speaker-0: Faith Baptist Church in Taylor's presents This Week in the Word. Well, welcome back to This Week in the Word at Faith Baptist Church. We're so thankful for this platform and allows us to have some ongoing conversations about things that have been happening here at Faith Baptist Church. You can find us really anywhere you look for your podcast by simply looking up This Week in Word at FBC Taylors. That's This Week in the Word at FBC Taylors. And I'm pleased again this week to be joined by missionary George Stauffer. So thank you again for being a part of it.

speaker-1: it's a privilege to be here.

speaker-0: It's kind of a continuation, if you will, of what we talked about last time we were together. Last time we were together, we talked about Bible translations. And actually, you s reviewed with us s several common arguments that people will use to kind of say that they're King James only. And you kind of walked us through all of those and where they're coming from and ended with this compelling statement, and that is the translators themselves. Of the King James version version clearly rejected those assertions. So again, if you haven't listened to last week's podcast, we do encourage our listeners to do that. Yes. I want to begin with a question and then a follow-up question to that. How many of you own a King James Bible? George, you own a King James Bible? Yes. Pew. Do you remember the first one you got? Mm-hmm. My first one I got was when I was a kid. I still have a Schofield Bible that I got when I was in seventh grade. And the answer how many own the King James Bible is probably most of us. Yeah. Even today, there more than four hundred years after its publication, the King James Version remains one of the most widely read, widely purchased, widely used English translations in the world. Few books in human history have exercised greater influence on the English speaking world than the King James Version of the Bible. This afternoon, I looked up some statistics. Some statistics, depending on where you look, indicate over 50% of anybody that owns a Bible owns a King James Bible. almost 55%. And the 45% number represents the other modern versions. All

speaker-1: I'll put together.

speaker-0: put together. So it's a very, very widely used, very widely read, very widely known translation scripture. So let me ask a follow-up question. How many of you have ever read the translators to the reader? This is the original preface to the 1611 King James Version. And the answer is probably very few comparatively have read that preface. And frankly, before we go any further, that's not your fault. If you walk into a bookstore today and purchase a brand new King James Bible, open to the front and begin turning to the pages, you will almost certainly not find the documentation the translators originally placed there. We're not holding the 1611, most of us. did you have a copy of sixteen eleven perchance?

speaker-1: I think I have some of that on the computer, but you know, it's a photocopy.

speaker-0: I don't have a I don't have a physical copy. Well I have a I can get it online, I guess. Yeah. And but we do have the seventeen sixty-nine version most of us are reading from. And the text that of that of scripture remains, but the translators explanation of why they produced the Bible, how they produced it, and what they believed about translation has been largely disappearing from modern editions. And that's really a real shame. You can imagine reading a famous book while omitting the author's instructions or introduction, or studying a historic confession while disregarding the preface explaining its purpose, or spending your life discussing the work of a group of people while never reading the document that that group signed their names to explaining their work. And that is what's happened when it comes to this preface, the translators to the reader. And the tragedy is that the translators clearly intended their readers to read it. thro throughout the preface and it they'll actually refer to their audience as good Christian reader. So it's not merely written to scholars or bishops or theologians. It was written for the ordinary believer, although admittedly it may be difficult for you and I to read.

speaker-1: Yeah, I would hope that someone would resurrect it, can we put it that way? Sure. And put it into everyday English. Sure. and leave out a lot of the historical references that almost nobody knows about today. Right. The American Bible Society published a book that had the original version of it as the first part. And then putting that into modern type, the fonts, as the middle part, and then and and also explaining all the historical references. And then the last part was supposed to be more of an up to date reading. But as I look at that, it still needs to be updated. Right. Make it smoother and such. But I wish it were available.

speaker-0: Well, the readers ob the translators obviously wanted their readers to read this preface, and it's been largely lost. And many historians have lamented that loss. For example, Richard Lovett wrote a booklet called The Printed English Bible. He wrote this in nineteen nine. And in it he said, This preface most unhappily long ago ceased to form a part of the ordinary editions. A generation earlier, a man by the name of John Stoften, wrote in the eighteen seventy eight volume of his book, Our English Bible, it is to be regretted that while the dedication appears in all the editions, the address to the readers, this preface is inserted in very few. It would be a good alteration to cancel the former and universally introduce the latter. They're saying we we think that you should read this preface. And honestly, I would think they're both very right. Then this document is not inspired. It is not scripture. But if you wanna understand the King James Version, where better to begin than with what the translators said about it themselves? And that's the point you were making in our last conversation.

