Is the King James Bible Crap - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Is the King James Bible Crap? ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/l_GISprZkIo/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Is the King James Bible Crap?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GISprZkIo) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #bible-translation #textual-criticism #kjv #manuscript-studies > author: Data Over Dogma > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_GISprZkIo > date created: 2024-12-28 14:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Is the King James Bible Crap? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research Johannine Comma manuscript history — 05:23 #textual-criticism - [H2] Compare modern translations' handling of Sheol/Hades/Gehenna — 25:15 #biblical-studies - [H3] Investigate extent of Tyndale's influence on modern translations — 03:45 #translation-history ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Data Over Dogma Patreon](https://patreon.com/dataoverdogma) - [Textus Receptus manuscript tradition](URL) ## 📝 Summary - Biblical scholars Dan McClellan and Dan Beecher examine translation problems in the King James Version - KJV is actually a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, not an original translation from Greek/Hebrew - Key issues include problematic manuscript sources (Textus Receptus), mistranslations of afterlife concepts, and linguistic assumptions - Many translation errors existed for a century before KJV but were perpetuated by its influence - Bottom line: While KJV has beautiful language, modern translations are more accurate due to better manuscripts and scholarship ## 📖 Main Content The King James Version remains influential but contains significant translation issues stemming from limited manuscript access and 17th-century scholarship limitations. The translators worked primarily from the Bishop's Bible (1602 edition), literally scratching out words and writing replacements in margins. Modern textual criticism reveals the KJV perpetuated earlier translation problems while introducing some based on the Textus Receptus source text. Major issues include the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), a Trinitarian proof text absent from early Greek manuscripts but included due to a likely forged manuscript. The translation also conflates distinct Hebrew and Greek afterlife concepts (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna) into the single word "hell," obscuring important theological distinctions. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=0) — [H1] Introduction to KJV "Twisted Scripture" - Key idea: Examining why KJV isn't the only reliable English Bible version - Evidence: "There are still lots of people out there who believe it is the only English version that anyone should be looking at" #### ⏱️ [02:15](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=135) — [H2] KJV's original title reveals its nature - Key idea: Originally called "Holy Bible...newly translated...diligently compared and revised" - Evidence: "It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=225) — [H1] Massive Tyndale influence on KJV - Key idea: 84% of KJV New Testament is word-for-word from Tyndale's translation - Evidence: "They estimated 84% of the New Testament in the King James version is word for word Tyndale's translation" #### ⏱️ [05:23](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=323) — [H1] The Johannine Comma manuscript problem - Key idea: Key Trinitarian verse (1 John 5:7-8) absent from early Greek manuscripts - Evidence: "It's not in any early Greek manuscripts. It's something that pops up in Latin manuscripts" #### ⏱️ [08:45](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=525) — [H2] Erasmus pressured to include questionable text - Key idea: Erasmus added disputed verse after suspicious Greek manuscript appeared - Evidence: "Somebody shows up with a Greek manuscript...dated to more or less within a couple of years of when it showed up" #### ⏱️ [11:30](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=690) — [H2] Revelation translation from Latin back-translation - Key idea: Erasmus lacked Greek manuscripts for Revelation's end, translated from Latin - Evidence: "He took the Latin and he just translated the Latin back into Greek" #### ⏱️ [13:15](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=795) — [H3] Book vs Tree of Life translation error - Key idea: Revelation 22:19 incorrectly says "book of life" instead of "tree of life" - Evidence: "The Greek manuscripts all say tree of life" #### ⏱️ [17:45](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=1065) — [H2] Unicorns from translation tradition - Key idea: Hebrew "reem" (extinct ox) became "unicorn" through Greek/Latin transmission - Evidence: "The Hebrew has reem...Most scholars today would say it is a now extinct kind of ox called an aurochs" #### ⏱️ [21:30](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=1290) — [H3] Unicorn contradicted by plural horns - Key idea: Deuteronomy 33:17 mentions plural "horns" of the animal - Evidence: "The animal is singular. The horns are plural" #### ⏱️ [25:15](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=1515) — [H1] Hell conflates different afterlife concepts - Key idea: KJV translates Sheol, Hades, Gehenna all as "hell" despite distinct meanings - Evidence: "They did not have a concept of hell in the Hebrew Bible. Everybody went to the same place" #### ⏱️ [28:30](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=1710) — [H2] Gehenna refers to specific Jerusalem valley - Key idea: Gehenna comes from Valley of Hinnom, associated with child sacrifice - Evidence: "This valley...associated with child sacrifice in the pre-exilic period" #### ⏱️ [31:45](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=1905) — [H3] Witch translation predates KJV - Key idea: "Witch" translation existed in all English versions before KJV - Evidence: "It's in the Bishop's Bible. It's in the Geneva Bible...every single place it occurs in English" ## 📚 References - [Textus Receptus critical editions](URL) - [Johannine Comma manuscript evidence](URL) - [Dead Sea Scrolls translations](URL) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The KJV is essentially a revision of earlier English translations, particularly the Bishop's Bible, rather than a fresh translation from original languages - Many translation problems stem from limited 16th-century manuscript access, particularly Erasmus's Textus Receptus based on only 6-7 Greek manuscripts - The conflation of different Hebrew and Greek afterlife concepts into "hell" significantly altered theological understanding compared to original texts ## 📰 Newsletter Biblical scholarship continues advancing our understanding of translation accuracy! Recent analysis of the King James Version reveals fascinating insights into how translation decisions shape theological understanding. Key discoveries include the Johannine Comma - a key Trinitarian proof text that appears to have been added to manuscripts rather than being original. Meanwhile, the KJV's translation of various afterlife concepts (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna) into the single word "hell" obscured important distinctions present in Hebrew and Greek texts. For those interested in translation studies, this highlights how modern critical editions benefit from vastly expanded manuscript evidence and refined textual criticism methods. