Did you know it is very important that you read the Introduction to any Bible
or Study Bible?
They tell you stuff there that you would never find in the rest of the Bible.
Would you like to peel away the layers and find out what is even in the
introduction to King James Bibles?
Hi, I'm David Daniels from Chick Publications.
People have loved to see the 1611 King James Bible.
When the New King James came out, this was printed by Thomas Nelson,
to show what the original 1611 was like and compare it to their "New King James."
They had their own reasons. I'm not going to go into them for now.
But suffice it to say it was a really good representation,
in Roman type, as opposed to Gothic type, like the Declaration of Independence
and stuff like that. It was in easy-to-read type,
word-for-word, letter-for-letter. There was no problem with that.
But as the 400th year anniversary of the King James, 2011, rolled around,
publishers started to go, "Wow, we want to go back
and get ourselves a reprint of the 1611 King James and publish it."
So... let me ask you a question. If you're a publisher,
and you sell multiple Bibles, and this is just another one of them,
how could you possibly mess up a simple thing like copying
a 1611 King James Bible, that's already been published in the past?
Answer: add a new introduction!
So this one right here is almost identical to this one.
This is 2003, but this is 2010. And in this one
they added a special introduction, called a "Publisher's Preface."
It says, "The Version of 1611: from 1911-2011."
From the 300th-400th Anniversary, see?
But when we go a couple of pages in, where do they make the focus?
Like the previous Introductions, talking about the history of the Bible,
of the King James, and its effect on people, etc.?
Oh, no. It says, "Some Major Editions of
the English Bible: 1881-2011."
1881? Yeah. Because it says in here, starting right out,
"Among the reasons for scholars to propose a new translation of the Bible,
two stand out: changes in the common language and
advances in biblical scholarship."
So now we are scholars, everything is great,
we have advances, and so we can change the Bible!
But let me ask you this: When Jesus was on this earth,
and He was in the synagogue, and He opened up the scroll,
did He say, "Ye have heard that it was written; but
there's a better way to say that now?" Or, did He look at those words and say,
"Wait a second! That's not what I said! This is what I said to Isaiah!"
Neither one of those is true.
Because that copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy
was still God's words.
God, according to His promise, preserved His words.
In the same way, we have them in English preserved in the King James Bible.
If God did it right once, why do it again?
Let's see where he goes with this.
"But there have been major advances in biblical scholarship
in the nearly three centuries since the KJV had first been published."
Time doesn't have anything to do with it. I just showed you that.
"Most radical was the adoption of Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament
in place of the Erasmian text..."
What's the "Erasmian text"? I thought it was the
preserved Bible through the centuries, brought into English in the King James.
But now, they're making it like Erasmus just made it up!
Erasmus, who went from place to place, from library to library, learning
what the scriptures actually said, being able to fix those things out?
That's what Martin Luther read in Greek, and in Latin,
and that's what started to lead to what we call the Protestant Reformation.
Praise God for God's secret agent, Erasmus!
Okay? So let's go on.
Then it says, "Because Westcott and Hort's work
was based on much older Greek manuscripts than those
available to Erasmus,"
Oh, here it comes out, "Older is Better?"
Then it says that "there were thousands of differences."
And then it goes to say that most of them were spelling and
a little word here or there, there are some differences there.
But then it goes on to say --listen to the weird words here--
"However, the majority of biblical scholars
and the rest of the church have come to agree
with the general opinion that the older Greek manuscripts
are closer in time..."
That's one opinion. "... and content
to the original New Testament..."
So they're also "more accurate" by opinion! Notice that?
"...and that"
Another opinion.
"...no major doctrine of the church is lost due to variations between
these manuscripts and those available to the KJV translators."
I've got over 100 videos. Take a look for yourself.
There's a lot of differences and a lot of doctrines are affected.
Then it goes into the Revised Version through the New Revised Standard,
and then it says the Revised Version
didn't "displace the KJV"
"displace" meaning "set aside" "... as the preferred Bible of
the English speaking Church, but it did open the doors for
the flood of new Bible translations in the twentieth century."
I didn't say it. He said it.
"Flood." That was the Devil's purpose, to give us a "flood,"
to try to "displace," move out of its place,
God's holy words in English, the King James Bible.
And then he mentions the Revised Standard,
the New Revised Standard, the New American Standard...
Oh, by the way, he called the ERV, RSV and NRSV
"official, ecumenical translations."
"Ecumenical." Let me translate that: "One World Bible for One World Religion."
That's in "Why They Changed the Bible." You can see that later.
Anyway, it goes on into the Today's English Version,
and the NIV --imagine that-- and the New King James!
What do Westcott and Hort and the new manuscripts
have to do with the New King James?
I thought it was "just an update of the language."
Hmm.
Then the Living Bible, the New Living Translation,
the Message, and then it says this.
"There were significant Catholic translations in the twentieth century:
the Jerusalem Bible of 1966..." Then it goes on to
the New Jerusalem, and the New American Bible of 1970,
and then used these words:
"Of course, these fine Roman Catholic translations
did nothing to displace the KJV in Protestant churches."
One, they shouldn't, and two, why are you calling
the Whore of Babylon's translations "fine"?
Displace, displace.
Then it says, "How did this explosion of
new translations affect the KJV?"
Well, it didn't do a thing to it. It's still right here. See?
But then he said that first they used the translations
alongside each other. But after a while,
people started buying more of the other translations,
and the King James sales went down.
Now you know that people who actually read the Bible,
read more King James than any other.
That's in another vlog.
But they're pointing out "sales." He goes on to say this:
"By 1986, the NIV..."
Here it is again.
"...had surpassed the KJV in new Bible sales
and remained the best selling English translation, followed by.."
the King James, the Living Bible,
and the New King James.
Wow. So what they're really trying to do is say this:
[hissing] "There are lotss of wonderful translationss available.
You ssshould consider them-- instead of thiss one--
like the NIV!"
Alright, WHO IS THIS GUY, ANYWAY?
It's "John R. Kohlenberger III." That's the guy who edited my NIV
Hebrew-English Old Testament!
In fact, He's like the NIV go-to guy!
What's he doing writing an introduction to a King James Bible?
Well, they were getting ready for the NIV 2011, 400 years after the 1611.
They set that up, to make the NIV the replacement
for the King James.
So let me recap.
Number 1: Always read introductions.
They tell you things the rest of the Bible,
the verses and the other sections, will never tell you.
Number 2: God doesn't need to do anything twice!
He did it once. It was perfect the first time.
He never needs to do it a second time.
Third: You can trust the text
of your King James Bible. But anything else that's not text,
not the actual words of God, isn't. It's man's words.
And fourth: Why would anyone settle for
man's words, instead of God's?
I'm just sticking with God's words. The King James Bible,
whether in 1611, or my brand-new copy.
That is God's words. And those words I can trust.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.