Matt Slick Live Special - King James Onlyism

It's Matt Slick Live! Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at CARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick Live for answers. Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Welcome to Truth Network. I'm Matt Slick. I'm the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at CARM.org. If you want to call today, we have a question about King James only. This is the time. Luke is the man.

He's been studying it, and he's written well over 100 articles on the CARM.org website. However, if you have other questions as well, not just on King James, all you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. All you have to do is dial 877-207-2276. We'll get you right on the air.

Fridays are sometimes slow, and that does happen like that. What Luke and I are going to do is talk about some of the issues of King James only. I'm just going to ask him some questions, and we're just going to see how it goes.

In the meantime, if you want to call, four open lines, 877-207-2276. All right, Luke, you ready? Absolutely.

All right. So, this thing called King James only-ism, what is it? What's King James? KJV, what is it? Okay, the simple answer to that would be that it is the belief that the King James version of the Bible, sometimes called the authorized version, is the only legitimate translation of the Bible in the English language, or sometimes it's to the extreme of it is the only Bible in any language that any Christian should ever use. So, King James only-ism is not King James preferred. Somebody who says, I think it's the best, but it's okay if Christians use other translations. But somebody who would say that it is sinful, it is wrong, any other translation is an abomination, is a perversion of the Bible, and only the King James version is correct.

Okay, so I do know a little bit about this topic. So, do they use the King James Bible 1611 version, or what do they use? Well, to use the 1611 version, there would have to only be one 1611 version.

And actually, even that is not quite true. There were more than one King James version printed in 1611, and they had significant differences between them. And the two printings were not bound at the same time, so often it was sheets from more than one printing mixed together, so that almost any two King James Bibles from 1611 that you got would not read exactly the same as each other, because they'd have pages mixed from more than one printing that had different typographical errors and editorial decisions made. So, there isn't just one 1611 King James version, but no, anyone who goes to a store and buys a King James Bible today is not going to be getting a 1611 King James version unless you're getting a special facsimile edition. It would be getting something very similar to the 1769 Benjamin Blaney revision of the King James version. I saw a King James reprint, original, and man, it was hard to read. The fonts were different, and the F looked like an S, or the S looked like an F. The S had two different forms. One of them looked exactly like an F, yeah. So, when I talk to King James only people, I'll say, well, which version do you use of the King James only?

And what? Do you use a 1611 or a 1689? Which one is the one that most people use now? Well, any printed today is basically, there are minor differences since then, but basically it's the 1769 Blaney revision. So, pretty long after 1611.

1769, that's like 150 years later, so they changed it and improved it? Well, then wouldn't they be the heretics? Because of the real King James only people would be 1611ers. So, they should be saying, we're 1611ers, and then there's the 1789ers. That's what I would think. Maybe we could see some King James only in the wars.

They throw Bibles, they'd be wrapped though, because they'd be pages flapping the wind. Technically, even today, there are the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the King James that have very minor differences between them. Extremely minor.

They don't affect anything. But, if you buy into the most extreme King James only assumptions, even those minor differences, you would have to say, either the Oxford is correct and that Cambridge is a perversion, or vice versa, because you're saying down to the very letter and word that this is the one and only perfect translation, there can't be any variation. So, there are some King James onlyists that even know about that and do pick a side, but most of them don't realize that even today, if you go by a King James version, there's two basic different versions with very slight differences on the shelf today. Okay. Hey, Lucas, if you can unmute yourself, let's see how that works. Good.

Okay, I got a question for you. Now, did King James translate the King James Bible? Did King James do it?

No. King James actually was a scholar and he did produce his own translation of the Psalms, a lot of people don't realize, but he was not directly involved in the translation of the King James Bible. He commissioned it at a meeting of parliament and scholars were selected at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford that all divided into teams, that divided the Bible up into different sections, different portions of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, which was included in the King James Bible up until the 800s. And various portions of the New Testament were divided between teams of translators from these various scholarly institutions and they were stellar scholars. How long did it take to hold the King James translation?

Several years. And even at that, it was not a translation from scratch. King James did establish rules that they had to go by, some of them affecting which words they were allowed to use to translate certain things, and the way they had to divide the work. They didn't have to go into all the technical details, but what's important, partially in understanding it, is that they were told the previous English translation, called the Bishop's Bible, to use the wording of the Bishop's Bible as often as the original languages would justify it.