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Education: Workshop on textual criticism methodologies for developer documentation accuracy - Developer experience: Documentation version control best practices based on manuscript transmission models #### Community - Maintainers: Open source project governance lessons from translation committee structures - Contributors: Attribution practices inspired by manuscript colophon traditions #### WordPress - Documentation: Multi-version documentation management inspired by textual criticism - Accessibility: Plain language guidelines for technical content translation ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Translation committees working with limited source materials will perpetuate errors from their primary sources - Consolidation of distinct concepts into single terms reduces conceptual precision over time - Manuscript evidence quality correlates inversely with translation confidence levels - Community pressure can influence scholarly decisions on textual inclusion ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of manuscript traditions across translation projects - Historical analysis of committee decision-making under external pressure - Linguistic analysis of semantic field evolution across translations ### ❓ Questions - How do modern open-source projects avoid the manuscript limitation problems that affected early Bible translations? - What governance structures prevent external pressure from compromising scholarly integrity in translation projects? - How can version control systems better preserve the reasoning behind textual choices? ### 🔮 Future Research - Digital humanities approaches to tracking translation influence across versions - Community governance models that balance accessibility with scholarly accuracy - Machine learning applications to textual criticism and translation quality assessment ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Translation projects should document source material limitations and decision rationales - Policy: Academic integrity policies needed for community-based translation efforts - Education: Digital literacy should include understanding of textual transmission and version control - Funding: Support needed for digitization of primary source materials ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th grade (Flesch-Kincaid) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None in audio-only format - Improve: Manuscript comparison charts, translation family trees, timeline diagrams #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio discussion with expert commentary - Improve: Chapter markers, transcript with timestamp links #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions, historical analogies, scholarly examples - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, cross-references to related concepts #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None in discussion format - Improve: Interactive manuscript comparison tools, translation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Chronological progression, cause-and-effect relationships - Improve: Decision trees for manuscript choices, systematic comparison tables #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Conversational format between two experts - Improve: Discussion prompts, community engagement opportunities #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Deep-dive scholarly content suitable for individual study - Improve: Self-assessment questions, reflection prompts #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical context and environmental factors - Improve: Geographical connections, cultural ecosystem explanations ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Audio-first format naturally accessible - Improve: Structured transcript with proper heading hierarchy #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Chapter navigation, transcript synchronization #### Contrast and readability - Present: Audio content not affected by visual contrast - Improve: High-contrast transcript options #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Audio content scales naturally - Improve: Responsive transcript layout #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Synchronized captions, audio descriptions for visual references #### Forms and interactions - Present: Minimal interactive elements - Improve: Accessible commenting and discussion features ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Focus on Western Christian tradition - Improve: Comparative translation traditions from other cultures #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology clearly explained - Improve: Plain language summaries, avoiding Christian-centric assumptions #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Conversational pacing allows for processing - Improve: Predictable structure, content warnings for complex topics #### Representation - Present: Two male academic voices - Improve: Diverse scholarly perspectives, international translation experiences #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful treatment of religious texts and beliefs - Improve: Acknowledgment of personal faith impact, non-judgmental framing ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Manuscript evidence leads to translation accuracy conclusions - Inductive strength: Pattern of errors suggests systematic source problems - Causal reasoning: Limited manuscripts caused specific translation errors - Analogical strength: Modern version control compared to manuscript transmission #### Fallacies - Appeal to tradition: Avoided by acknowledging KJV's continued literary value despite accuracy issues - False dichotomy: Avoided by presenting KJV as having both strengths and weaknesses #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, respectful of religious significance while maintaining scholarly objectivity ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denials present - acknowledges both KJV strengths and limitations - Attack: No attacks on religious communities, focuses on translation methodology - Reverse victim/offender: Not applicable to scholarly translation analysis - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Maintains scholarly neutrality while being engaging ## 🎯 Conclusion The King James Version's translation issues stem primarily from limited 16th-17th century manuscript access and the perpetuation of earlier translation traditions rather than fresh engagement with source texts. While the KJV remains linguistically beautiful and culturally influential, modern translations benefit from vastly superior manuscript evidence and refined textual criticism methods. Understanding these limitations helps both scholars and general readers appreciate why multiple translations and critical editions enhance rather than threaten biblical understanding. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Johannine Comma represents textual criticism challenges > [!quote] Is the King James Bible Crap? by Data Over Dogma via YouTube. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-28. > "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost, and these three are one." Demonstrates how manuscript pressure affected textual decisions in Erasmus's Textus Receptus. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=323#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_kjv_johannine_comma ### [H2] Translation committees perpetuate source limitations > [!quote] Is the King James Bible Crap? > "84% of the New Testament in the King James version is word for word Tyndale's translation." Shows how translation traditions carry forward both strengths and weaknesses across generations. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/l_GISprZkIo?t=225#H2) #xref ID:rw_translation_inheritance --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) #### [Z1] Manuscript scarcity drives translation errors - Limited to 6-7 Greek manuscripts in 16th century - Pointer to 08:45 timestamp - Links: [[Textual-Criticism]] [[Manuscript-Studies]] #### [Z2] Semantic consolidation obscures original distinctions - Sheol/Hades/Gehenna collapsed into "hell" - Pointer to 25:15 timestamp - Links: [[Translation-Theory]] [[Biblical-Languages]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Research modern Bible translation committee governance structures — compare to open source project governance #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Investigate digital humanities tools for manuscript comparison — potential WordPress applications #fleeting #inbox - [F --- ## Full Transcript [00:02] Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen and I'm [00:04] Dan Beecher and this is Data Over Dogma [00:07] where we increase public access to the [00:09] academic study of the Bible and religion [00:11] and we combat the spread of [00:12] misinformation about the same. How are [00:15] things on this fine what is it 69° day [00:18] at the [00:19] >> Oh, don't do that to [00:20] >> I got to bring up how nice it is [00:22] outside. You don't want to hear that. [00:23] Well, you know, you and I were just [00:25] talking on the uh on the afterparty uh [00:28] over over on our Patreon page uh the [00:32] about golfing and just being outside. [00:35] Suddenly, I got I got the itch. I want [00:37] to be out there. But instead, I'm [00:39] locking in and uh and we're going to do [00:41] a show for the people. Today, we're [00:44] going to be doing a twisted scripture. [00:47] Uh, and the the the the the scripture [00:49] that got twisted, don't get it twisted, [00:52] is the KJV. [00:55] >> Yeah. So, the the whole Bible, the [00:57] >> the Bible, [00:58] >> but a specific version. We we'll get [01:00] we'll get to why uh that specific [01:03] version is uh is its own form of [01:06] twisted. So, let's dive right in to [01:08] twisted scripture. [01:12] So, the KJV [01:14] uh it's there are still lots of people [01:18] out there who believe that it is the [01:20] only English version that anyone should [01:24] be looking at for anything. It is the [01:26] inspired and true word of God. Every bit [01:30] of it uh uh inherent in every way. [01:35] Uh amen. [01:36] >> Yes. the the the [01:39] degree of KJV onlyism out there is puts [01:43] PO law to the test time after time after [01:46] time because I'm like you cannot cannot [01:49] possibly be serious. Uh for instance, [01:52] folks who uh pastors who will insist [01:54] that they will use the King James [01:57] version to correct the Greek [01:59] >> and so and I'm like no that's [02:01] >> no you can't be serious. Um, [02:05] >> but yeah, [02:07] >> I I you know what? It takes a bold move [02:11] to you to correct source material with [02:14] the after with with the thing that came [02:16] after. [02:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. With the target translation. [02:19] Yeah. [02:20] >> Uh but yeah, there there's a large [02:22] degree of that. But the King James [02:24] version while it remains it is one of [02:26] the most popular translations I think it [02:29] still may be the best selling [02:32] translation out there. It is not the [02:35] most read translation out there. So it [02:38] is kind of more of an icon um than an [02:42] actual translation that people like to [02:44] read because [02:47] >> it's a slog. Um, I think the NIV might [02:50] be the most read translation out there, [02:52] but uh, it it is a it is an influential [02:57] translation. So much so that uh, Robert [02:59] Alter recently published his own [03:01] translation of the Hebrew Bible and [03:02] along with it he published somewhat of a [03:04] companion volume called the art of Bible [03:06] translation. [03:07] >> Oh yeah. [03:08] >> And he talked about how all Bible [03:09] translations into English these days [03:11] operate in the shadow of the King James [03:13] version. And so you might as well you [03:15] need to lean into that. Um, otherwise [03:18] you're just um spitting into the wind. [03:20] Um, [03:20] >> now now we've been saying the the phrase [03:22] King James version, but can I can I [03:26] correct us a little bit [03:27] >> because when it first was released, it [03:30] was [03:31] >> the Holy Bible containing the Old [03:34] Testament and the New, newly translated [03:36] out of the original tongues and with [03:38] former translations, diligently compared [03:41] and uh revised by his majesty's special [03:45] commandment. [03:46] Yes, [03:47] >> that was that was the original title. [03:49] Why don't we go back to that? [03:52] >> It's a little too wordy. Um, it's [03:54] >> instead of the KJV, it's T H B C O T A T [03:59] N T. Okay. [04:01] >> Yeah. And and it's also not entirely [04:03] accurate because uh I mean the degree to [04:08] which it is a a new translation is is [04:11] very small. It is a conservative [04:14] revision of the Bishop's Bible, [04:17] specifically 1602 edition of the [04:18] Bishop's Bible. In fact, the they got [04:22] several copies of the Bishop's Bible and [04:25] sent them to the translators and they [04:27] literally scratched words out and wrote [04:30] the replacements in the margins. [04:32] >> Oh, wow. and and then they were [04:34] collected and they had folks who were [04:37] the editors who would basically just [04:39] transcribe the resulting cobbled [04:42] together translation. So, and and there [04:45] are there are scholars who have [04:46] estimated the the New Testament of the [04:48] King James version and and like we can [04:51] see how close it is to the Bishop's [04:52] Bible. It's incredibly close to the [04:54] Bishop's Bible, but it's even incredibly [04:56] close to Tindle's translation of the New [05:00] Testament, which is several versions [05:02] removed from the Bishop's Bible. Uh they [05:05] they estimated uh 84% of the New [05:09] Testament in the King James version is [05:10] word for word. Uh Tindle's translation. [05:14] >> Wow. I did not realize that. [05:16] >> And about this is this is why it is the [05:18] KJV and not the KJT. Uh, I mean the the [05:22] the titles are are pretty there's not a [05:24] a really strict uh set of rules for [05:27] titles, but some people call it the KJB. [05:30] >> Oh. [05:30] >> Uh, the King James Bible. [05:32] >> Oh, sure. [05:33] >> Where and that way you just sidestep the [05:35] claim that it's its own translation. But [05:37] but yeah, it's it's really just a [05:38] revision of the of