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

I actually want to preach a sermon against the New King James Bible. So I know we're going through kind of false religions and stuff like that, but this is another exposed type of sermon, and I've been meaning to preach a sermon on this, and this is not the KJV, or the NKJV. But yeah, this is the New King James, and you say, how dare you deface this? Well, this isn't a good Bible, okay? Actually, the thing with the New King James is that a lot of people think, well, you know, I'm not reading the NIV, but the New King James is pretty close to the King James and all that, and you know, it is closer than the NIV, and there's a lot of things to be said about that, but at the same time, that's why it's more dangerous, okay? And so first of all, I want to, you know, that verse, the last verse of that chapter there that we read in verse 17 there, it says, for we are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ. I want you to realize that even back then, many were corrupting the word of God. Now the Muslims just don't want to believe this, and even the critical text scholars out there don't want to believe this, that yes, they were corrupting the Greek and the Hebrew and all that stuff back then, okay? And so meaning that back in Paul's day, they were corrupting the word of God and trying to change things and trying to basically mess up with God's word, and it's no different today, okay? So today, they're doing the same thing, and all these new versions, the Bible of the Month Club, if you will, on just the different versions that are coming out. It's all basically to corrupt the word of God, okay? Now the reason I'm doing a whole sermon against the New King James is because that's the one that people usually are like, well, is it really that bad? Is it really something that could someone use the New King James to still get some good doctrine out of and all this other stuff? And again, when it comes to any of this type of stuff, when I show you mistakes and bad doctrine in the New King James, what you have to ask yourself is that are you willing to take that risk to jump into this version of the Bible that clearly has mistakes and clearly has problems and say, well, I'm going to trust this with the rest of my reading, okay? Because what you're going to find with the New King James is that there are passages that read exactly like the King James. And so that's what they'll say, well, you know, well, that verse over there, we use it out so many, it's the same as the King James, it just kind of switches, it says Jesus Christ, it says Christ Jesus, you know? And listen, I'm King James only, but I'm not like that, okay? Where it's like, well, it says Christ Jesus, it doesn't say Jesus Christ, therefore it's a false, it's false or whatever, that's ridiculous, okay? But what I'm going to be showing you are things not like that. Not like, well, the word order is a little different, it's like, well, that's not the way that the King James translators did it. Because if you looked at the Bishop's Bible and Tyndale Bible, you're going to see some different wording and you're going to see some different words that are used and I still think those are great versions, but not the New King James, okay? But first I want to give you some verses on the fact of changing God's word and God's warning on either adding or taking away from God's word, okay? And you know, anybody that makes these new versions or tweaks it and stuff like that needs to be taking this into account. And I believe the people that were in charge of the New King James, you know, the main editor of it is wicked and if the guy is still not alive, if he died, then he's in hell right now, okay? But in Deuteronomy chapter 4 and verse 2, Deuteronomy chapter 4 and verse 2, just some warnings as far as why, you know, you don't want to tamper with God's word. Deuteronomy 4 and verse 2, it says, you shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you. Proverbs 30, you know, Proverbs 30 and verse 5 and 6, ones that you probably heard people quote off many times, Proverbs 30 and verse 5 and 6 says, every word of God is pure, he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him, add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar. And the key with all these new versions, what I'm going to get into with how this New King James came about and their philosophy behind it is the fact that basically they found some new findings, you know, they find something, you know, hundreds of years later and they're saying, we need to tweak this, okay? And what you got to ask yourself, go to Psalm 12, is do you believe that there's a time where God's word was not there? Okay, we say, well, you know, it's just pieces of it. Do you believe there's a time where a piece of God's word wasn't there which he spoke, which he wanted us to have? And that's what the critical text people want you to think is that, well, you know, we had this for 400 years but we found some new information and that actually wasn't right. This should be there. That shouldn't be there. Do you really think that God let his word just be buried under a rock for hundreds of years? Okay? Especially when it says in Psalm 12 and verse 6, the words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever, from this generation forever. You say, well, you know, in the story with Josiah, he, you know, it was, you know, hidden away in the temple and they didn't have it. Yeah, the leaders didn't have it but do you think that no one else in that country had the word of God? No one else was preaching the gospel during that time? That's ridiculous. You might as well just say that you're with Elijah over here saying you're the only one that is serving God. Okay? And go to Revelation chapter 22, Revelation 22 and verse 18, Revelation 22 and verse 18. And as you're going there, I want you to remember how highly God magnifies his word. And Psalm 138 and verse 2, it says, I will worship toward thy holy temple and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth, for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name. He magnifies his word above his name. Do you think he's not going to preserve that? Do you think he's not going