So these last two weeks, we've been talking about how the scriptures, the words in our
Bibles are inspired by God.
And last Sunday, we talked about how they are God-breathed, word for word, every word
being written under the influence of God's Holy Spirit.
And this has been because we came to this place in 2 Timothy.
Next Sunday, we're going to continue on in 2 Timothy, but we're pausing for today for
a bit of an unusual sermon.
For those of you who are here visiting or you're going to think this is weird, but this is
not the usual sermon and I don't normally preach this long, sorry.
But we do need to tackle issues like this once in a while.
We're going to talk about Bible translations today.
So this is our BGC affirmation of faith.
We believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God, fully and verbally inspired, written
under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
We believe it is without error in the original manuscripts and is true and trustworthy in all
that it asserts.
It has supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
And we talked about the implications a little bit last week that God's word is inspired by
him, that it comes from him word for word.
It means that his word is without error.
It means that it's true in all that it asserts.
It means that it has that place of authority over all that we believe and do.
But there's one distinction that we must make here.
However, we believe that the Bible is word for word, inspired by God and without error in
the original manuscripts.
So we do not believe that every copy that has been made ever since is word for word accurate
and without error.
Neither do we believe that the translations into other languages are word for word, inspired
by God and without error.
We believe that the original scroll that Moses wrote under the influence of God's spirit is
100% inspired by God, word for word and without error.
We believe that those original letters that the Apostle Paul wrote on the papyri were 100%
inspired by God, word for word and without error.
Now why is this distinction important, you may wonder.
First of all, it's the truth.
Second, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of confusion.
And third, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of conflict.
So first we make this distinction because it's the truth.
To declare that there is one particular line of biblical manuscripts that can be traced all
the way back to the originals and that in that line there isn't a single error in any
of them is simply false.
To declare that any of the translations made into other languages, whether ancient languages
languages like Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or more modern languages like German, French, or English,
to declare that any of the translations that have been made are 100% accurate and flawlessly
capture what was originally penned in Greek and Hebrew is also false.
God has not preserved his word for us today by an unbroken chain of perfectly copied manuscripts
or by supernaturally inspiring any particular translation in the same way that he inspired the scriptures
when they were first written down.
Second, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of confusion.
Many Christians today have been confused about why there are different translations of the Bible in English.
Why do they say different things?
I thought we had God's word, word for word.
So how can there be differences?
Why are some insisting that I must only use a 400-year-old translation of the Bible
into Middle English today?
Why can't I just read one of the more modern translations?
What's wrong with them?
A failure to make this distinction has resulted also in confusion for people who don't believe in Jesus,
at least not yet.
People are trying to share the good news of Jesus still today
while quoting a book that sounds kind of like the writing of Shakespeare at times.
And what do those words even mean?
Third, a failure to make this distinction has resulted in all kinds of conflicts.
Countless arguments and fights have been had.
Relationships between Christian brothers and sisters have been destroyed.
Whole churches have been split apart over this issue of Bible translation
because of a failure to make the distinction between verbally inspired and inerrant originals
and the modern translations that we hold in our hands today.
So that's why this distinction is important,
and that's why it's going to be our main consideration for today.
I want to be clear.
We are talking this morning about the damaging misconception
that the King James Version of the Bible was divinely inspired by God 400 years ago,
and that misconception that it is the only faithful,
only accurate,
only inerrant translation of the Bible in the English language.
We're talking about that misconception,
that belief that it alone should be used for reading, teaching, Scripture memory, etc.
And we call this belief KJV-onlyism.
Now before some of you who love the King James Version run out the door and never come back again,
let me explain what I mean by KJV-onlyism.
I'm not talking about people who prefer the King James Translation of the Bible
because that's what they grew up with,
or because that's what they're most familiar with.
Maybe the verses they learned as a child were in the King James Version of the Bible,
or many songs that we still sing today, old songs,
use the words that were in the King James Translation of the Bible.
Many people still love the King James Translation because it's got rhythmic beauty to it.
It was a historical, a momentous thing in history,
the translation of the King James Bible,
and people value it and appreciate it for those reasons.
I'm not talking about that this morning.
When I say KJV-onlyism,
I'm talking about the belief held by some
that the King James Translation of the Bible was supernaturally inspired,
as in breathed out by God, word for word,
just like the original scriptures were.
I'm talking about the belief held by some
that the King James Translation is word for word, without error,
and that therefore every other translation or revision
is a corruption or perversion influenced by the devil.
When I say KJV-onlyism,
I'm talking about the belief held by some
that God supernaturally preserved
an unbroken line of flawlessly copied manuscripts
of both the Old and the New Testaments
from the time that they were written
all the way up until the translation of the KJV.