the Bishop's Bible. [05:40] And so, a lot of the things that we're [05:42] going to talk about today as as [05:44] squirrely translations have actually [05:46] existed for like a century. uh before [05:50] the King James version was was ever [05:52] translated. So, it's not like the King [05:54] James version introduced all of these [05:56] things, but but certainly it perpetuated [05:58] and um and in the history since the [06:02] publication of the King James Bible, it [06:04] has been responsible for um making sure [06:07] those things [06:10] remain influential, [06:11] >> become become cemented into the [06:12] tradition or whatever. Yeah. In fact, [06:14] the King James version has a lot to do [06:16] with with the language that we use [06:18] because we're English was moving away [06:20] from the King James version until the [06:23] first and second great awakenings when [06:25] suddenly it was like bring back the King [06:27] James version and then a lot of words [06:29] that had fallen out of use suddenly [06:32] popped back into use only because of the [06:35] influence of the King James version. So [06:36] like the word warfare [06:39] that we only use that word because the [06:41] King James version Yeah. and and there's [06:43] a there's scholarship that looks at a [06:46] list of words that uh were no longer [06:49] used until the second great awakening [06:51] and in the 19th century and and suddenly [06:54] people started using these words again [06:56] and they're still used to this day. But [06:57] we and we got a lot of different [07:00] examples of of problematic uh passages [07:03] in here because while it was based on [07:06] this revision was based on the best [07:08] available scholarship of the day for the [07:10] most part [07:12] the scholarship has advanced [07:14] significantly. Our resources have [07:15] advanced the [07:16] >> I would hope so. [07:17] >> Yes. And probably the biggest thing is [07:19] we have a lot more manuscripts that are [07:22] available to us today. the science/art [07:25] of textual criticism has advanced [07:27] significantly and we can make much more [07:29] informed decisions about what readings [07:31] are most likely earlier particularly [07:32] because we have access to a lot more New [07:34] Testament manuscripts we have access to [07:36] the Dead Sea Scrolls uh all that kind of [07:39] stuff so some of the things we'll talk [07:41] about have to do with uh translations [07:44] some of the things have to do with uh [07:46] manuscripts and what sources are being [07:48] used [07:48] >> okay [07:49] >> so for instance one of the first things [07:51] one of the biggest things one of the [07:53] most influential things is uh something [07:56] known as the kama Johanam. [07:58] Are you familiar with the with that [08:00] phrase? [08:01] >> The I I'm I'm familiar with the Oxford [08:04] comma. [08:05] >> Okay. No, this is a different one. [08:07] >> This is a different comma. [08:09] >> Also known as the Johannine comma, [08:11] >> right? [08:11] >> Uh and and comma here just means clause. [08:15] >> Okay. [08:15] >> Um and so it is first John 5:es [08:20] 7 and 8. And this uh these two verses [08:23] read, "For there are three that bear [08:24] record in heaven, the father, the word, [08:26] and the holy ghost, and these three are [08:29] one." And so this is a central [08:33] trinitarian proof text. [08:35] >> Right. Right. [08:36] >> Um the only problem is it's not in any [08:40] early Greek manuscripts. [08:42] >> It's something that [08:44] >> pops up in uh Latin manuscripts. And so [08:49] >> the the King James version, the source [08:52] text that the translators went to when [08:54] they were like, "Why' the bishop's Bible [08:56] translate it this way?" They would go [08:58] back to a source text for the Greek New [09:00] Testament. And the the source text they [09:03] went back to was the what became known [09:05] as the Textus Receptus, which is a a [09:09] version of the Greek New Testament that [09:11] was originally cobbled together at the [09:13] beginning of the 16th century by [09:14] Desidarius Arasmus. [09:17] And uh he the when he first started this [09:20] project, he went to his library in [09:24] Switzerland and was like, "Give me all [09:26] your Greek New Testament manuscripts." [09:28] And they were like, "We got six of [09:29] them." And then they added a seventh [09:31] later on. Uh but it was like two [09:34] manuscripts that represented the [09:36] majority of the New Testament and then [09:38] the other four to five represented [09:41] smaller portions. And he basically just [09:43] took them and and collated them and [09:44] said, "Okay, I like this reading over [09:46] here. like this reading over here. And [09:48] in the uh between the second and the [09:51] third edition, some people started [09:53] asking him why he didn't include this [09:56] verse or the this this is a a clause [09:59] that crosses two verses. [10:02] >> And um there's another part of one of [10:05] the verses that's not a part of this, [10:06] but [10:07] >> they said, "Where's that phrase?" And he [10:09] was like, "It's not in any of the Greek [10:10] manuscripts." and uh he got leaned on by [10:16] uh people who had a lot of power and [10:17] influence and he basically said, "Look, [10:20] I'm not going to include this unless I [10:22] have a Greek manuscript that has it cuz [10:24] it's not in any of the Greek [10:26] manuscripts." And lo and behold, [10:28] somebody shows up with a Greek [10:29] manuscript that has it. [10:31] >> I have it under my pillow. So, [10:33] >> and and quite literally, it's uh dated [10:37] to more or less within a couple of years [10:41] of uh of when it showed up at Arasmus' [10:44] doorstep. And scholars who have looked [10:47] at it have said, "Yeah, it looks like [10:48] somebody just translated the Latin back [10:50] into Greek." [10:51] >> Okay. [10:52] >> While in while transcribing this [10:54] manuscript. So, um but he said, "Okay, [10:56] fine. I'll include it in the third [10:58] edition." So the third edition of his [11:00] Texas receptus which was really called [11:02] the noam instrumentum a new instrument. [11:05] Um the third edition has the kama [11:07] Johaneam and it just so happens that the [11:10] edition that the King James translators [11:12] uh le relied on for their revision was [11:15] the third edition. [11:16] >> Okay. So the King James version of [11:18] course included the Johannine comma and [11:22] that's one of the things that was [11:24] stricken uh once we started doing more [11:29] text critical work uh in the 1700s and [11:33] then more earnestly in the 1800s. So [11:36] >> all you scholars and your and and how [11:39] you're trying to deceive everyone by [11:40] taking scriptures out of the books. [11:43] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's Oh gosh. And there [11:45] there's about we've talked about this [11:47] before. I think the [11:49] >> there are about 16 verses in the New [11:51] Testament that are commonly just omitted [11:54] just deleted from contemporary [11:56] translations of the Bible. And it sends [12:00] some people into conictions. They just [12:03] That's right. [12:03] >> Yeah. They they're like [12:06] um and the reality is it's a more [12:08] accurate book. It's a more