greek, Greek copying and everything into the, the text there.

And he never fixed it.

At one point he thought he fixed it because he told his printer, just go grab Revelation from this other Greek New Testament that's count.

That's come out.

What he didn't realize is that though those guys had just stolen his text and so he just told him to copy his own messed up book of Revelation.

So but when you get on past, past Erasmus to the next major figure in the Texas Receptus, the man named Stefanos or Robert Estein, he advanced with even more manuscripts.

Mostly he did not change Erasmus's actual base text.

What he did was he added a bunch of marginal notes that gave alternate readings.

So he showed this text actually says something else in these other manuscripts this day.

So he provided a scholarly resource where translators and scholars, pastors would be able to look and see the variants.

And so they weren't trying to hide variants even back then.

They were doing textual criticism.

They're doing the same thing that scholars are doing today.

They just didn't have as many texts to work with.

And by the time you knew if.

They were using somebody else's manuscript that they had already used for their.

That's exactly right.

Sometimes you have the same manuscript being counted twice under two different names.

Right?

Because they didn't realize it was the same manuscript somebody had already used under it under a different name, and they called it something, something else.

And so there was no system to it, but they, and they could only use the manuscripts they had access to.

You couldn't have someone photocopy and mail it to you or email you.

The.

You had to travel to get to manuscripts and that was expensive.

And sometimes you travel and get there and the people there didn't have the manuscripts they thought you had, and you just wasted the whole trip.

But by the time you get to the King James translators, you've got multiple editions of Era Erasmus, you have multiple editions of Theodore Beza, multiple editions of Stefanus.

And the King James translators used all of those in their New Testament.

They compared and, and they considered, but they also used the Latin vulgate.

And that's something that a lot of King James only is don't realize is that the King James Bible is not a strict translation of the tr.

In fact, scrivener who produced the Edited together TR that you'll get published by the Trinitarian Bible Society that most people think of as the TR today, which is really just taking the King James and then saying which Greek did they use here?

And sort of creating a Greek text for the King James.

It's not a text that the King James translators actually had sitting in front of them.

It's a Greek text that's created based on the King James.

But even scripter, in his introduction to his own edition of the Truth specifically says that there are numerous places where the KJV only loosely aligns with any Greek text, but it aligns exactly with the Vulgate.

So it is very clear that sometimes the, the King James translators looked at all the Greek and looked at the Vulgate and thought, you know what, I actually think that the Latin preserves the better reading here.

And here's the ironic thing.

Once in a while modern scholars come to the same conclusions that the King James translators did with the Latin there.

Where they look at it be like, actually the Latin had the older reading there.

Now we have older Greek manuscripts that verify that.

So there's places that the King James translator's instincts were right, but others where they were not on that.

But that said the King James itself is not a strict translation of the TR because they themselves were still doing textual criticism, comparing the editions of the TR and the Latin all to come up with the translation that they have.

So there's no reason to be anti textual criticism if you love the King James, because essentially the same process that gives us our modern Bibles is what they were doing just with fewer copies.

Yeah.

So amazing to think how well of a translation came out with such few copies.

Very, very true.

Yeah.

It just shows you how, how minor the real differences between all of our manuscripts are that you could take virtually any Greek manuscript of the New Testament and translate it and you'll get a Bible that's shockingly similar to what we have today.

The differences don't matter near as much as our critics like to say they do.

But it is kind of funny for those who say we, we're going to interpret the Greek from the English because what they actually did do that because that's how they got their Greek that they, that they think they.

Yeah, I mean it's, it's the irony of it is, you know, because what it is, they took the, they took the English, they created a Greek from that and they said, here's our Texas Receptus.

So kind of, kind of neat bits of history there, there's a lot.

I do want to encourage folks to go to the carm.org and check out the King James Onlyism articles.

I showed it earlier.

There's just dozens and doz and dozens of articles that Luke wrote when he was working at Carm.

I I how long do you think you spent studying that?

Months, Years.

Initial burst of articles that I published, I spent over a year before I published a single article on the subject and then I spent several more years continuing to research and work on that.