speaker-1: If if that would happen, it would just cancel so many false ideas today about the King James. Go back to the preface. Right.

speaker-0: They just go back to the preface. Yeah, don't tell me what the translators believed until you've actually read what they believe. Before you debate the philosophy of their translation or any translation, we ought to hear them explain it for themselves. Right. So here's our goal today. Kind of unusual. Behind me, I've got a screen here. We're gonna walk through the preface. We're not gonna go through the whole thing, but we are gonna go through number of quotations. about the preface and kind of speak to them and hope as we're doing so that our listeners and watchers you can go online again and find this. It's it's very readily available, whether you've read it or not, is a different question. And we're going to dust off a forgotten treasure. And we're run returning to a document that once stood at the front of the King James Bible and arguably ought to still stand at that front. And we're going to ask the question, now what did the translators believe About their translation philosophy. Amen. So let's begin with this quotation. Here's what it says. Now, to the latter, we answer that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. That's an interesting one. What are they saying here?

speaker-1: Meanest means the maybe the least respected, maybe the lowest quality, but it's still the Word of God. Right. And I I appreciate how they say it isn't just contained, it is. Right. And we're gonna see some other quotes that even clarify that even better. Right.

speaker-0: Right. They're they're talking about, and that is to say, they're not the first ones to produce an English Bible. Right. There were other English Bibles before them and in circulation when this came out. And they're saying even the poorest in your estimation, translation of the Bible is in itself the Word of God.

speaker-1: And ought to be considered that. Right.

speaker-0: Yeah. And that's why they would continue to go on and say, Truly good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be accepted against, that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

speaker-1: If if we could go back, and I don't know that it's even possible now, but years ago there was a seminar at BJ on the King James, and they had the head of the English department, Dr. Custer, I think one other person give points. And the the person head of the English department looked at it from a literary standpoint. Right. And it's a masterpiece.

speaker-0: It is. Yeah. It really is. Beautifully done. Yeah. Easily memorized in certain senses too. Just

speaker-1: There's a rhythm to it. There is.

speaker-0: there is. But but they're saying we're we're we we want to be part of the hallmark of the translations even that went before this one. And that's why they're going then this way. That that's why we're doing this. In fact, they continue and said, No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word. were forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. That's an interesting one.

speaker-1: Yeah, I was thinking about the word current or forbidden to be current. I th are they saying we should be able to translate it in the English that is right now available?

speaker-0: Sure. Yeah. And and and we'll see some of their quotations later, that that is exactly their intent. That they they want it to be that the Bible is worthy of translating into the language that people speak. Moses, for example, did not say actually, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Moses actually said, Beerish Bara Elohim. Moses wasn't writing in English. He was writing in Hebrew. And the same is true for Paul or Peter. They didn't write in English. In their case, they wrote in Greek. And our doctrine of inspiration leads us to a doctrine of translation. And that's what they're saying. The translation should be it should be able to be read by people, which was a radical concept at that time. Maybe even more so before their time.

speaker-1: Yeah, before their time, you had to know Latin, which basically cancelled all the common people. Right. And the church went actually encouraged that. Right. And and resisted when they wanted to go into English. I think English is one of the last of the European vernacular Bibles to be written. Wow. There was a German Bible, the French Bible, mm, Italian, and so forth, before the English Bible. Right. Right.

speaker-0: And that was one of the driving principles of those before King James Version, Wycliffe and the Coverdale Bible and the Bishop's Bible, one of them being the plowboy philosophy of translation. You heard of that? Yes. Yeah. Tell us a little bit about that one.

speaker-1: Okay. Tyndale was outspoken and the the king didn't care for that. He ended up losing his life over it. But he made it a point and even with the the bishops and such that represented the scholarly part of the church, he said, I I hope for the day when the ploughboy, I'm not quoting exactly, will be able to know more of the Bible than you, sir. Right. Amen.