accurate New [12:09] Testament without it. So somebody added [12:11] it to it. Um, I want to talk about [12:14] another one that's relevant to uh the [12:18] use of Arasmus' texus receptus. [12:21] >> Oh, sure. [12:22] >> And this comes from the book of [12:23] Revelation. [12:24] >> Okay. [12:25] >> Revelation 22:19. [12:28] And um when Arasmus went and uh asked [12:32] for all those manuscripts, [12:34] what he got omitted the last chapter or [12:39] so of the book of Revelation. He did not [12:41] have a m a manuscript that included the [12:44] end of the book of revelation. So what [12:46] he did was he took the Latin and he just [12:50] translated the Latin back into Greek and [12:53] just slapped that on the end of his uh [12:55] the end of his product. [12:56] >> Okay. So, so it's it's it's in Greek in [13:00] the text receptus, but it is Greek that [13:02] was translated from a Latin manuscript. [13:05] And part of the uh the Revelation 22:19 [13:10] in the um King James version, it talks [13:14] about somebody's name, the people's [13:16] names being in the book of life, [13:20] >> which in Latin would be Libro. And uh so [13:24] the Arasmus' Texas receptus has book of [13:27] life. All fine and good except for the [13:29] fact that the Latin is wrong. Um or at [13:33] least the somebody was wrong in uh [13:36] transmission because the Latin probably [13:38] said ligno [13:41] which meant tree [13:43] >> because the Greek manuscripts the Greek [13:45] manuscripts all say tree of life. [13:47] >> Okay. So, uh, so Revelation 22:19 in the [13:50] King James version refers to the book of [13:52] life, but it should refer to the tree of [13:54] life, [13:55] >> having your name written in the tree of [13:57] life. [13:58] >> Who writes in trees? [14:00] >> I I mean, I guess people [14:03] >> there. Revelation talks a little bit [14:04] about this about this tree that grows [14:06] alongside the river. Um, but yeah, an [14:10] interesting little uh variation that we [14:14] see based on the fact that Arasmus was [14:16] like, "Where'd the last chapter go? I'll [14:18] just translate it from Latin." That [14:20] looks like the word book. Um, and [14:22] >> so wait, the Texas receptus that he was [14:24] creating was a Latin was in Latin, [14:27] right? [14:27] >> No, he was creating a a Greek edition of [14:30] the New Testament. He was he was [14:32] basically [14:32] >> Oh, okay. So he's so he's taking [14:35] original Greek sources and just cobbling [14:38] together a Greek version, [14:40] >> right? [14:40] >> Okay, I get it. [14:42] >> This would be called an eclectic [14:43] edition, right? [14:44] >> Eclectic meaning it's it's cobbled [14:46] together from a bunch of different [14:47] manuscripts. The alternative would be a [14:49] diplomatic edition. That's where you're [14:52] just basing it on a single manuscript. [14:54] So most critical editions of the Hebrew [14:56] Bible, they're based on the Lengrad [14:58] Codex. They're diplomatic editions. Most [15:00] critical editions of the New Testament [15:02] are based on a bunch of different [15:04] manuscripts. They're eclectic editions. [15:06] But you can have the opposite. You can [15:08] have a New Testament manuscript that's [15:10] based on Codex Caticus or something like [15:12] that. That would be a single manuscript. [15:14] That'd be a diplomatic edition. And and [15:16] there's a an Oxford Hebrew Bible project [15:18] that's trying to put together an [15:20] eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible [15:22] where they're incorporating Dead Sea [15:24] Scroll readings and and Septuagent [15:25] readings and things like that. So, so [15:27] yes, he was he was generating a a Greek [15:31] edition of the New Testament, it was the [15:33] first widely available Greek edition of [15:34] the New Testament. [15:35] >> Okay? [15:36] >> Because up until [15:38] you wanted the Greek New Testament, you [15:40] had to go find a manuscript and most of [15:43] the manuscripts that were the early [15:45] manuscripts didn't cover the whole New [15:47] Testament. And so his his [15:51] uh edition of the Greek New Testament is [15:53] what it made is what made it possible [15:55] for Martin Luther to translate the New [15:56] Testament from Greek into German. [15:59] >> Because before that they were using the [16:00] Latin, [16:01] >> right? [16:01] >> And this kind of caused this sea change [16:05] where everybody was like, "All right, [16:07] we're leaving the Latin behind. We're [16:08] going back to the Greek." [16:09] >> Okay. [16:10] >> So it was a big deal. [16:11] >> Yeah. And I get it now. I I I had I was [16:15] just I had translation on my mind and so [16:18] I I was thinking that he was translating [16:20] to something but I just hadn't. [16:21] >> Oh yeah. [16:22] >> Yeah. Anyway, uh now that I understand [16:24] what we're talking about, let's let's [16:27] continue going on with uh with KJV and [16:31] ways that it might have gotten a few [16:33] things a little wonky. Um, wait. Let's [16:37] talk unicorns because there's something [16:40] >> just delightful about uh about a Bible. [16:44] Frankly, I don't want to give this one [16:46] up. I want there to be unicorns in the [16:49] Bible. You're about to tell me that I [16:51] can't have my unicorns and I'm about to [16:53] be sad. But talk Let's talk about where [16:55] they come from and what what what it's [16:57] what it's trying to translate. [17:00] >> Yeah. So, the King James version has um [17:03] nine occurrences. I think six [17:05] occurrences in the singular unicorn, [17:07] three occurrences of the plural [17:08] unicorns. And when we look in the [17:14] the first place we can we can go is the [17:16] Septuagent uh because [17:19] that's the tradition that resulted in [17:24] that's one of the traditions that the [17:25] that the King James translators uh [17:29] referred to. In fact, when we go all the [17:31] way back to I in fact I I pulled up [17:33] Tindle's Penetuk cuz William Tindle [17:36] translated more than the New Testament. [17:38] He also translated the entire Penetuk [17:40] which was published in 1530. But in uh [17:43] Deuteronomy 33:17 we have a reference to [17:46] this where it says uh his horns as the [17:49] horns of and unicorn. [17:53] And you know unicorn has a Y instead of [17:55] an I and an E on the end and all that [17:56] kind of stuff. Right. [17:58] >> Uh so the the use of unicorn goes all [18:01] the way back to uh to tindle in English [18:05] and it's actually used in something [18:09] related is used in the uh in the [18:11] vulgates. I think they use rhinoceros [18:15] >> um in the let me just pull up the the [18:17] vulgate real quick to to make sure. But [18:20] um the [18:22] Latin would be translating the [18:26] septuagent [18:27] uh monocaros. Is it monocaros or [18:30] monokeros? Yeah, it's monocaros which [18:32] means one horn. [18:34] >> Okay. [18:35] >> And so the septuagen is probably the [18:39] foundation of this misunderstanding. Uh, [18:42] I think once you get into the the Latin [18:44] vulgate, you get [18:47] the this was probably Jerome's attempt [18:50] to try to understand the Hebrew word by [18:54] appealing to the Greek because the [18:55] Hebrew has ram. [18:58] And that is kind of an unusual term. For [19:03] a long time, people weren't