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

Naam chapter 1, and we'll turn back to Naam chapter 1 here in a second, but turn to Jeremiah chapter 50. And today we're going to be finishing our series on the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha exposed part 2. And if you remember from last week, as we showed a lot of the errors and problems and the ridiculous stories in the Apocrypha, and you know, one thing I mentioned, because people ask the question, why was the Apocrypha included in the King James Bible? And the most common answer you're going to hear is because for historical reference. The problem is, our first point is that historical inaccuracy is in the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha is not historically accurate. It's completely full of lies and things that are easily disproven, both through secular history and through history we find in the Bible. So that is not the reason. As I mentioned last week, I think that it was included kind of from tradition of previous verses of the Bible, but also because it shows a clear distinction between the Word of God and the Catholic false books. But what we see here in the Bible, in Jeremiah chapter 50, before you look there, I want to show you one of the big errors in the Apocrypha. In Judith chapter 1, verse number 5, this is what the Apocrypha states. When I say the Apocrypha, I'm including the main Apocrypha and the other books that Catholics sometimes attach to it. But in Judith 1, verse 5, it says, Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh, the great city fought against Arphaxad. Now did you notice the problem there? Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians. Now wait a minute. Was Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians? Secular history and the Bible show that he was the king of the Chaldean empire in Babylon. The Babylonian king, which was centered at Babylon. Not Nineveh, not the king of the Assyrians. He said, well, prove that to me. Well, in Jeremiah chapter 50, I will prove it to you. Jeremiah chapter 50, verses 17 and 18, Israel is a scattered sheep. The lions have driven him away. First, the king of Assyria hath devoured him, and last, this Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, hath broken his bones. Notice a distinction between the king of Assyria and the king of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Babylon, not of Assyria, according to Jeremiah 50, verse 17. Verse 18, Therefore, thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria. So notice the king of Babylon and the king of Assyria. There's a distinction made. It's said in verse 18, the king of Assyria has already been punished, which is not Nebuchadnezzar, but one day the king of Babylon will be punished. Nebuchadnezzar as well. But in the Apocrypha, it states that Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria. Well, that is just completely ridiculous. It's not in the Bible, and secular history would look at it as wrong as well. So is the Apocrypha historically accurate? No, it's not. Look, Nebuchadnezzar is one of the most famous people who's ever lived, and you don't even know what empire he was the king of? Imagine if you said, I believe George Washington was the president of the Philippines. You'd say, well, that's not historically accurate. He was the president of the U.S. That is how big of an error this is, okay? This is ridiculous. Now, historically, it will state that in 612 B.C. was the destruction of Nineveh, and 605 B.C. is the year Jerusalem was besieged by Babylon. Now, we do not know for sure that those years are completely accurate, okay? The Bible doesn't specifically state this is the exact year, but I would say that I don't see a reason to doubt history is pretty close to being accurate when the Bible lines up with it pretty well and when there's just a lot of proof of it. So do I know for sure it was 612 B.C. that Nineveh was destroyed? No, but I would assume it was pretty close to that date. Is 605 B.C. for sure the year that Jerusalem was besieged by Babylon? Not for sure that exact year, but it's probably pretty close to that, and it does line up with the Bible, and I'll show that to you. Nahum chapter 1. So realize there's a seven-year difference between when Nineveh is destroyed and when Jerusalem is besieged according to secular history, and in the Bible, we're going to see that these dates are at least pretty close to one another, okay? Now, as you're trying to Nahum chapter 1, let me explain something to you in the Bible. The Old Testament is not completely chronological. It is not necessarily directly in order from Genesis to Malachi, but the Old Testament is divided into sections, and each section is chronological. For example, the first five books, you would say, are the law or the books of Moses. Genesis, then Exodus, follows after Genesis. Leviticus follows after Exodus, then Numbers, then Deuteronomy. Obviously, Genesis is before Deuteronomy. In Genesis, Moses is not alive, okay? And at the end of Deuteronomy, Moses dies. That is chronological, those five books, the books of Moses. Now, I don't think that Moses actually wrote the book of Genesis. It seems like it's a compilation, but the Bible does give him credit for those five books. At the end of Deuteronomy, Moses is dead. I don't think he wrote ahead of time when he was dead, but the Bible still refers to those five books as the books of the law or the books of Moses, okay? After that, what is known as the historical books, starting with the book of Joshua. So you have Joshua, then you have Judges. Judges is after Joshua. Joshua judges Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. So Esther is at the end of those historical books. Joshua is the first, Esther is the end. Those books are chronological, but after Esther is Job. Job is not after Esther chronologically. We're in the section of the books of wisdom, okay? So Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon, those books are chronological, okay? Solomon, then you have Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel. These books are known as the major prophets, okay? Then after Daniel, you have Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggadiah, Zechariah, Malcom. Those books are all chronological, okay? The reason why I'm showing you this is we're going to be in the minor prophets, and you have the book of Nahum, okay? And keep that in mind here in a second. So Nahum, chapter 1, verse 8, the Bible reads, But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies. What do ye imagine against the Lord? He will make an utter end. Affliction shall not rise up a second time. So what the Bible's stating here is affliction will not rise up again. Basically, the Assyrian empire and Nineveh is going to be destroyed. Remember two books earlier in the book of Jonah. Jonah preaches to Nineveh, and Nineveh turns back to God. And because they turned back to God, they were not destroyed. See, Jonah comes before Nahum. Jonah, then Micah, then Nahum, okay? So Nahum is just two books later, and Nineveh is destroyed. Whereas two books earlier, God spared them, okay? In chapter 1, it says affliction shall not rise up a second time. He's stating, I am going to destroy you. There is no second chance. No second chance, okay? Look at chapter 2, chapter 2, starting in verse 8. But Nineveh is of old like a pool of water, yet they shall flee away. Stand, stand, shall they cry, but none shall look back. When it says Nineveh is of old, what it's saying is it's an old empire. You can go back to right after the flood, and you'll see the name Asher. And Asher gets derived into Assyria. So Asher is right there after the flood, okay? And so Nineveh is of old. A Assyrian empire, it was around for a while, and it reaches a peak. It's of old like a pool of water, okay? Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold, for there is not an end of the story glory out of all pleasant furniture. When it says take the spoil of silver, when you would conquer an enemy and win a battle, you'd basically take their guns, take their weapons, take their gold, their silver, their clothes, or whatever, and you'd take them for your own. What it's saying is Nineveh is going to be destroyed, and you can take all of their silver and all of their gold. They were very rich, and they're going to lose it all because God is completely destroying the Assyrian empire. Chapter 3, chapter 3. And in chapter 3 it says in verse number 7, And it shall come to pass that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee and say, Nineveh is laying waste, who will bemoaner? When shall he seek comforters for thee? So he says, you know, who's going to bemoaner? Nineveh is going to be destroyed and are laid waste. Is there any doubt that Nineveh is getting destroyed here? They are getting destroyed. God says they will be destroyed in matches with history and in matches with the Bible as well, okay? Now turn to Micah, the book before Nineveh. So you have to realize there's going to be a bit of an embarrassing problem for the Catholics They try to say that this is accurate, say what's embarrassing? Because these events happen around the same time period. And so if Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful man in the world, is the king of Assyria, how does his empire get destroyed? It doesn't make sense. And then he becomes the leader of Babylon? Well wait a minute, if he got destroyed, he'd be done. He wouldn't be leading the most powerful empire in the world. And if it happens afterwards, why would he change his kingdom from Assyria to Babylon? It just doesn't make sense. If Nebuchadnezzar is the most powerful man in the world, it does not make sense that his empire would be destroyed. That does not make sense at all. Because these events are happening right around the same time period as one another. Secular history says a seven year difference. I don't know for sure it's right around seven years, but I know it's pretty