Because they wanted to be very conservative, they didn't want to be changing the language from what the people were used to hearing preached in the churches. And if they couldn't justify using the Bishop's Bible language, they were to go back to Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, various other previous Bible translations. They borrowed language from intentionally. Very rarely were they translating directly their own new words. They were using the language of various previous translations and compiling them together. You know, verse by verse phrase, but sometimes the same verse will have, okay, a few words from the Geneva Bible, a few words from the Bishop's. So they were compiling these translations. And so that's why the language, even in 1611, was a little bit old-fashioned, because they were pulling from translations that sometimes were from a hundred years before that. And using those translations as their baseline so that the language would be as familiar to English readers as possible.

Wow. And where was this done? Again, the teams were divided into various areas in England, focused primarily in Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster.

Okay, so done out of England. And when they say 1611, why do they say 1611? Was it finished in 1611 or begun in 1611? 1611 was the date that it was first off the printer and available for purchase. So that would be when we consider the completion date.

Okay. And then the next major revision was 1789? 1769. And that was the major revision, but again, we don't have to go into all the tedious details of it, but really, every printing was a revision after that. Because each printer was trying to correct the errors of the printers from the last, but they did not always distinguish between printing errors and what they falsely or rightly considered to be errors of the actual translator. So the translation was constantly evolving with every printing.

The printing press simply wasn't as precise a device as our modern photo printers we have today. And so the text of the King James was constantly evolving over that period until Benjamin Blaney nailed it down, and it stayed pretty consistent after that with minor variations. So they didn't need a hat with a stone, did they, to do the translation? No, these men that were involved in the translation were profoundly brilliant scholars who knew not only the Greek and Hebrew, but Aramaic, Syriac, some of them knew Ethiopic, they knew Rabbinic Hebrew and looked at medieval commentaries to help them understand. You have to understand, the ancient Hebrew language of the Old Testament was not well known in the late medieval, early modern period by Western scholars. And so they were rediscovering how to read ancient Hebrew, so they needed to use other ancient translations, ancient commentaries, to try to make sure they were understanding these Hebrew words correctly. And these were brilliant, multilingual men who were scholars of these ancient languages, even if some of those languages were not as well understood as they are today. Well, would you say Hebrew is pretty well understood now? The ancient Hebrew?

I think we've come a long way in understanding the Hebrew language from that time period. Similarly, Koine Greek, most of the men were studied in classical Greek, like the Greek of Plato and Aristotle, or were studied in what would to them have been modern Greek, would to us be a late Byzantine Greek, but the Greek of their day that the people in the Greek-speaking East spoke. But Koine Greek was not known to them at that time, and so they were doing their best with the really ancient Greek and with the more modern Greek to piece together what these Greek words meant. And they often relied again on the commentaries of church fathers and on other translations, Latin translations and Syriac translations and things, to piece together what these Greek words meant. So when you look at what they were working with and the information they had, the work they did in producing this translation is something we should have tremendous respect for. These were brilliant men who put a lot of scholarship into working with two ancient languages, ancient Israelite Hebrew and Koine Greek, that were simply not well known in their time period. And they did an incredible job.

They really did. You just reminded me, when I was in seminary we discussed the issue of ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, and we actually discussed the issue of how they know, for example, Greek so well now that they were masters of it even better than a lot of people, natural speakers back then. Some scholars have that great understanding of Greek because they discovered their manuscripts and did a great deal of analysis. But at any rate, we've got a break coming up here in a minute or two. Now folks, if you want to call, we're talking about King James only, but we'll take other calls probably at the bottom of the hour on other topics.

If you want to call and talk about King James only controversy, what it is, you've got any question, Luke is the guy who knows. He works on staff with us here at CARMS. In January it would be five years. Wow. Five years. And, man, time is flying by. Also in January, we'll have been on the radio 16 years.

So January is kind of anniversary month. So if you want to call 8772072276 we have three open lines. We have Carrie from Idaho waiting but we'll get to her at the bottom of the hour if she doesn't mind waiting a little bit. Okay, so there's the break.

Perfect timing. Okay, so what we'll do is we'll go to the break, folks. Please hold on and we'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 8772072276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everyone, welcome back to the show.

Listen to Matt Slick live. We have Luke Wayne on with us. We're talking about King James onlyism. If you want to call and you have a question for Luke or me, at the bottom of the hour we'll take normal calls and maybe Luke can stay around.