These are the beliefs of the KJV-only teachers,
and these teachings and beliefs are untrue.
They have caused all kinds of confusion and conflict.
The most radical advocates of KJV-onlyism
are often very vocal and even militant,
and at the same time, sadly,
they have been quite influential and persuasive.
Here's just one example that I came across
the other day on Twitter.
Amen.
We believe the King James Bible is the word of God,
every word of it.
Amen.
I can take this book and correct the Greek.
Amen.
Say, why?
Because I'm a loser.
Amen.
And I've had Greek.
Amen.
And Hebrew.
Last class of Hebrew.
We finished the last class of D.
He says, what are you doing?
I said, I'm going out here in the backyard,
and I'm burning this Hebrew grammar book.
What?
I torched it.
I said, ah.
Had to learn Hebrew and Greek and all that mess.
Amen.
You say, what did you learn out of that?
The King James Bible is the word of God.
Thank God for the English.
Amen.
Who cares what the Greek says?
They make pretty good sandwiches.
That's about it.
Amen.
Wow.
I can take this book and correct the Greek.
Who cares what the Greek says?
This is insanely ignorant.
Many Christians, and I mean earnest, spirit-filled,
born-again believers, brothers and sisters,
have been influenced by this false teaching.
And so we're going to look today at the story of how we got our Bibles.
And with a huge topic like this,
I'm going to be laser-focused on the subject of transmission and translation.
And I'm specifically going to be focusing only on the New Testament scriptures,
because I've done a lot more study on these things in the New Testament
than with the Old Testament.
So let's go back to the beginning
and talk about how we got our Bibles.
Back in the first century,
men like the apostles John and Peter and Paul,
they wrote the scriptures,
and back then it was a different world.
They wrote in Greek.
That was the common language of the day.
And they wrote on papyrus.
And then they sent those letters by messenger
to the churches that were being established.
They didn't have email.
They didn't have Canada Post.
When the church received that letter,
they would then take it and read it out loud
for everyone in the church to hear.
And then they would make copies of that original by hand.
And they began circulating the copies in their regions.
And then copies were made of those copies,
and so on and so forth.
But everything was done by hand,
because the printing press wouldn't be invented
for another 1,300 years.
So copies were made,
and copies of those copies,
some copyists or scribes were better than others.
Some were very accurate,
and some were not as accurate.
And so over the centuries,
errors and sometimes even intentional changes
crept into some of those copies.
And then those errors were then copied
and passed on to the next copy,
and on and on down the line.
Now let me be clear.
I'm not saying that the manuscripts
became so full of mistakes and errors
that what we have today is not even close
to what God originally breathed out
through the apostles.
That's not the case.
In fact, because the early church recognized
the apostles as sent by Christ Jesus himself
to speak on his behalf,
they took extra care in copying
the words that they received from them.
For a good while,
those original letters and writings remained in existence
and copies could be checked with them.
But then eventually, as copying was done,
we see in the ancient manuscripts
that we still have today
that mistakes were made.
And the kind of mistakes is worth mentioning here.
Most of the mistakes are the kind
that are easy to identify
as unintentional copying errors.
Sometimes one person read the scriptures aloud
while a bunch of people made copies.
And so they went by what they heard.
And so we see spelling errors.
We see instances where
two identical sounding words were mistaken.
Sometimes,
if you've ever made a copy of something,
you just missed the word,
honestly, unintentionally.
This is not a hand copy.
This is from the 1631 King James Version of the Bible,
dubbed the wicked Bible,
the adulterous Bible,
because they accidentally forgot
to put the word not in the commandment,
thou shalt not commit adultery.
And so it read,
thou shalt commit adultery.
So these kinds of errors happen.
These mistakes happen.
Another kind of error,
if you've ever copied out something by hand
and there's the same word in there
at two different places,
sometimes you accidentally look back up
to the first word,
even though you'd already done everything in between,
and you start copying it,
only to realize,
hey, I think I've already written this down before.
Sometimes we catch ourselves
making mistakes like these,
and sometimes we don't.
We see those kinds of errors
in the New Testament manuscripts as well.
Or in some cases,
the copy that someone had
of a portion of scripture
may have been worn out
and faded,
difficult to read.
It's obvious in those places
that a mistake was made.
Some copyists even had multiple copies
of the scripture side by side,
and as they're making their copy,
they say,
oh, how come these aren't the same
at this spot?
And which reading is the right one?
And so they would just pick the one
that they thought was probably the right one.
Sometimes they would write it in red,
like you see on the screen,
and then put a note in the margin
about what the other reading was,
just so that in case that was the right one,
we'd have both together still.