speaker-0: He was and and and you gotta think in terms of that, I think, when it comes to this conversation, because we are abundantly blessed to have any translation in our language. Yeah. Considering the fact that in history, many didn't have any translation in their language. It was reserved for the elites, and the clergy was separated to be the ones that were going to tell you what was to be said from the word of God. And and they're saying that. Now, they also have some humility, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes. may be noted in the setting forth of it. Are they saying their translation is perfect?

speaker-1: And they're saying that it can be refined.

speaker-0: It can be refined.

speaker-1: And they encourage it to be refined. In fact, then you mentioned earlier about the printer's error. Thou shalt commit adultery was in one of the first King's Texas

speaker-0: They're famously called the knotty Bible. Yeah. Yeah. They left out that knot part. Right. Yes.

speaker-1: So yeah, any time you find that then they you know, well go ahead and fix it. That's what they've done.

speaker-0: In fact, this next quote takes it a little further, and they said, For by this means it cometh to pass that whatsoever is sound already, the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished. Also, if anything be halting or superfluous or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place. Now to understand that quote, you gotta understand this word original. What do they talk about when they're talking about original? This to be agreeable to the original.

speaker-1: I would assume that'd be the original language. Yeah. Yeah. So the Greek and Hebrew. Right.

speaker-0: Yeah. So they're saying those things that are clear and shine, when we do our work well, translation work well, they should shine more brightly in the reader's thinking. But if in our attempt to translate we ha are halting, meaning it's a little bit confusing for the reader, or superfluous that we we maybe too much, or not so agreeable to the original, we're telling you in our preface. That the same may be corrected. You you you could come back to that and say, you know, there's a better way of translating the original than what you originally set to paper.

speaker-1: And they would know very clearly how the language changes. Right. they look back just a hundred years or so before that. And they they should have assumed, and I assume they did, mm-hmm, that in a hundred years things would be different. Right. And so they would expect someone to be able to get it into the the hands of the language that people use.

speaker-0: The King James translators did not believe somehow that revising an existing translation was wrong. Right. In fact, precisely what they were doing was revising in some sense. And they saw themselves as standing in a long line of Bible translators who sought to communicate God's word more clearly to their generation. And so they're saying, well, there are some things that, as we translate, they become more bright. They're polished. We're really proud, we're thankful for that, proud in a good way, even. But there are some things that upon further reflection we may wish to update. So they're arguing in their preface preface, they're arguing in their preface for an update. In fact, they go so far as to make this analogy near neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.

speaker-1: I wonder how many people understand what an anvil is. The older generation should. Sure. But the blacksmith was the person who heated up the iron, had a hammer, and then this big piece of metal that would eventually destroy hammers, but never destroy itself. Anvils almost never get turned around and and lost. And so he's saying, yes, it it we look put we we pounded it, but it didn't quite come out right. We put it back in the fire. Bring it out and we straighten it. Right. And that's what they mean. Bring it back to the anvil.

speaker-0: Bring it back. Let's keep looking at it. Let's keep digging in. Let's keep studying. Yeah. And they did that. Again, we've alluded to this, but we're not reading and studying from a 1611. It was updated. It was revised several times over. And in their preface, they were arguing for that. Now why it ceased that revision later is beyond this conversation, perhaps. But at least in their preface, they're saying we We implore you to come back to the anvil again.

speaker-1: And I think in one of the quotes they mentioned a criticism that it's taking them so long to do it. And that's the reason. They're they're they're making sure it's right, the best they can do. Right.

speaker-0: Now we didn't name who wrote this, by the way.

speaker-1: It it's the person who wrote this name is Miles Smith. Right. That happens to be the name of my wife's grandfather. Okay. So it's easy to re

speaker-0: Not the same Miles Smith though. Yeah, yeah. Now, in today's day, sometimes you see these charts where people will have the King James version and then they'll line it up against the phrasing of another modern version. And then they'll use that chart to say, hey, look here. The King James Version has this many uses of, for example, blood, and the modern version removes the use of blood or whatever. way they like to work at that. And what people are doing is they're setting up the King James as the standard bearer and then they're comparing everything Engl in English against that English standard that they have created. Well that was also true in the day that the King James came out. And they speak to that in the preface. There were those who would have loved certain phraseology and wording that they were familiar with with the other English translations that they were already very used to using. In fact, in his preface The preface is not quoting from the King James, it's quoting from

speaker-1: Yeah, from the Geneva Bible.