exactly sure [19:05] uh what it was. Most scholars today [19:08] would say it is a now extinct kind of ox [19:10] called an orics. [19:12] >> Oh, okay. [19:13] >> Uh but when you go um but they didn't [19:16] know this anciently. Uh I'm looking in [19:20] the [19:21] Yeah, rhinoceros is what the vulgate has [19:24] in uh in Deuteronomy 33:17. [19:27] So the it sounds like the the vulgate is [19:30] like a one horn. What's that? Well, we [19:34] got these things called rhinoceroses. [19:37] Rhinocerai. Maybe that's what's going [19:39] on. So, the the Vulgate is using that. [19:42] The Greek is probably basing this [19:45] translation on [19:48] reports from Persia [19:51] uh from people who are exploring and [19:55] legends from even further uh east into [19:59] uh you know like the Indis Valley or [20:01] something like that because there's an [20:03] idea that in Persia they knew about this [20:06] animal that had one long horn not not [20:09] quite a unicorn but some singlehorned [20:13] animal. Uh in and deeper into uh the [20:16] Indis Valley into India, there were [20:19] reports coming out of this creature that [20:22] had a long horn that was, you know, its [20:26] horn had healing properties and stuff [20:28] like that. And that's where the the [20:29] mythical creature probably comes from. M [20:32] and so this is like fifth 4th century [20:36] BCE explorers writing in Greek are [20:40] talking about these mythical creatures [20:42] and I think the the Septuagen translator [20:44] either was trying to reflect that idea [20:47] or was just trying to reflect the idea [20:49] of a rhinoceros. [20:50] >> Okay. So when we get into English, [20:55] they're like, [20:57] "Right, what?" They don't really know [20:59] what's um either they don't know what's [21:02] going on or unicorn originally had a [21:06] broader semantic range and could include [21:09] a rhinoceros. [21:10] >> Sure. But very quickly the idea was that [21:12] this is a this this mythical creature [21:16] when in reality the Hebrew [21:19] would have just referred to this [21:20] particular kind of ox. And one of the [21:23] reason one of the confusing reasons one [21:24] of the reasons we know it it's is not a [21:26] one-horned animal is because Deuteronomy [21:29] 33:17 [21:31] has it talks about the plural horns of [21:34] the in Hebrew. [21:36] >> And so the animal the animal is [21:39] singular. The horns are plural. [21:41] >> Oh, okay. [21:43] >> You can use [21:46] a singular word for an animal to speak [21:49] collectively about multiple animals. [21:52] Like we we talked about that in Exodus [21:54] where the the plague of frogs just [21:57] mentions a frog. [21:58] >> The plague of a frog. [22:00] >> Yes. So there's like this kaiju frog [22:05] crawling out of the out of the Nile. Uh, [22:07] and also, uh, the word for bird. Uh, [22:10] every bird of the sky, all the birds, [22:12] uh, it's just of in the singular. [22:14] >> Okay. [22:15] >> Um, and so maybe that's what's going on. [22:18] But when the King James version [22:19] translated Deuteronomy 33:17, [22:22] it um, it kind of fiddled with that a [22:25] little bit and it talks about the horns [22:27] of unicorns in the plural. Mhm. [22:31] >> So, um, they didn't want quite want to [22:33] abandon the notion that this word [22:35] referred to a a singlehorned animal, [22:37] whether whether it was understood as [22:39] natural or or mythological. [22:41] >> But like the the way that it talks about [22:43] these animals in the Bible, it doesn't [22:46] it's it's not it doesn't seem like it's [22:48] referring to a mythical creature with [22:51] magical abilities. It just seems like [22:53] it's referring to an animal [22:54] >> that the people reading it would [22:56] understand, would know, right? [22:58] >> Yeah. Just like if we if we wrote about [23:00] a bear, [23:02] >> no, you know, no one would think, oh, [23:04] it's mythical or whatever. They would [23:05] just [23:06] >> that's that that's a thing that exists [23:08] and we all know what a bear is. [23:10] >> Yeah. And and certainly the some of [23:12] these animals would have been better [23:14] wellknown than than others cuz you know [23:17] I think I think you got plenty of [23:18] examples of of different regions even in [23:22] the United States but especially around [23:24] the world where some some people might [23:26] know about a certain animal and and [23:28] people who don't live very far away from [23:30] them might be like what's that? [23:32] >> Yeah. Um, like when I the the first time [23:34] I went to [23:36] uh Israel, Palestine, I was in I forget [23:40] the ruins of of an ancient city and I [23:43] heard this this high-pitched squeak [23:45] almost like a yell. And I was like, [23:48] "What is that?" And um somebody was [23:50] like, "Oh, it's a hyrax." And I was [23:52] like, "And what pretel is a hyrax?" [23:57] And they were like, "Oh, it's kind of a [23:58] it's kind of a rodent that that hides [24:00] out in in rocky areas." And then I was [24:03] like looking at a pile of of uh basaltt [24:08] rocks and then this little rodent poked [24:10] its head out and went and and yelled at [24:14] me and I was like, "Oh, that's a hyrax." [24:16] >> I heavily encourage everyone to look up [24:18] hyraxes cuz they're uh I wouldn't say [24:21] cute. They look mad. They all look [24:23] pretty mad. [24:24] >> Yeah, they do. Yeah. And they sound mad. [24:27] Like they they sound like they're like, [24:28] "Get out of here." [24:30] >> Um, [24:31] >> what are you doing? [24:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. [24:34] >> So, uh, I had no idea what a hierax was [24:36] until I started getting shouted at by [24:38] one. So, um, and I had to have some [24:41] knowledge dropped on me. [24:42] >> There you But but yeah, so so I'm you [24:44] know if if somebody you know I tell this [24:47] story and and 2,000 years from now [24:49] somebody [24:50] >> uh reads a transcript and they have and [24:53] they've and you know the knowledge of [24:54] the Hierax has been lost because maybe [24:56] it's extinct or something like that [24:58] >> then yeah they might be like Hierrax [25:01] that kind of sounds like the Toyota [25:03] Hilux. So, it was probably an animal [25:05] that looked a lot like a car. Uh, or I [25:08] don't know. You know, there [25:10] if you're if you're trying to translate [25:12] a word that you don't have a a [25:15] translation for, [25:16] >> you you kind of go with whatever you [25:18] got. [25:19] >> Yeah. And and in the King James version, [25:22] they're using a lot of traditions that, [25:24] you know, are found in the the [25:25] translations that precede them. And, uh, [25:28] some of them are are kind of silly. Uh, [25:30] one of the ones that I wanted to jump [25:31] to, we don't we're we don't have a lot [25:33] of time, but I wanted to jump to how the [25:35] KJV handles [25:38] >> uh the word how it translates a bunch of [25:41] different words all to the word hell. [25:44] >> Oh, [25:44] >> and doesn't and doesn't bother to [25:46] distinguish any of them. [25:47] >> Yeah. [25:49] So, this is so you got three different [25:51] word. Well, one in Hebrew, sha [25:53] >> is translated hell in the King James [25:55] version, right? And and this is just [25:56] based on the assumption