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

Right away in verse 1, the Bible reads the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now, like I just finished explaining to you, different gospels emphasize different aspects of who Christ is. Matthew has to do more with him as king, Mark as servant, but here's the thing. You don't want to go too far with those distinctions because here in the first verse of Mark, he's called the Son of God. Okay, he doesn't say, well, John portrays him as the Son of God. Now, here's what's interesting. That phrase, the Son of God, this is removed from some Bible versions. For example, the New World Translation, which is the Bible of the Jehovah's false witnesses, in Mark 1-1, it says, the beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ. That's it. So there's no Son of God there. And in fact, even though books like the NIV will still say Son of God in verse 1, they have a note at the bottom saying, oh, some manuscripts don't have the Son of God. And in reality, the manuscripts that don't have the Son of God are the manuscripts that the NIV is based on. Because the NIV is based upon mainly the Westcott and Hort Greek manuscripts, or, you know, basically new manuscripts that are of the same family, or new Greek New Testaments that are based on the same thing, but they leave in the Son of God, but they put something in the bottom here to make you doubt it, okay? Now, you say, Pastor Anderson, why in the world does it matter if it says the Son of God there? And people like Dr. James White, who attacked King James Onlyism, they'll make fun of stuff like this and say, well, who cares if Mark 1-1 says the Son of God? There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that say the Son of God, and if there was some kind of a conspiracy to remove the Son of God, wouldn't they remove it everywhere? Why would they just take it out of Mark 1-1? But here's the thing about that. First of all, if they removed it everywhere, that'd be a little too obvious. And the devil is more subtle about the changes that he makes. Number two, all of these changes in these modern false Bible perversions are all strategic. They're there for a reason. There's a reason why the Son of God will be removed from Mark 1-1. Because if you go to these institutions of higher learning like Harvard University, and if you go to their theology department, you know what they'll tell you? They'll tell you, oh, the Book of Mark is the earliest gospel ever written. And they'll tell you that it was only later that the story was embellished that Jesus was the Son of God. And that early gospels like the Book of Mark, they don't really make those kind of claims about Jesus that he's the Son of God. So you can see why it would be strategic to remove the Son of God from Mark, to cast doubt on the other books that would follow as being embellished of the gospel. So it's not an accident when modern versions remove the Son of God from Mark 1-1, or put some kind of a doubt in your mind about that. And thirdly this, who are we to decide what's important and what's not important? To sit there and say, oh, well who cares if they remove the Son of God? It's somewhere else. Who are we to decide whether it needs to say the Son of God here or not, and what's important and what's not? Everything's important. If it weren't important, God wouldn't have put it in the Bible. And every single word of God is perfect and pure, and it's there for a reason. And these new modern corruptions of the Bible that are removing the Son of God, or putting notes to make you doubt the Son of God, you know, they do have an agenda to destroy people's faith in the Word.