And so it is the, the over 100 articles that Carm has on King James Onlyism are the result of probably a cumulative of four or five years of research on the subject.

That all started when one guy in Kansas called me up out of the blue, got my number through, you know, Carm and everything and called me up because Carm had nothing on King James Onlyism and he just wanted to mention that, hey, there's this guy in our church, this young guy, he's passionate, I love him.

But he came across these king James only YouTube videos and he's gotten fired up, he's insulting the pastor, he's causing division in the church.

And we just want to address this issue.

And what originally started as me just sort of writing up an email with some bullet points transformed into four or five years of my life dedicated to pouring into this subject because I do think it does matter for exactly situations like that where this doctrine, even if it's meant to honor the Bible in fact becomes divisive in the church and it turns brother against brother and turns people against their own pastors.

It splits churches.

It, it, it ought not be brothers.

It ought not be right.

Yeah.

So again I would just want to to Give a plug canyonministries.org if you want to go and meet Wayne and get a tour of the Grand Canyon, it will if you've never seen the Grand Canyon, it is, it's gorgeous.

It's really a neat wonder to see.

So I want to encourage you guys check that, check that out.

You can check out the articles he's got on King James Only if folks I'll just put it to folks that are watching, listening if you want Luke to come back and talk more we there's actually a lot of topics.

Luke's actually really smart on a lot of things.

Hence why he was with us at carm because well, Matt's kind of particular with who he he would hire.

He was a it was always a pain to try to get mad hiring anyone because Matt like had really high Standards.

But.

So if you guys want Luke back, let me know and we'll find other topics.

Or maybe we can continue this one in more depth because there's a lot there.

Do want to give a plug for, for a conference coming up very soon, May 2nd and 3rd, 4th in New Jersey.

It's the Truth Conference.

And if you want, just go to strivingforattorney.org truth-conference-25.

I think we have a banner on the front page, so you should be able to find it from there.

If not, just go to just do strivingfortarian.org truth-conference-25 and you'll be able to get that there.

So with that, I don't know, let's see.

Next week, I don't think we have anything specific.

So that might mean I, I'll talk to Drew and, and Tom if they're, if they're not done beating me up over Covenant theology, maybe we'll, we'll get into, you know, less controversial topics and talk about Joel Webbin.

Yeah.

Not controversial at all.

So that may be what we're going to do.

We'll see.

Well, you know what, but if we do that, we'll have to get into some of the, the text message backstory about whether or not we should do that.

That topic, because that was, that was going.

Maybe we should wait.

Yeah.

So we'll just tease it.

We'll see if we're gonna actually do that.

You'll have to tune in and find out next week.

But Luke, thanks for coming in.

Any last things you, anything you want to plug, anything you give you the last word there.

All right.

Thank you.

And it has been an honor to be on here.

I hope that we can talk about this more.

We barely scratch the surface, but, you know, it's Easter weekend, you know, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus.

But also if you want a King James only twist on that, go Google Carm Kjvo Easter and you'll get my article on why the word Easter actually occurs in the King James Bible.

Anachronistically fun.

Little bit of history there.

So go check that out and have a great resurrection weekend.

Sounds like an Easter egg for you.

Yeah.

And bonus points.

I said bonus points to anyone that that finds the Easter egg in the Squirrely Joe's commercial.

So have fun with that.

Something hidden that we put in there, which was done very subtly.

Very subtly.

But you'll have to look, see if you find it.

So you mean it was done by accident and you noticed it later?

And I was like, oh, that's going to be an Easter egg.

Oh, no, it's no, there's no way this was done by accident.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, someone was watching.

So, yeah, we'll see who.

Who.

So if you want to, if you want, you find the Easter egg.

You want to know if Easter egg, I'll tell you what, you can email us if you want to.

If you want to do that, just email at striving info at striving for eternity.com info@restrivingfore eternity.com and that will get to us and we will get a fun, we'll see if you get the fun little Easter egg if you can spot it.

So with that, folks, we'll wrap up the show.

So we encourage you to strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

And we'll see you next week.

See you.