I don't want to contribute to anything. But we're talking about King James only. And I just did a little check on the website. It looks like, Luke, you've written around 150 articles on King James only stuff. That's pretty good. You've got mental problems like I do. Yeah, because I wrote 180 on annihilationism.

But, yeah, we can talk. Anyway, okay, I got a question for you. So what translation do you like to use, Luke? I read from multiple translations. It might surprise you to hear, as somebody who wrote showing the problems with King James onlyism, that one of the translations I read devotionally very regularly is the King James. I grew up in a household that was King James preferred. So my dad had us memorized in the King James Bible, and then we could read privately in a more easy-to-read translation like the NIV so that we'd understand what we were reading. So I grew up on it.

I was raised in it. I do think that it is a very sound translation. But also, at my church, we preach and teach from the ESV.

And obviously, writing for karma, I use the NASB in my writing. And so when I'm really studying, I like to compare translations. And I think you could dig deeper into the text with multiple translations.

Yeah, that's what I do. I use the New American Standard, the ESV, and then I go to the Greek, at least in the New Testament. I believe in multiple translations as well. All right, so you've written an awful lot of articles, so you've really studied this quite a bit.

All right, so look, folks, if you want to call, we have three open lines, 877-207-2276. What is—okay, we get this King James only problem. It's a problem in that you have to use the King James. Why is that a problem when someone says that?

Well, there's several reasons. The most important would be—and let me be clear, King James only is—you can't lump every King James onlyist into one camp. There is a cultic side of King James onlyism, but not every King James onlyist is a part of that. But that side of it is one of the big problems we have to recognize, is that there are people who take this to the point of saying, you are not saved, you are not a Christian, if you read from the NASB. That if you read from that and the Spirit doesn't convict you that it's a perversion and it's wrong, then you do not hear Christ's voice and you are not His sheep. And so that's a serious problem, when you make a translation of the Bible, an English translation, and say that is the standard over who is saved and who is not.

And so it divides the body. In fact, what caused me to write the King James only section was getting called from a deacon at a church back east that was asking me questions about this because a young man in his church had gotten into a bunch of King James only YouTube videos that got him really fired up on the issue, and he was standing up in the middle of the service, interrupting the pastor, challenging him on the fact that he was preaching from the wrong Bible because he was preaching from the new King James version, and that wasn't the real King James version. And it was causing division and strife in the church, and so that's a serious issue that has to be addressed. But beyond that, for the average, I have brothers and sisters in Christ who are King James only in their view. Okay, so what about them? They're not cultic, they're not dividing the body. I still think it's an issue because as much as I love the King James version, by itself, isolated from other resources, either appeal to the original languages or comparing with other translations, because we don't speak that English anymore, it is rife for misunderstanding. That it is very easy for us to misunderstand the text and thus apply God's word in a way that God does not intend.

And that becomes a very serious problem in the life of the believer. Yeah, I agree with you. Now folks, I've got one open line if you want to sneak in. We're going to start taking open calls at the bottom of the hour, and I'm sure that Luke will want to hang around for that. We can ask him some questions, maybe. Okay, here's one of the questions I think is really important.

I want to ask you this. The King James only people make a lot of accusations about modern translations, and they will accuse the modern translations of removing the deity of Christ, of attacking the person of Christ and things like that, and other things I know that they do. So, what do you say about that? First and foremost, we don't start with the doctrine that we want a verse to say, and then pick our Bible based on whether it agrees with what we think the verse should say.

We're putting the cart before the horse. We derive our doctrine from the Scripture. We don't pick our Scripture based on the doctrine we want it to say.

But beyond that, the accusation is simply false. There are some wacky translations out there, but any sound Christian modern translation, if you apply the same standards of interpretation, you're going to end up with the same doctrine. Now, I will admit that you will sometimes use different verses to arrive at that. There are certain verses which the King James translates in such a way that more clearly point to the deity of Christ than they do in some modern translation.

But you could say the reverse of that as well. Like, for example, if you're wanting the version that just most upholds the deity of Christ, regardless of whether it's the best representation of the text or not, then in the book of Jude, for example, you would want to go with the ESV. Because in verse 5, where it says, Now I want to remind you, though you once knew this, now in the King James it says, That the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. I'm paraphrasing it. That's not the exact language of the King James. But it's that the Lord, after saving the people out of the land of Egypt, the NSB would say the same. But in the ESV, it actually says that Jesus, after saving the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. It specifically says that Jesus was the one who saved the ancient Israelites out of Egypt and destroyed the Egyptians.