So these kinds of copious errors and mistakes
are sprinkled through every significant manuscript portion
that we have today of the New Testament scriptures.
And the good news is that these kind of mistakes
are often easy to identify
when we simply compare all the manuscripts
that we have with each other.
There are also a few places in the New Testament
where an intentional change was made.
But these changes were almost never
to blatantly alter the words of scripture.
They were almost always changes
that were made in an effort to preserve
what the copious thought should be the correct reading.
In other words,
sometimes the copious suspected
that the copy he had
had a mistake in it from the guy who made it.
And so he would correct the grammar
or the spelling
or change the tense of the verb
to what he thought it was supposed to be all along.
Almost all of the variations
that we see between the Greek New Testament manuscripts
that we have today are of this variety.
They are things that are easy to detect and obvious.
And for centuries,
even back to the original translation
of the King James Bible,
translators have been putting notes in the margins
when they have been uncertain
about which variant is the original.
Most of the variations we see
are easily explained,
but there are a handful of places
where it is debated
and where it's less certain
which of the manuscript readings is the original.
We're pretty confident that one of them is,
but which one is?
And so those are places
that all translators must make a decision.
How do we handle this?
Even the original KJV translators
wrestled with this.
Listen to what they wrote in the foreword
to the original King James translation of the Bible
made in 1611.
They said this,
Some would have no variety of senses
to be set in the margin,
lest the authority of the scriptures
for deciding of controversies
by that show of uncertainty
should somewhat be shaken.
But we hold their judgment
not to be so sound in this point.
It hath pleased God
in his divine providence
here and there
to scatter words and sentences
of that difficulty
and doubtfulness,
not in doctrinal points
that concern salvation,
for in such it hath been vouched
that the scriptures are plain,
but in matters of less moment,
that fearfulness
would better beseem us
than confidence.
It's better to make doubt
of the things
which are secret
than to strive about
those things
that are uncertain.
There be many words
in the scriptures
which be never found there
but once.
There be many rare names
of certain birds,
beasts,
and precious stones
concerning which
the Hebrews themselves
are so divided among themselves
for judgment.
Now in such a case,
doth not a margin
do well
to admonish the reader
to seek further
and not to conclude
or dogmatize
upon this or that
peremptorily.
So the KJV translators
back in 1611
knew their translation
was not inerrant
because there were places
that they were uncertain
as to how
to translate things.
Back to the history.
Copies were made
of the originals
and then copies
of those copies
and copies
down through the centuries
but then
how the Mediterranean world
changed
over those centuries
also had a big impact
on the transmission
of the scriptures.
There came a time
when the church
divided
over regional lines.
1054 AD
was the official separation
of the western
and the eastern church
but long before that
these two regions
began to grow apart.
In fact,
it wasn't too long
after the first century
for those in the west
that Greek
kind of faded
into the background
and Latin
became the standard.
And so in the fourth century
the Greek New Testament
was translated
into Latin
and that became
the standard Bible
of the west.
Greek, however,
continued to be
the language
of the eastern church.
there were even
some Christians
down here in Egypt
and they were making copies
and so
there ended up being
what's called
families
of manuscripts
based on these
regional divides
as the copies
kept being made.
Then there was
the fall of Rome
and the dark ages
which followed.
They were days of
conquest
and upheaval
and really
it was truly
a sovereign work
of God
that the oldest
manuscripts
we have today
were preserved
through that time.
Those were days
in which libraries
were burnt to the ground
as cities were captured
and conquered
and God used monks
in scriptoriums
at the monasteries
to preserve
his word.
Now there's a whole lot
of church history
from that point
all the way up
to the Reformation
in the early 1500s
and it factors
into the story
but for this morning
it's enough to know
that up until the time
that the printing press
was invented
in the 1400s
the Latin Vulgate
the Latin Bible
was the main Bible
of the church
in the West.
And after the fall
of Rome
Latin literacy
actually fell
so badly
that it was very few
who were even
able to read it.
It was mainly
just educated priests
and bishops
who could read it
and so the people
became for centuries
very dependent
upon the church leadership
to know anything
of what was in
the Bible
of what God
had revealed
and sadly
through that time
even before
1054
the Roman Catholic Church
became so corrupt
that you weren't
even guaranteed
to have a bishop
or priest
who was a Christian.
People went after
leadership positions
in the church
for power
and for prestige
and sadly
many of the corrupt
church leaders
were all too happy
to keep the people
in the dark
so they could continue
to take advantage
of them
with things like
the sales
of indulgences.
But the invention
of the movable type
printing press
in the 1400s
changed everything.
Within about 60 years
of it being invented
a man named
Desiderius Erasmus
published the first
ever printed
Greek New Testament.