close because in Micah chapter 4 it's going to talk about this. Micah 4, just one book before, verse 10. Be in pain, verse 10. Be in pain and labor to bring forth Odada of Zion, Micah 4.10. Like a woman in travail. For now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon. There shalt thou be delivered, there the Lord shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. So it's talking about how Jerusalem is going to be besieged. Who was the leader of Babylon when this happened? According to Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar. That is who, at the end of the book of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar is ruling the Babylonian empire, not the Assyrian empire. And so when this event takes place, he is the leader. So look, if he was the leader of Assyria, and he got destroyed, how is he the most powerful man in the world? And if he's reigning in Babylon, why would he switch to Assyria if you're saying the time frame is different? It just doesn't make any sense. The Bible is just very plain that Nebuchadnezzar was the leader of Babylon. This is a major, major historical error. Now, Catholics give two explanations for why the Apocrypha states that Nebuchadnezzar was the leader of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire, even though secular history does not teach that, and the Bible doesn't teach that. One answer that Catholics give is, I do not care what history says, I trust in the Apocrypha and it's right. That is one answer they give. Now, I have sympathy for those people. Because, here's the thing, if somebody tries to show me an error in the Bible, I'm not going to believe it's an error. I have faith in the word of God, amen? I believe the word of God has no errors, and some atheists could try to bring across a verse and show it's an error. I'm not going to believe it. Now, the problem they have is, well, the Bible disproves the Apocrypha, though, if you're going to say that he's the leader of Assyria. But the thing I feel sympathy for them about is, I'm glad they have that much faith in the Apocrypha, but look, Catholics don't believe the Bible is the word of God. They don't actually believe that the word of God is perfect and pure. And so it's like, it's great that it results, but that's not even what the Catholics believe. The Catholics are fine with there being errors in the Bible. You say, how do you know that? Because it was the Protestants that said, sola scriptura, the Catholics do not believe. It's the Bible alone. They believe in their church ecclesiastical system and their history. They don't believe that the Bible is perfect. They have no problem with saying there's an error in it. It's not a big deal to them. And so the Catholic that just digs their feet into the ground and says, I don't care what history says, I'm still going to believe it. Look, well, first off, the Bible shows you're wrong, and secondly, look, that's not even what Catholics believe. Let me teach you about what your religion actually believes. They don't hold to the Bible where the apocryphal really being the word of God. It's just kind of stories, and we'll just teach whatever we want. Look, the things that Catholics do are not in the Bible. They don't use Bible verses. How do they support purgatory? Not in the Bible. They don't use the Bible to support it. They just use their traditions of the Catholic church. I mean, literally, the things they teach, they don't even give a Bible verse to back it up. Show me the Catholic that's going to tell you, hey, turn to this verse, and this proves purgatory. The verses they try to use are so ridiculous. They go through and they say, wow, this is what our pope was told, and he's all powerful. So the Catholic that just has that much faith in the apocrypha, look, you have more faith than any pope's ever had. They don't even believe it's purgatory. So you have no reason to believe this, but that's not the most common way to defend this. The most common way that Catholic apologetics will defend this verse, they basically say the apocrypha intentionally calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria because what it's trying to teach you is that this whole book is just basically a fairy tale or a parable. It's just an extended parable, and we intentionally have an error to show you you're not supposed to take this literally. Now, there's a lot of problems with that. For one, they never use real names for parables. And secondly, that's a pretty long parable. Now, Jesus told parables, but his parables weren't like a dozen chapters. They were like these small little stories without using real names. So to say that it's intentionally an error and it's actually just an extended parable, look, I thought the Bible was the pillar and ground of the truth. And so if it's the ground of the truth, that means it's perfect, it's holy. There are no mistakes in the Bible. Now, Jesus tells stories, but he doesn't contradict himself or have errors. But the parables in the Bible don't have errors. It's telling a story about a man who owned a field and hired people of various prices. It doesn't have a blatant error in it. Like the Apocrypha does. So to say that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, look, that just shows you the Apocrypha is not historically accurate. And it's laughable. Everybody knew that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon and everybody knows that today. And yet most Catholics will say, well, yeah, I know he wasn't the king of Babylon or wasn't the king of Assyria, but I still believe that Apocrypha is the word of God. How is it the word of God when it has an obvious error such as that? Turn to Jeremiah 25, Jeremiah 25. I mean, I was honestly curious, how do Catholics defend this? And that is what they say, that it intentionally uses inaccurate history to let you know it's an extended parable being taught. So what is the point of this big parable that you're teaching? These parables are generally small, they have a point that they're making. What's the point of just having all this fake history in this long parable? What's the whole point of your story? So basically a lot of Catholics will tell you, well, the Apocrypha has all these errors because they're just kind of stories that you tell. Look, when I was a kid, my dad told me stories about stuff. But the Bible is perfect, there are no errors in it. It's not just some joke or some fun little anecdote. No, it's supposed to be accurate. There are no errors in the Bible. Now another statement that it says in the Apocrypha is in Barak 6, verse 2, and they have an inaccuracy on the time period of captivity. It says in Barak 6, verse 2, and when you are coming to Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations. And after that, I will bring you away from this with peace. So it says seven generations, but in Jeremiah 25, verse 11, it says, And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Look, a generation is not ten years. And so for it to say seven generations, that just blatantly contradicts seventy years. And so when it comes to the Apocrypha, there are just obvious historical errors. Now I'm sure that there are a lot more historical errors than that. I wrote down a couple because honestly we have seven pages of notes with all the mistakes in the Apocrypha. We don't have time to go to all of them. But when you have an error as big as the fact of Nebuchadnezzar not knowing who he's the king of, it's like, you know, how ridiculous is that? That's not a small error. That's a pretty big error when the Bible clearly says Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon. Another point we have with the Apocrypha and the problems is the Apocrypha teaches Catholic doctrine. It teaches doctrine that is not found in the Bible, but supports the Catholic Church. There's a reason why that they like the Apocrypha being there because they can point to the Apocrypha and say, well, it's not in the Bible, but the Apocrypha states. When it comes to salvation, there is Catholic doctrine in the Apocrypha. Now turn to John 3.16. And I'm going to read you from the book of Tobit a few verses, okay? The Bible says in Tobit 4, not the Bible, good night, the Apocrypha states in Tobit 4, verse 11. I'm going to make this mistake lots of times. Because they've got books with similar names. The Wisdom of Solomon, I'm going to accidentally say, is the word of God, or Ecclesiasticus instead of Ecclesiastes. But in the Apocrypha, Tobit 4, verse 11, it says, For alms deliver from all sin and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. Almsgiving is not your tithes, it's when you're giving to help somebody out. And what this verse says is, alms deliver from all sin and from death. You say, what is it talking about? It's not talking about physical death because it says, suffer to go into darkness. So it's stating of spiritual nakamatai, okay? A spiritual death, not physical death. And it says, alms deliver from all sin and from death. I thought the blood of Jesus Christ did that. I thought it just believed on Jesus Christ. But according to the book of Tobit, it's your almsgiving that will deliver you from the ekalopon kometayim. That's not what the Bible states though. It says in Tobit 12, verse 9, For alms deliver from death, and the same as that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy in life everlasting. So according to Tobit 12, 9, almsgiving is how you find everlasting life or wolang haganguhu. Is that what the Bible states? No. It's not what the Bible states. You'll never find a verse that you can even take out of context to teach that. And yet in the book of Tobit, it just blatantly says, in order to receive wolang haganguhu, it's your almsgiving. Why do they say that? Because the Catholic Church is very greedy. They want money that you give them in order to build their buildings. It's throughout history. Tobit chapter 14, verses 9 through 11, Tobit 14, But keep thou the law and the commandments, and she thyself