[Brent Allen Winters] Well, here we are, ready for an interview
concerning the King James Bible vs. other versions of the Bible.
And I have with me as a guest today, from Ontario, California, David W. Daniels. David, how are you today?
[David] I am doing very well, thank you, Brent.
[Brent] Well I am just pleased all to bits to have you on the radio.
And the folks here in the Wabash Valley are going to learn something--that's my anticipation.
And I hope to learn something also.
And we want to explore the value, or lack thereof, of the various English versions of the Bible.
Well, you graduated seminary what year? [David] 1987.
[Brent] And at that point you saw there was confusion
--you felt confusion-- in the Bible versions that are available in English.
[Brent] Can you tell me about that? [David] Oh yeah, actually it started in Bible college.
[David] From the time that the professors started turning me toward the various modern versions,
and telling us the made-up story
of how Bible versions came to be, or how the main text came to be (and it IS a story, it's not historically accurate)
once I started believing what they told us,
we believed that these scholars down in Egypt were smarter than anybody else,
and whatever they came up with must be the truth.
However, the problem was that none of their manuscripts actually agree with each other.
So that once you've decided that you're gonna believe these guys
who call themselves "scholars" out of Egypt (or Alexandria, Egypt),
Then you have a problem,
because they couldn't come to an agreement with each other, as to what it was they believed.
Their Bibles all were different... [Brent] Yeah...
[David] And you then had to come up with a new thing, which they called the "science of textual criticism,"
And then you used this so-called "science" to figure out what to keep and what to throw away.
[Brent] Now lest anyone misunderstand, maybe I ought to ask you to state up front
your position and your conviction about the English Bible.
[Brent] Can you do that for us?
[David] Yeah. First of all, I believe that we have a caring and consistent God.
Every manuscript in all the earth has these words in Matthew, in Mark and in Luke:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words SHALL NOT pass away."
We have a caring and consistent God. We believe that He not only cares for us, but He will take care of our souls.
Not just now, but in all of eternity. That same God, who has said He will take care of our souls,
will also take care of His words. He says His words shall not pass away.
Just as much as I believe Him to save my soul, I believe that He kept His promise.
[Brent] So that means you have a conviction that God has preserved His words IN DETAIL for us today.
[David] Absolutely.
[Brent] And He has done it in our own tongue? [David] Absolutely.
[Brent] Being English, I should say. And that being true, you believe that some versions are better than others,
and one particularly is the best.
[David] I believe that one version in English consistently represents this:
1-the actual texts that have been preserved through history, by faithful, persecuted believers,
just like the Trail of Blood the Baptists talk about;
and 2-that the translation is consistent with what has been understood by those same believers throughout the centuries.
One translation kept those meanings consistent and kept that text consistent.
... And much to my chagrin, it turned out to be the King James Bible.
[Brent] And now there are many listening to this that agree with you wholeheartedly. There are others that don't.
And I suppose some of the criticism would be, "There are problems also with the King James Bible."
In other words, "The translators of the King James Bible," some'd say, "are not inspired." How do you respond to that?
[David] It's not a matter of inspiration. It's a matter of preservation.
And again, the promise of preservation is on God's side, not on our side.
You see, in Psalm 12, all through history until the 1900s, this was the meaning of these words:
Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
Which means reheated, and the dross taken off (that's the stuff that's not silver, it floats to the top),
and reheated again seven times, so you have really pure silver.
Then it says, "Thou shalt keep them," these words, "O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
The Person who has the burden of proof is GOD. GOD says He'd preserve His words.
[Brent] I understand that anyone with a brain must admire the King James Version of the Bible for its staying power.
Bobrick says, "No other translation has such long and rich history, nor such a powerful effect."
As much as he admires the King James, he doesn't say that that's the only version that's worthwhile,
he just says it's been the most powerful.
Indeed, what's it been? The King James was the only English Bible that we had, in publication,
for over 200 years (or 270 years). Isn't that right?
Well... from 1611 until 1881. Is that correct? [David] That was considered THE English Bible, yes.
[Brent] And even within my memory, it's the only Bible when I was growing up that anybody quoted.
But it seems that you're saying that the King James Bible is God's inspired version,
and you would take it even above the Greek and Hebrew text. Is that true?
[David] No, that sounds like a "straw man" to me.
I don't want to take added words and try to make the King James Bible into something magical.
Any language--ANY language--can take the same sentence and translate it accurately, and translate it completely.
For instance, in Egyptian these words were spoken: "Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go."
Now it doesn't matter if you translate it into Swahili, "Let my people go."
It doesn't matter if you translate it into German, "Let my people go."
However you translate it, you translate that EXACT MEANING
--not adding words, not "Let my people go, unless it's a Thursday." Not, "Let them go."
It's "Let my people go," four simple words, right? [Brent] Yes.
[David] If you translate those four simple words, so that those exact words are understood in any language,
you have now PRESERVED those inspired words.
Why are they inspired? Because God wanted them in His Bible.
[Brent] Well, I'm gonna play the part of the one that would put the burden on you --and it may not be proper,
but in order to try to answer some questions that we know people have...
Some people would criticize your position and say
that "The Puritans and even the Pilgrims were so disgusted with the King James Bible,
they refused to carry it, and that is not the Bible that they carried to America." Is that true?
[David] There was political opposition to James, his policies or various other things in the early 1600s, that is clear.
The Geneva Bible had been around since-- the New Testament in 1557,
and the full Bible from 1560, mainly through 1599.
And then some reprints after that.
They carried that Bible with them which they knew.
And it had their politics in it. It had their personal beliefs in it.
It had piles and piles of notes that accumulated. I have one, right here in the office--1599.
But their CHILDREN--look at the children once they came to the New World. The children adopted the King James.
They didn't have a big political beef, and they just wanted the words of God.
And what did God use when He was founding this country?
He used the King James Bible-- what we now call the King James Bible.
[Brent] So the Geneva Bible didn't last long at all, is that what you're saying?
[David] Well, I'm not trying to say it didn't last, it just wasn't perfect.
It was CLOSE--oh, man, it's close!
But you can read it yourself, set it alongside a King James. Read it out loud. And listen to it.
The cadence isn't the same. It isn't as memorizable.
A lot of the words literally DID fall out of use, even way back then.
And there's a lot of inaccuracy when it comes to translating Hebrew and Greek words.
A lot of the prepositions are backwards, because it was a little looser translation.
It was like, "Close, but no banana." It was ALMOST there--and it is really good--but it's not perfect.
[Brent] Let me be straightforward: What is wrong with other English translations of the Bible?
People carry the New International Version, and a lot of people swear by it.
And the New American Standard Version is well thought of. What's wrong with those versions?
[David] Well, I'll sum it up in, let's see... Deuteronomy 12:32. God spoke through Moses during his big speech--
--because most of Deuteronomy is just a single speech that God spoke through Moses.
And one of the things God said was,
"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
And the difference in most of the Bibles is basically three things:
1: Adding to. 2: Taking away.
And 3: Changing the meaning. Those three things are the differences.