 Is the King James version actually more reliable than the Greek manuscripts? I love the King James version. As a matter of fact, one of my more favorite quotes, there are some things that I've just memorized in the King James version. When Jesus is asking his disciples, who do you say that I am? And they say thou art the Christ. There's just something about saying it that way. And I'm sure that a lot of other people will also love the King James version. Some love the new King James version. I don't know why some folks get by the new King James version because they're both going literally off the same Greek manuscripts. But personally, I don't have an actual preference. Oftentimes, you'll see me pull up either the NASB, that's because it's it and the ESV is the default for this particular Bible software. But I don't have a preference. But as you know me, I lean on what the Hebrew and what the Greek says. Now, this one particular pastor believes that because he's the King James version only as he is obviously fundamental. He believes that the King James version is far superior than the Greek. As a matter of fact, he uses it to correct the Greek. At least that's what he says. Amen. Thank God for the word of God. Amen. Thank God he's built on this. You can't separate Jesus Christ from the Bible. Now, I don't know if you ought to say it quite like that, but okay. Okay. When you say you can't separate Jesus Christ from the Bible, I get what he's saying. But remember, the Bible is not Jesus. Jesus is not the Bible. The Bible is not the word. It's the word of God. Jesus is the word. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus died on the cross, not the Bible. And me personally, I think that we ought to hold dearly to what the Scriptures say because I think the Scriptures are what they say. The inerrant, inspired Word of God. Now, what do we have? Do what we have? Does it represent truthfully what God says? We're going to talk about that in a little bit. I think it does, but there's got to be an asterisk beside them. But don't put the Bible in the same category as Jesus. He is God. The Bible is not, although we do care for love and we esteem highly the word. That's all we have. We have the word of God. And so I think I get his point, but he might want to be careful about saying it that way. You're Bibliotters, yes. Amen. We believe the King James Bibles, the word of God, every word of it. Amen. I can take this book and correct the Greek. That's not right. That's just, it's just not right. Now, when you say the King James Bible, the King James Version is the word of God, every word of it. Well, not quite. Not quite. Can I put up the King James Version? And I want to just show you something. And we'll look at some other examples. But in one obvious area where the King James Version is just, it's just wrong in this translation because in the original translation of it, and they're going off of Erasmus and so forth, and there's a whole lot of other stories, back to the story. But Revelation initially was not what they had. As a matter of fact, there was parts of Revelation that was missing. As a matter of fact, they were looking for the whole book of Revelation. I don't want to go too far into it, but there's one particular passage where we know for a fact that the King James Version translation is not correct. And that is in Revelation 2219. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. The problem is, it says so in the King James Version and out of the whole city, and from these things which are written in the book of life. The problem is out of the book of life, this particular word is not the book. The Greek word that's used there is the zulu, which is the tree. Now we know that it should be the tree. That's not all that very well disputed to say otherwise, but it's an example to say, or to show that if you're going to say that the King James Version can correct the Greek, well, not in this case, it can't. But let's go back to what else he's saying. Amen. Say, why? Because I'm a loser. Amen. And I've had Greek. Amen. And Hebrew. Last class Hebrew. We finished the last class thesis. What are you doing? I said, I'm going down here in the backyard and I'm burning this Hebrew grammar book. What? I torched it. I said, Ah, now he would be the first. And when I say the first, the first person that I've met that I've heard, and I haven't met him, but the first person I've heard of who, for some reason, disdained or did not find value in their Hebrew and Greek learning. Because once you start learning it, you start seeing the value. It's not as though that what it's saying is contradicting or going against the English translations. They don't. The Greek translations do not go against the English translation nor the Hebrew. Now there are some areas where we might see some discrepancies, something, and so we go and look at it, or we can get further insight from the Hebrew and Greek. We're going to look at that in a second. We're also going to see where some things that they just get wrong even by just comparing one text of the new king, I mean, the King James version to the other text of the King James version. Now, when he says that I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to call foul. I don't think he's being, I'm not calling him a liar, but I don't think he's telling the truth in my sentence. The same thing. Fine. But I don't think he's been honest by saying that he either one burned his books and disregards him or that he learned it. Now, sometimes what some of these places that they go to, some of these schools and, and, and seminaries, even, even some of the less credible seminaries or Bible colleges, their level of Hebrew and Greek teaching amounts to learning the, learning the alphabet and how to pronounce some things and a few words and grammar and just a few things. And so you don't get a real appreciation from it. So it's just hard for me to believe that, but I, but I could be wrong. Had to learn Hebrew and Greek and all that mess. Amen. You said, what'd you learn out of that? The King James Bible is the word of God. Thank God for the English. Okay. A couple of things. And there's an air superiority coming from there, but the King James Bible is the word of God. Well, what do we have as the word of God before the King James version? I mean, so what we were left without the word of God, you mean tell me that we had a, we had a drought, a famine, as you would with the word of God. That doesn't sound