that's you know [25:58] the assumption of univocality. Well, [26:00] we're we're talking about the realm of [26:02] the dead and it's not particularly [26:06] happy. That must mean hell. [26:08] >> Yeah. [26:08] >> And the reality is that they had they [26:11] did not have a concept of hell in the [26:12] Hebrew Bible. Everybody went to the same [26:14] place. Good, bad, [26:15] >> nor heaven. Just just sha. [26:18] >> Yeah. Shaol, which is just the realm of [26:20] the dead. and it was a it was a hazy, [26:22] murky, not very exciting existence. Uh, [26:26] and they didn't know an awful lot about [26:27] it. So, so right off the bat, yeah, [26:29] that's that's a mistransation uh in the [26:31] King James version. And then you've got [26:34] uh a few different words that are used [26:35] in the New Testament. The main two are [26:38] Hades [26:40] >> and Gehenna. It's really gea in uh in [26:43] Greek transliteration, but those are the [26:45] two that are most commonly translated [26:47] hell. And then you've got one occurrence [26:49] of the word tarderus. [26:51] >> And in Greek, uh, gehenna is is a Greek [26:56] Jewish term. It, um, comes from Gehenna [26:58] from the valley of the son of Henom. Um, [27:02] and this is this valley that that um [27:05] comes around the the south end of [27:07] Jerusalem. [27:09] And this is associated with uh child [27:11] sacrifice in the pre-exilic period. The [27:13] tophett which is where the pre-exilic [27:16] kings were supposed to have offered [27:17] their children as sacrifice make make [27:18] them pass through the fire that that all [27:21] that stuff that's supposed to be on the [27:23] edge of the valley of henam. And in [27:25] Greor Roman period Jewish tradition that [27:29] location becomes associated with the bad [27:32] place. Uh just because it is there's [27:35] fire, there's wickedness, there's [27:37] killing, that is the bad place. And so [27:40] that becomes kind of an esqueological [27:42] location of divine punishment. And so in [27:45] the New Testament, that's Gehenna. Uh, [27:48] Hades is just is largely borrowed from [27:51] from Greek um, mythology and Tartarus in [27:56] Greek mythology is one of the two places [27:58] you can go within Hades. Hades is kind [28:00] of a more generic realm of the dead. And [28:03] for certain groups, if you've been good, [28:06] you go to the fields of Alissium. That [28:09] that is uh, you know, in Gladiator. [28:12] That's uh, that's what he says. You are [28:13] in Althium. [28:15] >> Um, and then the other place is Tardus. [28:17] that's if you've been bad um and you [28:20] don't want to you don't want to end up [28:21] in Tarderus. But I in borrowing that [28:24] concept into the New Testament, [28:27] >> Hades kind of has more of a negative [28:30] tone. So it's it's kind of conceptually [28:32] merging with the idea of Gehenna, but uh [28:35] but Tardarus is I think it's it's used [28:38] in one of the letters of Peter and [28:40] that's more directly referring to the [28:43] lake of fire kind of bad part of of [28:46] Hades. It'd be I'm trying to imagine [28:49] what Christianity today would look like [28:52] if those three words slash four words [28:57] were each given a different translation [29:00] or were you know what I mean were [29:02] separated out as four distinct concepts. [29:05] I think it would that's a that's a big [29:07] deal difference. [29:08] >> Well, yeah, you can you can look in [29:09] Mormonism for their degrees of glory if [29:12] you if you really wanted to try. [29:15] Sure, man. Um, but no, it's although [29:19] it's not quite quite the hierarchy that [29:21] that Mormonism presents, but uh but [29:24] yeah, I I think it would be fascinating [29:25] if if those different concepts were [29:28] allowed to stay different. But that's [29:30] kind of that's kind of the pattern is is [29:32] everything gets kind of lumped together. [29:34] You have the good side and the bad side. [29:36] And you know, all of the bad entities [29:40] from the Hebrew Bible get just [29:43] consolidated in in Satan. Whereas all [29:46] the good, all the supernatural mediator [29:48] figures from the Hebrew Bible get [29:49] consolidated into Jesus. Right? [29:52] >> And all of the different concepts of [29:54] postmortem, divine punishment get [29:55] consolidated into hell. Whereas the idea [29:58] of post-mortem good stuff gets [30:00] consolidated into heaven. There's only [30:02] one concept. And and I yeah, I think [30:05] that's an outgrowth of the fact that [30:06] everybody's presupposing it all has to [30:08] be pointed in the same direction, [30:10] >> right? [30:10] >> But yeah, I think it would be an [30:12] interesting thought experiment. Somebody [30:14] will have to make a movie one day about [30:16] Christianity that did not presuppose [30:18] univocality. [30:20] >> Yeah, [30:22] >> that would be interesting. [30:23] >> It would be a mess. But [30:24] >> it would be a mess. And I don't think [30:26] and I think that, you know, to some [30:28] extent these consolidations kind of have [30:30] to happen or at least like some [30:33] >> Yeah. for any kind of unity, for any [30:35] kind of consistency, [30:36] >> you have to converge on some sort of [30:37] understanding. [30:39] >> Um, the LA there's also the the way the [30:41] KJV talked about the word uh [30:45] uh kashaf [30:48] I don't know how to say that but uh [30:50] sorcerer diver or [30:52] >> as in the KJV thou shalt not suffer a [30:55] witch to live which [30:56] >> Oh yeah, Exodus 22:18, right? [30:59] >> Yeah. [30:59] >> Yeah. So um it's [31:03] should be 17 in the in the Hebrew. Yeah. [31:06] So um masha is the is the word in um [31:11] >> okay [31:11] >> in Hebrew, but it it's based on it's a [31:14] it's a noun form based on the verbal [31:16] roots uh kashaf to practice sorcery. [31:20] Yeah. And this is this is w like a lot [31:23] of people say, "Oh, King James was was [31:25] anti-witch and so he either told him to [31:28] write this in or or made them change it [31:31] to witch or something like that." And um [31:34] >> I mean, you know, Shakespeare wrote [31:36] McBth for King James. Uh so obviously he [31:39] had a witch thing. [31:41] >> Yeah. But it's it's just not true [31:42] because it's in the Bishop's Bible. It's [31:44] in the Geneva Bible. It's in the Great [31:46] Bible. It's in the Matthews Bible. It's [31:47] in the Coverdale Bible. that's in the [31:49] Tindle [31:50] >> translation like it it is thou shalt not [31:52] suffer a witch to live every single [31:54] place it occurs in English up to and [31:57] including the King James version [31:59] >> but yeah in in Hebrew it's it actually [32:02] doesn't address the law to you in the [32:05] second person it just says [32:10] which would be a a witch shall not live [32:13] >> okay [32:14] >> so the verb is actually third feminine [32:16] singular [32:16] >> but is which the right The I I guess the [32:19] problem that I have with the word witch [32:20] in this case is that uh it's gendered. [32:24] >> Yeah. And it's a feminine noun in the [32:26] Hebrew. [32:27] >> Oh, okay. [32:28] >> Now, interestingly enough, the ancient [32:31] Greek translation not only changed it to [32:33] masculine but changed it to plural. Oh, [32:38] >> and they have pharmmakus [32:41] which uh is based