So the exodus was Jesus. Now, it doesn't get much stronger than that on declaring the deity of Christ that Jesus is Yahweh, the one who delivered Israel from Egypt. The strongest version of that verse on deity of Christ, if you're just going off doctrinal fidelity, is the ESV's version.

Of course, Jesus is the Lord, but a non-Trinitarian could interpret the Lord specifically to mean the Father there, whereas Jesus is very explicit. Yeah, I'm looking at the Greek. And in Jude 5, it does say Jesus. That would be a textual variant. There's a textual variant there, yeah. So it depends on the manuscript you're reading.

And the ESV is not new on this. That variant was known. The John Wycliffe Bible, back in the 13th century, hundreds of years before the KJV, also reads Jesus in Jude 5. So even very early, that's not just a modern Bible issue. That variant has been known. And Bible translators, both historic and modern, have cited both ways on that textual issue. The meaning is obviously really the same. That variant doesn't affect the doctrine. But in clarity on the deity of Christ, Jesus is the clearer reading. Interesting.

So for the King James Version. Oh, I see. We've got a break there. Okay, so hold on. We'll be right back, folks. We'll take some calls after this, okay? Please stay tuned.

We'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Okay, everybody, welcome back to the show. We have Luke Wayne on the air with us. And Luke is on staff with CARM. He's been with us for almost five years. And he does research writing like I do.

And he's written a lot on King James only. We're talking about that. And I did say that at the bottom of the hour, we're going to take some calls. Let's get to Carrie really quickly. We've got something on witchcraft. And then we're going to get to some King James only calls. So, Carrie, welcome.

You're on the air. Hi. I was reading in 1 Samuel today. And it was the portion where Saul seeks a medium and calls Samuel, I guess, up? Yeah, Witch of Endor, 1 Samuel 28, yes.

Okay. Was Samuel in hell? No, it really was. Samuel came back. He wasn't in hell. We can talk about that word from the King James Version. But, no, he was just probably in a place called Paradise, which the people who were faithful, who died beforehand, went to Paradise. And that's out of Luke 16, 19 through 31.

And it was called up. And it really was Samuel who came forth. Okay. It's 1 Samuel 28. Okay.

Okay. So when the word says it, called Samuel up, it's just referring to his body being in the ground? It wasn't a resurrection, but calling him as a person forth. And God allowed this to occur. Now, there's some debate on this. Some say that it really wasn't him, but it was a familiar spirit to imitate.

But it doesn't seem to be the case. It seems it really was Samuel. And then the witch was scared because realized what had happened.

It really was him. But it wasn't a physical resurrection. It was just a spirit. Because we do know that the human spirit can survive apart from the body. And even though the annihilations, many of them say that that's not the case.

They're wrong in that area. But in 2 Corinthians 12, 2, Paul talks about a man whether in the body or out of the body. Fourteen years ago he went to heaven and saw things and heard things and things like that. So we do know the New Testament confirms it. 1 Samuel 28 is a good place in the Old Testament to confirm it as well, that the human soul can exist apart from the physical body. And that's what was going on with Samuel. And he was called forth.

And God allowed him to come forth and communicate and rebuke Saul. Okay? Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

You're welcome very much. All right. Well, God bless. Okay.

All right. Let's get on the phone. Let's get to Charlie from Indiana. And I think Charlie's got a question on the King James stuff. So Charlie, welcome. You're on the air, ma'am.

Hello, Matt and Luke. Thanks for taking my call. Sure. I spent about 20 years in KJV-only fundamentalist Baptist churches. Wow. Spent about five years in Ruckmanite churches. Okay. And I have encountered them since then.

I'm no longer involved in all that. I'm not KJV-only anymore, but I still love the King James Version and enjoy reading it. In fact, that's the version I memorize from. But anyway, in my encounters since that time with the KJV-only fundamentalists that I deal with, their whole attitude and aura, their whole attitude is one of, it doesn't matter what the King James translators thought. It doesn't matter what they knew about the original Greek.

It's almost like their attitude is one of, God inspired the King James Version in spite of them, not because of them. Do you have a question about that? Do you want Luke to comment on it? Do you have a question about it?