speaker-0: the Geneva Bible. So in his preface, he's referencing the Geneva Bible. So notably a version that people would have been familiar with and used. And they didn't always marry themselves to that in English phrasing. And here's what they said to that end. They said, And we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words. As some per adventure would wish that we had done.

speaker-1: They were writing according to good English English style. Right. And that would be to avoid repetition. Right. And so they're always looking for variety, which makes it more interesting. It can be a little bit of a challenge to the person who's studying the scripture, because if for instance, in Romans 4, the the doctrine of imputation shows up. all through the chapter but it's translated different ways. The

speaker-0: It's the same word.

speaker-1: same word in the original. we might miss the emphasis that Paul was making. And that can be said from any num number of places. But again, they wanted a good English style.

speaker-0: Right. Even the uses of love can sometimes change. yeah, but they're not tying themselves back and the uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words, too. They wanted it to be something that the people themselves understood in in their language. And to that end, they say this: As the king's speech, which he uttereth 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 ad per peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for the sense everywhere. That's a lot.

speaker-1: It is a lot. So h they're saying of someone has given a speech

speaker-0: Mm-hmm.

speaker-1: and they need to translate it. Right. Some will do a better job than others. Right. But it still remains the king's speech. Right. And I appreciate that. That that's a good example.

speaker-0: Right. And there were many such examples French, Dutch, Italian, Latin. Right. It's still the king's speech. Yeah. You serve on the mission field for many years. Yeah. And in so doing, you are s using and speaking to people who speak other languages. Do they still have God's word? No. That's what really troubles me a little bit with the King James only position, by the way. Yeah. It's a very English-centric argument. Right. And It's hard to justify across language barriers.

speaker-1: Yeah, to think that today people are saying something that was written how many hundred years ago? halfway around the world, after so many copies, and yet this one that I hold in my hand just happens to be the perfect one. Right. And we're gonna judge everything else by it. That that is really An overstatement, just almost like pride in yourself that I'm the standard and everybody else get lost. Right.

speaker-0: Even those everybody else's that went before.

speaker-1: Yeah.

speaker-0: Like there are some, we just named some that gave their life, for example, for the English Bible. But we could have be having this conversation for those that have been that gave their life in other parts of the world that got the Bible into their hands. And for us to stay, I've been to mission fields where King James only arguments have been introduced to foreigners by American missionaries. And then there's not, it's just not. It's not the right thing for them. And that's why, even in the preface, they put it this way: zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves or revising that which hath been labored by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world.

speaker-1: Poor reception.

speaker-0: That is an interesting quotation. Yes. What they're saying is we attempted to translate the Word of God. And rather when than it being accepted as with thankfulness, when we undertook the work of producing a translation or revising a previous one for the benefit of God's people, that work deserves appreciation, but instead it's been receiving vitriol. That does seem to hit the nail on the head when it comes to the modern debates.

speaker-1: And again it we're so often j controlled by what has been the tradition. And b the tradition becomes the standard. And you try and move away from anything, like you know, they're moving away from the Geneva Bible or Bishop's Bible or something, that's gotta be horrible. I mean, that's the first response. Right.

speaker-0: And the irony is, by the way, that many who oppose revision in the name of the King James Version are opposing the very activity that produced the King James Version. Yeah. And it's just it's becomes a circular reasoning. Yeah. Right. The King James itself was a version in some way, and they're saying that in their preface of earlier English Bibles. And the translators believed God's word was worth refining. But people have a hard time with change. And this is why they say it is their version. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks, and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one, it is sure to be misconstrued and in danger to be condemned.

speaker-1: I I love their language and they're thinking through it. They they've they've seen it. If people c can't find a problem, they'll make it.

speaker-0: They'll make one up. Right. People are naturally more suspicious than they are thankful, is what they're saying. And they look for reasons to criticize. By the way, the the translators, in all humility, have already said in their preface by the time we get to this quotation, if you want to find a problem, I'm sure there are problems to find. Go back to the anvil again. Then they're now saying, but we are trying. our best to translate the word of God into your language from the original and people will still misconstrue that. Yeah.

