(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

All right, everyone, we're going to go ahead and start. I know I'm awkwardly behind you guys, but okay, all right, here we go. First question is for Pastor Jimenez. Question is, if someone asks, while out soul winning, what is your go-to quick explanation as to why we are King James only? Is this on? Can you hear me? Well, now it's just handing them a preserved Bible documentary. But what I found is most effective for me is if I'm having this conversation with somebody, if I'm having this conversation with somebody, it's probably because they have an IV or something like that. I found the most effective thing is to just open up to a verse and just show them a missing verse. And to me, I have found that that's usually really shocking to people. So when it's just like 35, 36, 38, then it's just like, whoa, you know. And then at that point, you can begin to kind of give the explanations. But to me, just showing them that is the most effective. And then of course, giving them a documentary or something like that. Next question, Pastor Anderson, how old were you when you found out the truth about the King James Version? Well, I was actually 16, almost 17. It's funny because I grew up with just the King James because back then, most people just use the King James, right? So throughout the 80s, all the churches we went to were King James, but I didn't really know why. I didn't really understand the issue at all. But then when I was a teenager, we started going to NIV churches and I didn't really know why I stayed with the King James, but I would always bring my KJV to the NIV church and multiple times during that period, people would take me aside and be like, hey, why are you using the King James? You need to switch to a modern version. And they would ask me why. And I didn't have an answer. I just be like, I don't know. I just like the King James, it's just better, I don't know. And they would kind of stump me and I didn't really know what to say. So I didn't really learn the truth about it until I was 16. And it was because I went on a date with a girl whose dad was a pastor. And this guy was really scandalized that his daughter had gone on a date with a guy who is King James, because this guy just didn't like the King James and he was kind of a liberal guy or whatever. So he offered to take me out to ice cream. So it's like, okay, go out with this girl's dad and talk to him. And he spent this whole conversation explaining to me why I needed to get rid of the King James. And he's the one who actually explained to me the fact that there were different underlying Greek manuscripts and that they didn't have these manuscripts when the King James was done and that these are based on more recent discoveries. And he thought he was talking me into the New American Standard Version, which is what he used. But I was shocked by what he was telling me, because I always just thought that the NIV was just kind of a sucky translation and it was just kind of watered down and weak. But then I found out it was different manuscripts and everything and that just shocked me. And then I did some research and like, boom, I was King James only so fast thereafter. So it was ironic because the guy who made me King James was a New American Standard guy. So, yeah. Next question for each of you. What is your favorite book of the Bible, starting with Pastor Jimenez? Whichever one I happen to be reading. I think I would say that, if I can change your question, in the Old Testament, my favorite book of the Bible is the book of Joshua, which is why we named my first son Joshua. And then in the New Testament, I really like the book of James. I think it's just like this super practical, applicable book. So I would have to narrow it down to those two. What does he do to you all do too as well? I would say Old Testament, Psalms, New Testament, Gospel of John. So just giving kind of the most standard answer ever, but it's true. They're popular for a reason, right? This next question asks for Pastor Anderson. What is the meaning of Romans 11 26 when it says that all of Israel shall be saved? Is it referring to end times events? Definitely referring to end times events, but I feel like that kind of a question isn't really something that I could do justice to in a short time. I did a sermon called Romans 11, verse by verse, and that's the particular sermon that I would point to for that. But, you know, basically in the end times, when there's the second coming of Christ and the resurrection, all of those saints from the Old Testament are going to be resurrected as well. You know, when the dead in Christ rise first, that's not just New Testament saints, that's all saints who've ever lived. The prophet Daniel is going to rise at that same time, according to Daniel chapter 12. I mean, King David is going to rise. You know, you could point to all kinds of scriptures about Old Testament saints are going to be in that number as well. And so the Bible says that in the regeneration or resurrection, that the 12 apostles would sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And so that's when all Israel will be saved, when it's a bunch of resurrected, saved saints. And the current Israelites have been smoked. But anyway, listen to the whole sermon. That didn't really do it justice. Next question, starting with Pastor Anderson. This person says, a lot of doctrines are