like when, when Jesus says, not even the very gates of hell will prevail against the church, but then the church didn't have the word of God all this time. Something's wrong there. There's, there's a level of arrogance. By the way, everyone doesn't speak English when he says English as though that's the part that people are going to look at him and say, wait a second. It's just, it's because you're an American and some folks might even attribute it to maybe his race and so forth. And let's just be honest. Let's be honest. There have been, there were, there was a movement in, in America from some King James version, only us who were also very racist. And so when you hear this stuff, it just kind of has some little overtones. I'm not going there, but English as though English is the superior language. Really. So God and his sovereignty didn't know that. In his sovereignty, he didn't decide to give us the Bible in English. He did not give us the Bible in English. Let me just say that. I want people to understand that. He did not give us the Bible in English. He gave us the Bible in Hebrew, Greek and some splattering of the airmate. That was it. When the Bible was given, no one on the planet spoke English. Could God have given to us in English? He sure could. He sure could have, but he did not. We have these translations because men valued or at least studied and understood the value of Greek and Hebrew and gave it to us in English. Hey man, who cares what the Greek says? They make pretty good sandwiches. It's about it. That's a pretty insulting and stupid thing to say. They make pretty good sandwiches. That's about it. Okay, fine. But who cares what the Greek says? Well, you should, especially if you're a pastor. This is just, it's an ignorant statement and I might, it doesn't say anything. It's not to impugn the King James version. It's not to say that at all. But there's other valuable English language, I mean English versions, even those that preceded the King James version. Those came after. As a matter of fact, if you were to consult the King James versions of the King James translators, they talked about the labor and the work prior to their translation. They talked about and looked forward to others coming along afterwards and doing better, looking for even manuscripts that they didn't have, they didn't have access to very many manuscripts. And you would just be derelict in your duty to find that there are other manuscripts or earlier manuscripts and not use those, but it's a prideful selfish, let's just be honest with it. Let's just be honest guys. And someone's going to get upset, but it's not a very intelligent way of looking at things to say that the King James version is the only version you should look at. So what we're going to do is we're going to look at a couple examples just to just to show about the King James version. There are some, what we call some copyist errors or numerical discrepancies in the Bible. We're just going to use the King James version here. We're just going to use the King James version. We're going to go to 2 Samuel 24-9. This is in the King James version, it says, and Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the King. And there were in Israel 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword. So the number is 800,000. The very same story is told also in 1st Chronicles 21-5. Same King James version. And Joab gave the number, the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all day of Israel were 1,000 and 100,000 men that drew the sword. That's a million, ladies and gentlemen. That's a million. So was it 800,000? Was it a million? Which one is correct? Is 1st Chronicles 21 correct? Or is 2nd Samuel 24-9? Both using the King James version. So no one can come back and say, well, you're using, no, listen. So this is the King James version. So if it was truly given to us by God, God didn't give it to us with a numerical discrepancy. Copyists gave it to us in the incorrect fashion. As they, they're human beings. Now we know what the actual number is, but the point is it's written in the King James version. One of those two is incorrect. Say, and there's other examples as well. Let's use another example. How about 2nd Kings 826? Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became King. Well, this is 2nd Kings 826, but was he 22 or according to 2nd Chronicles 222, was he 42 years old? Well, which one was it? Again, he's still using the King James version. So you can't make the statement like he did that it, this is the word of God, it came from heaven. No, it did not. It didn't come from heaven with errors. And then there's other things that are just stated such as how it's translated to us in the English. And I'm not, I'm not quarreling with it. My point is though, we make the statement that the King James version can correct or even bring light to the Greek. That's a foolish and idiotic statement. It just is. It just is. For example, here's one that we use now. It's the same in every language, in every translation in ASBESV. But barely I say unto you. And we'll talk about the words like verily and so forth. I say unto you, what so every ye, again, ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And the reason why I'm bringing this up because you go to the Greek and I've got the Greek, the Greek Texas receptors where we get the Greek translation of the English translation for the King James version. This word here shall be bound is the Greek word that a man out, which is the perfect tense. And so it does not mean shall be bound. It says has been bound or shall have been bound. So in other words, his point is that whatever you bind will have already been bound in heaven. Whatever you loose will have already been loosed in heaven, not shall be in the future as though heaven is going to take commands from them. No, that's not it. And then another example, how about in Genesis 126? A big, a big problem that comes up from some people that there were people that lived before Adam and Eve because of this statement here in Genesis 128. Notice what it says, and God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. What that word means or to say like that replenish or refill gives the understanding that there were people there before to read something means to do it again. The problem is with this word, replenish, it just simply means to feel the Hebrew word that's used there means to feel. It does not mean this word Malai. It does not, it does not mean to refill