speaker-1: They're they're doing something to the for the benefit of the English speaking people, and yet they are criticized for it.

speaker-0: And they're they're criticized for it. To that end, they go on to say, For was there ever any anything projected that savored any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition? That's amazing. That's amazing.

speaker-1: And yeah. I trust that is understandable.

speaker-0: I hope so. I mean imagine if the translators of 1611 had adopted the attitude of some modern readers. Well, the Geneva Bible is good enough. Yeah. The Bishop's Bible is good enough. The Apostle Paul used the Coverdale Bible. It's good enough for me, right? I've heard it on the other side. We don't need another revision. The only reason we possess the King James Version at all is because a group of scholars did not have that thinking. Right. And that's what they're saying. Whenever someone tries to do something new, even for God, with godly purposes, it's met with a storm of opposition and gainsay.

speaker-1: And they mentioned they want to make sure that in their own conscience they're approved by God. So they're doing this with the highest motivation. Right. And it should should be welcomed and encouraged. Right.

speaker-0: Now, to that end, I want to use this to say we should not evaluate translations based on their novelty, the fact that they're new. They should be evaluated based on their faithfulness. So they have gone through great pains to be faithful to the text. Are there modern translations that have not gone through that same rigor? There are. And I would say, well, that is not what we're talking about here. Right. Now a Christian. On the other end, may prefer the King James Version. They may prefer the New King James Version or another faithful translation, but we should be careful not to condemn the very work the King James translators in their preface are defending. The question should not be is this translation different? That's not the question. The question is, does this translation faithfully communicate the Word of God? That's the key question. And in their preface, the translators state plainly that they saw themselves as a part of a chain of careful scholars throughout the ages, and they name men like Jerome and Chrysostom and even Augustine. Yeah. And who studied and translated the Bible before, and they didn't see themselves as rejecting that work, but continuing it. And they even argue for the continuation afterwards.

speaker-1: And so I appreciate them putting all of this into their preface. Right. And I just wish people could read it and appreciate what they did and what's happening today.

speaker-0: I think some people are afraid that such conversations will shake people's faith.

speaker-1: Yeah.

speaker-0: And in their preface, they speak to that as well. Here's what they say in their preface For though whatsoever things are necessary are manifest.

speaker-1: Necessary in the sense of doctrine. Whatever is orthodox doctrine, obvious doctrine from the Word of God, it's there. It's manifest. Right.

speaker-0: Are there hard things though to read in the Bible? Yeah. Peter, to quote Peter about Paul, saying Peter 3, 16, as also in his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are some things to be hard to be understood. And they speak to that.

speaker-1: Yeah, then I appreciate that verse. I know you appreciate that verse. It is it really answers a lot of questions.

speaker-0: And here's what the preface says on that line. 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, but in matters of less moment. What's that talking about?

speaker-1: Well, God is in charge here of his word. Right. And as you have pointed out many times, if we didn't have a revelation, we wouldn't know anything about God. Right. It it'd be everybody's guess, everybody's on their own. But God is the one who chose what goes into the scriptures. And in his providence, he knew this would be a problem. Right. And it would have difficulty. And but it would there it would serve a purpose. And I then one of the quotations coming up will point that the purpose purposes that God has is is ideal. Right. but it it's not going to touch the doctrine of salvation. Right.

speaker-0: And that's the point they're making in this particular quotation is the difficult passages are not doctrines of salvation and faith and hope. The difficult passages tend to involve secondary issues. That's their evaluation. But God in his providence did leave some texts that are challenging, and they continue to translate them as they were. They didn't avoid that. Why would God do that? Well, here's what the preface says: they say, partly. To exercise and wet our wits, to stir up our devotion, to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference. It sure is, yeah.

speaker-1: There's a lot in that quote. we we should look at challenges in the scriptures as providing spiritual exercise. Mm-hmm. That's good. And to wet, like with a whetstone is how you sharpen a knife with a whetstone. So our wits, our thinking ability, can be sharpened by these difficulties. And yes, and as we've seen, pages and pages can sometimes be written on some of the difficulties. Right. But it forces us to go back to God and His Spirit by prayer. And that's amazing. It is amazing. if it were all so simple that we could think, I'm you know, I'm as good as God is, I understand this perfectly. Right. No, but we're not as good as God is. Right. And so we need to come back and implore the assistance of God's Spirit. And then the last part, I really appreciate we are not going to set ourselves up. on a high standard, academic standard, and never involve anybody lower than that. No, he said, we're going to be seeking our brethren by conference. And then even they mentioned that people that they don't consider as qualified as they are, they're still gonna ask them.