to keep that intact from the very beginning to the end? And you know, time would fail me to show you all the passages where heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away. And one jot and one tittle shall not fail from the law till all be fulfilled. You know, it is very clear that God's going to preserve it. It's going to be there. This is not something where we need to get together and have an archeological dig and find it like the Ark of the Covenant and figure out what God really had to say, okay? This is something that is always going to be there and, you know, we're going to trust God that he's going to do it, okay? And Revelation 22 and verse 18, it says, for I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. So you take out from God's word and guess what? Most all these versions do? Take away. They're taking away verses. And not to mention changing stuff but most of it's taking away. It's like, wow, that wasn't in the most accurate. Well, who determined it to be the most accurate? There's a bunch of ivory tower fat bottom scholars that just want to be remembered for something. Well, they're going to be remembered for something in hell. But at the same time, just because it's older doesn't mean it's more accurate. Now to get into the history of the New King James, it does differ from the way that the new versions like the NIV, the ESV and all that because those versions will literally take verses out, okay? What the New King James does is it'll keep the verses in there but it's all the footnotes that they put in there, okay? And basically stating that this wasn't in the originals or this wasn't in this text and all it's doing is throughout they're saying is making you doubt whether this was actually supposed to be in the Bible, okay? Now the history of this as far as New King James version is that the translation was first published in 1982 by Thomas Nelson, okay? So Thomas Nelson's a very popular and I'm not saying that if you have a Thomas Nelson Bible that it's wicked, you know, as far as like the publisher, you know, whatever Bible you have. If it's King James, I don't care who printed that thing off, you know what I mean? So don't worry about that. But Thomas Nelson, the publishing company is the ones that put out, they have the copyright on the New King James version. It's like Zondervan has the copyright on the NIV, okay? So if you've ever had a Zondervan Bible, that's the ones that put out the NIV. If you had a Nelson Bible, that's the ones that put out the New King James. My first Bible that I bought was a Thomas Nelson publishing company. So don't get caught up on that type of stuff. I'm not preaching about the fact that you need the Trinitarian Bible Society. You need to have the Cambridge, you know, whatever because they all put out all different versions too. But it doesn't matter if they're just printing other versions. These people actually made this version, okay? So the Thomas Nelson Company is the one that did it. So the New Testament was published in 1975, or I'm sorry, 1979. They were inaugurated to do it in 1975. But basically, Psalms was done in 1980, but the full Bible was in 1982. So 1982, this was all before I was born. So you think of New King James like, oh, it's this new thing, it's like I wasn't even born yet when this thing came out. But basically, it took them like seven years to do this. They were trying to call it, it says that the Anglicized edition was originally known as the revised, authorized version. So what they were trying to do with this is trying to say, this is just a revision of the authorized version, okay? So you say, well, what are you talking about? Well, in 1611, they translated the King James Bible, right? It was finished in 1611. Well, they had many revisions after that. The one that you're holding in your hand is most likely a 1769 revision, okay? And what is that? It's just a revision on spelling. If you looked at the 1611 Sun, like the Son of God would be spelled S-O-N-N-E, okay? So just different spellings, and if you think of like S's look like F's, and like just the font types and all that stuff, there are some different grammar things that they cleaned up and everything. And it's not that the 1611 was bad or wrong or needed fixed, it was the fact that they were making it more so to the English that's being used at that time, the way that you wrote it, and all that. It'd be like today if you took, you know how it says, like he showed this unto somebody and it's spelled S-H-E-W-E-D, right? Like we would put an O-W, not E-W, right? Or if you spelled music with a C instead of C-K. It'd be like that today, okay? So if I had a King James Bible where they just like updated the spelling, okay, that's not gonna, that's not corrupt because of that, okay? That'd be like the 1769 edition, or if you said, well, it's the 2020, you know, basically we updated the spellings. But today, and in the backward, you know, every new version club that we live in, I don't want them touching it, because I don't trust any of them, okay? Just give me the 1769. I'll figure out that it's supposed to be spelled O-W-E-D, you know, when it's showed, or that there's not a K in music, or that it's not spake, it's spoke, you know? And that's the modern way of saying, you know, just give me the 1769 because I don't trust you to touch it with your filthy fingers. Because everyone out there that's publishing these Bibles, they all are just in it for the money, and they don't really care whether it's actually good or not when they actually do this. So they wanted it to be called the revised, authorized version, but it turned out to be universally known as the new King James version. I don't think that's by accident, because I think that that's giving it a moniker to know that this is not the authorized version of 1611, okay? This is not like another edition like the 1769, you know, or whatever. But just to give you some more history on this, the guy that was, you know, the project was conceived or whatever was a guy named Arthur Farstad. Arthur Farstad, and they basically had this meeting with all these like 130 Bible scholars and pastors and theologians, and I'm sure these guys were all good theologians and pastors and teachers, right? And