weakened, but at least can still be found in the modern versions. Do you think there are any specific doctrines that are completely removed from the modern Bibles? For example, like the post-tread rapture? I would say that the doctrine that's completely removed is more of a meta doctrine. How about the doctrine that we have God's word preserved and kept pure in all ages? That's the doctrine that's affected, just the doctrine of scripture that it's been providentially preserved and kept pure in all ages. OK, but I would agree when people say, well, these doctrines are weakened, but they're not totally gone. I think in general that is a true statement. And no, I can't really point to a doctrine that's totally gone in the modern versions. I think that you can still find every doctrine in there. But that's not good enough for me. I don't want one versus on that doctrine. I want three verses on that doctrine. I don't want two. I want four. I don't want seven. I want 20. You know, why would I want it to be less or harder to find? And here's what's funny. Does every Christian read the entire Bible cover to cover? Ninety nine percent of Christians have not read the entire Bible. So it doesn't really do us any good if it's in there. It's in there somewhere. You know, the less often it's in there, the less likely people are to find it. Since people are not reading the whole thing, they're only getting bits and pieces when they go to church or when they do a devotion. I wish everybody read the whole Bible, but it's stupid to just assume everybody's reading the whole Bible. Ditto. Yeah, I mean, I agree. Obviously, I agree with everything Pastor Anderson said. I would add to that. Yeah, I don't I don't know that there's any doctrine that's just completely annihilated from the new versions, but I would say that the problem with a lot of the translate the verses that are messed with is that they're the really good ones, like they're really clear on those doctrines. So they kind of take take the ones that are easy to go and show and prove, and then they're just going to leave you with maybe things that are a little more obscure or a little more complicated. Yes, it's there, but it requires a little more explanation. So that's why they're being attacked, because they're just the very clear deity of Christ, salvation by grace and faith, whatever. Amen. All right. This is for both pastors, starting with Pastor Jimenez. What made you want to get saved and what made you want to become a pastor? Well, excuse my potty word, but hell is what made me want to get saved, obviously. And I think that's what probably everyone makes everybody want to get saved. It's not going to hell. And, you know, to to kind of go off of Pastor Anderson's sermon tonight, specifically a sermon on hell is what made me think about it at a very young age. So, yeah, you know, obviously there's a lot more benefits to salvation than that, but that's the big one. And then what was the other? What made you want to become a pastor? You know, I've grown up in church my whole life. I haven't been saved my whole life, but I've been a Baptist my whole life. And I just believe that it's something, you know, the Bible talks about if a man desired the office of a bishop, he desired the good work. And I think that there are some people that it's just in them that desire. You know, obviously, Jeremiah, the prophet was called from the womb. And I'm not I'm not saying I'm not equating myself to Jeremiah, but I'm just saying that I think that if you look at someone like Pastor Anderson or Pastor Shelley or any of these men, you would think, you know, there's nothing else they should be doing. So I do think that there's just something that was in me that wanted to the desire. And then I also believe that, you know, to whatever extent God has equipped me to be able to do that. So I think it's something that I was supposed to do. Well, your foundation exists without Pastor Jimenez. So praise the Lord for that. Absolutely. Pastor Anderson, I mean, like Pastor Jimenez, I got saved at a really young age. You know, we both got saved when we were super young. I was six years old. We grew up in a Christian home. So I think that maybe the answer to that question is not as interesting about, you know, what led us to getting saved or because we got saved because we're in a Christian home. Our parents gave us the gospel. We're you know, we were blessed to be in that home. And, you know, we want to escape hell and go to heaven. But as far as why I want to be a pastor is the same reason why I continue to pastor. And that is that I just feel like there's so much error out there. And there's so much false doctrine out there and there's so many lies out there. Somebody needs to get up and set it straight and tell the truth. And that that's what motivates me to keep going. And if I felt like it wasn't needed or if I felt like other people would do it, honestly, I would be happy to just do something else, to be honest. Like, it's more like I feel like somebody got to do it. So next question for both of you, starting with Pastor Anderson. Are all of the moral laws from the Old Testament practical today, even though there is no high priest, for example, something like the city of refuge? Yeah, I think that some of the moral laws or criminal laws, because, you know, we always talk about like the moral law and the ceremonial law, and I think that's a useful dichotomy. But I