or refinish. It just means to feel. And that is an error, I would say, or something that could be corrected or stated better in the King James version. And then the other part of what the King James version is, let's just be honest, some of the words are just a little bit, little bit odd, little bit quirky, right? Let's go to a couple, a couple examples. How about this word? How about Luke 179? Duth you think, Duth, again, Duth you think, we wouldn't say thank, but think okay fine. Duth you think that or do you think that the servant because he did these things that were commanded him, I trial not. I trial not. Okay. Well, the word for trial comes from the Greek word. This is where the Greek helps the King James version, daco, which means to think. So yeah, that's an example of words. We don't even use those words. As a matter of fact, we hear that word, huh? What do you mean? What does that mean? Trout? Does that have something to do with farming? And then here's another one in Matthew 526. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out Vince, Vince, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. How many of you have a farthing? How many of you know what a farthing is? No clue what a farthing is. A farthing is one quarter of, basically one quarter of a penny. We don't use that term. We don't have that term, a farthing. Can I borrow farthing? So the point is, no, the Greek helps us to understand the English, whatever the translation is. And I'm not saying that the King James version is not a fine translation. It is. The King James, New King James, ESV, and ASV. Now, there are some that are bad translations. There are some. And then you have to figure out what kind of translation you're looking for. The problem with all the translation is they both leave something out that they cannot overcome. When you read something, you're trying to, he see what the word says and you're trying to get the thought of what's being stated. And so for that reason, we have two different types of Bible. We have word for word translations, and then we have thought for thought. Two examples of a thought for thought would be NIV and NLT. Nothing wrong with those at all. They're trying to convey the thought. They're trying to convey what the word for word can't do. Because in a word for word translation, you can get the word, but sometimes it's hard to get the actual thought behind it. And but if you want to study the words, you can't do it really with a thought for thought. You can't really do a word study with a NIV. You have to go with a King James, a new King James, ESV, and ASV, and so forth. Now, there are some bad translations out there without question. And there are those that ought to be avoided. But thank God that we have men and women who are actually on these translation committees who are looking to see what's the best way to say it in our current language. Because remember, what we're trying to do is we're trying to convey the message to the people. It's not what it says in the original. In the original autographs, which we don't have, God's word was inerrant, was perfect. No, but the problem is we don't have the originals. And so what we try to do through what's called textual criticism, we go back and take the manuscripts, and we try to come up with what it's trying to say. And then after that, we're trying to say it in the best way possible. And remember, it's not just English. What about Mandarin? What about Swahili? What about French? What about German? What about Latin? What about Greek? Folks that actually speak Greek today? Or Hebrew? What do we do with them? Make them learn English? No. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get across the best way to say a certain word in English. English morphs over time. Some of you guys are around my age, and when you were younger, some of the words that we use today, we did not use. Or some of the same words that we use today, we used then, but we used them differently. When I was younger, the word cool was kind of the invoke thing, and cool didn't mean temperature. It just meant that was nice. Or bad. I remember when bad became, when it stopped just only being something bad, but also bad could mean good. Mind blowing, right? Trying to keep up with our own English language in certain words. Remember when they used to tell us that ain't ain't a word? Now ain't is in the dictionary. And so that's just what you have to do. And to give a good example of this is when Jesus and the New Testament audience, when they are quoting the Old Testament, oftentimes most cases they're not quoting the Hebrew text. So they're not quoting verbatim. Many times they're quoting the Greek Septuagint. Why is it? Well, one, because they were primarily Greek speaking people. Greek was the lingua franca because they were taking captivity. And then over time, that Rome is controlling and most of Rome's empire spoke Greek previously said because of the Greek empire dominated. Then so you have those that spoke Latin, those that spoke some Hebrew airmate, but the majority folks in this region at that time spoke Greek. And so they were quoting and reading the Greek Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text from the, we think, 772 Jewish elders, scholars who would go back and translate. And so they weren't even as concerned as we think they were with giving a word for it or exact verbatim translation. Their goal was to actually just give the message, give the meaning. A good example would be Hebrews 10.5, where it says, offers and sacrifice you did not desire, but a body prepared for me. But then go back and look at it in the Hebrew text and read it. It doesn't say the same thing. So what they're quoting, they're quoting the Greek Septuagint because the Hebrew text is an idiom. And so how do you, how do you translate an idiom from one language to another language? Cause if you do so, you wouldn't care at first. You got to have a different type of translation. And the whole point is to say that don't sit and try to value a translation over the source of the translation. And so for that person or anyone else that might think that the King James version is far superior than the languages, no, it's not. Is it an inferior translation? No, it's not either. It's not inferior. It's a good translation, just like many of the other ones are as well. And so I would just say, guys, be careful, especially listen to someone that would tell you the Hebrew or the Greek should be devalued. Amen.