merciful and just, that it may go well with thee. And marry me decently, and thy mother with me. But tarry no longer in Nineveh. Remember, my son, how Ammon handled Achichyrus that brought him up, how out of light he brought him into darkness, and how he rewarded him again. Yet Achichyrus was saved, but the other had his reward, for he went down into darkness. So when it says saved, it says salvation or kalitasan here, it's referring to spiritual because it's talking about going into darkness versus having kalitasan, salvation. And then it says, for he went down into darkness, Manasseh gave alms and escaped the snares of death. Once again, not physical death, but spiritual. So it says, escape the snares of death which they had set forth, but Ammon fell into the snare and perished. So basically, if you give alms, you'll escape kalitasan, you'll escape hell. Verse 11, wherefore now, my son, consider what alms doeth, and how righteousness doth deliver. When he had said these things, he gave up the ghost in the bed. So it's very clear here, it's teaching that your alms giving is what is going to save you and take you to heaven. Now, also in this verse is a pretty ridiculous statement where it says, He gave the ghost in the bed, being an hundred and eighty and five years old, and he buried him on earth. Now, in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, they live long lives. But after the flood, you see the ages slowly go down. After the book of Genesis, how long is the longest person anyone lives recorded in the Bible? Does anybody know? It's going to be a trivia question, future Bible study. The longest after the book of Genesis is Aaron. Aaron lived to be 123 years old. Three years older than his brother Moses. He is, he was basically three years older than his brother, they died around the same time period. Now look, this is after the book of Genesis and he lives to be 185 years old. 62 years longer than Aaron. I mean, this is not the book of Genesis. He lived to be 185 years old? That's pretty old. That's a pretty long life. It's like, am I supposed to just take this at face value and be that? That's ridiculous. I guess he was so godly that, you know, he just lived a really long life. That's ridiculous. So in the book of Toba, we just see a Catholic doctrine and just ridiculous doctrine. And so Catholic doctrine of all is giving, taking you to heaven. What does John 3 16 say? For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. So according to the Bible, what it says is, That is what it teaches. He does not teach alms. Turn to Acts 16. This is consistent throughout the Bible. So whether we're talking about everlasting life, or we're talking about spiritual salvation, it's consistent. That is by believing. Because being spiritually saved and receiving everlasting life, those things are synonymous. There are different ways to express the same thing and it helps us get more analogy. But it's the same thing. When you get saved, you receive everlasting life and salvation at the same time. Same thing. Okay. Acts 16 verses 30 and 31. Is that what it says? No. It says, It does not say do alms give. It says to believe. It is that simple. All you must do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Look, the Bible is completely consistent without any errors. If it came down to your alms giving, then your salvation is based on what you do and not on what Jesus Christ says. But see, the Bible says it's believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is how simple it is. The moment you put your faith in Jesus, you receive everlasting life. But in Ecclesiastes to Kiss chapter 3 verse 30, not in the Bible, but in the Apocrypha, water will quench a flaming fire and alms maketh an atonement for sins. And so the Apocrypha seems pretty consistent as well. It's consistent to say your alms giving, that is what's going to forgive you of your sins. But that's not what the Bible says. And so look, as a Christian that believes the Bible, the Apocrypha is garbage. It's not just full of errors. It's one thing to have historical error. That's fine. But now you're adding to salvation. Now you're changing the message of salvation. That's a big problem. It's one thing for you to be a joke of the book that's wrong. It's another thing when you're changing salvation. The Apocrypha is not just a stupid book. It is an evil book because it's changing the doctrines of salvation. Turn to Jonah 3. And so it says alms giving is what's going to forgive your sins. Well, as we turn to Jonah chapter 3, let me read you from the prayer of Manasseh. And so this is also in the Apocrypha. It says, Now therefore I bow the knee of mine heart, beseeching me of grace. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge mine iniquities. Wherefore I humbly beseech thee, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me, and destroy me not with mine iniquities. Be not angry with me forever by reserving evil for me. Neither condemn me to the lower parts of the earth. So referring to going to the sinner of the earth. It says, For thou art the God, even the God of them that repent. And in me thou wilt show all thy goodness. For thou wilt save me then unworthy according to thy great mercy. So according to the prayer of Manasseh, hey, you are God's child if you repent of all your sins and give your life to God and give out. That is what it teaches. What does the Bible teach though? Jonah chapter 3 verse 10, And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way. According to the Bible, turning from your sins is works. That makes logical sense. If you have to quit drinking to be saved, that is your work. That is not the work of Christ. If you have to change your lifestyle, that is your work. It is not the work of what Jesus Christ did on the cross and rising again. Look, we do not have to change our lifestyle. Look, when you believe on Jesus Christ, you don't have to change anything. There are drug dealers we will see in heaven one day. Because you don't have to quit dealing drugs to go to heaven. Now look, if you choose to deal drugs in this life, there is going to be some... But there is a difference between the body... And your soul is perfect forever. You have... When you believe on Jesus Christ and you will never go to... You do not have to change your lifestyle. You don't have to repent of your sins. You don't have to give up any sins. Look, according to the Bible, do we have to give our life to God to be saved or did he give his life for us to be saved? He gave his life for us to be saved. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. Now look, it is great that you try to give your life to God, but nobody can honestly say they have given their entire life to God. Nobody can honestly say they have repented of all their sins. Because we still sin. Now we try to give our life to God, but quite honestly we fall very short of that. And so the only thing we need to do is just believe on Jesus Christ. That is all the Bible says. Think about your kids. If you are married and you have kids, your kids don't have to do anything to be your children. Now whether or not you are going to bless them is whether or not they obey you. If they are a good child. But they are still your child no matter what they do. Look, if they go home and they smash the windows in your house, they are still your kids. Now don't blame me if your child goes home today and smashes the windows in your house. I am just giving you his son, Alabama. But look, they are still your kids no matter what. If my son does things that I don't approve of, he is still my son. And when you believe on Jesus Christ, you receive your spiritual birthday. That is the day you get born into God's family. And look, it is as easy as just believing on him. He is always your father. Is he always happy with you? Of course not. Because we are not perfect. And so when you break God's rules, But you still have everlasting life. It is everlasting and that means it lasts forever. Now turn to Luke 16. And so when it comes to Catholic doctrine, Well about salvation, there is definitely Catholic doctrine of alms giving and turning your life over to him. Basically doing whatever the church says. That is what it teaches in the Apocrypha. But the Apocrypha also teaches prayers and indulgences for the dead. See the Catholic church is famous for basically saying, Hey if you have dead relatives and you give us money, We will help your relatives make it out of purgatory up to heaven. The more money you give, the more your dead relatives are going to make it out. Your mom, your grandmother died when she was 8. Hey no big deal. Just give us 50,000 pesos and she will make it to heaven. Do you want your grandmother? Do you want Lola in heaven? If you really love Lola, if you really want Lola in heaven, you will give us 50,000 pesos. And you know what, unfortunately people trust the church so much ahead of the word of God, They will give away their money. And that was one of the things Martin Luther was mad at about indulgences, Where basically you give money to the church, And they basically just pray your relatives out of hell or out of purgatory up to heaven. That is ridiculous. That is not what the Bible teaches. But it is what the Apocrypha teaches. 