on the word um [32:44] pharmicon or pharmarmacos which is could [32:48] be magician, could be sorcerer but [32:50] fundamentally it refers to someone who [32:53] uh who mixes up potions. [32:55] >> Thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to [32:57] live. I get it. I you know this is this [33:00] is an antivaxer. This is a a COVID [33:04] denier who prophesied [33:07] thousands of years prior to the arrival [33:10] of CO 19 that uh that this was all going [33:14] to happen and that Fouchy uh because you [33:17] know the the original Greek uh could be [33:20] rendered Fouchy if you uh [33:23] >> you just got to cuz it starts with an F. [33:25] You just got to you just got to change [33:27] you got to, you know, elide the uh the [33:29] row and the moo and then you got to um [33:33] kind of take the uh the kappa and render [33:36] it more of a chuh. So anyway, um yeah, [33:39] for for some weird reason the the Greek [33:41] decided to just fiddle with it and make [33:44] it uh and and uh pharmmakos can refer to [33:50] potions for good or potions for bad. So [33:52] you see the usage of the word in [33:54] reference to people who are using it to [33:55] heal. [33:56] >> Uh but you more commonly see it as in [34:00] reference to people are using these [34:01] potions for for ill. And so um the [34:06] pharmarmacia became kind of a a bad word [34:08] in in early Christianity which you know [34:12] gave gives rise now to all kinds of [34:14] ridiculous conspiracy theories that I [34:16] have to see on Tik Tok day after day [34:20] after day. All right. Well, that's all [34:23] the time we have for our twisted [34:25] scripture for today. Uh the I mean, you [34:29] know, KJV still has some of the best [34:31] some of the prettiest language of any of [34:33] the translations. [34:34] >> Yeah. There there are some renderings [34:36] that you can't get away from. You just [34:37] got to just got to lean into that uh [34:40] King James [34:42] English. [34:42] >> Yeah. I mean, you know, it's it was the [34:44] time of Shakespeare. They say [34:46] Shakespeare may have written some of it, [34:47] but he probably didn't. [34:48] >> Oh gosh. [34:50] >> Come on. What is it? Psalm 46 or [34:52] something. [34:52] >> Oh god, [34:53] >> there's a whole there's a whole thing. [34:54] Anyway, [34:55] >> uh look into it. Shakespeare Psalm 46. [34:58] Shakespeare. It's all in there. 46 in [35:00] 46N. All right. Uh we'll leave it at [35:03] that. Uh if you would like to become a [35:06] part of keeping our show going. We would [35:08] sure appreciate if you would head on [35:10] over to uh the patreon.com/data [35:15] overdogma where you can become a uh a [35:18] subscriber and you can have uh you know [35:20] you just give us a little bit of your [35:22] money and then you can have access to an [35:24] early and adree version of every show. [35:26] And if you subscribe at the $10 a month [35:29] uh level you can get the afterparty [35:32] which is bonus content that we record [35:34] every week. Uh, and we sure do [35:36] appreciate our patrons. Thanks so much [35:38] to Roger Gaudy for editing the show. [35:40] Thanks to JJ for being our our producer. [35:44] And thanks to all of you all for tune [35:46] tuning in. We'll talk to you again next [35:47] time. Bye everybody.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Is the King James Bible Crap.md|Is the King James Bible Crap? by YouTube]] ## Highlights - we'll get to why uh that specific version is uh is its own form of twisted. So, let's dive right in to twisted scripture. So, the KJV uh it's there are still lots of people out there who believe that it is the only English version that anyone should be looking at for anything. It is the inspired and true word of God. Every bit ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdgyfgpqxz3y5j7s8hyn)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - translation of the Hebrew Bible and along with it he published somewhat of a companion volume called the art of Bible translation. >> Oh yeah. >> And he talked about how all Bible translations into English these days operate in the shadow of the King James version. And so you might as well you need to lean into that. Um, otherwise you're just um spitting into the wind. Um, >> now now we've been saying the the phrase King James version, but can I can I correct us a little bit >> because when it first was released, it ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdha9kdeyxke3bxjm294)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - >> Yeah. And and it's also not entirely accurate because uh I mean the degree to which it is a a new translation is is very small. It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. In fact, the they got several copies of the Bishop's Bible and sent them to the translators and they literally scratched words out and wrote ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdhjva700am9hs84tkxp)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - the replacements in the margins. >> Oh, wow. and and then they were collected and they had folks who were the editors who would basically just transcribe the resulting cobbled together translation. So, and and there are there are scholars who have estimated the the New Testament of the King James version and and like we can see how close it is to the Bishop's Bible. It's incredibly close to the Bishop's Bible, but it's even incredibly close to Tindle's translation of the New ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdj16c0h4j3z2b4wfe54)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - >> Oh. >> Uh, the King James Bible. >> Oh, sure. >> Where and that way you just sidestep the claim that it's its own translation. But but yeah, it's it's really just a revision of the of the Bishop's Bible. And so, a lot of the things that we're going to talk about today as as squirrely translations have actually existed for like a century. uh before the King James version was was ever translated. So, it's not like the King James version introduced all of these things, but but certainly it perpetuated and um and in the history since the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdjc92rf8y5bcga21x3h)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - trinitarian proof text. >> Right. Right. >> Um the only problem is it's not in any early Greek manuscripts. >> It's something that >> pops up in uh Latin manuscripts. And so >> the the King James version, the source text that the translators went to when they were like, "Why' the bishop's Bible translate it this way?" They would go back to a source text for the Greek New ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdkf9xn9qkd172d0t1fd)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - King James version. And then you've got uh a few different words that are used in the New Testament. The main two are Hades >> and Gehenna. It's really gea in uh in Greek transliteration, but those are the two that are most commonly translated hell. And then you've got one occurrence of the word tarderus. >> And in Greek, uh, gehenna is is a Greek Jewish term. It, um, comes from Gehenna from the valley of the son of Henom. Um, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kq7xcdnq9pydyzr5g2hs48f0)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted