KJBIBLE1611

Acts 17 records the visit of the Apostle Paul to the capital of Greece, Athens, and his evangelistic activity in the agora or marketplace, from whence he was invited by Stoic and Epicurean philosophers from near Zeno's stoa to Mars Hill, or Areopagus, a site close to the Parthenon on the Athenian acropolis, where the temple of Athena Nike or Diana was located. God used Paul's sermon to bring a leading Greek official, Dionysius the Areopagite, to faith in Jesus Christ, along with a woman named Damaris and a variety of others-the nucleus of the first Christian church in the city of Athens. Acts 17 explains: 16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. 18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) 22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. In Acts 17:28 Paul makes two references to pagan Greek writings. Compare Acts 17:28a, "in him we live, and move, and have our being” with Epimenides: “O holy and high one … thou livest and abidest for ever, for in thee we live and move and have our being.” Diogenes Laertius, in his Lives of Eminent Philosophers, states that Epimenides delivered Athens from the plague through actions on the Aeropagus (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, ed. R. D. Hicks [Kansas City Missouri: Harvard University Press, November 1, 2005], 115). Paul's reference to Epimenides was, therefore, most appropriate. Compare Acts 17:28b, “For we are also his offspring," with: “[His] godhead fills all streets, all thronging marts of men, the boundless sea and all its ports: whose aid all mortals need; for we his offspring are.” (Aratus) Who was Dionysius the Areopagite? The Christian historian Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, declares: "Dionysius the Areopagite was converted by the Apostle Paul to the faith … and was the first to be appointed to the bishopric of the diocese of Athens.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.23.3). Craig Keener explains: "As a member of the town’s highest aristocratic court, Dionysius ‘the Areopagite’ was undoubtedly a municipal decurion, one of the highest-status converts so far mentioned [in Acts]” (Keener, Acts, 2678). Sources referenced: Eusebius of Caesarea, Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV, ed. E. H. Gifford, 720; M. D. Gibson, Horae Semiticae X, 40; Aratus, Phaenomena 1; F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 338–339; Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35, vol. 3, 2657–2661.

Lecture #21 in New Testament or Koine Greek covers chapter 19 in William (Bill) Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook, which is about future active and future middle indicative verbs. The class is taught by independent Baptist professor Thomas Ross. The parsing, warm up, translation, and additional exercises of chapter 19 are examined, and differences between the Nestle-Aland Greek text used by Dr. Mounce and the Textus Receptus received as the preserved Word of God by the professor and students are examined. The chapter exercises cover, in order, portions of John 11:48; John 9:21; Luke 12:17; John 8:12; 1 Corinthians 16:4;. Matthew 12:19; Matthew 4:10; Matthew 27:42; Luke 1:13; Philippians 4:19; John 5:25; Mark 13:13; John 14:12; John 4:22-23; John 13:33; Mark 12:29-31; Deuteronomy 28:41; Exodus 23:24; Genesis 12:1-2; Matthew 5:48; Romans 1:17; John 14:15; Mark 9:35; Acts 13:22. Greek sentences in the chapter made up by Bill Mounce are also translated. Exodus 23:24 (LXX) is lightly edited. Both William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook, 3rd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) and William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook. 4th edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019) are acceptable for the class. The future active indicative forms of λύω, with their respective personal endings, are as follows: λύσω — λύσεις ς λύσει ι λύσομεν μεν λύσετε τε λύσουσι(ν) νσι The future middle indicative forms of πορεύσομαι, with their respective personal endings, are as follows: πορεύσομαι μαι πορεύσῃ σαι πορεύσεται ται πορευσόμεθα μεθα πορεύσεσθε σθε πορεύσονται νται The future middle paradigm of εἰμί is: ἔσομαι ἔσῃ ἔσται ἐσόμεθα =ἔσεσθε ἔσονται In the future indicative of Greek contract verbs the contract vowel lengthens before the tense formative. Both α and ε lengthen to η while ο lengthens to ω. New vocabulary introduced in Basics of Biblical Greek chapter 19: βασιλεύς, έως, ὁ, *βασιλευ̂, king γεννάω, *γεννα, I beget: γεννήσω, ἐγέννησα, γεγέννηκα, γεγέννημαι, ἐγεννήθην ζάω, *ζα, I live (ἔζων), ζήσω, ἔζησα, —, —, — Ἰουδαία, ας, ἡ, *ἰουδαια, Judea Ἰουδαῖος, αία, αῖον, *ἰουδαιο, Jewish (adjective), Jew (noun) Ἰσραήλ, ὁ, *ἰσραηλ, Israel (indeclinable noun) καρπός, οῦ, ὁ, *καρπο, fruit μείζων, ον, *μειζον, greater ὅλος, η, ον, *ὁλο, whole, complete (adjective); entirely (adverb) προσκυνέω, *προσκυνε, I worship (προσεκύνουν), προσκυνήσω, προσεκύνησα, —, —, —

Class session 2 in a brief course on archaeological and historical evidence for the New Testament examines the authorship and date of the Gospel of Mark. Mark ministered with the Apostle Peter. Mark also had extensive interactions with the other Apostles and other eyewitnesses to Christ while residing in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12, 25). He recorded Peter’s teaching about Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark under Peter’s guidance and with the Apostle’s approval. Writing in Rome, where there were many Roman soldiers, civil servants, and citizens who understood the concept of service to the State (Matthew 8:5-9; Acts 10-11), Mark’s Gospel emphasizes the Christian life of service by the example of the life of the Lord (Mark 10:45, cf. Isaiah 42:1-4). As no dispute about Matthew’s authorship of his gospel existed, so with Mark’s Gospel the voice of antiquity is unanimous in ascribing to Mark. The evidence points to Mark’s Gospel being a normative part of the early Christian corpus, received into the canon of the New Testament . . . [at] an early date and without any recorded dissent; every extant source gives unanimous agreement to its canonicity and inspiration. Papias wrote that the Apostle John had declared: “Mark having become the expounder of Peter, wrote down accurately ... the things said or done by Christ. ... [H]e followed Peter ... [and] he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely ... Mark committed no error while he thus wrote[.]” Irenaeus: "Mark, the disciple and expounder of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Clement of Alexandria: "The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly ... and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. ... And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that ... with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. ... Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and ... the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. ... [This is the] tradition of the primitive elders. Origen: Among the four Gospels ... the second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his ... epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, “The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son [1 Peter 5:13].” Other external evidence likewise testifies to Mark’s authorship of his Gospel. The headings on manuscripts of the second Gospel provide early support for Mark’s authorship. The ancient sources provide strong evidence for Mark’s composition of the Gospel bearing his name. Powerfully Internal evidence in Mark clearly evidences the stamp of Peter on the Gospel. Thus, the unanimous testimony of ancient history, and all other extant internal and external evidence, favors Mark’s authorship of the gospel bearing his name. All extant writers who lived close enough to the time of the events in question to actually obtain useful information likewise affirm that Mark preserves the apostolic and eyewitness testimony of the Apostle Peter. (Archaeology has uncovered the site of Peter's house in Capernaum.) Mark composed his gospel very early. The Gospel of Mark is alluded to and referenced in the earliest extra-biblical writings of Christendom. Mark is referenced in the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and other very early writings, evidencing that, as with the other books of the New Testament, early quotations virtually eliminate any time gap between the completion of the Gospels and the earliest citations, well before the end of the first century while some eyewitnesses (like [the Apostle] John) were still alive. Indeed, ancient testimony indicates that Mark composed his gospel under Peter’s direction c. AD 42-46, before Mark’s departure to evangelize Alexandria in the 50s AD. The ancient historian Eusebius dates Mark’s Gospel to the second year of the emperor Claudius, that is, AD 42. Furthermore, many Greek manuscripts, including the best line of transmission, have a colophon stating that Mark was ‘published’ ten years after the ascension of Christ,” that is, c. AD 43. The external and internal evidence support Mark’s composition of his gospel in the early 40s AD, shortly after the composition of Matthew.

Lecture 25 in New Testament (NT) or Koine Greek, covers the Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook review of chapters 15-20 by Dr. William Mounce (Bill Mounce), taught by Dr. Thomas Ross. Audio issues resulted in the grammar questions, and parsing 1-9, being lost. However, the missing material should be available on another video covering this section of the Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook. This video, therefore, covers the parsing from question 10 to the end and the translation of John 12:27-36a. Bill Mounce's textbook employes the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, but this class translates John 12:27-36a from the Textus Receptus, the inspired, preserved, canonical, and confessionally received Greek text of the church from which the Authorized, King James Version of the Bible was translated: 27 νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται· καὶ τί εἴπω; πάτερ, σῶσόν με ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον εἰς τὴν ὥραν ταύτην. 28 πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα. ἦλθεν οὖν φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, Καὶ ἐδόξασα, καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω. 29 ὁ οὖν ὄχλος ὁ ἑστὼς καὶ ἀκούσας ἔλεγε βροντὴν γεγονέναι· ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, Ἄγγελος αὐτῷ λελάληκεν. 30 ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐ δι’ ἐμὲ αὕτη ἡ φωνὴ γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ δι’ ὑμᾶς. 31 νῦν κρίσις ἐστὶ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου· νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω. 32 κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. 33 τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγε, σημαίνων ποιῷ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν. 34 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὁ ὄχλος, Ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ὅτι ὁ Χριστὸς μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα· καὶ πῶς σὺ λέγεις ὅτι Δεῖ ὑψωθῆναι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; τίς ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; 35 εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἔτι μικρὸν χρόνον τὸ φῶς μεθ’ ὑμῶν ἐστι. περιπατεῖτε ἕως τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, ἵνα μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ· καὶ ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ οὐκ οἶδε ποῦ ὑπάγει. 36 ἕως τὸ φῶς ἔχετε, πιστεύετε εἰς τὸ φῶς, ἵνα υἱοὶ φωτὸς γένησθε. In the King James Version, this passage reads: John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die. 34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? 35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. 36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. The class begins with a song based on 1 John 5:6-9 from the Received Text, including the Comma Johanneum, 1 John 5:7: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι’ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός· οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ’ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι. καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, (2x). ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. ... αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ ... ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, (2x) the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. . . . This is the witness of God . . . the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. This passage of Scripture is sung to the tune of "Holy, Holy, Holy," using a arrangement created and owned by the pianist.