2 Maccabees 12 verse 43 In the Apocrypha, and making a gathering, he sent 12,000 drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, Thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they were slain and should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. So basically if there is no resurrection, it is vain to pray for the dead. But since there is a resurrection, we should pray for the dead according to them. Look, I am sorry about your relative who died and what is happening, but they are in hell right now. And it doesn't matter how much you pray for them, they are going to be in hell forever. Look, if you die and go to heaven, you are there forever. But if you die and go to hell, you are there forever as well. Look, I didn't really grow up in a Catholic country, but I have relatives I know that are in hell right now. Do I want them to be in hell? Absolutely not. But it doesn't matter how much I pray about it, nothing can change that. It is forever. Look, I remember just having a conversation with a relative of mine on the phone. It was right after I became a Christian. And then they were so excited that I had gotten saved and everything. They were like, man, I love the Baptist. And they were really zealous for the things of God. There was just one thing I don't like about the Baptist. And that is the doctrine of the one saved God. Because I was newly saved and I didn't know what they believed in. And I was like, man, they don't believe it is forgiven. She doesn't believe it is forgiven. But it is sad, but it is reality. And look, we have a chance to get people saved on earth. But after that, it is too late. I had a relative of mine that was an atheist. And less than a year after I got saved, they died. Look, I am sorry, but atheists don't go to heaven. He that believeth not the sun shall not see life. And I don't care how nice of a person they are. If they don't believe, then they go to hell when they die. And it doesn't matter how much you pray for them. In fact, God doesn't want you to pray for dead people. Good night. I mean, if they are dead, it is over. You had your chance. It is gone. And that is something, as soul leaders, we ought to take seriously. Because if you have an unsaved family member, realize that if they die, there is no second chance. It is done. You have got your chance now to reach them. And look, all of us, we have family, friends, co-workers, and people we know, that if we don't help them out and give them a chance, then they do not have a chance. They are going to die and go to hell. And quite honestly, we can't expect these cults to preach the gospel to them. There is cults that have rejected Catholicism, but they want the right gospel. We are going to have to preach the gospel and get these people saved. Now, I want you to notice in verse 45, here in 2 Maccabees, And also in that he perceived that there was great faith related for those that died godly. It was in holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. So making a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. Look, that is like witchcraft. King Saul brings up a witch, you know, talks to a witch, and tries to bring up Samuel from the dead, and talks to them. Look, that is a witchcraft. That is sorcery. That is not something God wants you to be involved in. Talking to ghosts, and goblins, demons, ocelots, whatever. Look, that is not a godly thing. That is wicked, and that is what the apocrypha is teaching, to talk to dead people. Look, that is what you see in Hollywood movies. There is that, I think, the sixth sense. When I was a kid, that movie came out in the early 90s. It is like, you know, I talk to dead people. Look, that is a movie. That is not real life. And it is like if you are talking to dead people, it is because you are either possessed or some demon is bugging you. That is not actually something God wants you to do. And when people tell you they see a vision of their grandmother that they talk to, they talk to a demon. They even talk to their grandmother. Because once your relatives are dead, they are dead, whether they went to heaven or hell. It is done. And hopefully they are saved, and you can see them again one day. But if they died as a hardcore Catholic, they are in hell right now. Now look, it is sad because, you know, most of my wife's family is Catholic. Most of all of us are families are Catholic. But look, the reality is your Catholic relatives are not saved. Now look, I hope that you can preach the gospel and some will get saved, and maybe they can still be mixed up to a degree about this. But let me tell you something. If you have got a hardcore Catholic relative who is always just pranks to the rosary and all these other vain traditions, and they fully believe in the Catholic church, they are not saved. Right. Don't lie to yourself and pretend they are saved. They are not saved. Right. That's the truth. You need to know that so you actually will preach the gospel to them. They are not saved. You say, well, they are very nice. They believe in God. Look, believing in God doesn't get you to heaven. Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ gets you to heaven. There are nice Muslims. There are nice Hindus. There are nice Buddhists. And they are all going to go to hell because they are not believing in the sun. Right. But let me tell you something. Once your relatives are dead, there are chances gone. Look, I know plenty of relatives of my wife in the Philippines that are Catholic. And look, if they don't get saved, they are going to die and go to hell forever. In Luke 16, it completely disproves this idea of praying for the dead. Notice what it says in Luke 16 verse 22. And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried, and in hell he lived up his eyes being in torments. And so this rich man dies and immediately his body is buried. That's the first thing that happens to your body when you die. They will bury the body, but the soul is immediately in hell. Right. Christ. There's no in-between stage. Look, it's either, you know, spiritual Buhai or spiritual Na Buhai or spiritual Na Kamatayim. Right. It's one or the other. You either have spiritual life. You either have La Kamatayim or Buhai. And if you don't have everlasting life, then you go to a Ka Lom Kamatayim. It's one or the other. It's not an in-between. You're either spiritually alive or spiritually dead when you die. Yeah. And if you die spiritually dead, look, that's why it says the Ka Lom Kamatayim, the second death. You're going to spiritual death forever. Okay. You're forever going to be in hell. And so this person dies, unsaved, this rich man. Verse 24. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. When it says he cried, it's not talking about a tear, because when the Bible says a tear says Jesus wept, that's when he's crying is when you think of it. When it says he cried, he cried aloud. Right. Because he's in pain. Yeah. He's in hell. He's crying aloud. Spare not. It's referring to screaming aloud. Mm-hmm. And look, he's crying because he's burning forever. It says, he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me. Instead of Lazarus, then he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, crying tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receiveth thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he's comforted, and thou art tormented. Now I want you to pay close attention to verse 26. This is the verse that every soul winner, all of us, should really take away. This is the verse that every soul winner, all of us, should really take away. This is the verse that every soul winner, all of us, should really take away. And verse 26, and beside all this, between us and you, there's a great gall fix. What does he say? He's saying there's a large gap between where you are and between where we are. Basically, there's this big gap between heaven and hell. Isn't that true? There's a large gap, a great gall fix, so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot, neither can they pass to us that would come from this. What he's saying is there are people that are in hell that want to go to heaven. They would pass to you if they could, but there's a great gall fix. But he also says there are people in heaven that would go to hell. Why would they do that? Because they've got relatives that they want in heaven. Notice what it says in verse 26, so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot. Abraham said, hey, there's people here in heaven. They would pass to you if they could. They would try the best they could to bring their relatives, their moms, their dads out of hell and to heaven, but they can't, because when you die, it's done. They cannot pass to you. Abraham says, hey, look, I know you want to be saved, and look, we would love to go there and rescue you, but you had your chance on earth, and you did not believe. And look, when people die, we cannot rescue them anymore. It is too late. If we could, we would. Look, if praying for two hours a day, a vain repetition of please save my relative would get them out of heaven or get them out of hell, we would do that. I spend two hours of my day to get a relative out of hell, but unfortunately, it's a vain and useless prayer, because God's not going to hear it, because you cannot rescue people from hell when you're already there. Barak 3, verse 4, this is the Apocrypha. O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead Israelites, and of their children, which have sinned before thee, and have not hearkened unto the voice of either God. From the which cause these plagues leave unto us. And what he says is, hear the prayers of the dead Israelites. So dead people are praying, and he's asking God to hear the prayers of dead people in order to get their blessing. Look, when people are dead, they're either in heaven or hell forever. Right. Turn in your Bible to Daniel 4, Daniel 4. And so we see that the Apocrypha is not historically accurate. We see that it teaches Catholic doctrine, and now I'm going to quickly go through a lot of things that just do not match with the Bible. I'll try to be fast for the sake of time. There's just so many things that I notice. Now, I want you to understand that I could not find all of these things on the internet, on Google. I tried to search bears in the Apocrypha, and I found some things. But quite honestly, there's so many things I found that I didn't find in any website. Because most of the people writing those websites are generally not people who believe exactly like us. So they made some statements that were true. But a lot of this I just found when I was reading. Now, when I was reading the Apocrypha, I had trouble paying attention, because it is a very boring book. And so here's