Up until this point
there had been
some attempts
to translate the Bible
into various languages
but they were
attempts to translate
the Latin Bible
into German
and French
and even English
but the Catholic Church
would have none of it
and they fiercely
opposed anyone
who tried to make
a translation
of the only
authorized version
of the Bible
which at the time
was the Latin Vulgate.
You may have heard
about John Wycliffe.
In the 1300s
he'd been working
to translate the Bible
from Latin
into English
but not only
was he met
with fierce opposition
but his translation
was just not very good
because it was
a translation
of a translation.
In order to accurately
translate the scriptures
we must go back
and we must translate
directly from
the original languages
that it was written in.
But up until this point
the Greek New Testament
only existed
in copied manuscripts
-scattered all over
the place
and not every manuscript
even had
the whole New Testament.
Some were just
the Gospels
some were the Epistles.
In fact
one codex
containing the entire
New Testament
was 450 pages
on papyri.
So this was
quite the thing
to have a whole copy
of the New Testament
back then.
Before we can have
a good
push out of the Bible
on the printing press
we need to have
a good translation
and before we
have a good translation
we can have that
we need to have
a good complete copy
of the Greek New Testament.
And so this is
where the work
of Erasmus
in 1516
was needed.
He published
his Greek New Testament
and translation
work went ahead.
A man named
William Tyndall
used Erasmus'
New Testament
to create
the first ever
published translation
of the Bible
into English.
In fact
there were several
translations of the Bible
into English
which came to be
within about
a hundred years
of Erasmus
first publishing
his Greek New Testament
in the year
1516.
And I will mention
here
I have relied
significantly
on Daniel Wallace
for a lot
of this information.
He is one of the
best Greek scholars
alive today.
He is a senior
research professor
at Dallas
Theological Seminary.
He is the
executive director
of the Center
for the Study
of New Testament
Manuscripts.
And he has
traveled all over
the world
with his team
to photograph
and catalog
ancient manuscripts
of the New Testament.
He has been published
countless times
in all kinds
of journals
magazines
you name it
and he served
as consultant
for four major
Bible translations
including the
NIV
the ESV
and the
New King James Version.
In Daniel Wallace's
words
William Tyndall's
translation of the
Bible
was superb.
Back in those days
they spoke
what we call
Middle English
and William Tyndall
was a highly
educated man.
He studied
Greek
he studied
Hebrew
he had a
bachelor's degree
and a master's
degree from Oxford
he studied
at Cambridge
he became
fluent in six
or seven languages
and he had
a fantastic
grasp
of the English
language of his
day.
Within 30
years of his
translation
another Bible
came to be
printed in English
the Geneva Bible
it was translated
of course
in Geneva
and it was
the first
English Bible
to be translated
by a whole
committee
rather than
just one
man
and it too
was translated
from Erasmus'
Greek New Testament
and from the
Hebrew Scriptures
rather than
the Latin
Vulgate.
Finally
we come to
the 1600s
King James
is on the
throne of England
and while the
Geneva Bible
is the popular
translation
that everybody's
got in their
homes
the Bishop's
Bible
is what
was being
used in
the churches.
You know
how it goes
one of the
past monarchs
had decided
that the
Bishop's
Bible
should be
the standard
translation
in England
but the
people just
didn't like
it
it never
caught on
they liked
the Geneva
Bible
better
but King
James
didn't like
the Geneva
Bible
and it seems
more than
anything
it wasn't
so much
the translation
he didn't
like
it was
the notes
in the
margins
just like
our modern
day study
Bibles
today
the Geneva
Bible
came with
all kinds
of notes
and commentary
in the
margins
and King
James
didn't like
some of
the commentary
in particular
especially the
stuff having
to do with
rising up
against authority
in certain
situations
so King
James summoned
all the
religious leaders
of England
to do some
religious
business
and a
resolution
was made
at that
conference
that a
translation
be made
of the
whole
Bible
as
consonant
as can
be
to the
original
Hebrew
and Greek
and this
to be
set out
and printed
without any
marginal notes
and only
to be used
in all
churches
of England
in time
of divine
service
King
James
himself
actually
took a
leading
role
in crafting
the rules
for who
the translators