think that it would also be useful sometimes to maybe talk about the moral law, the criminal law and the ceremonial law is almost like three different types of things. But I do think that the criminal law should be applicable today. I think that a lot of it would just have to be adapted in order to bring it into modern times, you know, because obviously when God gave the law to the children of Israel, it was never meant to be permanent. It's not like when God, you know, not like the dispensationalist. They think like, well, when God gave the Old Testament, that was going to last forever, you know, and then and then he had to pull out Plan B, the Gentiles. God always knew there's going to be a New Testament. This is only temporary visiting. So I think that some of the laws given to the children of Israel there for that time, in a sense, it's kind of it's not really designed necessarily to last them for 5000 years or something, because it was always meant to be temporary. And so I think that you have to adapt some of those things to the modern world. But I think the principles are eternal. The principles of the law. We're not under the law in the New Testament, but I think the principles of the law are all based on the wisdom and and perfection of God and his and his law. That stuff should inform our views on modern law. You're not necessarily going to do it exactly because, like you said, we don't have a high priest. So the priesthood being changed, there's made a necessity to change also the law and just some of the agricultural laws and everything. They're not necessarily exactly geared toward what we're dealing with now. As far as like a planet with eight billion people and, you know, different agricultural needs, you got to take the principle of those things and bring it forward, because it was never meant to be a forever situation. The nation of Israel as such in the old covenant. So do you like the next question? I agree with everything Pastor Anderson said. I would say that one thing that we should consider also is that, you know, that was like about the spirit of the law and and and the application, the specific application, the city of refuge doesn't apply obviously today and shouldn't apply because, like I said, there is no priesthood. The spirit of the law tells us that there should be some differentiation between someone who murders, you know, premeditated on purpose versus manslaughter or something that, you know, so we can still learn from the spirit of the law. And then, of course, even the ceremonial stuff that's been that's no longer applies, we can still learn spiritual lessons and applications from that. So, you know, I would just add add those thoughts. Yeah, great answers. This one specifically for Pastor Jimenez, where do Catholics get the idea of purgatory and where where would you go in scripture to prove that that is wrong? What would you tell them to prove that the idea of purgatory is wrong? Well, where Catholics get the the idea of purgatory specifically, I don't I don't know. I don't know why Catholics do a lot of things, but where the reasoning for it, I'm actually going to preach about that tomorrow and in my sermon. And it's because of the fact that Catholics are not saved and therefore they cannot understand the Bible, because you have to have the Bible says the Bible is a spiritual book. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because the Bible says that the Bible is spiritually discerned so it can only be understood through the Holy Spirit. So that's the reason why Catholics do all the crazy things that Catholics do and every other unsaved religious group. As far as quickly proving that, I mean, I would probably go to Luke 16, where the Bible says that the rich man lifted up his eyes in hell. I mean, he was immediately in hell. And the fact that sometimes, you know, people want you to prove a negative, but it's like, I can't prove to you that the Bible doesn't talk about purgatory because the Bible doesn't talk about purgatory. So that's the proof. If there were, then we would not. We'd be having a different conversation. So I hope that helps. Pastor Anderson, what do you think is the worst Bible translation? And I'm not sure if this person means like the Bible version that just butchers it the most or maybe what's the most dangerous. Maybe you talk about both of them. I mean, the worst Bible translation would be the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's not even a translation. I mean, it's just it's just made up. Right. But as far as like which one's the worst one that people actually use, I mean, I don't know, because they're all kind of so similar. Like the NIV, the ESV, the NAS are all kind of equally bad. And then obviously you have these like super paraphrases like the message, the living Bible or things like that, the clear word Bible of the Seventh-day Adventist. Those are paraphrases. Those shouldn't even be considered a Bible. They're not even a version. They're just a paraphrase. It's just someone talking about the Bible. So I mean, I mean, I'll tell you versions that really make me mad are like these Judaizing versions that people have where it's like it's all this like Yahweh haklem stuff like I don't like that. OK, for Pastor Jimenez, this person asks, When Jesus speaks to his disciples and says that you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no part of me, what did he mean by that? This is