speaker-0: Mm-hmm.

speaker-1: And along that line I'm thinking about the passage in in Isaiah that I wish the translators Just about all of them would learn from farmers. They talk about straw that's added to the manure pile as if and literally it's the water of the manure pile. And you don't put water on a pile. The manure goes into a pit, you add the straw, and then you trample down. Right. Okay. Right. They could go to a simple farmer, it would help them at that verse. Right, right.

speaker-0: It's amazing. And there's a th there's a a combination worth recovering today, even when it comes to this conversation. And here's the combination. It is possible and necessary to have an unwavering confidence in the Word of God, while at the same time having a remarkable humility about your own understanding. That is possible and necessary. And this is what they're saying, the translators are saying in their preface. We have an unwavering confidence in God's word, but we also have a humility to recognize that we are still humans.

speaker-1: I might just add a little personal note. My wife's uncle was in the doctoral program with one other person, and it was with Peter Ruckman at the same time. Really? And he said, What? Just proud, arrogant, and so forth. He was just the opposite of the King James translators. Right. And it shows up in his in his writings, his speeches, and he's been one who has actively stirred up division among God's people.

speaker-0: Actively stirred up division. To that end, I there was an illustration I used on Sundays during our series, and you can liken it to screw tape letters with uncle screw tape and his nephew wormwood, right? And or is it the other way around? I can't remember. And but the senior demon and the junior demon and the junior demon is coming to seek counsel of the senior demon on how to best tempt to sin the person that he's been assigned to tempt to sin. And he's confused or concerned because his c his his fellow that he's supposed to be tempting is in a country where English is the translation for his language is only one, it's not a particularly good one, and he's learning English, and he's coming to America where there's a glut of good translations. And the senior demon in this analogy responds by simply saying, that's okay. Just convince him he's only allowed to read one. That is where a lot of people have fallen prey to this issue. Not just on the King James position, but I know plenty of one translation onlyists that are reading only the Yasvi. And that's not where you should land either. Now we do want to be students of God's word. And this is where the preface says: it says, the scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect. How can we excuse ourselves of neg negligence if we do not study it, of curiosity if we be not content with it?

speaker-1: Yeah, since it is God's Word, it demands, can we say, our best effort? Right. The best time of day should be spent in the Word of God. Right. And that's what's interesting, 'cause the best time of day is morning for me. But I recognize that's not the case with the majority.

speaker-0: Some of us are not morning people.

speaker-1: But whatever your best time is, that's when it ought to be where you can get in and study this. Right. And and use a variety of translations, not just one. Right.

speaker-0: Variety. Well that's interesting. Yes. Because the preface speaks to that as well. Here's what they actually say in their notations. A variety of translation is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures.

speaker-1: Amen.

speaker-0: A variety.

speaker-1: Yeah. Sometimes just a little change in the English, that's what that means. Right. And you found it from a different translation. Right. And they the translators even pointed out some works that were done by unbelievers ha actually gave them some insight for something. I forget how the quote went, but they're saying, learn from From from a l variety of people. Right. Even those that might not be in your camp. Right. Yeah.

speaker-0: To that end, we're just concluding our series in August on this very topic. And I actually brought this up to our congregation Sunday night as I wrapped it up. I understand that there are some congregations who feel the need to identify a single pulpit Bible. And there may be sincere reasons for that. I'm not gonna belittle them. They may I gave some of the reasons, even on Sunday night, why people feel that that is necessary. Now, before I give you my answer to that question. Of whether or not we should have a single pulpit Bible, I can tell you our church constitution already settles this issue. Our church is very clearly not a King James only ministry. That is foundationally true in our articles of faith that were established in 1982. And we are not changing from that. But there's also a reason why I don't know if a conformity to one single version from the pulpit is the best practice. And it comes down to this quotation. I don't want our people to be led to be one translation only st in any degree.