should be
and how
they should
organize
and what
principles
to follow
he assigned
six panels
of scholars
to do
the work
three panels
of scholars
for the
Old Testament
two for
the New
Testament
and one
for the
Apocrypha
altogether
there were
47 men
who worked
on this
one new
translation
they looked
at all
the English
translations
done to
date
they looked
at the
Latin
Vulgate
and in
the New
Testament
for the
New
Testament
they used
the Greek
New
Testament
that was
largely
based off
of Erasmus'
Greek
New Testament
it had
two more
revisions
or something
since then
interestingly
enough the
translators of
the King
James Bible
ended up
going with
the wording
of the
Geneva Bible
a fair
bit
because it
was just
that good
of a
translation
even more
surprising
is how
closely
the King
James
when it
was done
resembled
William
Tyndall's
translation
from 80
years
earlier
apparently
when it
came to
the New
Testament
the wording
was actually
90% the
same
as what
Tyndall had
in the
first English
translation
ever made
a huge
testimony
to have
47 men
put their
stamp of
approval
on his
work in
so many
places
when all
was said
and done
the English
speaking
churches
had a
new
translation
of the
Bible
and not
only a
new
one
but an
excellent
translation
of God's
word
for their
day
their aim
was to
translate
the scriptures
in a way
that was
understandable
beautiful
and accurate
for the
common
English
speaker
of their
day
and by
the grace
of God
they
succeeded
it was a
fantastic
translation
the people
came to
love it
it brought
unity in
the church
and it
still shines
today
as a
beautiful
translation
for its
day
but there
was one
significant
weakness
not just
of the
King James
translation
but of
all
English
translations
made
around
this
time
they
relied
exclusively
on the
published
editions
of the
Greek
New
Testament
that
they
had
available
in
their
day
all
were
based
off
of
Erasmus'
Greek
New
Testament
which
was
published
back
in
1516
here's
the
problem
when
Erasmus
published
his
New
Testament
in
1516
first
of all
it had
been a
rushed
job
it was
a race
to see
who could
get the
first
printed
Greek
New
Testament
out
and
Erasmus
even
admitted
that
himself
which
was
why
his
first
edition
was
full
of
errors
and
typos
but
the
bigger
issue
is
that
Erasmus'
Greek
New
Testament
was
put
together
from
a
grand
total
of
only
eight
Greek
New
Testament
manuscripts
there's
only
seven
on
there
but
the
eighth
the
best
manuscript
he
had
was
a
copy
of
the
New
Testament
that
was
made
in
the
11th
century
still
a
thousand
years
from
the
time
that
the
New
Testament
was
first
written
and
he
didn't
even
realize
apparently
that
it
was
his
best
copy
and
he
used
it
the
least
that's
why
it's
not even
on
instead
he
drew
more
from
the
more
recent
manuscripts
these
manuscripts
were
copied
one
to
two
hundred
years
before
he
made
his
New
Testament
so
they
were
not
very
old
in
general
the
closer
to
the
time
of
the
original
that
a
manuscript
copy
was
made
the
more
accurate
that
copy
is
likely
to
be
and
so
these
12th
to
15th
century
manuscripts
that
he
used
to
publish
his
Greek
New
Testament
had
all
the
copyist
and
scribal
heirs
that
had
accumulated
in
them
over
the
past
thousand
to
fourteen
hundred
years
depending
on
which
one
you're
talking
about
in
addition
to
that
all
but
one
of
his
manuscripts
were
from
the
same
regional
family
and
that
is
all
he
had
access
to
in
his
day
out
of
his
eight
manuscripts
only
one
of
them
had
the
book
of
Revelation
in
it
and
unfortunately
his
one
manuscript
copy
with
Revelation
was
not
a
very
good
copy
it
had
some
significant
issues
due
to
an
earlier
archbishop
named
Andreas
in
addition
to
that
his
one
manuscript
of
Revelation
was
missing
the
last
page
which
was
actually
a
common
thing
for
ancient
manuscripts
to be
missing
the
first
or
the
last
page
they
would
get
brittle
and
fall
apart
and
so
he
didn't
have
the
last
six
verses
of
the
book
of
Revelation
and
Erasmus
cheated
instead
of delaying
his
publishing
as he
should
have
and
finding
a
Greek
manuscript
with
those
verses
in it
he
made
a
big
boo
he
opened
up
the
Latin
Vulgate
and
he
of
those
last
six
verses
to
complete
his
New
Testament
but
then
uh-oh
some
eventually
some
manuscripts
of
Revelation
started
turning
up
and
he
was
looking
at
them
and
it
didn't
match
what
he
had
done
and
already
people
have
been
translating
and
publishing
off
my
first
edition
this
is
why
there
were
multiple
revisions
of
Erasmus
work
later
on
I
wish
we
had
time
to
look
at
my
favorite
example
but
resulted
in
some
major
noticeable
differences
in
wording
between
all
the
translations
that
were
based