Charlie, are you there? Yeah. How do you get around that? And how do you get around the idea that it doesn't matter what the original Greek said because the original Greek manuscripts don't exist anymore? Go ahead, Luke.

You can jump in on this one. I mean, how you get around it, if what you mean is, is there some silver bullet magic thing you can say that's going to make a ruckmanite, hardcore, King James-only-ist automatically see the error in their reasoning? Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. But when you're talking with someone from that perspective, then oftentimes going to the Greek isn't going to be persuasive. And one of the more basic things that I try to help them see is that they are not accurately understanding the King James itself, that the language has changed sufficiently, that the whole purpose of translation, of any translation, regardless of what you think about the original King James translators, that the purpose of translation as a concept is that you're trying to bring something from a language that we don't know into a language that we do know. So the average Christian in America doesn't know Greek and Hebrew. They need to be able to read it in English. But when we say English, we mean the English that they actually speak. Now, a King James-only-ist believes that when they pick their King James Bible up, that they understand what they are reading.

And I like to help them realize that that's not true. One of the biggest problems in King James-only-ism is not so much the manuscript questions, the Greek questions, the things like that. Those are important.

They're worth talking about. But there's something much more fundamental, is that you're obscuring the clarity of the word by making people read it in a language that they don't know. And one of the biggest difficulties with the Elizabethan English that the King James version is written in is not the archaic words. There's all sorts of words that you get there, and you're like, yeah, I have no idea what this word means.

Okay, you know that you don't know, and you can look it up. The problem is that the King James translators used a lot of words that we still use today, but those words mean something completely different. And this is what a lot of King James-only-ists, they fall into traps when they're reading the text, but they don't know that they're messing up.

I'll give you a lighthearted example, and then I'll give you a more serious example. So in Song of Solomon 5.4, in the King James, it says, My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. Now if my wife walked in the room and I romantically tried to tell her, you just gave me a bowel movement, that would not communicate the same thing today.

That my bowels were moved, the word bowels simply means insides. It doesn't mean, in old King James English. And the seed of emotion was considered differently. So culturally, they used that phrase, but it just doesn't mean the same thing today. My bowels were moved has a different connotation. Now that, in context, you can figure out.

Like I said, that's a lighthearted example. The more serious one, you'll often have King James-only-ists who will, wanting to show the inferiority of modern translations, will go to 2 Timothy 2.15, where in the King James it says, Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. And they'll point out that modern translations will say things like, Be diligent to present yourself approved.

Or in the NIV you might say, Do your best to present yourself approved. And you see, they're removing studying. This urging to study the word of God to show yourself approved is being removed from the Bible. You see, the problem is that the word study doesn't mean that in King James English.

The word study actually means to be diligent, to strive hard at something. The King James Version means literally the exact same thing as the NASB or the ESV here. But because the word study has changed, they think this is a verse about studying the Bible, about reading and remembering and learning, about academic study.

But that isn't what the word meant back then. And so here they're taking a verse and they're using it to judge other Bibles when in fact what they're proving by that attack is that they don't understand the verse in the King James English. They don't know what they're reading. And so this leads, throughout the Bible, these differences in the way words are used lead to a building up of misunderstandings that cause you to start misreading the Bible on large scale. And when you're free to compare the King James with other translations, you can discover where you're making those mistakes. You can say, well wait, why would the King James say, Study to shew thyself approved?

And the NASB say, Be diligent to present yourself approved. And the NIV say, Why would they say that? When you ask the question, you start looking it up and you realize, oh, study meant something that it doesn't mean today. And by comparison, you can learn and you can make sense of it. But when you're not free to make those comparisons, when you're not free to look at another translation, you are trapped with your misunderstanding of the King James English and you will never be able to know what the verse is really saying.

And some of them can lead to very serious misunderstandings of passages. And so, anyway, I hope that's helpful to you. Yeah.

And hey folks, so we'll be right back after these messages. We have Luke Wayne. He's from CARM. He's on staff at CARM.

We're talking about King James only. We've got a few callers waiting. And if you want to call, we have an open line, 877-207-2276.

We'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick.

Welcome back, everybody, to the last segment of the show. We have Luke Wayne on with us. And Luke is a staff member with CARM.org, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. He does a lot of reasoning and research, just as I do.

And he's done a lot of work on the King James only controversy. That's what we're talking about right now. Let's see if Charlie is still on. Charlie, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Okay. So did Luke answer your question pretty well? Yes, he did, and I thank you very much.