the thing. I'm sure there's a lot more errors than the ones I'm going to mention. I'm just mentioning all these things that I saw with my own eyes. And I'm like, well, that's not right. I mean, live to be 185 years old, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You know, just seeing things that I found while I was reading the Apocrypha. Now, one thing I noticed in the book of Judith with Nebuchadnezzar is that Nebuchadnezzar is basically a reprobate in the Apocrypha. He is a very, very, very wicked person. Now, he was not a godly person in the Bible, OK? But he was not a reprobate, because we know he got saved. Right? And I see that in Daniel 4. But you can see from the writing, when you pay attention, that he was not a reprobate, because Daniel liked Nebuchadnezzar. OK? You can see that. If he was a reprobate, he would not have liked it, because he dislikes the later name. But he actually likes Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel 4, verse 18 and 19. This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, have seen. Now thou, O Geltashazzar, declare the interpretation thereof, for as much as all the wise men in my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation, but thou art able for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. So Nebuchadnezzar does not understand the gospel. He says the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. He doesn't understand that there's only one God. OK? Nebuchadnezzar is not saved at this time. Then Daniel, whose name was Geltashazzar, was a stoning for one hour. Daniel hears this dream, and he's just, he doesn't say anything. He's just astonished, surprised. Why? Well, he understood the dream, but he didn't like the interpretation. Daniel does not actually like the interpretation. That's kind of why, because he likes the interpretation. Look, I've had bosses before that were nice people that weren't saved. I would not want harm to come upon them, and that's what's going on with Daniel. Then it says, and his thoughts troubled him, and the king spake and said, Geltashazzar, let not the dreamer of the interpretation thereof trouble thee. So basically the king is waiting for, like, an hour. Nebuchadnezzar's like, hey, what's the interpretation? And Daniel's just kind of sitting there, just astonished for one hour. That's a long time, isn't it? To answer a question. He's sitting there for one hour, and the king's basically like, hey, what's the dream? Geltashazzar answered and said, my lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to that end is. Daniel's saying, hey, this dream is great for those that don't like you. But Daniel did like Nebuchadnezzar. You can see that in this story, because he says they're astonished. He doesn't like what the dream is. Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar ends up running around like an animal for years, okay? The dream was not a good one for Nebuchadnezzar, because Nebuchadnezzar was so arrogant that God humbled him. Now, praise the Lord at the end of this chapter, we do see that Nebuchadnezzar gets saved. But, you know, if he gets saved, which he does, that shows he's not a reprobate, and Daniel certainly doesn't think he's a reprobate, because Daniel likes him. Now, was he a good guy? No. That doesn't make him a reprobate. Now, there's a lot of politicians that are reprobates, just, like, evil people, but then there's some that aren't, and they're just in that position, and that was Nebuchadnezzar. He wasn't a good guy. I'm not saying he was a soul winner. I'm not saying he read the Bible every day, but he wasn't some psychopath. I see that in this story. Another thing in the book of Judith that doesn't make sense is that Assyria is basically begging other countries to help fight Israel, because Assyria doesn't have the power to beat Israel. And it's like, Assyria, the Assyrian empire is begging countries to help them. That'd be like the United States going around saying, Oh, man, I don't think we can take on Mexico. Germany, please help us. France, please. It's like, no, of course they can beat them by themselves. And so for Assyria to try to get help to fight Israel, that's ridiculous, because Assyria is a very powerful country. Now, in Esther, turn to Esther 3. There's also a part of the Apocrypha called the additions of Esther. That's why I'm careful not to say the Bible. This is not Esther from the Bible. You're turning to Esther 3, and that is from the Bible. But I'm going to quote you Esther chapter 16 from the Apocrypha. Look, if your book of Esther has 16 chapters, that's not the word I got. So Esther chapter 16 verse 10 is the Apocrypha. It's not in your Bible. I hope it's not in your Bible. You have the same chapters in your Bible. But in Esther chapter 16 from the Apocrypha, it states that Haman is a Macedonian. It says, for Haman, a Macedonian, the son of Amadeth, of being indeed a stranger from the Persian blood, and far distant from our goodness, and is a stranger received of us. So it says, a stranger from the Persian blood, Haman is a Macedonian. What part of the world was that? Greece. Basically, Haman was a Greek. Now let me ask you, what empire destroys Persia? Greece. This whole story of Esther doesn't make any sense if Haman is Greek. Because basically, the king of Persia says, I'm going to put a Greek as second person in charge, even though we're warring with Greece right now. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Persia was at war with Greece. Greece destroys Persia, and then the Persian king says, hey, I'm going to make a Greek the second in command. That doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't match up with the book of Esther, because in Esther 3, verse 1, after these things that king Ahasuerus promote Haman, the son of Hamadaphim, the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seed above all the princes that were with him. There is nothing in the book of Esther that would even give a slight hint that Haman was a Macedonian or Greek. And it doesn't make any logical sense. He was an Agagite, it says. If he was a Greek, he would have never been put into that kingdom because they were warring with one another. So the whole book of Esther makes no sense when you have the additions of Esther. Look, that's what happens when you add to the word of God. I'm sure whoever wrote that says, hey, this sounds cool, you know, people are going to believe it. Well, I mean, they're not going to believe it. They're paying attention to what they're reading, because Greece is the one who took over Persia. Remember I have said before, Alexander the Great, he takes over for Persia and the kingdom, and in Persepolis, he just decides to burn down after he's conquered Persepolis in old time. He decides to burn down their chief city, which was a foolish thing. Look, Greece destroys Persia, and so why in the world would they put a Greek as second in charge? Not only that, though, when you read the story of Esther, who does Haman hate? The Jews. He doesn't hate the Persians. Look, Greece hated Persia. Persia hated Greece. He is never trying to overthrow Persia in that story. Is there any indication in the book of Esther that Haman is trying to overthrow King Ahasuerus? No, he just hates the Jews. The whole point of the book is that basically an ungodly person hates God's people. He doesn't hate the Persians in the story. But if he was a Greek, then it would make sense that he was trying to take over the throne, but he's not trying to take over the throne. So the additions of Esther, it's just changing what the whole story's about. The story's about how he's trying to fight against God's people, not against the Persian Empire, and he would have never been placed in that position if it was a Persian today. It says here some other things that are just errors. In 2 Maccabees 15, verse 39, For as it is hurtful to drink wine or water alone, it's hurtful to drink water alone, and as wine mingled with water was pleasant and delighted with taste. Even so, speech finally framed delighted the ears of them that read the story and hear shall be in it. So according to the Apocrypha, it's hurtful to drink water alone. This right here is going to destroy my heart. Oh, my heart. Apparently, according to the Apocrypha, drinking water alone is bad for you. It's hurtful. But let's just put some booze in here. I wonder why the Catholics love this so much. The priest probably had this first memorized. He's like, hey, water alone's not good. We just need some booze. Just put it in, put it in. Look, that's ridiculous. Water, drink it by itself is hurtful? Look, I believe personally, the number one healthiest thing you can do for your body is drink a lot of water. The number one healthiest thing. Now, look, there's plenty. We need to eat ulay and crutas, eat a healthy diet, but the number one healthiest thing I think you can do is drink water. Not according to the Apocrypha. According to the Apocrypha, you need to put some booze in that water. You can't drink it by itself. You know, you've got to mix wine and water together. Now, it says drinking wine by itself is hurtful. So, I don't know. Is there some sort of chemical reaction that happens when you put wine and water together? Like all of a sudden, boom, it's some other thing completely? I mean, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It also says an ecclesiastic kiss. Not ecclesiastics. Ecclesiastic kiss, which is the Apocrypha. Nine verse one. Be not jealous over the wife of thy husband and teach her not an evil lesson against thyself. So, according to the Apocrypha, you are not supposed to be jealous of your wife. Now, you have to understand, in the Bible, envy and jealousy are different. The way we use jealousy today and envy is backwards. We kind of use jealousy for everything, okay? But envious is when I'm envious. If I say I'm envious of, you know, brother Marlon, if he has like some car that I want or he has some house I want, I'd say I'm envious because that belongs