off
of
his
work
and
later
translations
that
were
made
and
so
this
is
one
of
the
big
weaknesses
of
the
King
James
version
of
the
Bible
it
was
based
off
Erasmus
New
Testament
and
Erasmus
had
only
eight
Greek
manuscripts
all
but
one
of
them
were
from
a
single
family
of
manuscripts
only
one
copy
of
Revelation
that
was
incomplete
and
none
of
his
manuscripts
were
older
than
the
11th
century
today
in
2024
we
have
over
5,000
plus
Greek
manuscripts
of the
New
Testament
in
libraries
museums
and
collections
around
the
world
we
have
several
online
catalogs
of these
manuscripts
where you
can go
and for
free
you can
view a
high
resolution
photograph
of the
actual
manuscripts
that were
copied
long
ago
it's
amazing
not only
do we
have a
huge
number
but we
also
have
manuscripts
from
all of
the
different
families
of
manuscripts
and
the
families
by
comparing
them
with
each
other
gives
us
insight
as to
when
and
where
copying
errors
crept
in
then
beyond
that
we
have
10,000
manuscripts
of the
earliest
New Testament
translations
that were
made into
Latin
Coptic
Syriac
Armenian
and more
and then
on top
of that
we also
have the
copies
of the
writings
of the
church
fathers
who
frequently
quoted
from their
copies
of
Paul's
letters
and
Peter's
letters
and the
gospels
so all
of these
sources
we now
use
today
to identify
more easily
where those
copyist errors
and mistakes
crept in
but most
importantly
with all
these
many
manuscripts
we now
have
today
we have
many
today
which date
back
way closer
to the
time that
the New
Testament
was actually
written
than
Erasmus'
did
an earlier
date of
copy
generally
means
less
errors
we have
a dozen
manuscript
fragments
dating
all the
way back
to the
second
century
within
decades
of the
originals
being
written
who knows
possibly
some
even
copied
from
the
originals
then
in the
third
century
we have
64
manuscripts
from
the
fourth
century
we have
48
manuscripts
which is
a total
of about
125
manuscripts
from
within
the first
300
years
of the
original
writings
of the
apostles
and
collectively
within
that
125
manuscripts
the
whole
New
Testament
is
found
represented
multiple
times
over
not
only
that
but
with
technology
today
we are
able
to
analyze
these
manuscripts
in ways
never
possible
before
we have
different
types
of
imaging
today
that
can
help
us
to
better
read
old
and
faded
parchment
we
have
computers
that
are
able
to
catalog
every
manuscript
we have
and
we can
program
them
to
sift
through
and
pick
out
the
manuscripts
that
we
want
to
see
on
a
particular
passage
where
we
see
a
variation
so
that
we
can
analyze
them
and
the
computers
can
help
us
figure
out
where
did
this
scribal
variance
first
appear
we
can
pull
up
images
of
manuscripts
from
various
collections
around
the
world
put
them
side
by
side
on
the
computer
screen
and
study
them
without
even
buying
a
plane
ticket
what
this
means
is
that
unlike
Erasmus
and
his
successor
Stephanus
because
of the
vast
number
of
manuscripts
and
the
many
early
manuscripts
that
we
have
today
we
can
narrow
things
down
even
better
we
can
be
even
more
confident
that
the
Greek
New
Testament
we
have
today
contains
accurately
the
words
that
the
apostles
wrote
that
means
that
the
best
of our
modern
translations
are
actually
more
accurate
than
the
earliest
English
translations
ever
could
be
I
don't
know
about
you
but
I
find
that
reassuring
I
find
that
encouraging
surprisingly
God
has
preserved
his
word
through
the
centuries
but
it's
not
through
this
unbroken
line
of
inerrant
manuscripts
it's
through
the
thousands
of
manuscript
copies
that
were
made
from
various
families
and
using
them
that
were able
to
compare
them
together
and
narrow
it
down
and
weed
out
the
errors
that
crept
in
such
that
we
can
be
quite
confident
of what
the
original
wording
is
and so
if a
verse
or phrase
seems to
be missing
in the best
modern
translations
compared to
the King
James
it's not
because
somebody's
trying to
erase
important
words
from the
Bible
those
words
or phrases
or verses
or even
a couple
passages
had been
added
into
the
Bible
over
the
centuries
as
manuscripts
were
collected
and
copied
but
scholars
and
committees
can
easily
see
today
that
the
earliest
and best
copies
we have
of those
books
of the
Bible
did not
have
those
words
or phrases
or verses
or passages
and there's
explanations
given
on every
single
place
where there's
a variation
in the
New Testament
books are
written
about these
things
and so
we can be
even more
confident
that our
Bible
is
the one
that was
originally
given
it's as
close as
it gets
as close
as a
translation
can get
and so
we must
ignore the