like Catholic for me, right? You're Hispanic. Yeah, right. Talk about Catholics. Yeah, I've actually been a Baptist my whole life. I did not grow up Catholic, obviously. Obviously, Catholics teach, you know, I can tell you, here's what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that you take the communion and it becomes magically the flesh of Christ in your mouth or your throat or your bowels as you as you swallow it. But it is a reference to the fact that you must receive Christ. And that's that's it. I mean, you know, it's interesting to me because and kind of a thought that I was thinking as Pastor Anderson was preaching is that sometimes I feel like God on purpose maybe says things in a difficult way or in a in a rude way or in a way that maybe doesn't that we would think, why would you say it that way? That part of that is because people who don't want to believe the truth are looking to be offended. God is willing to give them a reason to be offended. And so so to me, someone reads that and they're like, what is that? And even Jesus, I mean, they I mean, they said like this is a hard saying, but obviously it's a reference to the fact that you must receive Christ. Pastor Anderson, this person asks, can you speak to the translators preferring native Saxon words to Catalan theological words and the ability? I'm sorry, yes, Latin and theological words and the ability to alternate synonyms such as will versus testament. I mean, Testament versus Covenant, you know, the KJV use both right all throughout the King James Bible synonyms are used. So there is a translation philosophy out there that says, hey, as much as is possible, if we have one word in the Greek, let's keep it the same word in English all throughout. Now, the King James does not follow that policy because think about the words everlasting and eternal. For example, the underlying Greek word is exactly the same. And yet the King James just sometimes does everlasting, sometimes eternal. They just mix it up. And why do they mix it up? Why do they use all these different synonyms? Part of it is just to make it sound good, just whichever one sounds better in that verse. They read it out loud while they were translating and wanted to make sure it all sounded nice and sounded good. So for Euphony, they would sometimes use one synonym versus another. Now, as far as them preferring more of an Anglo-Saxon word to a Latinate word, I don't know that you could really make the case that they necessarily did that because they're definitely using a lot of both. Because you do have a lot of these Latinate kind of big theological words, if you will, in the King James. You have words like propitiation or something. And you have words that would fall into both categories, coming from the Germanic side of things and the Latin side. Because the English language is a Germanic language. But because the French invaded England in 1066 AD with William the Bastard, William the Bastard, yeah, Battle of Hastings. William the Bastard invaded in 1066. And because the Norman French ruled over the Anglo-Saxons, a lot of French came in to the language. French is, of course, a Latin-based language. And so like 40% of our vocabulary comes from Latin. So English is a mix of both. The KJV translators use both. I don't think that they said like, hey, let's keep this thing as Germanic as we can or let's go as Latin as we can. I think they're just trying to make it sound good. Now, there were certain rules to the translators by King James himself. Like, for example, he demanded that they use the word church in the New Testament instead of congregation. And also, he demanded that they use the names for people that are common and familiar. So like, for example, you know, he wanted them to say Mary for the mother of Jesus instead of Miriam, because in the Greek New Testament, it's Miriam, same as Moses' sister, Miriam. OK, but in the English language, people referred to the mother of Jesus not as Miriam, but as Mary or, for example, James, the brother of Jesus in the original Greek. His name is the exact same name as Jacob, but he didn't want it to be, you know, the book of Jacob. And, you know, he wanted to be the book of James, not just because his name was James, because guess what? Long before he was born, it was called the book of James. Because a lot of people were like, King James has put his name in the Bible, you know? No, because it was already called the book of James long before King James was born. People knew Mary as Mary. And so he wanted people to be able to understand the Bible. So he didn't want them to use names that they weren't familiar with, words that they wouldn't be able to understand. He's like, everybody knows what church is, everybody knows who Mary is, you know? So he wanted them to keep the language standard. So anyway, yeah. OK, question for each of you, starting with Pastor Anderson, how many church plants do you have? I mean, just two, basically, because we have the church plant in Tucson and then we have church plant in Germany. Great. So currently, three in the Philippines. We have one in Manila, one in Pampanga, one in Bicol. And then obviously, through the years, we've had church plants that have become independent, like Sure Foundation, like Shield of Faith, like Hold Fast in Fresno. So, OK, for Pastor Anderson, when memorizing Bible verses, do you have any tips on helping not to mix up that and which? You know, that