I've got one comment I want to add in. The ultimate authority of God is himself. The special revelation of the Scriptures is something that we have in our hands. What the Lord himself chose was Hebrew and Greek and a little bit of Aramaic, but Hebrew and Greek in order to communicate to us. What the King James only are doing, the radical ones, is saying that that's not sufficient in and of itself. We need the English as the final authority.

But it's not what God chose when he inspired the Word. So we could unpack that more, but that's one of the points that's worth making as well. Okay? All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen. All right, Charlie. God bless, buddy. All right, let's get over to Herb from Charlotte, North Carolina. Herb, welcome.

You're on the air. Yes, thank you. Luke just about answered my question. I don't know if Hebrew or Greek, but I believe that if I take my five or six different versions of the Bible and compare the verses, I can come up with a consensus of what the original Hebrew or Greek said. Yes. Do you think that's a legitimate way to interpret the Bible?

I do. I'm using their expertise in Hebrew and Greek, putting it into English, so I should be able to be benefited by their research. What do you think, Luke? I would not only completely agree with that, but one of the most important historic English Bible translators, Miles Coverdale, who was involved in the Coverdale translation, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. He was involved in three different Bible translations pre-KJV.

What he said on the subject is, So what's his point? That's obviously in older English. Well, he's saying the best commentary you often have on understanding a verse is multiple translations, putting them side by side, studying them together, and you can understand the words more clearly. Where one translation is unclear, another one will make up for it. Also, there are different translations that some are intended to be more literal and where others are intended to be more kind of dynamic. So that's why, like the NASB myself, I want as literal a translation as is possible. For example, the Phillips translation is far more loosely translated.

The NIV would be in the middle-ish someplace, and the King James would be close to a literal translation. It's a good translation. I'm not a fan of the thes and thes myself, that's all.

But that's okay. Okay, Herb, got it? Good stuff? Yes, thank you very much. All right, man. God bless. All right, I love this question coming up from Trey from Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Trey, welcome.

You are on the air. Hey, man. How are you doing? How are you doing?

Doing good. Okay, so I guess my question is, okay, what do you guys prefer to use as far as like a tiebreaker type situation if people are kind of on edge? And I came out of an independent fundamental Baptist church, and they were King James only. Of course, I didn't say you go to hell, but at the same time, they're very shallow people. They can't tell you exactly what's in the verses in the King James only. What they know is KJV, KJV, well, you know, there's more to God than just the KJV. You know, I follow Dr. Tony Evans a lot, and his theology is a whole lot deeper, and he uses the CSV.

And I've actually found some good stuff out of the ESV that I like to look at. And I've got a Scofield reference Bible that I use, but I do not agree with some of the stuff that Scofield put in his footnotes. I do not see eye to eye on some of that.

Some of it's good, but I don't agree with all of them. So I guess my question is, what would you guys do for like a tiebreaker, so to speak, you know, if people can't see eye to eye? Go ahead, Luke.

I guess I'm not 100% clear what you mean on a tiebreaker there. I apologize. I can be a little dense, a little flow.

No, no, no problem. Like, if you've got like a couple different versions and people are just not really putting the two together, is there like a version that y'all like to refer to as far as saying, well, here's what this is, and this is kind of what we go by? You know, which one would y'all really like to, you know, go in there and kind of prefer?

Because my experience is the KJV is usually the one that that does. That's why I kind of like to use it. But, you know, I was just curious to see what y'all's thoughts are on me. You want to jump on that? And then I will. Go ahead. Let me jump in a little bit.

Let me help out. Here's the thing is that, you know, I've had seminaries, so I've had Hebrew and Greek, so I can turn to those languages and work with them and help people out in what translation really is better in certain areas and point particular things out. But, you know, convincing people that kind of thing is difficult. So when you have a tiebreaker, it isn't really a tiebreaker thing. If someone wants to use the King James Bible, you know, and they don't want to go to the NASB or ESV or whatever, okay, let's do the King James.

That's fine. If there's a linguistic issue that arises, then we'll deal with it at that point. But if it doesn't arise, no need to cause division or, you know, put up roadblocks because of, you know, the translation.

Some people just get loyal, like me. I think the NASB, that's the one that Paul the Apostle used. That's my opinion. And some people say, no, that's what King James, that's what Paul the Apostle used, so that kind of thing.