loud voices
of KJV
only preachers
and teachers
at least
when it
comes to
their
insistence
that the
King James
translation
is inspired
by God
word for
word
and that
no other
translation
can
or should
be used
it's
simply
not
true
not
even
the
translators
of the
King James
Bible
themselves
believe
that
about
their
work
listen
to what
they said
in the
foreword
they said
we do
not
deny
nay
we
affirm
and avow
that the
very
meanest
translation
of the
Bible
in
English
set
forth
by
men
of
our
profession
contain
the
word
of
God
nay
is
the
word
of
God
as
the
King's
speech
which
he
uttered
in
Parliament
being
translated
into
French
Dutch
Italian
and
Latin
is
still
the
King's
speech
though
it
be not
interpreted
by every
translator
with
the like
grace
nor so
fitly
for phrase
nor so
expressly
for sense
everywhere
the
original
King's
translation
saw
their
work
as
improving
on
the
already
good
work
that
had
been
done
they
said
we
are
so
far
off
from
condemning
any
of
their
labors
that
travailed
before
us
in
this
kind
that
we
acknowledge
them
to
have
been
raised
up
of
God
for
the
building
and
furnishing
of
his
church
and
that
they
deserve
to
be
had
of
us
and
of
posterity
in
everlasting
remembrance
yet
for
all
that
as
nothing
is
begun
and
perfided
at
the
same
time
finished
at
the
same
time
and
the
latter
thoughts
are
thought
to
be
the
wiser
so
if
we
building
upon
their
foundation
that
went
before
us
and
being
helping
by
their
labors
do
endeavor
to
make
that
better
which
they
left
so
good
no
man
we
are
sure
hath
cause
to
mislike
us
they
we
persuade
ourselves
if
they
were
alive
would
thank
us
so
the
original
KJV
translators
saw
themselves
as
carrying
forward
the
work
that
was
begun
by
men
like
Tyndall
they
saw
themselves
as
improving
upon
something
already
very
good
to
make
it
even
better
they
saw
that
the
substance
of
the
word
of
God
was
there
in
one
or
another
of
the
English
translations
of
their
day
but
they
believed
there
was
nothing
wrong
with
going
over
it
again
and
that
which
was
sound
in
a
particular
translation
could
be
polished
and
made
to
shine
even
brighter
and
then
if
there
were
things
that
in
hindsight
were
not
as
true
to
the
original
they
might
be
corrected
if
this
was
how
they
conceived
of
the
work
of
Bible
translation
in
their
day
they
would
have
no
problem
with
men
today
in
2024
going
over
polishing
what
was
sound
for
their
day
so
that
it
shines
even
brighter
in
ours
and
correcting
what
in
hindsight
was
not
as
true
to
the
original
as
they
supposed
it
to
be
back
then
their
mission
and
their
passion
was
to
bring
the
word
of
God
into
the
common
language
of
the
day
translating
it
from
the
original
Greek
and
Hebrew
praise
God
men
in
our
own
day
have
picked
up
where
they
have
to
use
only
the
King
James
translation
of
the
Bible
today
there
are
many
excellent
faithful
modern
English
translations
that
translate
it
for
us
today
if
the
King
James
version
translators
the
ones
who
did
the
original
in
1611
were
alive
today
and
they
heard
and
saw
what
KJV
only
advocates
are
saying
and
doing
with
their
translation
they
would
be
appalled
if
they
saw
that
little
video
clip
that
we
watched
earlier
they
would
be
utterly
shocked
they
understood
no
translation
of the
Bible
is
perfect
every
one
of
them
has
strengths
and
weaknesses
they
understood
that
the
work
of
translating
must
continue
as
better
sources
become
available
and
as
the
language
of
the
day
changes
don't
get
me
wrong
we
should
thank
God
for
the
King
James
version
it
was
a
good
translation
and
with
it
the
church
was
strengthened
and
the
gospel
was
preached
in
the
centuries
that
follow
but
we
should
also
thank
God
that
he
has
raised
up
men
in
our
own
day
to
continue
and
to
pick
up
the
work
that
they
started
and
build
on
that
foundation
for
us
in
our
day
perhaps
the
saddest
consequence
of
those
who
insist
in
KJV
only
today
is
that
alongside
faith
in
the
gospel
new
believers
are
being
told
that
they
old
Bible
translation
in
order
to
follow
Jesus
new
believers
are
being
told
that
they
must
indeed
learn
middle
English
so
that
they
can
understand
the
word
of
God
in
the
best
case
a
new
believer
will
rise
to
the
challenge
and
Google
has
made
it
easier
to
look
up
old
words
and
phrases
in
the
worst
cases
new
believers
just
skip
over
those
words
and
don't
bother
to
look
them
up
just
guess
at
their
meaning
or
even
worse
as
some
have
told
me
they
just
sort
of
scratch
their
head
say
what
on
earth
is
this
I
just
don't
understand
it
they
close
the
book
and
they
don't
bother
to
read
it
here's
just
a
quick
sampling
of
the
language
from
the
King
James
listed
out
by
Dr.