is something that just really tortured me through the years. And I've tried to come up with mnemonics and rules and I have failed. So when you figure it out, let me know. But it is really that's that's if you memorize a lot of Bible, mixing up that and which is pretty rough. That's tough. Last question. Do you know the answer? Oh, yeah, that's your handwriting. Well, you're speaking English as a second language because you grew up speaking Spanish, being a Catholic and, you know, you're from Mexico, right? Last question before I turn back to Pastor Thompson. This one's for Pastor Anderson. Knowing so many languages, what T.R. based Bibles would you recommend in other languages? All right. Well, let's list all of them. No, I mean, look, just to give you a quick answer to that, OK, usually whatever the Trinitarian Bible Society is selling, that's a great place to start. You know, you go to the Trinitarian Bible Society website, that's usually going to be the best Bible in that language. Not necessarily all the time, but that's where I would always start. So. Is that I mean, is that are you not are you not satisfied with that answer? You just walk away and just I mean, what do you want to say about that? Any T.R. base? I mean, look, what about Spanish? What do you prefer in Spanish? Well, in Spanish, you know, the Gomez reign of a letter Gomez is what I use. And the reign of the Catholic. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, I think you should always be using a T.R. based scripture in any language. If it's not from the T.R., don't even try to tell me that it's the best Bible in that language unless we're talking about some bone in the nose type knit language. OK, because here's the thing. Like, I remember when I went to Romania when I was 18 years old, everybody was using the Cornelescu Bible and it was not from the T.R. And I was like, what are you guys doing using this Bible? And it turned out that the Orthodox Church had a Bible that was from the T.R. And I'm like, why don't you use the one from the Orthodox Church? I'm like, oh, no, we can't use that because it's Orthodox. I'm like, well, why would why are you using something that's not even T.R.? That doesn't even make sense. And I read the New Testament cover to cover in both the Romanian in both Cornelescu and the Orthodox Orthodox version, of course, way better. But they're like, well, it's archaic. Yeah, I've heard that before. And they're like, oh, it's got the Apocrypha in it. Then print one without the Apocrypha, you know? Oh, well, you know, we don't like it because it says Orthodox and we're all ex-Orthodox and that bothers us. But you know what? The problem is that the missionaries would go over there and they're letting the people tell them how it is like they go there and they got all these they're absorbing all these people who are already Baptists. And they're like, well, all the Baptists in the Pentecostals here are all using the Cornelescu, so, you know, we're going to use that or whatever. You know, part of being a leader is going over there and saying, hey, this is how it should be done. Not just, oh, oh, oh, this is what Baptists use. And it's not from the Textus Receptus. It's a it's a it's it's from the modern critical text. Oh, well, then shut my stupid mouth. You know, now, since then, I you know, there's another translation that's been done from that's in a more modern dialect, Romanian. And it's and it's from the TR. So things aren't the same as they were back when I was there when I was 18 years old. But I'm telling you right now that Cornelescu Bible that people have been using is not from the TR. I wouldn't use it. You know, I would use even if, you know, I would have used and I did use back then the Orthodox Bible, because at least it was TR based that to me to me, like it's like if there's a flowchart like before we even talk about the quality of the translation, you get the one that's from the TR, then talk about which the best one from the TR. But if you got one from the TR and one that's not from the TR, the one that's not from the TR, just throw it in the trash and go straight to the TR. And then let's talk about the quality. And here's the good thing. Virtually every European language has a TR based Bible, not even virtually. They all do, because during the era of the Reformation, the Bible was translated into all European languages. And again, you know, some African language or Polynesian language might not have it in the, but I mean, you know, it's not like it might be archaic or whatever, but get over it. Right. You want me to just keep going on that one subject? You want to hear more about that? Is that, have we exhausted the questions? You want to take a couple more? Yeah. I mean, is that, Sean, you have a question? Are you still, uh, you still good? Yeah. All right. This next one's for you, no matter what it is. It's about Catholicism. Actually, it's about the Aztecs in Mexico. There's a YouTube video going around where this guy says that King James forbid the translators from using, uh, the, the word tyrant in the Bible. And that was in the Geneva Bible and he didn't like that. And so he said, Hey, you can't use it. And I just wanted to get your opinion on that. Yeah, I think that King James was right. I think that I don't think that tyrant was the appropriate word. And so, you know, I think that the Geneva Bible was translated by a small group of people who had a