to him. Not to me. So, you're envious if you want something that belongs to somebody else. You're a covetous envious, okay? But, when it comes to my wife, that doesn't belong to him. And so the Bible does not say jealousy is wrong because what does the Bible say about God? God is a jealous God. God's not an envious God. He doesn't envy Sheba. He doesn't envy Allah. Look, God is not envious of all these false gods, but he is jealous. He demands our worship. And when it comes to being married, you know what? Yeah, you ought to be jealous of your spouse. Look, I'm not okay if my wife has lunch with some other guy. I would hope you're not okay with that. And it works both ways. It wouldn't be right for me to have lunch with some lady. Look, of course your spouse is going to be jealous of you. And look, if your spouse doesn't care, like, hey, you can go out and hang out with other guys and go out to the club. I don't care. It goes to bed, doesn't even think about it. I mean, there's something wrong with you. You got to actually care what's going on with your spouse. But according to the Apocrypha, hey, you're not supposed to be jealous of your spouse. Even though your spouse belongs to you, that is ridiculous. That is not what the Bible teaches. Now, turn to Matthew 5. Matthew 5. I'll try to blow through these. We still got two pages. We got to get to everyone. This is going to be long. The first sermon was long. This sermon, I can't sort it. But as you're turning to Matthew 5, let me just read you some other things that are just wrong. From the wisdom of Solomon. This is not Solomon's words, okay? It's not the psalm of Solomon. But it's meant to be written like the book of Proverbs. This is the Apocrypha version of the book of Proverbs. The wisdom of Solomon. Chapter 1, verse 13. For God made not death. Well, who did make death? God made not death? I mean, who did make death? The devil made death? Is that what you're teaching? God made not death. You know, I think God created all things. God made not death according to the wisdom of Solomon. Chapter 2, verse 23. For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. God created man to be exactly formless. God created man to be God. He created man to be immortal. You know, you are supposed to be... Now, immortal is basically stating that, you know, since I'm like a god, man, you could take a bullet and shoot me in the head and just no big deal because I'm immortal. I can't be killed. But that's ridiculous, okay? God did not create man to be immortal. Verse 24. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death over the world. And they did do hold of his side to the Father. Wait a minute. How did death enter into the world? According to the Bible. It doesn't say they were envious of the devil and you're adding to the word of God when you say that. That's obviously the Catholic's unsaved interpretation of that. It does not say in the book of Genesis that they're envious of the devil. And so according to this, because of envy of the devil, that's why death came into the world. But according to the Bible, because they ate the fruit. And look, when you start adding stuff to stories in the Bible and the Bible does not state, you are adding to the word of God. Right. I'll be honest with you. I've heard preachers that will do things like this. They will tell a story from the Bible and just add things. And they make it seem like it's not being added. And it tells a really nice and funny story. Then you read it and say, wait a minute. Where's the part about how you're going to put the crown on his head or do this and it's not even there. They just kind of add what they think might have happened and they think it's cool. No, you shouldn't add to the word of God. Right. And saying that envy of the devil, that is not what the Bible teaches. Wisdom of Solomon chapter 10 verse 7. Of whose wickedness, even to this day, the wasteland of smoking is a testimony and plans bearing fruit that never come to ripeness. And a standing pillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul. A standing pillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul. Think about remembering Lot's wife. She became a pillar of salt. According to the Apocrypha, it's an example of an unbelieving soul. No, actually, according to the Bible, we are the soul of the earth, which it says in Matthew 5. So a pillar of salt is a picture that we are supposed to be salting the earth and preaching the gospel. It's not an example of here's an unsaved person. No, what it's actually showing is we're supposed to be soul winners. And the reason why a sodom was destroyed is because nobody preached the gospel in that area. We became more and more wicked. Matthew 5 verse 13. Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the soul have lost the saber, wherewith it shall it be salted. It sends forth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men. See, the Bible mentions salt as being a good thing throughout the Bible. And so salt represents, hey, we need to preach the gospel and that's a very good thing. It's not a picture of hell. It's not a picture of somebody being unsaved and going to hell. It was a picture of us preaching the gospel. That is what teaches when it says we're the soul of the earth. And so what the Apocrypha states is just simply wrong. That is not the picture of lost life. Turn to 1 Timothy 6, 1 Timothy 6. As I stated, I'm just showing you the errors that I found. I'm sure there's a lot more errors in the Apocrypha and maybe one day, if you guys become a pastor, you can preach that sermon. I'll listen. I'll write it down, pretend like I learned it myself and re-preach it. But these are just the things that I found, okay? Now, as you're turning to 1 Timothy 6, let me read you Wisdom of Solomon 14, verse 27. For the worshipping of idols, not to be named, is the beginning, the cause, and the end of all evil. According to the Apocrypha, worshipping of idols is basically the root of all evil. What does the Bible say in 1 Timothy 6, verse 10? For the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some come at it after, they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. And so in 1 Timothy 6, it says the root of evil is the love of money. Not money, but the love of money. It's not a sin if you have money. It's a sin if you love money. The love of money is the root of all evil. But according to the Apocrypha, worshipping idols is the root of all evil. Now, why would they say that? Because what Catholics will tell you is they don't worship idols. They say there's nothing wrong with driving by and seeing these big statues of St. Peter and these big statues of Mary. Hey, we're not worshipping it, so it's okay. And so worshipping idols is wrong, but making idols of all these false gods, there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with seeing this big statue of Buddha rubbing his belly, you know. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with having a big statue of Mary. Look, I'm not worshipping it. I'm just bowing down on my knees and praying to it every day. So what does it mean to worship idols and if that's not worshipping? But they say worshipping of idols is really wicked. That's the root of all evil. Let's talk about what the Bible says. The Bible says the love of money is the root of all evil. That is just an error in the Apocrypha. It's a bizarre error considering how filled the Catholic Church is with idolatry, but Catholics will tell you that you're not worshipping Mary. Now we know they worship Mary. They don't worship Jesus in the Feast of the Black Nazarene, they don't worship that statue. They just try to rub it for good luck and get healed or something. I mean, what in the world? How is that not idolatry when you're shoving down? I shoved Dustin out of the way to jump up and touch, you know, this morbid statue of Jesus and it will heal me from having a broken leg. I mean, what in the world? Do they do this? You're worshipping idols whether you think it or not. They say, well, we're not worshipping idols. There's nothing wrong with idolatry, there's just something wrong with worshipping. And so they don't consider that worshipping, even though they clearly do worship it. Turn to Daniel 3. Daniel 3. Now look, this might seem kind of interesting. I'm showing all these mistakes. The Apocrypha is very boring. But if you get encouraged to say, man, I'm going to read through the Apocrypha too. Look, it's very boring. I'm telling you, I'm giving you the good parts of this, but the Apocrypha is very long and it was very difficult. I was planning to kind of finish it in a few weeks, just kind of chug through it in my free time and it took months. It was so boring. But the Apocrypha is just really, really written. It's just very obvious it's not the Word of God. See, when you read the Word of God, even people that aren't Christians, they say that there's majesty to the Word. They say, man, it's written perfectly, poetically. The Apocrypha is not. Look, if you read it thinking that you're going to find it entertaining, you will not find it entertaining. Look, I can just think of the... besides the things mentioned in my sermon, there was a few interesting stories and I can tell you about those and then you found all the good stuff. Okay, there's just nothing to it, okay? It says in the prayer of Azariah, chapter 1, verse 26, prayer of Azariah, 1, verse 26, but the angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azariah and his fellows and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven, okay? This is referring back to the story of Shabbat a few seconds ago. This is one of the other names given. And he says that in the oven, basically the angel of the Lord comes down and smites the fire out of the waste. They're inside the oven but there is no fire, according to the Apocrypha. So basically they're in there but the fire is gone because God gets rid of it with an angel. But wait a minute. What does it say in Daniel 3, verse 