Edwin
Palmer
who
served
on
the
translation
committee
for
the
NIV
in
the
70s
what is
the
meaning
of
chambering
champagne
charger
sealed
circumspect
clouted
upon
their
feet
cockatrice
collops
confection
it has
nothing
to do
with
sugar
coats
covert
hoised
wimples
stomacher
wot
and a
whole list
more
sack
butt
habergen
sneezing
tabret
again
this is
just a
sampling
you may
prefer
the
King
James
version
because
it's
the
translation
you
grew
up
with
or
memorized
you
may
love
it
because
you're
most
familiar
with
it
but
nobody
speaks
these
words
today
and
they
haven't
for
decades
and
so
if
this
is
your
translation
I
wonder
are
you
doing
the
extra
work
needed
to
understand
your
translation
of
the
Bible
in
these
many
places
where
the
wording
is
difficult
like
this
or
do
you
just
kind
of
get
to
it
and
assume
that
you
know
what
it
means
and
keep
on
reading
is
it
possible
that
you're
missing
out
on
the
plain
sense
of
the
word
of
God
daily
because
you're
committed
to
a
400
year
old
English
translation
of
the
Bible
because
someone
who
bought
into
the
misconception
of
KJV
onlyism
told you
that
you should
be
here's
where it
matters
the most
we have
the good
news
of
Jesus
to
proclaim
to
a
lost
and
hurting
world
God
himself
has
bridged
the
gap
he
has
spoken
to
us
in
our
own
language
and
as
we
go
into
all
the
world
and
preach
the
good
news
to
others
we
need
to
bridge
the
gap
and
we
need
to
speak
to
them
in
their
own
language
in
the
words
of
the
apostle
Paul
who
is
speaking
about
the
spiritual
gift
of
tongues
I
know
in
this
passage
but
I
think
his
logic
applies
here
he
says
brothers
and
sisters
if I
come
to
you
and
speak
in
tongues
what
good
will
I
be
to
you
even
in
the
case
of
lifeless
things
that
make
sound
such
as
the
pipe
or
harp
how
will
anyone
know
what
tune
is
being
played
unless
there's
a
distinction
in
the
notes
again
if
the
trumpet
does
not
sound
a
clear
call
who
will
get
ready
for
battle
so
it
is
with
you
unless
you
speak
intelligible
words
with
your
tongue
how
will
anyone
know
what
you
are
saying
you
will
just
be
speaking
into
the
air
undoubtedly
there
are
all
sorts
of
languages
in
the
world
yet
none
of
them
is
without
meaning
if
then
I
do
not
grasp
the
meaning
of
what
someone
is
saying
I
am
a
foreigner
to
the
speaker
and
the
speaker
is
a
foreigner
to
me
our
gospel
witness
depends
in
part
on
us
sharing
the
good
news
of
Jesus
in
intelligible
words
on
us
sounding
a
clear
call
to
respond
we
know
how
difficult
it
can
be
to
converse
with
foreigners
let's
not
be
needlessly
foreign
to
people
around
us
who
need
Jesus
let's
know
the
word
of
God
in
their
language
and
let
us
share
it
with
them
in
their
language
I'm
going
to
end
here
and
if
you
have
any
questions
or
are
looking
for
help
in
figuring
out
what
the
best
translation
options
are
for
yourself
feel
free
to
come
and
chat
with
me
anytime
I'd
be
happy
to
talk
with
you
and
help
you
sift
through
the
choices
available
whether
it's
for
children
or
for
your
own
personal
reading
and
devotions
make
no
mistake
God
has
preserved
his
word
for
us
today
just
maybe
not
in
the
way
that
some
have
been
saying
let's
pray
father
in
heaven
we
thank
you
that
you
have
done
this
amazing
thing
for
us
that
the
words
that
you
spoke
into
our
world
in
human
history
thousands
of
years
ago
we
can
be
confident
that
we
have
them
today
translated
well
for
us
in
our
Bibles
we
know
that
they
are
true
because
your
spirit
lives
within
us
and
he
testifies
to
their
truth
I
pray
that
you
would
lead
us
forward
that
you
would
increase
our
witness
in
this
community
and
that
we
would
truly
connect
with
the
hearts
and
minds
of
people
here
in
Davidson
and
the
surrounding
areas
with
your
gospel
in
Jesus
name
Amen