certain acts to grind. They're all the same denomination. There are these, you know, Calvinists in Geneva, Switzerland, and they've got a political acts to grind. They've got a religious acts to grind. And so that made their translation biased. And the King James was made by scholars that came from a lot of different backgrounds. And so there wasn't that kind of one sided, you know, where we're not getting any input outside of our little group, you know, and, and, and here's the thing we don't necessarily need to just rely upon a YouTube video because the rules to the translators, all you have to do is just read the rules to the translators that, you know, if anybody's interested in that, just go on Google and you can read the rules to the translators of, of what King James gave as the rules. And it's really interesting. I think everybody should read it. And yeah, he brings up certain things like he wants them to use the word church. He doesn't want to use the word tyrant. And, you know, King James spoke lots of languages and he was a really smart guy. And so, you know, his opinion was really valid on these things. Like he, you know, it's not like he didn't know any Greek or anything, you know, I mean, he knew his stuff. He wasn't, he didn't do the translation, but he did approve it. He did like it. And he made some of the rules and I think he was right. And he was led by God also. Another question here. Hello. Hey, so the critical text people, they claim that 1 John 5, 7 is not found in any Greek manuscripts. I was just wondering if that's true or just, you know, kind of what's going on with that verse. It's, I mean, it's not, it isn't true. It's not found in, it's not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but here's the thing, usually, usually the textus receptus goes with the majority of Greek manuscripts, you know, the vast majority of the time, but not always, because there are some things that might not be in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but they're in the, like with 1 John 5, 7, for example, it's in the Latin. Well, you know, there are like 10,000, some handwritten Latin manuscripts of the Bible. And so that, you know, means something that carries some weight. You know, the, the King James translators and the guys like Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, who edited the Greek text, they didn't just take into account what Greek manuscripts are saying, but they looked at the Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Latin and things like that. And ultimately they only translate from Greek though. So here's the, let me, let me put it to you this way. If it were true that there were no manuscript of Greek that had 1 John 5, 7 in it, then it wouldn't be in the King James Bible because the King James Bible only translated Greek in the New Testament and only Hebrew in the Old Testament. So if it weren't in the Greek, it wouldn't be here, period, because that's one of the rules to the translators too. And so, yeah, the subject of majority text versus textus receptus is kind of a big subject, but yeah, they, you know, 1 John 5, 7, yeah, it may not be in the majority of Greek text, but it's in the majority of, you know, you could point to other languages where it's in the majority in that language. Or you could point to being quoted or referenced, you know, in extremely old Greek documents. So I can just add to that because we were actually just talking about that before the service and the value, because sometimes people don't like that and they think, well, if it's in all these other languages, but it wasn't in the majority in the Greek. But the reason that there's value to that is because of the fact that the Bible has been used throughout the entire world. So the fact that it's in thousands of other languages and it is there is proof to the fact that just because we don't have the manuscripts today that show the majority, obviously it was there. It is there. We know it's there. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the King James, but we also know that it was widely accepted, which that's the value of, because we were talking about like just theoretically, you know, just using an illustration, like let's say we were going to translate a Spanish Bible. We would be translating from the Greek. We would not be translating from the King James, but we'd obviously be referencing the King James. And that's what Pastor Anderson explained that the King James translators were doing. The translating from the Greek, everything that's in there is in a Greek manuscript or is from the Greek, but also looking at all these other Bibles in these other languages and kind of getting an idea. That's why there's value there. It would be the same value of us translating a Spanish Bible from Greek and looking at the King James as a reference, as an idea of what to do. Yeah, because ultimately, if you were just going to blindly go with the majority Greek text, then you're ignoring all the other languages and all the other evidence, because other languages do constitute evidence because it it shows that if the Latin translation has something, the assumption is that they must have had a Greek text that they're translating from that said that, you know, or else it wouldn't be there. So that's evidence, you know, and what weight do you give that multiple languages have it and it shows that they're all getting it from a source. So just