So tiebreaker, it really isn't a tiebreaker thing unless you want, unless, this is an advanced technique, you get them in a headlock and then you just bash their head into a doorpost a few times and then you whisper in your ear the best translation is and then that usually they come away whispering it and then you win. So that's one way. Just don't let anybody else see you do it. You want to add anything to that, Luke? No, I think that pretty well covers it. Okay, good. All right, then. Especially your headlock strategy at the end. I think that pretty well settles it there. It does, it works.

Good deal, good deal. Can I ask you one thing on the Geneva, because Luke informed me today, I wasn't aware that the Geneva in the Bishop Bible was kind of referred to in the makeup on the KJV. What are y'all's thoughts on those versions?

Because I'm curious to check those out now that that's come to my attention. I think that the Geneva Bible is a very solid translation. It was the translation trusted by most of the Puritans. It was the translation that most of the people coming over on the Mayflower were using.

It's been a very important translation. And so it was the first English translation with Bible verses, the first study Bible. There's a lot of things we do with Bibles today that you have the Geneva Bible to thank for it. So I think it's valuable for Christians who have the time and leisure to go spend some time reading some of the older historic translations like that. I think that you would have the same difficulties switching to it as somebody would switching to the King James. It's written in an older form of English, and so it presents the same challenges. But I think there's value in going back and putting the effort into reading those old translations and seeing the Bible as it was worded by those who came before us. I think there's value in it, and so the Geneva Bible is a good Bible. Yeah, it is.

It is a good Bible. All right, buddy. Thank you all so much. You all have been very helpful. Thanks so much. All right, Trey. God bless. Okay, before we get to the next caller, Luke, how can they get a hold of you? Say they want to email you.

King James only stuff, questions. What's your email address? If you're wanting to email me, you know, positive civil discourse, then you'll want to go email me at luke at karm.org. But if you would like to, for your angry comments, just call in the show on Monday, and you can filter those through, Matt. He would love to hear all your angry comments. Oh, I love angry comments because they're entertaining.

I like the interpretive, obstreperous individuals who sometimes are obsequious. But no, it would be luke at karm.org. That's how you can reach me, luke at karm.org. Good. Or just info at karm.org. And we'll get to Luke as well.

But luke at karm.org. Okay, let's get to JC from Virginia. JC, welcome. You're on the air, ma'am.

Hey, guys. I heard 20, 30 years ago that the King James, when he translated the Bible, there were a few places where there were men, I mean women, and he thought it was better if a man was substituted. And one of the places that I booked up was at the end of Job. There is what I think will be someone that comes in end times, the behemoth or maybe the liaison. And I believe I found out that it was supposed to be a female, but in the King James version it was a male. Is there any truth to that, or do you know what I'm talking about? I haven't heard of this before.

If you could give me a specific reference, I'd be glad to look at some resources real quick. But without a specific reference, I can't... I'm driving, so I can't speak. Yeah, I'm driving. It's at the end of Job, and God says, when I made you, I made the liaison or the behemoth, and it describes them with a strong neck and back.

It walks funny because it's been used in its back, and it breathes smoke out of its mouth like a cauldron. I'll tell you what, J.C., if you could e-mail us. When you get home, do a little bit of research on what verse that is, because we need to know the exact verse. And if you were to e-mail us, or you can e-mail Luke at luke.com.org or info.com.org, and it's this verse, that's what I'm thinking, and is it really women that was changed to men, a King James-only issue, and Luke can write about it, research it, and let you know. All right, and that's luke at karm.org?

Yep, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, okay. All right, thanks for being here, you guys. Appreciate it. Hey, no problem at all. God bless. God bless. Okay, we've got about one minute in the show, and we've had Luke Wayne on with us, and he's on the staff. He's one of the staff writers at KARM. They've been with us for almost five years.

Man, time flying by. And this is your first radio gig, isn't it? Yes, it is.

Yes, it is. You did fine, too. No big deal.

It's all good stuff. So, folks, look, if you have questions about King James, Luke's your guy, and you can always e-mail him luke at karm.org or info at karm.org. It'll get to him as well. And please pray for this ministry, because as we move forward, he's under attack one way or another spiritually, and please pray for this ministry. Please lift us up and prepare. And may you have a great weekend, and by His grace, we'll be back on air on Monday, and we will talk to you then. God bless everybody. We'll see you. Bye.