25? He answered and said, lo, I see four men loose walking in the midst of the fire and they have no hurt and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. The miracle they saw was that they were walking inside a fire and they weren't burnt and they were perfectly fine. The miracle was not that they destroyed the fire. The fire was not destroyed because if you remember, there's other people that put them there and they were destroyed getting close to putting them in there. Look, the miracle was not that the fire was cut away with. The miracle was the fact that they were in there with the fire. Look, the fire is burning out all the time. That's not that impressive of a miracle where there's a fire. Oh, it burned out. No, what's impressive though is when somebody is in a fire and they're perfectly fine. And so according to the Apocrypha, the angel comes down and destroys the fire but when you're reading the book of Daniel, that's not what takes place. They're walking in the midst of the fire and the cause is, I mean, people are looking at that and saying, wow, look, if he just came down and destroyed the fire, they would have just set it on fire again. If they go, oh, whoops, the fire burned out. We'll just turn on the fire again. But when they see them walking in the midst of the fire, it's like, oh, wow, I don't want to fight against that though. And so the Apocrypha is just wrong. Look, I am sure there are so many more mistakes in the Apocrypha. I'm just mentioning the things that when I read, I'm like, wait a minute. And I said, that's not what the Bible says. There's just a lot of errors. Turn to Daniel 6. Daniel 6. It's got two more. And there's a story of Belle and the dragon. This is from the Apocrypha. It's too long to read. So I'm just going to kind of give you sort of the highlights but there's a lot of problems with the story of Belle and the dragon that I noticed. One of the problems is that the character of King Cyrus does not fit. What does the secular world call King Cyrus? They call him King Cyrus the Great. Alexander the Great and King Cyrus the Great. Those are kind of the two kings that the secular world knows as Cyrus the Great. That's what everyone calls him. He was given that name for a couple reasons. One, because he was very powerful, but two, he was known to be a very benevolent and nice king. And when you read the story in the Bible, you can tell he's actually a pretty nice guy. He's a good guy. Even more so than Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar did the same, but King Cyrus was a good guy. But he's known as King Cyrus the Great. He was known as a really great ruler. Obviously, he was powerful. Obviously, he was a strong person. I'm not saying he was physically strong. I'm saying strong personality and great name. But in the Apocrypha, he's a little girly man. King Cyrus the Great, this powerful leader, is being bossed around by all these employees. It's like, well, that doesn't really fit with King Cyrus the Great. OK? There's a lot of problems. One is that they go back to the story of Daniel in Daniel chapter 6, which the lions did, and no longer is it Darius, but it's King Cyrus instead of Darius. Now, this is a huge historical error as well. Because if you remember the Persian Empire, we know it is the Persian Empire, but it's also the Medes and the Persians. The king in the book of Daniel chapter 6 was Darius the Mede. There is a very famous Darius, who was the leader of the Persian Empire later on. But that was Darius the Persian. Darius the Mede is a different Darius than the other Darius mentioned in the Bible. They're different ones. That's why it says Darius the Mede. OK? So basically, as Persia conquers the world, Cyrus does not want to leave Persepolis, because that is the chief city of Persia. But basically, Darius comes, and he takes over Babylon. Now, the Persians were more powerful than Medes, but that doesn't mean that Cyrus wants to leave his empire and go to somebody else's. So basically, Darius the Mede, he's the one who takes over for the Babylonian side. OK? Cyrus is not mentioned as being there in Daniel chapter 6 of the alliance. But in the Apocrypha, apparently, Darius the Mede is the same as Cyrus the Persian. It's like he said, Darius the Mede. Didn't even say Darius the Persian. It's showing you that he's not Mede. Mede means Persian. OK? But in the Apocrypha, it's Cyrus who's here with Daniel and Goliath. And so basically, it's the wrong person. It's a historical error as well. But basically, in the story of the Apocrypha, the reason why Daniel was thrown into the lion's den is basically Cyrus' men kind of bully him. And they basically say, you're going to put him in the lion's den. He's like, oh, OK. I'll throw him in the lion's den. That is basically what's taking place in the Apocrypha. So King Cyrus the Great is bullied by his people. Does that make any logical sense? It doesn't make any logical sense, especially when he likes him. It's like, man, I really like this guy. No, I'll throw him in the lion's den. I'm sorry, but you don't get the reputation as King Cyrus the Great by being bullied by the people that are underneath you. OK? But that's not why Daniel was thrown into the lion's den in Daniel chapter 6. Notice what it says in Daniel 6, verses 13 and 14. Then answer they and said before the king that Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not the old king, nor the decree of the Dallas sign, but maketh this petition three times a day. Then the king, when he had heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and said it's hard on Daniel to deliver him. He labored till the going down of the sun to deliver. Now Darius the Mede was not a bad guy either. But in this story, he's basically tricked into throwing Daniel into the lion's den. He's not bullied into throwing Daniel into the lion's den. He's tricked. They tricked him and say, Lord, everybody should worship you. And he's like, OK, they should worship you. They should worship their guys just worship them. And so basically, he's tricked into it because he doesn't really think about, oh, wait a minute. Daniel's going to be guilty of throwing into the lion's den. But it mentions throughout the Bible that the law of the mercy of Medes and Persians could not be altered. So basically, if he wrote something, if the king wrote it, it was done. It could not be altered or changed, which they make it a point to let him know. So basically, he gets tricked into throwing Daniel into the lion's den by evil people. This is not King Cyrus. This is Darius the Mede, not the Persian, Darius the Mede. And it's not because he gets bullied into it. He gets tricked into it. One last place. Turn to Genesis 6. Genesis 6. And so I'm going to read you one last verse from the apocrypha as we're into Genesis 6. And it says in the wisdom of Solomon, chapter 14, verse 6. For in the old time also, when the proud giants perished, the hope of the world governed by thy hand escaped in a weak vessel and left to all ages a seed of generations. The Bible speaks about the proud giants perished. What the wisdom of Solomon is referring to is the false doctrine that there is these 300-foot tall men that existed one day, the Nephilim. Basically, what some people teach is that the fallen angels just started to mate with women. And they would end up having children that end up being like hundreds of feet tall. It's a good sensation. And so it's a good sensation. And so they just teach that basically there would be these women that get tricked into marrying the fallen angels, that they're not really humans. They look like humans. But then when they have a child, for some reason the child, instead of being normal height, just is like, just really mighty. Well, in Genesis chapter 6, which is where they try to pull this from from the Bible, it does not teach this, though, if you pay attention to what's being said. Genesis 6, verse 1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply in the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose. So we have the sons of God marrying the daughters of men. There is a huge debate about who are the sons of God. Because what a lot of people say is, these are fallen angels. Fallen angels. Now, wait a minute. I'm a son of God. Because when I was 18 years old, I believed that Jesus Christ. If you're saved in this room, you are a child, a son or a daughter of God. You're a child of God. So the sons of God throughout the Bible are referring to people that are saved. Look, if it's a fallen angel, how is that a son of God? And look, if that's the son of God, then I guess the devil is the son of God, because the devil is the chief fallen angel. So apparently, you're teaching Mormonism again. Right. Because the devil and Jesus are spiritual brothers, just like Mormonism teaches. This big fairy tale is real entertaining to people that's not in the Bible. So if the fallen angels are sons of God, that means the devil is the son of God. And if the devil is the son of God, then how do we not know that he's the son of God, as opposed to Jesus being the son of God? Look, Jesus is the son of God. Now, we become sons of God, but Jesus is the chief. He's directly from God. He's from here, from the beginning. In the beginning was the word. But according to the Apocrypha, and according to people that don't understand the Bible, they say these sons of God are fallen angels. So basically, fallen angels are mating with women. But one thing they never mentioned, it says in verse 2, they took them wives. These are people they were married to. They try to make it sound like, well, there's just these fallen angels that seduced this woman. They quickly impregnate them. They go back to hell or whatever. I don't know. And it's just like, wait a minute. It says they took them wives. So according to what they believe, that means for like 60 years, they're taking pictures, putting them on Facebook, saying, oh, look at how happy our marriage is. And it's a fallen angel. See, some