logically thinking about it, it shows you that just because it's not in the majority text in the Greek, because that just happens to, you know, 5000 manuscripts that we have, which is not what today, which is not even what they had when they translated the King James Bible. We don't have everything. Most of those manuscripts don't even have the Book of First John. Right. Because they're all some of them are fragmentary. So they're because people try to downplay that. But there is value in the other languages. And when it's in multiple languages, it shows you that it's coming from a source that was there. And plus, it's like, oh, it's not in the majority of manuscripts. But then it's like, how many of those Greek manuscripts contain First John chapter five? Because a lot of times a manuscript can be one verse or it can be a fragment. It can be a few letters on a page, or it can be a full New Testament or anything in between. So when you hear 5000 manuscripts, you don't necessarily want to just picture like 5000 complete New Testaments and then ask yourself, who has read all 5000 of them? Literally no one, because it would be impossible. Really great point, because a lot of the 5000 manuscripts, like we said, like he just got done saying, are pieces. So what you really want to ask yourself is of the manuscripts that have First John five or have it completely, how many of those have verse seven? And honestly, I don't even necessarily ask myself that because the textual criticism has already been it was already done in the 16th century. And I don't want to do it again. Like, why reopen that issue 400 some years later? Like, that's the that's what God providentially allowed to be mass produced on printing presses translated into every language of Europe. It's what men of God preached exclusively for centuries. And now all of a sudden, hey, let's reopen that issue. And, you know, that doesn't make any sense. Just leave it alone. This question is for both of you, who do you guys think the Holy One of Israel is? Do you think it's the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father? What verses would you go to support? You know, like you you believe there's a verse that clearly shows that the Lord Jesus is the Holy One of Israel or when? I'm not really sure off the top of my head exactly which verse you're referring to. I mean, I'm not sure. Sure, off the top of my head, exactly which verse you're referring to. I mean, can you can you can you hit me with one or maybe I'll just pull it up real quick? Unless you want to just jump in and just and just be definitive on that, because that's that's not a question I've ever been asked or anything that I've ever specifically thought about. So I would, without seeing a verse in front of me, you know, I lean towards it's the Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, I would say like I'm just looking at like Second Kings 1922 against whom has thou exalted thy voice, lifted up thine eyes on Israel, even against the Holy One of Israel. Usually these type of Old Testament names of God like Holy One of Israel in Second Kings 19 Psalm 71. It says, Oh, my God, unto thee will I sing with the harp. Oh, thou Holy One of Israel. Usually those type of terms are just referring to God in general, not specifically the Father or the Son of the Holy Ghost. And I'm looking through these mentions and it's a lot of Old Testament. In fact, I don't see it in it doesn't seem to be in the New Testament. It's all Old Testament. I would say, looking at all this evidence, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, what's that? Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I'm the Lord thy God, which teaches thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way thou shalt go. I mean, I would say it's God in general. So it could be referring to Father, Son or Holy Ghost, because in my opinion, every single Old Testament name of God can be used for any member of the Trinity, whether it's Jehovah, Jah, Lord of hosts, Almighty God. Right. Those are all applied to Jesus and the Father. I think I think that in the Old Testament, we're not really making a big deal about defining the Trinity as such. So usually we're just talking about God in general. That's my that's what I would say to that. Yeah. Interesting question. We got time for like one more. OK, so I was witnessing to someone I was so winning with a brother here and the person was saying all the right things, like it's not me, it's Jesus that did everything. And I was convinced that he was saved, but he balked at the notion that we were King James only and he swore up and down by the NASB. Is he saved? Yeah, I would say that it's possible for people to just be wrong on that issue because they're just maybe they're just repeating something that they heard. I would not say that just because I mean, the King James issue is is obviously an important issue. We would have a whole conference on it, but it's not it's not something that I would use to determine whether somebody was saved or not, what side of the King James issue they landed on. Well, there's so many people out there talking bad about King James onlyism and slandering it, so a lot of people are just going to fall for that stuff. You know, doesn't mean they're not saved. It just means that they they you know, they got some bad information. So. All right. Thank you, Pastor Anderson, Pastor Jimenez. Everybody give him a hand.