The Hebrew Shema chanted / sung: ēllê haddᵉḇārim / Deuteronomy 6:4-6. The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament text is cantillated, chanted, or sung with the Hebrew accents or trope markers, following the Ashkenazic style explained in Joshua R. Jacobson, Chanting the Hebrew Bible: The Art of Cantillation, 2nd ed., (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2017). The Hebrew text reads: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָֹה אֶחָד׃ וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָֹה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃ וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם עַל־לְבָבֶךָ׃ šᵉmaꜥ yiśrāʾēl yhwh ʾᵉlōhēnû yhwh ʾeḥāḏ: wᵉʾahaḇtā ʾēṯ yhwh ʾᵉlōheḵā bᵉḵol-lᵉḇoḇḵā ûḇᵉḵol-nap̱šḵā ûḇᵉḵol-mᵉʾōḏeḵā: wᵉhāyû haddᵉḇārim hāʾēllê ʾᵃšer ʾānōḵi mᵉṣawwᵉḵā hayyôm ꜥal-lᵉḇāḇeḵā: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: Learn about the God of Israel and His Messiah by reading: "Truth From the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim (the Law, Prophets, and Writings) for Jews who Reverence the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel" at the FaithSaves website Learn more about the inspiration and preservation of the Bible, including the Hebrew vowel and accent marks, by reading: "The Battle Over the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points" and: "Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points" at the Faithsaves website. The pronunciation of the Hebrew consonants follows the ancient practice of pronouncing waw/vav as a "w" sound rather than following the modern Israeli pronunciation of "v" (compare the heading to the LXX between Psalm 118:40-41, ουαυ, "waw," not "vav"). The Tetragrammaton is also fully vocalized as in the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Ben Chayyim 1524-1525 Rabbinic Bible, instead of utilizing the partially vocalized Tetragrammaton present in the Leningrad Codex and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text upon which the vast majority of modern English Bible versions is based (NA27 or NA 28, UBS4 or UBS5) is corrupt: it is the Textus Rejectus. HUNDREDS of small segments of its text have 0% support from any extant Greek manuscripts known to exist in the world. THOUSANDS of small sections of its Greek text do not look like any actual Greek manuscript on earth. Furthermore, in well over 10,000 variants the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text rejects 90% or more of Greek manuscripts. By contrast, the Greek Textus Receptus or Received Text (TR), the basis for the Authorized, King James Version of the Bible (KJV / KJB / AV 1611) and other widely used Reformation-era Bibles in many languages, is based on the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts the overwhelming majority of the time. The Bible teaches the providential preservation through God’s singular care and providence of every single word in the infallible original manuscripts (Matthew 4:4), the perpetual availability of those words (Isaiah 59:21), and the recognition of those canonical words by true churches (1 Timothy 3:15). The Received Text fits that model; the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus does not. This fact requires a TR-only, King James Only, or Confessional Bibliology approach to the preservation of the inspired Word of God. In this video, which is also debate review video 14 in the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations,” every single variant in John 13 between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek text is examined. Every variant between the Received Text and the modern printed Majority Text editions by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad’s The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont’s The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and Wilbur N. Pickering’s The Greek New Testament According to Family 35 are also examined. In John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects: 90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times 95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42times 99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times 99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times 100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2. Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13: The Nestle-Aland text rejects: 99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times 90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times. When the Received Greek text from which the King James Version was translated varies from the Nestle-Aland Greek text from which modern Bible versions come (NIV, LSB, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NLT, etc.), the TR usually follows by far the greater number of Greek manuscripts. When they differ, the Textus Receptus receives support from: 90% of Greek manuscripts or more 42 times 95% of Greek manuscripts or more 40 times 99% of Greek manuscripts or more: 18 times 99%+ of Greek manuscripts: 11 times Furthermore, an examination of Dr. Reuben Swanson's New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: John, as well as his other volumes in this series (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians), shows that there are huge numbers of short sections of Greek text where no manuscript on earth reads exactly like the printed United Bible Society Textus Rejectus. For slightly larger sections of text, thousands of passages do not look like any extant manuscript. By contrast, the Received Text is identical to large numbers of Greek MSS in verse after verse, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, book after book. Eberhard Nestle himself (of NESTLE – Aland fame) admitted: “The text of our present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact, it is a text that never really existed at all.” Nestle himself, of Nestle-Aland fame, admits that the Textus Rejectus type of Greek text is a “patchwork,” “a text that NEVER REALLY EXISTED AT ALL”! The Received Text is very similar to all the three Majority Text editions in John 13: TR differs from Wilbur Pickering: 15 letters in 6 words TR agrees with WP in 662/668 words = 99.1% of words TR agrees with WP in 3,008/3,023 letters = 99.5% of letters TR differs from Hodges-Farstad: 9 letters in 3 words TR agrees with HF in 665/668 words = 99.6% of words TR agrees with HF in 3,014/3,023 letters = 99.7% of letters TR differs from Robinson-Pierpont: 9 letters in 3 words TR agrees with RP in 665/668 words = 99.6% of words TR agrees with RP in 3,014/3,023 letters = 99.7% of letters The printed Majority Text editions are very similar to the Received Text in John 13. Where they differ, the Textus Receptus follows the absolute majority of Greek manuscripts MORE than any of the so-called modern printed Majority Text editions.

James White asserted that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators" while the King James Version and Textus Receptus are “based upon a handful of manuscripts.” Indeed, James R. White claimed that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.” These claims of Reformed evangelical apologist James White, from his King James Only debate with Thomas Ross, are examined in this debate review and in debate review video #14. Dr. White and Dr. Ross debated the topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations" at the Covenant Reformed Baptist Church of Tullahoma, TN, USA, on February 23, 2023. James White affirmed that the Nestle-Aland Greek Textus Rejectus and modern English Bible versions such as the Legacy Standard Bible are superior to the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible because, he claimed, modern versions and the Nestle or United Bible Society (NA/UBS) Greek text is based upon and utilizes far, far more evidence than the Textus Receptus is based upon. However, the Received Text looks far more like the Greek text that is found in the large majority of Greek manuscripts than the Nestle-Aland text, which, in truth, is based upon a handful of manuscripts, such as Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), or too often upon no manuscripts at all. Were Dr. White consistent with his own argument, he would need to acknowledge that the Received Text is superior to the modern NA/UBS text, and modern English versions based on that minority text are inferior to the TR. Near the end of the debate, answering the audience question “Of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts available, how many manuscripts is the NA28 based on?” James White answered: “The NA28 will use all of them,” even though the NA28 editors did not even look one time at the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, much less “use” “all” of them. One could easily get the very misleading impression from Dr. White’s answers that the Textus Rejectus is based upon the majority of Greek manuscripts and the Textus Receptus is a minority text, but this is a radically inaccurate presentation of the evidence The impression White is conveying here is exactly wrong, as in the overwhelming majority of cases where the KJV and the Received Text differ from modern versions and the Nestle-Aland text, the Nestle-Aland text follows a tiny minority of Greek manuscripts while the Received Text and the KJV follow the overwhelming majority. Someone who believes that we should follow “far, far more manuscript evidence” instead of “a handful of manuscripts” will necessarily view the LSB and modern versions based on the Nestle Aland Greek text as inferior to the KJV and the Textus Receptus. When White attacks the KJV and says we should follow “far, far more manuscript evidence” instead of “a handful of manuscripts,” the conclusion will necessarily follow that the KJV and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the modern versions based upon it. White’s statement about the LSB and Nestle-Aland Greek text editors and translators having “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament” is self-evidently impossible. Among other manuscripts that are now lost or unknown, Erasmus used miniscule 2, written in the 1100s AD, for his 1516 edition as well as being aware of readings in the fourth century codex Vaticanus (and refusing to place them into the printed text, since it is inferior to the Received Text manuscripts); miniscule 2817, copied in the 1000s AD, was also used. Stephanus’ 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus of 1550 demonstrates awareness of the fifth century codex D and codices 398 and 82, from the 900s AD. If modern version editors have access to manuscripts 1800 years older than the ones Stephanus or Erasmus were using or obtained readings from, then they would have access to NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts written in the days of Moses, the 15th century BC, moving back from the date of Vaticanus. If White just forgot that Erasmus and Stephanus discussed readings in manuscripts from the 300s and 400s like codices B and D, and was simply speaking about the miniscules they used, going back 1800 years before the times of codices 82 and 398 would land us around 900 B. C.—very early New Testament manuscripts, to be sure. On the lower end of James White’s assertion, if we forget about the ancient uncials the Christians of the Reformation era had access to and consider only the miniscules, going back 1,200 years before codices 82 or 398, or Erasmus’ manuscripts 2 or 2817, we would still find ourselves centuries before the times of Christ. White's claims are simply and egregiously wrong.

John 3:16 sung in the Koine Greek language of the New Testament! Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη της καινης διαθήκης! "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) Ουτω γαρ ηγαπησεν ο Θεος τον κοσμον, ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν, ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται, αλλ’ εχη ζωην αιωνιον. (Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα) The Bible verse John 3:16 is sung in Greek to the tune of Old 100th. The exact words of John 3:16 in the Greek New Testament are sung with the sole addition of "Allelujah!" (Αλληλουια) at the end. Erasmian pronunciation is employed in the song. The song an excerpt from the first year college or seminary Greek course taught by Dr. Thomas Ross and available at the faithsaves.net website in the "college courses" section, or on the KJB1611 YouTube channel, or on the KJBBIBLE1611 Rumble channel. The class is taught from the Biblical perspective of a Biblical Baptist separatist who, based on the promises of Scripture, recognizes both the verbal, plenary inspiration and the verbal, plenary preservation of the holy Scriptures, and consequently holds to the Received Text or Textus Receptus and, in English, to the Authorized, King James Version of the Bible (TR / KJV Only). By singing Scripture in Greek utilizing reverent music, God's people will: 1.) Glorify God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by singing back to Him His infallible Word. 2.) Obey the commands of Scripture to memorize and meditate upon His Word, and grow in love for Him as they behold the glory of the God of the gospel in John 3:16. 3.) Students of New Testament Greek will improve their comprehension and pronunciation of the Greek language. Soli Deo Gloria!

Class session 1 in a brief course on archaeological and historical evidence for the New Testament examines the authorship and date of the Gospel of Matthew. Much of the material comes from the study on evidence for the New Testament at https://faithsaves.net/archaeology-new-testament/. The Gospel of Matthew was written by one of Jesus Christ’s Apostles named Matthew (Matthew 9:9). Matthew wrote his Gospel c. AD 40, that is, very shortly after Christ’s death and resurrection in AD 33. In accordance with the Jewish heritage of both Christ’s earliest followers and their earliest evangelistic outreach (Acts 1-7), Matthew’s Gospel, likely composed in Jerusalem, emphasizes the Lord Jesus’s character as the Messianic “King of the Jews” (Matthew 2:2; 21:5; 27:29, 37, 42; 28:18-20) predicted in the Old Testament. Matthew’s authorship of the gospel bearing his name, and its early date, receives overwhelming support from the extant historical sources. The ancient testimony to Matthew’s authorship of his gospel is unanimous; attribution of this gospel to Matthew the apostle goes back to our earliest surviving patristic testimonies, and there is no evidence that any other author was ever proposed. As far back as we can trace it, and from the earliest manuscript attributions that have survived, it is always the Gospel kata Matthaion [according to Matthew]. Papias (born c. AD 60), who had direct contact with eyewitnesses of the Lord Jesus’ earthly ministry, who wrote around the end of the first century while the Apostle John was still alive, and of whom the earliest extant historical testimony indicates personally having heard the Apostle John preach, declared in his five-volume Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord: “Matthew ... composed the gospel.” This witness to Matthew’s authorship is confirmed by the unanimous voice of other testimonies: Irenaeus: “Matthew also issued a written gospel.” Origen: “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven ... the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism.” Eusebius: “Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing ... and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.” Jerome: “Matthew, the tax collector, who is also named Levi [cf. Luke 5:27] ... published a Gospel in Judea ... chiefly for the sake of those from the Jews who had believed in Jesus[.]” The Matthew who occupies a place in all the lists of the Apostles in the NT is the only person who has ever been regarded as the writer of the Gospel which bears this name. Only in the eighteenth century A. D. did anti-Bible skeptics begin to question Matthew’s authorship. Alongside the powerful case for the authorship by the Apostle Matthew of the gospel bearing his name, an early date for the gospel receives powerful confirmation. The Biblical book of James, written c. AD 45, shows a knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel and contains over thirty-five parallel passages with Matthew’s Gospel. Hence, if James was written around AD 45, then Matthew’s Gospel had to be written earlier. From the middle to late first century, the earliest extant post-Biblical writings of Christendom such as the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the Didache contain quotations from and allusions to Matthew as Scripture, clearly evidencing the existence of the Gospel by that time. The internal evidence within Matthew support a date after the resurrection of Christ in AD 33, but by no means later than AD 70—the temple and city of Jerusalem, which were destroyed by Rome in AD 70, were still standing when the Gospel was composed (Matthew 5:23-25; 17:24-27; 23:2-3, 16-22). Indeed, the language of Matthew suggests that the twelve apostles were all still alive when he wrote, dating the Gospel before the martyrdom of James in AD 42. The external evidence points specifically to c. AD 40. Many high quality Greek manuscripts record a very ancient tradition that Matthew was published eight years after the ascension of Christ, that is, in AD 41. Eusebius in his historical Chronicon or Chronicle placed the writing of Matthew in AD 41. Cosimas of Alexandria dated it very shortly after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, that is, c. AD 35. Subsequent writers on the subject such as Theophylact date the gospel between c. AD 38-41. A comprehensive study of all the external evidence demonstrates that “there is no trace of a tradition that dates the gospel [as late as] the last decades of the first century”—a date very shortly after the time of the events recorded in the gospels receives universal testimony. Matthew, wrote his eyewitness account of the life of Christ c. AD 40, only a handful of years after the events he recounts took place.

Dr. James White and Dr. Thomas Ross had a King James Only, perfect preservation of Scripture, or Confessional Bibliology debate on the topic: "The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA [United Bible Society / Nestle-Aland] text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR - based [Textus Receptus - based] Bible translations.” In the debate, James R. White claimed that the linguistic level of the Authorized, King James Bible is too difficult. He made the same claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Furthermore, White argued that the level of English in the KJV contradicted the expressed statements in the “Translators to the Reader” about vernacular translation, so modern English versions are superior to the King James Bible. Dr. White said: "“translations should be in the common language ... the idea of having a translation that is not in the language of the people … is the exact opposite of the perspective that [the KJV translators] had.” Indeed, White claimed: "One of the most eloquent arguments against KJV Onlyism is provided, ironically enough, by the translators themselves.” Are Dr. White's claims valid? This twelfth debate review video completes an examination of the KJV's Translators to the Reader, examining James White's final claims about this source in his case against King James Onlyism. James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is AGAINST translating the Bible into other languages. James quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Of course, White provides no citation of any KJV-Only or Confessional Bibliology advocate who denies that the KJV built upon the good translation work of earlier English Textus Receptus-based versions. James goes on to claim that the “The translators also had a very different view of the use of the Bible’s Greek and Hebrew texts” than do people in the KJV-Only movement. White writes: “KJV Only advocates should note Rainolds’ [a Puritan who was one of the KJV translators] own words, wherein he urged study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” However, the large majority of KJV-Only Christians do NOT follow the foolishness of radicals like Mrs. Gail Riplinger who are against studying Hebrew and Greek. White never explains why what the KJV translators said here is different in any way, much less “very different,” from what the large majority of KJV-only Christians believe about the value of Hebrew and Greek. Here again, Brother White has nothing but empty assertion. Sound scholarship proves its claims, rather than merely asserting them. White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another. Denying the translatability of Scripture would be a very odd thing for a KJV-Only person to claim, since the KJV is a translation. James White claims that the KJV translators “used the same sources and methods as modern translators, looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” The quotation Dr. White supplies from the KJV’s preface proves the totally non-controversial fact that the KJV translators looked at ancient sources, commentaries, translations, and so on. Again, James provides no source whatsoever of any KJV-defending institution or even individual that denies one should look at commentaries and the like. Where are his quotations citing leading defenders of the perfect preservation of Scripture who think that looking at a commentary is a sin? Why so many empty assertions backed by no evidence? White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources. James White stated: "I believe very, very, firmly the King James translators would be on my side in this debate ... they would definitely support the thesis that I am putting forward … a startling reality ... [is] that the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate today.” What is actually a startling reality is that Dr. White makes many unsubstantiated assertions.

Is the King James Version of the Bible too hard to understand? In the James White and Thomas Ross KJV vs. LSB King James Only debate Dr. James R. White claimed that the linguistic level of the Authorized, King James Bible is too difficult. He made the same claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Furthermore, White argued that the level of English in the KJV contradicted the expressed statements in the “Translators to the Reader” about vernacular translation, so modern English versions are superior to the King James Bible. Dr. White said: "“translations should be in the common language ... the idea of having a translation that is not in the language of the people … is the exact opposite of the perspective that [the KJV translators] had.” Are Dr. White's claims valid? The KJV's "Translators to the Reader" indicates that they retained "old Ecclesiastical words" not commonly in use. They also said: "[W]e desire that the Scripture may SPEAK LIKE ITSELF ... that it may be UNDERSTOOD even of the very vulgar." Notice that the KJV never said that it was IN the language of the common, the “very vulgar.” It said it wanted the common people to UNDERSTAND it. The KJV rejected the Roman Catholic practice of deliberately making Scripture hard to understand. However, the KJV retained old ecclesiastical words which were not very likely to be used regularly by commoners. It avoided the obscurantism and deliberate difficulty of a Catholicism that wanted to conceal the meaning of Scripture from the people, while also retaining some language that was above the level of ordinary speech for the sake of accuracy and precision. (Consider the KJV's use of thee, thou, thy, and thine for the Hebrew and Greek 2nd person singular personal pronouns, and ye, you, and your only for the 2nd person plural, as an instance of the KJV's prioritizing accuracy over words in common use.) The KJV translators taught that the Bible must not be hidden in Latin, but neither must it be at the lowest level of language currently spoken. It must be understood by the commoner, but its own linguistic level is at the level of the original Hebrew and Greek text-Scripture must "speak like itself." What type of English does the King James Version use? The KJV is not Old English like Beowulf, nor Middle English like Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, but Modern English. Early Modern English, yes-but Modern English. Indeed, the translation of the King James Bible marks the beginning of Modern English, according to scholars of the English language: Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100 Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200 Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300 Late Middle English 1300-1400 Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611 Modern English 1611-onward The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus--congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. The New Testament is not written IN the language of the “very vulgar,” but is CAN be UNDERSTOOD by the common man who puts in a little effort. The common man did NOT speak in sentences like Ephesians 1:3-14, but such sentences COULD BE UNDERSTOOD with a little work. What about the Old Testament? Parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew! Both the Hebrew and Greek Bible contain sentences and syntactical structures that are considerably more complex than anything found in the King James Bible. There are also approximately 300 "hard" or archaic words in the King James Version, and around 3,600 "hard" words, hapax legomena, in the original language text-the KJV has less than 10% of the "hard" words in the Greek and Hebrew! If the KJV must be abandoned because it is too hard to understand, it would also be necessary to get rid of the infallible Hebrew and Greek text (were James’ argument valid, which it is not).

Does the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible translate Hebrew and Greek words too many different ways? James White, in the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of the Bible, comparing the KJV and the LSB, made this claim, one also found in Dr. White's book The King James Only Controversy. This video weighs and finds wanting James White's claim. Dr. White argued: [T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Certainly many times one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the word’s actual meaning, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. For example, the Hebrew term for “word” or “thing” is rendered by eighty-four different English words in the KJV. Another, “to turn back,” is rendered in one particular grammatical form by sixty different English words. Those who have tried to follow a particular Hebrew or Greek term’s usage through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the KJV’s inconsistency in translating terms only makes the job that much harder. (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289) James White’s criticism of the KJV is not serious. Students of the Hebrew language are well aware that the Hebrew word dabar, which White criticizes the KJV for translating too many different ways, is a very flexible word which appears 1,454 times in the Old Testament, according to Accordance Bible software. James provides no citation for his claim that the KJV renders dabar in 84 different ways, but immediately before this quotation he refers to Jack P. Lewis The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation. Lewis makes this “eighty four” claim for dabar on page 49 of his book. Regretably, Lewis’s criticisms of the KJV contain many inaccuracies. It is unfortunate that White simply repeats Lewis’s inaccurate numbers. Accordance documents through the word analytics in a search for [KEY H1696] that 63 different translations for dabar exist in the KJV, rather than 84—Jack Lewis is wrong, and James White’s italicized “eighty four” is wrong—and most of the time, by far, dabar is rendered “word,” while the other translations are commonly singular uses for idioms and the like. How does that 63 different translations compare with modern versions? There are 69 different translations for dabar in the ESV, 83 different translations in the ASV, 98 different translations in the NRSV, and 173 different translations in the NET! It is unfortunate that James White appears to have simply relied on an inaccurate figure by Jack Lewis about the KJV, and then never taken the time to compare Lewis’ inaccurate 84 number with the even larger number of translations in many modern versions. (Note also that White also italicizes the claim that the verb shub, “turn,” is translated “sixty” different ways in the KJV—again, following Lewis—while he leaves completely unmentioned that, again, the ESV, ASV, NET, and NRSV all have MORE different translations for “turn” than does the KJV). If the KJV should not be used as one’s primary Bible based on James White’s argument here, how much the more must one not use the ESV, ASV, NRSV, or NET? It is unfortunate that James provides none of that context in his criticism of the KJV here. Regrettably, James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. White's claim that it is very difficult to do word studies in the KJV is also nonsense. Having a word translated more than one way is very helpful for those who do not know the Biblical languages, as they get a much better sense of the semantic domain of the original language word they are studying than if the word was just rendered woodenly with one English word the entire time. The KJV translators explained their rationale for translating words in different ways in the Translators to the Reader: "we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature; we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us." The KJV translators explained that when they used a variety of English words to translate Greek and Hebrew words they followed the practice of God in Scripture-Scripture employs synonyms. If Dr. White wishes to criticize the KJV’s usage, he will need to deal with the KJV preface’s argument that they are following the practice of God Himself in Scripture. James White ignores that argument completely; it remains unacknowledged and unrefuted.

"Bible Version Debate: Are KJV Marginal Notes the Same as Modern Bible Version Textual Footnotes?" is review video #9 of the James White - Thomas Ross King James Only debate. James White had stated that he believed "very, very firmly" that the KJV translators would be "completely" on his side in the debate. The 1611 edition of the King James Bible (Authorized Version) had marginal notes, notes reprinted in the editions of the King James Version published by the pro-Textus Receptus, anti-Textus Rejectus (Nestle-Aland) Trinitarian Bible Society and in some other editions. In the debate, James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Similarly, in his King James Only Controversy, James White claims that when advocates of perfect preservation attack the marginal notes in modern versions, but do not attack those in the KJV, “The inconsistency speaks volumes” (pg. 123). He wrote: Modern Bible translations as a matter of standard practice include TEXTUAL FOOTNOTES to indicate to the reader where the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts contain variants. KJV Only advocates generally dislike such footnotes, feeling that they can confuse the reader and that they are in fact faith-destroying. If a version dares to note that a word, phrase, or verse is questionable, it will be accused of attacking the Word of God by those who define the KJV as the Word of God. Unfortunately, many AV defenders seem unaware that, as noted previously, the King James Version contained 8,422 SUCH MARGINAL READINGS and notes when first published (pg. 264). James White provides no written primary sources—or, indeed, any documentation at all—of any defender of the KJV who denies that the 1611 edition had marginal notes, nor any proof of any kind that “many” of those who write in defense of the KJV are unaware of the marginal notes. These claims are mere undocumented assertions. He makes claims about “many” KJV defenders allegedly ignorant of the marginal notes, and cites none—he provides no sources at all to substantiate his claim. On page 264 of his King James Only Controversy White is discussing doctrine-changing marginal notes in modern versions where facts like Jesus’s Deity and character as the Son of God are attacked, notes like the variant in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Textus Receptus and KJV teach the Deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16 but modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus do not, and Mark 1:1, where the Textus Receptus and the KJV teach that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God, while modern versions based on the Textus Rejectus do not—influencing how one interprets and preaches the entire Gospel of Mark. White claims that the KJV contains “8,422 such marginal readings,” that is, these sorts of doctrine-changing “textual footnotes.” James White's assertions are inaccurate and highly misleading. James White's The King James Only Controversy goes on to assert: One issue arising in the preface that is very relevant to the KJV Only controversy is the inclusion of alternative translations or marginal readings in the KJV. The translators defended their inclusion of these items[.] … When the very preface to the King James Version says “variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,” the KJV Only position thereby is proven utterly ahistorical. That stance requires the translation to be something its own authors never intended it to be. (pgs. 121-122) Modern Bible versions are full of textual notes that support heresy and corrupt Biblical doctrine. For example, in Matthew 27:49 the LSB textual note states: Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood This LSB note denies that Christ died by crucifixion, instead affirming the Savior was killed before the cross by a spear thrust-wicked heresy. NONE of the 1611 KJV's marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Furthermore, the KJV translators were following the following rule: “No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.” There is the greatest difference between the 1611 KJV marginal notes telling Christian readers that the Hebrew of Genesis 11:1 said “the whole earth was of one LIP, and of one speech,” and that “of one lip” is how the Hebrews would say “of one language,” and marginal notes in modern versions attacking orthodox doctrine. Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version does anything like suggest that Christ was killed by a spear thrust rather than dying by crucifixion.

"Prophecy and Archaeology Validate the Bible as the Word of God" is part 2 of a debate between Dan Barker (atheist & president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) and Thomas Ross (Independent Baptist seminary professor, Bible-believing Christian, follower of Jesus Christ) at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. Part 1 is "The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact." (Barker, affirm; Ross, deny). The debate terms and conditions state part two is a "continuation of ... 'The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact' ... with the affirmative and negative propositions reversed. Any and all affirmations and arguments made in that previous debate are very relevant for this debate, as are any and all published or unpublished writings, statements, etc. of the debaters. This debate is one over the character of the vast general body of the Bible. That is, it is a debate over archaeology/prophecy/history, not over creation/evolution and Genesis 1-11, prehistory, geology, or biology. Those would be worthwhile debates, but they are for another time." Also see the Ross debate “The New Testament Picture of Jesus: Is It Accurate?” Now in the affirmative, Thomas Ross expanded his prophecy argument from the book of Daniel in part 1 of the debate, explaining that around 1,400 BC Moses in Deuteronomy predicted specific events that took place hundreds and even thousands of years later. The Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls and other evidence prove that the predictions cannot have been written after the events predicted while refuting the JEDP theory or Documentary Hypothesis. Ezekiel also contains specific predictive prophecies concerning the city of Tyre and the Phoenician empire. Ross also listed 121 Messianic prophecies that cannot have been fulfilled by chance. He gave archaeological evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and for the Old Testament from suzerein-vassal treaties, archaeological sources such as the Merneptah Stele, the Gezer Calendar, the Tel Dan Stele, the Moabite Stone, Hezekiah's tunnel, and so on, validating Israel's exodus, entry into Canaan, Habiru destroying Hazor, the Davidic dynasty, the early use of the Hebrew language, etc. Ross pointed out that Barker had misquoted highly skeptical scholar Israel Finkelstein. Ross also noted that Dan Barker cannot name even one modern Syro-Palestinian archaeologist who agrees with his affirmations that the Old Testament is copied from pagan myths, Moses was copied from pagan sources involving two-syllable names starting with M, pygmies that went up to a mountain to get the law, and so on. Nor could Barker quote a single ancient historian or other ancient historical source that stated Biblical narratives were myths copied from paganism. Moses could not been copied from Persian myths about Mithra since the earliest mithraeum in Palestine dates to AD 361. The list of lawgivers Barker mentioned included figures from places like Iceland, which was settled only in the 9th century AD and is much too far from Israel to impact the Old Testament. Ross asked if Dorothy Murdock was a reliable source for Hebrew history when she did not know the Hebrew alphabet, ignored basic ancient Hebrew and Near Eastern sources, and made claims such as that Moses had horns coming out of his head, connecting this alleged fact to LSD. He pointed out the claim Barker borrowed from Murdock about Moses and African pygmies comes from statements the pygmies made in the 20th century AD after centuries of exposure to Christianity. The pygmies also live 3,500 miles away from Jerusalem, so they could not possibly have been copied by Moses thousands of years earlier and very far away. Murdock had claimed the African pygmies used to have white skin back when they had a worldwide empire and the lost continent of Atlantis existed, but such claims are crazy. Ross concluded that Dan Barker's argument that the Old Testament was "copying and mimicking" pagan myths is impossible. Dan Barker argued that predictive prophecy was impossible and atheism was true because of free will, employing his FANG or Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God. Ross responded that Mr. Barker assumed libertarian free will and appeared unaware of the Biblical view of free will, compatibilism. Barker admitted that claims the Old Testament was directly copying pagan mythology were "stupid," but he said he never made such a claim. Ross responded by directly quoting Mr. Barker's own words from part one of the debate, his published writings, and the FFRF website. Barker viewed these quotations as personal attacks. Dan Barker also claimed that Dorothy Murdock was a serious scholar despite ignoring ancient Near Eastern sources and relying heavily upon Wikipedia. He responded to Ross's allegations of her inaccuracy by stating "brilliant scholars can be raving lunatics." FaithSaves.net has debate transcripts, books referenced in the debate, transcripts, and detailed argument review and analysis.

"The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: Special Providence in the collation of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible" is review video #8 examining the James White - Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations." The statements in the King James Bible's prefatory "Translators to the Reader" on the translators' claim that God's special providential guidance was involved in their translation, as well as their intention that the English-speaking world be King James Only, is examined, along with the fact that the KJV translators indicated that the Roman Catholicism of their day viewed Erasmus as an "enemy," while Protestants viewed Erasmus as a friend. James White loves mentioning (as he did in the King James Only debate with Dr. Ross) that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest when he edited the first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516, before the Reformation started. Dr. White very rarely points out that in 1516, as it was before the Reformation, 99% of people in Europe were Roman Catholics, so of course Erasmus was a Roman Catholic. Nor does James White often call Luther, Wycliffe, Huss, the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier, Zwingli, or William Tyndale a Roman Catholic priest, although all were, nor does White often remind his readers that Calvin received the Roman Catholic tonsure; only Erasmus is regularly associated by White with the Catholic priesthood. One should not be surprised that Roman Catholicism generally viewed Erasmus as an "enemy," while Protestants viewed him as a friend, since Erasmus wrote a book called Julius Excluded From Heaven (Iulius Exclusus), a best-seller about how the Pope was excluded from heaven; he declared that “the Popes now are the vickares of Iulius Caesar, of Alexander the great, of Croesus, and of Xerxes, not of Christ nor of Peter"; and all of Erasmus’ books were put on the index of forbidden reading by the Roman Catholic religion. Nearly all of the leaders of the Reformed communities had been disciples of Erasmus, who favored a moderate middle way of reform. Truly, “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched.” James White claimed that that the KJV preface taught that “they were in no way, shape, or form, saying that the translations that came before theirs were inferior … that’s just not what they believed.” White’s claim here is exactly the opposite of what the preface actually says. The KJV translators viewed their version as a superior and the “principal” translation, not to be “excepted against.” In line with the Hampton Court Conference, the very purpose for the translation of the Authorized Version was that there should be “one uniform translation” to which the “whole Church” was to be “bound, and none other.” That is, they created the KJV with the very purpose of making the English-speaking world of that day King James Only! The KJV translators did NOT claim that they were translating under the kind of control of the Holy Spirit possessed by the Apostles and prophets. However, they DID claim that "the good hand of the Lord" was "upon" them, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God. Likewise, classical Baptist and Protestant confessional statements ascribe preservation neither merely to the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by "his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages" (1689 London Baptist Confession). The KJV translators employed this same language of special providence in connection with their work of translation. God’s working in providence is NOT imperfect and does NOT necessarily involve errors. God’s “singular care and providence” are well able to guarantee His people a “pure” Word “in all ages” without a perpetual miracle. In the book of Esther the name “Jehovah” and the word "God" do not appear, but Jehovah’s preservation of His people in accordance with His covenantal promises to Abraham and Moses is a key theme. God can providentially and perfectly control, time, and orchestrate events for the preservation of His Word without any specific miracle taking place. Providential preservation does not mean imperfect preservation. Claiming that God’s special providence, His singular care, His “good hand,” was involved in the collation of the printed Textus Receptus is expected Biblically, is affirmed confessionally, and is rational historically. Expecting that God’s good hand, His singular care and providence, were involved in the translation of what God knew would be the standard English Bible for 400 years in what was going to become the world language is not contradicted by the translators, but is, on the contrary, exactly what they themselves claimed for their own translation.

"The Old Testament is Mainly Fiction, not Fact," is part 1 of a debate at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater between Dan Barker (atheist & president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation or FFRF) and Thomas Ross (Independent Baptist seminary professor, Bible-believing Christian, and follower of Jesus Christ). Part 2 is "Prophecy and Archaeology Validate the Bible as the Word of God.” FaithSaves.net contains the book on Daniel referenced, debate transcripts, and a review of arguments made. The debate terms stated the discussion was over: “[T]he fictional or factual character of the vast general body of the Old Testament . . . over history/prophecy/archaeology, not over creation/evolution and Genesis 1-11, prehistory, geology, or biology. Those would be worthwhile debates but they are for another time.” Note also Dr. Ross’s debates “The New Testament Picture of Jesus: Is it Accurate?” with Shabir Ally and "Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament?" with Benjamin Maisonet, president of the atheist organization PATAS. Dan Barker has been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, and other leading atheists. Thomas Ross is a leading independent Baptist scholar. In part one of the debate, Barker attacked God as immoral. Promoting his book God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, Barker said the Old Testament was filicidal, condoning human sacrifice of one's children. He cited miracles in Genesis 1-11 and Baalam's talking donkey, saying donkeys do not have vocal cords so God could not make the animal speak. Barker said there is no archaeological or literary evidence for any of the stories in the Old Testament; rather, it contains anachronisms such as domesticated camels. He claimed "Israel Finkenstein" [sic] had proved that "none of these stories has any archaeological evidence at all." Rather, the Israelites were “copying and mimicking stories” from “ancient mythology.” Relying on Dorothy Milne Murdock's book Did Moses Exist? Dan Barker argued for a mythicist view of the Old Testament, claiming that it fit into the genre of historical fiction. Following Murdock (Acharya S), Barker argued that there were at least 50 or 60 other law givers and reformers in that time with two-syllable names starting with the letter M, from Manis in Phrygia, to Mannus in Germany, to Manu in India, Minos in Crete, Menes and Monius in Egypt, and Musaeus in Greece. Pagan myths and ancient mythology had people cross seas, innocent people dying, people wandering in a wilderness, and laws from the top of a mountain. Even Egyptian pygmies had a mountaintop myth of going up to get the law from their God. All of these "ancient pagan myths of the time" were sources for the legend of Moses. What is more, a myth of the Persian god Mithra explain the Pentateuch's statement that water came out from a rock when Moses struck it. Such mythicism is a "good naturalistic explanation" for the Old Testament. (See part 2 of the debate and the review at FaithSaves for more on claimed pagan sources.) Ross did not respond extensively to Dan Barker's arguments from Genesis 1-11 and morality based on the debate terms and conditions. He responded extensively to the pagan parallelism argument in part 2 of their debate. He responded to the claim of the non-existence of domesticated camels by supplying evidence for them from Ur, Byblos, Syria, Rifeh and Pi-Ramesses in Egypt, and Arabia. He pointed out that Barker's main objection to the Bible is rebellion, not dispassionate intellectual reasoning. Barker proclaimed: "Even if Jesus ... rose from the dead [and] there’s a God [and] I don’t deny any of that ... does NOT mean that he is my Lord. ... I will go happily to hell. It would be worse of a hell for me to bow down before a Lord ... regardless of the ... historicity issue. ... Even if I agreed 100%, I would still reject that Being as a Lord of my life ... to live and enjoy ... life unshackled from the demands ... [of a] Lord. ... I cannot accept Jesus as Lord. ... To me, I think that’s more important than all this historicity stuff, [in] which ... I might be wrong." Ross argued that the Bible contains predictive prophecy, validating that it was God's Word. As God's Word, it must be historically accurate. He developed his case in both parts of the debate. In part 1, he claimed the book of Daniel contained many extremely specific prophecies that could not have been made by chance, such as many details about the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, details about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the exact year and day Christ presented Himself as the Messiah in the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9, and others. Daniel 11 alone has over 135 specific predictions. Barker responded that "when Daniel writes, he doesn't mention any names," and utilizing 360 day years invalidated the prediction of Christ. Please watch part 2 and read the debate review at FaithSaves!

Earlier debate review videos have examined what the Dedicatory Epistle said about the KJV in relation to earlier English Bibles. What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles? Were the King James Version translators King James Only? Find out in this debate review, part 7, of the debate between Dr. White and Dr. Ross on: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations"! It is important to keep in mind the historical context here. At this point in the preface the translators are disagreeing with Roman Catholics who thought it was better to not translate the Bible at all, but leave it only in Latin. The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, such as the Tyndale, the Geneva, the Bishops’ Bible, and so forth. There are very few advocates of KJV-Onlyism or Confessional Bibliology who would not agree completely with these sentiments. They then stated: Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do ENDEAVOUR TO MAKE THAT BETTER WHICH THEY LEFT SO GOOD; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us. Note that the KJV translators say that they are very thankful for earlier English versions, but that, building upon their foundation, the KJV is “better.” Saying that the KJV is “better” than the other English versions, even other Textus-Receptus based Bibles, is very, very different from James White’s argument that the KJV preface shows that the KJV translators would have been fine with Textus Rejectus-based English versions that change many crucial doctrinal passages and are based on a very different, unbelieving textual philosophy. What the KJV translators say about earlier English Bibles does not at all lead to James White’s conclusion. Discussing the Latin Vulgate, they go on to say that the Vulgate is decidedly inferior to any of the English Textus Receptus based versions. So the Latin-although they were thankful the Bible was translated into that language in Jerome’s day when Latin actually was a vulgar or common tongue spoken by people in general-was “far” worse than any of the Protestant, Textus Receptus based versions. Thus, the KJV preface was very far from placing all translations on the same level, or from having a careless attitude about the purity and preservation of the underlying language text. If they viewed the KJV as the best and most accurate of all the English versions, while the worst of the purely Textus Receptus based English versions was “far” better than the Latin Vulgate, although the Vulgate was quite a literal translation of a mainly Byzantine text (with some exceptions, such as in 1 Timothy 3:16), the KJV translators would have viewed modern English version that deviate from the Textus Receptus as FAR, FAR WORSE than their own translation, FAR, FAR WORSE than the earlier English Bibles, and far worse than the Latin Vulgate. The KJV preface provides no support at all for Brother White’s contention that the KJV translators would have preferred Textus Rejectus based English versions. On the contrary, they clearly would have viewed them as indubitably and strongly inferior! When they speak positively about other translations, they are speaking about the currently extant English Bibles, every single one of which was based on the Textus Receptus, was made by people who believed in verbal inspiration, in justification by faith alone, and other crucial doctrines of Christianity, and based on a Greek text also edited by those who did the same—Stephanus and Beza. The KJV translators specifically speak of translations made by “men of our profession.” What profession was that? Verbal inspiration and preservation, as seen earlier in the KJV preface. Strong anti-Catholicism that would be indignant at someone like the Nestle-Aland editor Carlo Martini, a Roman Catholic cardinal committed to the Council of Trent, a right hand man of the Man of Sin, being on the Greek Testament editorial committee. Justification by grace alone through faith alone based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. “Men of our profession” would not support a Socinian or an Arian Bible, and so would rule out the Unitarian influence upon the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament of 1881.

Part six in this series of debate review videos by Thomas Ross of the arguments made by both sides in the James White / Thomas Ross King James Version Only debate reviews James White's claim that the King James Version translators would prefer modern versions to the King James Bible in in relation to what the "Translators to the Reader" says about the LXX or Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. The statements in the KJV's "The Translators to the Reader" concerning the LXX fit exactly with what Thomas Ross said about the Septuagint in the debate, and exactly contradict James White's claims. Dr. White claimed that "the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate” (10:00-12:00). However: 1.) The KJV preface argues, from Apostolic practice, for not altering or amending even translations that have serious issues, based on the examples of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles. According to the KJV translators, even if modern translators know more about the Hebrew and Greek words for various flowers and rocks than did the KJV translators, the conclusion that Christians should give up the KJV for the LSB would not follow. 2.) James White had argued in the debate that the New Testament rejects the testimony of the Hebrew text in passages such as Hebrews 8:9 and Hebrews 10:5 to follow the LXX against the Hebrew text, contradicting Christ’s promise of Matthew 5:18. The allegation of White that the New Testament quotes the LXX even when the Septuagint mistranslates the Hebrew is important enough for a separate debate review video. Note at this point, however, that the KJV translators and the preface to the KJV took exactly the same position as Thomas Ross, and specifically repudiate what White argued. The KJV preface said that the Apostles had the Hebrew text as their final authority and rejected the LXX to follow the Hebrew whenever the two differed. So how does this fact work with Brother White’s astonishing claim that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in our debate, based on the KJV preface? The KJV "Translators to the Reader" notes: "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty[.] …They [the LXX translators] did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it: WHICH MADE THE APOSTLES TO LEAVE THEM MANY TIMES, WHEN THEY LEFT THE HEBREW, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Is there any reason to deny that the Apostles used the LXX when it was accurate? There is no reason believers in perfect preservation should deny this. But note that the KJV translators took the same position as Thomas Ross and KJV-Only perfect preservationists on this issue—they recognized that the Apostles could have quoted the LXX when it was an accurate translation of the Hebrew, but whenever the LXX differed from the Hebrew, Hebrew was always the authority. The Apostles never quoted the LXX when it mistranslated the Hebrew. That is what Scripture teaches in Matthew 5:18, it is what the KJV translators believed as documented in the preface, and it is what Dr. Ross argued for in the debate, while Dr. White argued for exactly the opposite, and by thinking he had a “gotcha” moment on me, gave reason to question whether he had ever seriously grappled with the case against what he was arguing. Discussing the multiplicity of ancient Latin translations-when Latin was actually a vernacular language-the KJV translators said the vernacular “translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite.” Does that not sound exactly like the situation with modern English Bible versions? Are there not far more modern English Bible versions today than there were Latin translations in Augustine’s day? Exactly what James White defends is condemned by the KJV translators. According to the KJV translators, it is possible to have “translations … too many” in one language. Of course, this also fits perfectly with their expressed intention for the KJV to be THE church Bible, the only Bible used in church, and the Bible which would supersede all others in English as the best English version. Also, the Latin Vulgate is considerably closer to the Textus Receptus than it is to the modern Nestle-Aland text (inaccurate claims by the Seventh Day Adventist cultist Benjamin Wilkinson to the contrary notwithstanding). The Latin Vulgate contains Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37 & 1 John 5:7. Houghton’s standard introduction to the Latin New Testament, by Oxford University Press, states: “[T]he Vulgate … [is] clos[e] to the later standard (koine or Byzantine text) … It was once thought that Jerome’s Greek text was similar to Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but this is no longer the case.”

This video is part five of a series of debate review videos by Thomas Ross of the arguments made by both sides in the James White / Thomas Ross King James Version Only debate. James White claimed that (if they were alive today) the King James Version translators would prefer the Legacy Standard Bible to the King James Bible. In both the live debate and his book The King James Only Controversy, James White claimed that the "Translators to the Reader" prefatory material in the KJV proved that the KJV translators would prefer modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus to their own translation based on the Textus Receptus. Part five continues to examine the "Translators to the Reader," here in relation to creationism. The King James Version is a superior Bible for those committed to the Biblical truth of creationism and a young earth. The KJV translators’ confident certainty in a young earth and in creation rather than evolution are good and necessary consequences that flow from their literal interpretation of Genesis. Hence, the KJV translators (correctly) believed that Hebrew was the first language and the language spoken by Adam and before Babel. (How many translators of the Old Testament today agree with the KJV translators on this? Will it not impact your view of the translation of the Old Testament if you think Hebrew is a late product of a long process of evolution from other languages or if you think it was the first language spoken, the language of Adam and Eve, with other languages developing from Hebrew?) Thus, the "Translators to the Reader" refers to "Hebrew the ancientest ... tongue." They believed Hebrew was the original language spoken by Adam and Eve and all men before the Tower of Babel. As not only Baptist separatist scholars, but also evangelical, non-KJV-Only, non-separatist scholars with the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis have pointed out, the KJV is stronger on creationism; every one of the KJV translators was a young earth creationist, as was every editor of every edition of the Textus Receptus. In contrast, modern versions are influenced by the evolutionary lies that pervade modern culture. Consider, for example, the testimony of Dr. Henry Morris, who is widely recognized as a key founder of the modern creation science movement, and was the president of ICR (the Institute for Creation Research). Dr. Morris wrote: "In this day of rapid change, when many Christians have suddenly started using one of the many modern English translations of the Bible (NASB, NIV, NEB, NRSV, NKJV, etc.), abandoning the long-used King James Version read and loved by English-speaking people of all ages and walks of life for over ten generations, it may be appropriate to review a few of the reasons why many creationists, including this writer, still prefer to use the latter. … One reason is that all the fifty or more translators who developed the King James Bible were godly men who believed strongly in the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture and who, therefore, believed in the literal historicity of Genesis, with its record of six-day Creation and the worldwide flood. This has not been true of many who have been involved in producing the modern versions. … The two men most responsible for modern alterations in the New Testament text were B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. … Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. … In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Are we to believe that God would entrust the preservation of His eternal Word to men such as these? Would He not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible? I believe, therefore, after studying, teaching, and loving the Bible for over 55 years, that Christians – especially creationists! – need to hang on to their old King James Bibles as long as they live. God has uniquely blessed it [the KJV] ... more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together. The King James Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and (I strongly believe) the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns. … Many other Bible-believing creationist Christians also prefer to use the King James … I, as well as many others, will continue to use the time- tested King James Bible in our writing and speaking." Creationists should use only the King James Version.

James White and Thomas Ross debated: “The Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text (the Greek New Testament printed by the United Bible Society, which is also the text of the Nestle-Aland), is superior to the KJV (King James Version), as a representative of TR-based (Textus Receptus or Received Text based) Bible translations.” This King James Only or King James Version Only (KJVO) or Confessional Bibliology debate took place on February 18, 2023. This video is part four of a series of debate review videos by Thomas Ross of the arguments made by both sides of the debate. James White's first argument in this King James Only debate was that (if they were alive today) the King James Version translators would prefer the Legacy Standard Bible to the King James Bible. In both the live debate and his book The King James Only Controversy, James White claimed that the "Translators to the Reader" prefatory material in the KJV proved that the KJV translators would prefer modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus to their own translation based on the Textus Receptus. The last video examined the Epistle Dedicatory of the KJV. “The Translators to the Reader” now comes under examination. This is the only material that James White references in The King James Only Controversy. No written material by Dr. White qualifies his astonishing claim that the KJV translators would prefer modern Textus Rejectus-based modern versions to their own translation by admitting that the KJV translators claimed that their version was better than all other English versions in the Epistle Dedicatory. James White has never acknowledged this fact in any of his written material, his KJV debates, his KJV interviews, or (to Thomas Ross' knowledge) his Dividing Line programs. It is completely unacknowledged in his published writings and in his KJV debates. So does the Translators to the Reader section contradict the claims in the Epistle Dedicatory? Does the Translators to the Reader section say something like: “It doesn’t matter what Greek text the Bible is translated from; it is great if in a church service if twenty people they have twenty different Bible versions, some literal, some non-literal, with different verses included and excluded and different doctrines taught or not taught in passages from Mark 16:9-20 to 1 Timothy 3:16 to the Model Prayer in Matthew 6 and Luke 11”? No-certainly not! The Translators to the Reader section of the KJV introductory material makes statements about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. The KJV translators viewed the Scriptures that were available to them, in their hands to study and to use, as “perfect,” indeed, “so full and so perfect.” That is, the perfection of Scripture was not limited to long-lost autographs, but the texts that they themselves could love and reverently obey, the available texts of Scripture, were “perfect.” Being “perfect” is A PRESENT QUALITY of Scripture—what was AVAILABLE AND IN USE was “perfect.” What was “so perfect” was the AVAILABLE text that they were to study themselves, and which past ages had studied—the available, in-use text was perfect, according to the KJV translators. This is a statement of the preservation of Scripture that would delight Christians who are KJV-only or who support Confessional Bibliology but would not be especially appreciated by very large percentages of advocates of modern versions. The preface to the KJV also specifies that John 5:39 in the KJV, an important doctrinal text, correctly contains the imperative "search" the Scriptures rather than (as in the LSB, NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NRSV) the indicative "You search." In summary, the KJV translators affirm the verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of Scripture—the Bibliology of King James Onlyism and of Confessional Bibliology, rejected by the system of belief that gave us the modern Nestle-Aland Greek text and the English versions based upon it. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.

James White & Thomas Ross debated the topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text (the Greek New Testament printed by the United Bible Society, which is also the text of the Nestle-Aland), is superior to the KJV (King James Version), as a representative of TR-based (Textus Receptus or Received Text based) Bible translations.” This King James Only or King James Version Only (KJVO) or Confessional Bibliology debate took place on February 18, 2023. This video is part three of a series of debate review videos by Thomas Ross of the arguments made by both sides of the debate. James White's first argument in this King James Only debate was that (if they were alive today) the King James Version translators would prefer the Legacy Standard Bible to the King James Bible. James White argued: “[T]he Legacy Standard Bible is superior to the King James Version and I believe very, very, firmly the King James translators would be on my side in this debate; I believe that they would definitely support the thesis that I am putting forward … I wish to point out a startling reality. I believe firmly that the King James translators would be completely on my side in the debate today.” (10:00-12:00). He reiterated at the end of the debate that the perfect preservationist, Textus Receptus-based KJVO viewpoint defended by Thomas Ross was wrong. The “King James translators would never adopt the perspective that has been presented this evening” (2:50:00-2:51:00). Similarly, James White's The King James Only Controversy argues: "one of the most eloquent arguments against KJV Onlyism is provided, ironically enough, by the translators themselves … from the preface to the 1611 KJV" (pgs. 117-118). Should we believe that the King James Version translators would be “very, very firmly” against their own Textus Receptus-based translation, instead adopting the Nestle-Aland text while viewing the translation philosophy and choices of the Legacy Standard Bible as so superior that they would be “completely” on James White’s side in the debate? What evidence did James White give in the debate for these astonishing affirmations? He did NOT quote or reference any writing, disputation, sermon, or other primary source from any specific King James translator, either in the debate or in his book, The King James Only Controversy. Not only are no writings of any KJV translator quoted anywhere in the hundreds of pages of his book, but not even one book by any KJV translator appears in his bibliography. James White has indicated in writing on multiple occasions that he only spent a few months writing his King James Only Controversy, so perhaps the great haste with which his book was written explains his failure to interact seriously, or even interact at all, with the writings of the KJV translators before making his claims about what they would believe were they alive today. It is unfortunate, however, that in the decades since The King James Only Controversy was published that James White has not taken the time to make sure that what he is claiming is historically accurate, and that even in this debate he continued to make claims about the King James translators that are simply highly problematic. What evidence did James give for his “very, very fir[m]” belief that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate? Both in the debate, and in his King James Only Controversy, the only source that is cited in order to prove James’ astonishing claim about the KJV translators is the prefatory material to the KJV. So what can we learn from the preface to the KJV—does it prove White’s claim that the KJV translators would reject their own Greek text and English translation today to adopt a Greek and English text that attacks inerrancy, the resurrection appearances in Mark, etc.? The 1611 King James Versions' Epistle Dedicatory, however, completely contradicts the claims of James White. The translators said that their English Bible was better than all other English versions. They referred to the KJV as “one more exact Translation,” a more accurate version than the previous Bibles in English. Having their better translation was not a matter of indifference, but one of great “importance.” They thought their version was better, and that it was important that everyone recognize and act on that fact. So do KJV-Only advocates think today—they agree completely with what the KJV translators say in the Epistle Dedicatory on this issue. James White himself concedes the incredible scholarship of the KJV translators in his King James Only Controversy. He wrote: "The men who worked on the AV translation nearly four hundred years ago were great scholars. No one can possibly dispute this. … [T]he great scholars who labored upon the AV … by and large the group encompassed some of the finest scholars the world has ever seen." (pgs. 115, 278, 334).

"How the Triune God makes His people holy, or Christian Holiness or Sanctification—A Summary from Eternity Past to the Eternal State” Preached: Thomas Ross, 2020 Word of Truth Conference, Bethel Baptist Church, El Sobrante, CA. Text: John 17:11-19: “Holy Father … Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. … [F]or their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” Outline: 1.) The holy God 2.) His holy purpose 3.) The holy Mediator—and His holy redemption 4.) The holy people i.) Definitively holy ii.) Progressively holy iii.) Ultimately holy 5.) Are you holy? The message provided an overview of holiness and sanctification. 1.) The holy God The one true God, Jehovah, is ultimately and uniquely the Holy One: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” (Revelation 4:8) “Holy Father” (John 17:11) The Holy Son: “the Holy One and the Just” (Acts 3:14) The Holy Spirit: “the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33) The Old Testament word group is qds: qadesh, qadosh, qodesh, etc. The original idea of the Old Testament verb is “separation, apartness, sacredness, holy, exalted, separate from human infirmity, impurity, and sin." The opposite is being "unholy, common, or profane" (Leviticus 10:10). Jehovah is holy in that He is the transcendently separate One. His Law is also spotlessly holy. 2.) His holy purpose What is holy and what is unholy, what is clean and what is unclean, cannot, must not, be in contact. But both unholiness and holiness can be transmitted (Exodus 30:29-30). So God, as the Holy One whose first action after creating light was dividing or separating light from the darkness, had a holy eternal purpose—for a holy people in a holy creation. The holy God is active not just in destroying the unholy, but in imparting holiness to sinner through the instrumentality of sacrificial death. 3.) The holy Mediator—and His holy redemption How did God create a holy people? John 17, in the context of the rest of John and of the Bible, teaches that in eternity past the Father chose, set apart, consecrated, or severed His people from the mass of humanity and gave them to His Son, who would become true Man, one with them, being like them in all things except sin, and them redeem them through His sacrificial death. On the righteous ground of His sacrificial death, the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son in time as He proceeds eternally from them as from one Principle, would unite them to Christ, make them perfectly holy or just legally through the imputation of the righteousness purchased by the incarnate Mediator’s death and shed blood, make them holy inwardly through their lives by the power of His Spirit, and finally make them in every way holy in a holy resurrection, perfectly holy like the incarnate Son. The holy work of the holy Mediator would purchase and pass holiness to the saints—the holy people (John 17:17-19). 4.) The holy people This holy Mediator, through His holy life which climaxed in His holy offering, sanctified Himself not for His own sake, but for the sake of His people (John 17:19). Through their union with Him, they are likewise sanctified (Hebrews 2:11). The holy Mediator make His people holy A.) Definitively; B.) Progressively; and C.) Ultimately. A.) Definitive sanctification At the moment of regeneration, the now repentant sinner is definitively and once-for-all set apart from sin and consecrated to God. This eternity-determining act is definitive sanctification. This radical transfer requires that sanctification necessarily follows justification and the new birth. Preservation in faith and perseverance in good works inevitably, although not automatically, flow from definitive sanctification. All who are in Christ are “saints”—“holy ones” (1 Corinthians 1:2). B.) Progressive sanctification The new nature granted the elect at the moment of definitive sanctification grows stronger by the grace and strength of the Holy Spirit, through the power of the cross of Christ, in progressive sanctification. Sin's dominion is shattered at the moment of the new birth, and its remnants are progressively eradicated by the Spirit as the new nature grows stronger through grace and gains the victory in its constant war with the flesh, the remnants of indwelling sin (2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14; 10:10, 14). Progressive sanctification is referred to in other Biblical terms. The Holy Spirit quickens, transforms, strengthens, renews, etc. the believer, making him ever more like the Lord Jesus Christ. The new man is renewed, and the sinful flesh is mortified, by the strength of the Holy Spirit. iii.) Ultimate sanctification The new creature is strengthened in progressive sanctification, and the good work continues until the return of Christ, when believers will receive their glorified bodies and be perfectly like Christ, seeing Him as He is-ultimate sanctification, the consummation of glory. 5.) Are You Holy?

Luke 15: The Two Lost, Prodigal Sons! The Younger Repentant - the Elder Son not Repentant - and the Father's Love for Needy Sinners. Luke 15 contains a three-part parable; the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son. The lost sheep, coin, and son represent a sinner who comes to repentance. The two sons appear in: 11 And he said, A certain man had two sons: 12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. 13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. 14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. 15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. 17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, 19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. Who are you like? 1.) Are you like the younger son while in rebellion—are you a unconverted sinner still enjoying his sin, like the careless publicans and sinners who did not want to hear the Lord Jesus? You do not yet feel your want, nor the evils of the far country. You are glad to be there, away from the Father. The Bible calls you a child of wrath, a child of hell. However, you will know what it is to reject the Father one day, and unless you repent, and surrender to the Father with the attitude “Father, I have sinned very greatly against Thee. I am not worthy to be Thy son. I repent—I am willing to be the lowest of your slaves,” you will without any doubt perish in hell forever. 2.) Are you like the younger son after his repentance and conversion? What reasons do you have for gratitude! You can say: “For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell” (Psalm 86:12-13). The Father’s bowels were moved for you in love even while you were in the far country, hating him. He saw you and loved you even when you were afar off. You have now been brought safe into the Father’s house, purchased out of infinite love and at the infinite cost of the blood of He who spoke this parable in the first century, and who understood as no man else ever has, or ever will, what a price was required to redeem the sinner from the far country—the awful cross which Christ spoke of in the precontext to Luke 15 in Luke 14:25-35. 3.) Are you like the elder son—doing a slavish “service” to the Father, but without any love for Him, without any understanding of his heart? Are you an unconverted Pharisee instead of being an unconverted tax collector, or a repentant and converted sinner? If you are, Christ’s invitation is open to you. You still can recognize that, however good you may look on the outside, yet in truth you are not one whit better than those sinners who are living in the far country. You have a far country on your inside, while they have it on the outside—you are no better than they. Receive Christ’s invitation, and be converted.

"The Great Commission: Preach Repentance to Every Nation, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20" is part 3 of a 3 part series on the Great Commission passages (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20). Much of the material is found in the study "The Great Commission in Scripture and History" at the FaithSaves website. The gospel of Luke records another restatement of the Great Commission by the risen Lord Jesus: 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:44-49) The record of the Great Commission in the gospel of John also emphasizes the tremendous responsibility and privilege of the church in preaching the gospel: 19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:19-23) As in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, Christ gives the Great Commission as recorded in Luke’s gospel to the church. The individual believers present in that day would not get to “all nations” (Luke 24:47) to give the glad tidings, but the church, guaranteed perpetuity by Christ, could not only reach them but continue to preach repentance to them until the end of the age. The “ye” who will be “endued with power from on high” in v. 49 when the Father sends His “promise” represents the church of Acts one and two, which Christ, in fulfillment of His promises to send the Comforter (John 14-16), baptized with the Spirit (Acts 1:5), and so set forth as His new institution, replacing the Jerusalem temple, which (as with the tabernacle, and with the future Millennial temple) had received similar miraculous recognition as His place of public worship and service (Exodus 40:34-35, 1 Kings 8:11, Matthew 21:43; cf. Ezekiel 10:18, 43:4-5, 44:4, 48:35, Revelation 21:11, 22-23). When Christ sent the Spirit, the ones who “were all with one accord in one place” (Acts 2:1) were “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:4) and, having received power (Acts 1:8), proceeded to preach repentance and remission of sins (Acts 2:38) as Christ had ordained (Luke 24:47, 49), “beginning at Jerusalem,” and were used by the Lord to produce tremendous conviction and many conversions. The church, clearly already alive and functioning before Pentecost in Acts chapter one, where it held a business meeting to appoint the successor of Judas (Acts 1:15, 23, 26), having now been baptized in the Spirit, had three thousand souls added to her previous membership of at least one hundred and twenty (Acts 2:1, 41). The longevity required to reach “all nations,” the explicit assembly context of Luke 24:47, and the demands of 24:49 all demonstrate that Christ delivered the Great Commission in Luke’s gospel to the church. Christ tells His church in Luke 24:48 that her members “are witnesses of these things.” The KJV word “witness,” martus, meant in Classical Greek “a witness,” and was related to the verb martureo, “to be a witness ... to bear witness to a thing, testify to.” Christ calls every church member to be a witness for Him. In Luke 24:48, every saint present was a martus—the Lord said “ye [2nd person plural] are witnesses.” While the Commission here, as elsewhere, is given to the church, the command “ye shall be witnesses” demonstrates individual responsibility in reaching the local area, “Jerusalem,” nearby regions, “all Judaea, and in Samaria,” and the farthest regions, “unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The church member who fails to witness as commanded in Scripture commits despicable iniquity, violates the trust of the Great Commission, and is guilty of the blood of those who go to Hell because of his rebellion and wickedness (Acts 20:26, Ezekiel 3:18-21; 33:1-9). If the church goes and people believe, their sins are remitted; otherwise they are retained (John 20:19-23).

"The Great Commission: Preach the Gospel to Ever Person and Nation and Baptize Disciples, Mark 16," is part 2 of a 3 part series on the Great Commission passages (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20). Much of the material is found in the study "The Great Commission in Scripture and History" at the FaithSaves website. The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, commanded HIs church to "make disciples" (Matthew 28:19). What are disciples? While some erroneously teach that discipleship isa status that certain believers chose to enter into at some point after their conversion, so that, within the larger class of believers, a smaller, elite group of believers are disciples, the Bible teaches that while there are such things as false believers (cf. John 2:23-3:3; 12:42; Acts 8:13) and false disciples (John 6:60, 66; 12:4), and neither all believers nor all disciples are equally spiritually strong (cf. Acts 14:22; 18:23), the Bible nevertheless equates the categories of believer and disciple, so that all saved people, all believers, are disciples. Generally, a disciple is a learner or follower; “Christ taught his disciples” (Mark 9:31; cf Luke 11:1). A disciple of Christ is one who follows the Lord Jesus and follows or keeps His commandments; that is, “the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them” (Matthew 21:6; cf. 26:19). Scripture thus repeatedly records that Christ’s “disciples follow him” (Mark 6:1; Matthew 8:23; Luke 22:39; John 18:15; 21:20). When does one become a disciple? He becomes a “disciple” at the same moment that he becomes a “Christian”—when he is born again: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26) This passage establishes an equals sign between the categories “disciples” and “Christians.” They are identical categories, fully overlapping. All disciples were called Christians and all Christians were disciples. Furthermore, at Antioch the disciples were called Christians “first” in time, but this designation spread to the rest of the believing community in the same manner. That is, Acts 11:26 teaches that first at Antioch, and from there in the rest of the world where the gospel had penetrated, it was disciples who were called Christians. The equation disciple = Christian was not limited to Antioch—it was universal, just starting first in time at Antioch. Acts 11:26 proves that the category of disciple and Christian are identical. It is crucial that you see this is what you are aiming at as you go into all the world to evangelize or preach the gospel. What does obedience to this command look like? You have obeyed Matthew 28:19 when you have made disciples and are continuing to make disciples. The Commission is fulfilled is when someone who you have spoken to has believed on Christ, has a new nature, is a baptized servant in Christ’s church, and is learning of and following the Lord Jesus Christ; the baptized new convert is being taught “all things whatsoever” Christ commanded (28:20) and passing these truths on to others also. Success is when that person is spiritually mature and is ready himself to make disciples. The Great Commission looks like going into all the world, making people into born-again, baptized followers of and learners of Jesus Christ who are ready to make disciples themselves as part of your church. It looks like you making lots of disciples until it is time to send forth one or more of these disciples to establish a new congregation somewhere else where the process can continue. The gospel of Mark provides further detail about the nature of the Great Commission, and so supplements the record in Matthew’s gospel: 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:14-16) Mark's narrative necessitates that the Commission is a church duty, not one for individuals or the apostles alone. The command of 16:15 is “Go ye,” a second person plural, which necessarily designates the church corporately. No Scriptural record exists where a Great Commission command is given to a solitary person at a post-resurrection appearance; neither Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5), James (1 Corinthians 15:7), or Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8) received the Great Commission-the church did. The precedence of faith to baptism, which evidences that immersion is rightly administered to believers only, divests all paedobaptist bodies from any claim to a stake in the Great Commission. The church to which Christ gave His command only baptized visible saints.