speaker-1: Especially if they're going to condemn other translations. Right. Which is often what happens. When

speaker-0: Which is often what happens.

speaker-1: you have a one translation scope.

speaker-0: Right, and and you're a student of God's word, as I'm a student of God's word. There are passages that are perhaps clearer in certain translations. I can give an example from Sunday, where in First Corinthians. First Corinthians chapter three, the King James refers to the Paul refers to the Corinthians as carnal in the King James. In the ESV, he refers to them as fleshly. In the ISV, he's refers to them as worldly. That's all the same Greek word. And it was actually rather freeing on Sunday morning to be in a church that's not King James only and be able to say in Sunday morning all of what I just told you. King James says carnal, ESV says one thing, ISV says another thing, NASB says another thing, and I'm giving this all to you. Because you didn't have to learn Greek to get that. All of those words do really attach themselves to that one Greek word. And you should know that. You

speaker-1: And you get a better picture.

speaker-0: get a better picture.

speaker-1: A fuller picture. Yeah.

speaker-0: And there's some powerful apps that allow you to do that. You can even get a copy. I've got a hard copy of God's word that actually has four translations side by side. It's a big, it's big.

speaker-1: I used it for

speaker-0: Right. And that's what the preface is saying. We we want we want that to be true. A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of scriptures. Now, there's an elephant in the room that I failed to address earlier. Maybe you could bring it up now. Some when they come to this conversation are thinking, well, what about text families? And that this is not the point of this podcast today, but I do wanna if you're only listening to this and you haven't heard anything else that we've talked about, we did talk about that two Sunday nights ago. And there is or are two primary text families that translations are coming from. The Textus Receptus and the Critical or Majority Text. And I realize that there are conversations surrounding that. And there are some that jump into the pond earlier up the stream, rather. That are more TR only than perhaps we are. But there are other translations that are modern in the TR, if that is your position. My point in today is to look at the preface and say they are arguing for more variety in your reading. And we've we've I we've had a stunning lack of that, whether or not you're King James only. Right.

speaker-1: Yeah. and these are areas where we cannot be a hundred percent confident. Right. And people under need to understand that. you know, some would dismiss the Alexandrian or the critical text, that's from Egypt. Nothing good comes out of Egypt. That's it gives some quick answer. no, you're out of you you ought to take take a look at every place. And what are the options? What's the Alexandrian? What is the majority of reading? And even the Western reading, which generally is considered less reliable, but check them all out.

speaker-0: I don't see why that why people are intimidate or scared by that either. I that is even in keeping we don't have the quote on this, but they do speak to their inclusion, we talked about this last year, late last week, of of the italics. They're including in their readings where they added things. I do like how the NASB, often frequently the NASBY in particular, will give footnotes where there's a variant reading in the text families and alert the readers to that. If I'm really studying God's word, I want a copy of God's word that alerts me to that. I'm not I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's a good thing. It's a very healthy thing.

speaker-1: They mentioned this should not destroy anyone's faith. Right. it'll help them as they study the word of God.

speaker-0: And again, to speak to the quote we've already looked at, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest. Whatsoever things are necessary are manifest. The translators were not afraid of such conversations, and you shouldn't be either. Now, if there's any aid to this conversation, I hope this is the aid that you would pick up the word of God. That the greatest threat facing the church is not believers picking up an ESV, New King James, NASBY, or King James. Or CSB or Holman Christian Standard or whatever it may be. The greatest threat is that people aren't reading the Bible. That's the bigger threat. If you're reading the King James, I'm thankful that you're actually reading from God's Word. I would ask you to consider reading more broadly. If you're reading the ESV, I'm thankful that you're reading the ESV. I would ask you to consider reading from the King James as well. And there's got to be a balance there. Which I do believe is what the preface of the translators was actually arguing for.

speaker-1: Is that argument?

speaker-0: You can go back and listen to all of our messages on this topic. It's been the whole month of August, every Sunday night, and we have gone through quite a ordeal. And then this of course podcast is part two with George. You can go back and listen to that one. So thank you again, George, for being with us.

speaker-1: My privilege to be here.

speaker-0: Yeah, we're glad we could do this. All right, thank you so much. Thank you for joining us today. For more information about Faith Baptist Church, visit us at www.fbctailors.org.