of the people you see on Facebook, they're fallen angels. According to the dispensations. And so basically, there's fallen angels with women. They're just married, happy as can be. And apparently, when their first child ends up being 200 feet tall, the woman is so bobo that she doesn't realize, oh, wait a minute. Maybe this isn't really a human here. I mean, wouldn't you think it would be weird if your first child was 200 feet tall? And wouldn't it be pretty hard to have a baby? I mean, look, if your baby is like 8 pounds, it's pretty heavy. What about if your baby was 80 pounds? I mean, you would die. I mean, there's so many logical problems with this Sons of God document they teach. I mean, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Look, one thing you need to understand is this. 200 feet tall is bigger than you think. Let me explain to you a few reasons why. Let's say, for example, let's say we were talking about, I am not 6 foot tall. But let's say I was 2 inches tall or 6 feet tall. And let's say we were talking about 180 feet. That is 30 times 6 feet tall. Now, look, if somebody is 30 times as tall as me, they will not weigh 30 times as much as me because we're three dimensional. They will weigh 30 times, 30 times, 30 times as much. That's a huge difference. That is 27,000 times as much to weigh as maybe 30 times as tall. If somebody is twice as tall as me, they will basically weigh 8 times as much as me. Look at Shaquille O'Neal or his famous athletes. Look, Shaq is only like a foot and 5 inches taller than me, but he weighs like 3 times as much. Why? Because we're three dimensional. And so, look, if these giants were even just like twice as tall, they would weigh 8 times as much. Look, if they're 50 times as tall, I mean, good night. That would be crazy. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. But it says they took them wide. You say, what is it referring to in Sons of God then? It's saying men that were saved married unbelieving women because they were fair or beautiful to look on. Basically, men married women because they found them attractive. Guess what people do in today's world? Men marry women because they find them attractive. Guess what women do in today's world? Women marry men because they find them attractive. Guess what is a very stupid reason to marry someone? Simply because you find them attractive. Now, obviously, you should be attracted to who you marry, but if that's your number one reason for marrying someone, you're making a foolish mistake. Now, I had a friend of mine who went to Howes Anisopology when he was in Bible college. His professor was making a point about how you should marry someone, not for how beautiful they are, but how godly they are. And he asked his wife to come up to the front. And he said, I am not attracted to this woman. But she's the godliest woman I know. Now, look, that guy is a terrible husband. He's very bobo. I said, what in the world are you doing? And he said, this woman was, like, really embarrassed. I said, why would you say something like that? Now, look, I am not telling you that you should not be attracted to who you marry. Look, if you're not attracted to someone and you want to marry them, you're making a foolish mistake. Because obviously you're going to find the person you marry attractive, but that should not be the number one reason why you marry them. And that's what's taking place in Genesis chapter 6. They find the daughters fairly well-upon. They find them attractive, and they say, man, I find them attractive. That ought to make a great life. They say, well, what if they have a different religion? I mean, they're unsaved. What happens when an independent Baptist marries a Catholic? Well, they baptize the baby. It's like, well, you know, you've got to make the family happy. Look, marrying someone simply from out of the world is a stupid reason. Verse number 3. And the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh. Yet his days shall be in 120 years. There were giants in the earth in those days. Now, notice how there's giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in on to the daughters of men, and they buried children to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old men and renown. So there were giants in the earth in those days, but after that is when the sons of God buried the daughters of men. So the giants existed before the sons of God, the believers, married unbelieving women till they find them attractive. You say, what does it mean by a giant? Well, it basically means someone who's pretty tall. Not 200 feet tall. Look, the Bible's definition, Goliath would have been known as a giant. But he wasn't 200 feet tall. He was probably a couple feet taller than David. Pretty tall. Look, basketball players are giants. They're tall. In the Bible, you see people that are probably eight feet tall. Six cubits would be like nine feet tall. It's pretty tall. But it's not referring to someone who's 20 feet tall. There's a limit to that. There are people in this world that are pretty tall, like over eight feet tall, and you see pictures, and you think, man, there are giants in the earth in those days. The reason why people are really confused about this is they've seen these cartoons and Disney movies where a giant is 200 feet tall, and it ties in with people teaching false beliefs. Look, there are not 200 feet tall people that are existing in the world today. There's actually a conspiracy, and I'm not joking about this, and when you look at the comments on YouTube, you're like, are these people being serious? They believe that if you go to mountains, that basically you can see fallen angels that are 200 feet tall, and basically mountains are composed of fallen angels that died during the flood. That is what all these huge mountains are. They say, well, here's the face. And it's like, is this a joke? Is it being serious? You believe the mountains that exist, the tallest mountains in the world, man, there's like 20 fallen angels in that mountain. And it's like, that's what they actually believe. And so a mountain is 4,000 feet tall. That's a pretty tall giant. And they say that the government knows this. They're trying to hide it. And the giants are scared of being seen in public, so they're kind of escaping into areas that are remote. It's like, are you being serious? And look, those videos, they get 250,000 views and basically all likes. And when you say you guys are idiots, then you see a million people saying, you're deceived by the government. The earth is flat. Blah, blah, blah. It's all this crazy stuff. They just make up all this stuff. It's like, yeah, the same person thinks the earth is flat and leaves the mountains that you hiked on is just all this crazy, very tall fallen angels. Look, I'm not even making this up. This is what people actually believe. And a lot of people believe that the sons of God are fallen angels. But the Bible says that when you believe on Jesus Christ, you become the son of God. As many as received him, to them gave him power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. So the angels are not referred to as sons of God, okay? It's those that believe on Jesus Christ. They become children of God. So when it comes to the apocrypha, well, let me just say one other thing with Genesis 6.4. When it says the same became mighty men which were old men of renown, see, the giants are not referring to the offspring of the son of God and daughters of men. And people try to link the giants with these people that are men of renown. Notice men of renown, not half men, half angels. Men of renown. What it's saying is that when believers marry unbelievers, oftentimes their offspring, they never end up getting saved. They're children, and they end up having high positions in government, like presidents and senators. Look, the world is ruled by ungodly people. This is before the flood, and this really kind of helps start the flood, because the fact the world gets ungodly, because when unbelievers marry believers, guess what? Usually the spouse does not get saved, and the kids don't live for God. But those people end up making it high in government, and guess what? That's why our world becomes wicked. Look, when you look at people that are in powerful positions in the world, they're not godly people. People that are high up in politics, they're not godly people. People that are high up and promoted by the devil to being top musicians and top actors, they're not godly people. But they're also not the offspring of fallen angels and women. Sons of God are believers according to the Bible. So the apocryphal world, the apocrypha is just a joke, and as I said, I'm sure there's a lot of other mistakes. And I removed some material, because there's a lot of stuff that wasn't in error, but it just sounded stupid. You could tell it wasn't the word God. I didn't include that. There's too much to include. But look, when it comes to the Catholic Church, you can tell this to them, and it's going to go straight over their head. What they need to hear is the gospel, and they've never even read the apocrypha themselves. They have no idea that the apocrypha teaches that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, and they probably have no idea that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon and Galilee, because they know nothing about the Bible. And what they need to hear is the gospel. But look, the apocrypha is just a joke. There are so many errors with it. It is certainly not the word of God. There's nothing good in it. I can't say for sure why it was included in the King James Bible in a separate section, but it was not for historical purposes. It's not because it was entertaining reading. I think it was just maybe due to tradition. We're going to show how foolish Catholicism is compared to the actual word of God. Let's close with the word of God. If you're having a father thing for the last week or a day, and she asks you to help us do it, if I disturb your lives,