basically in 1975, they came together, and they wanted to basically, what they're saying is update the King James Bible, okay? And what they were saying they were updating was vocabulary, grammar, but they wanted to preserve the classic style of the 1611, okay? So kind of like what I was talking about with the revision of like, well, we want to just update the spellings, update the grammar a little bit as far as like how our modern grammar is working today, and all that. And it says that they agreed upon, that they wanted the translators to be faithful to the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew text, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, okay? So if you don't know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are, basically the Dead Sea Scrolls were just like Isaiah and some different things, there's not that much. There's no New Testament, it's all Old Testament type stuff. But basically Dead Sea Scrolls, that's different than the critical texts of like Sinai Atticus and Vaticanus, okay? If you're thinking of like the two major critical texts, the one they found at the Vatican, the other they found at Mount Sinai in a monastery, okay? That supposedly date back to like 380 or somewhere around there, right? The Dead Sea Scrolls are different than that. This is something where they found some scrolls of all kinds of different writings, and it wasn't just the Bible, it was just different things, but they found some Isaiah and some different things like that. But all I'd say is that they used some different additions of even the Old Testament than what the original King James Bible translators used, okay? So basically it says that the New King James uses the 1967, 1977, and if I mispronounce this, forgive me, because it's kind of, anyway, it's the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Abraca for the Old Testament. But they frequently compared it to the Ben Ham edition, and it's basically what the King James guys used, okay, because the Ben Ham edition was in like 1524, okay? So basically this is the Messianic text, right, man, I cannot say that right, anyway, you know what I'm talking about, the Hebrew text that everybody's been using for the Old Testament. But the New King James guys were using a later edition of it, okay, that came out in like 1967, 1977, okay? So basically, you know, if you see some differences in the Old Testament, it may be because of that edition too, you know, that they were using a different edition of the Old Testament Hebrew text there. And it talks about how they used, in that they used earlier manuscripts of the Hebrew. And earlier means like they found it older, supposedly older than the ones they were using when the King James translators found it. It's the same principle, it's the same principle that you have with the Greek texts of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, okay? Now just stick with me for a little bit, I know this is a little deep, this is just history, okay? It's the same philosophy, it's like it's older, therefore it's better, okay? How about it's older because no one wanted to use it, and that's why it stuck around for so long, because no one was using that text. And here's the thing, if they're comparing it to the other text, that means there must be something different about it. Why not just use the one that the King James translators use? Why are you using this other edition, okay? So but all I have to say is that they said they used that in the New King James, but they compared it to the text that was used in the original King James. So on the surface, what they're saying is like, well, the same Greek and Hebrew was used in the New King James. But you know, they say they used the Texas Receptus, but they also, in all the places where it varies from the critical text, they make a note about it. So it's just like every, you know, 1 John 5, 7, it'll say, well, according to the Nestle Allen, it wasn't originally in there. And they, or the majority text, okay? Well, they say, well, I thought we believed in the majority text. The Texas Receptus is called the received text, which is basically seven or so manuscripts from the majority text, from the Byzantine text, that they used. And they call it the received text because it's what was being used. Does that make sense? It's being used. But they had thousands of all these other texts in Greek that were the Byzantines text type. And if you looked at the Texas Receptus compared to the majority text, there's going to be deviations within that majority text, okay? But this is where we get into the fact of the received text, meaning that what's being used, okay? The received text is what was being used on other languages. And you know, if people weren't speaking Greek back then in the 1500s, they were speaking Latin. Do you think that God didn't have it in Latin or for other people to speak during that time? Like there's just this dark period where no one's speaking Greek, but we don't have a Bible in any language that anybody can speak. And so it's basically using this received text as far as stuff that's being used over and over and over again and being pushed. And basically what they did is they say, well, this is the Greek text that's being used over and over and over again. That's in other languages. It's being used. And the received text is, the received text came from majority text, but there are deviations within the majority text, okay? So basically they're saying, well, we're going to basically say that it deviates from either the critical text, which is the Westcott and Hoard, you know, the stuff they found, you know, like a hundred or so years ago, or deviates from the majority text in these manuscripts over here. And when you read through, you know, this, this New King James at the bottom, and you can look at it for yourself, at the bottom, they'll have all these, they'll have these notes that'll say basically, wow, it shouldn't be, or it's like, it deviates from, or over here it says the Septuagint Syriac read for witness and you know, like it's, so they'll go to the Septuagint and say, well, the Septuagint says this, or the majority text says this, or the Nestle-Allen text says this. And the way that they wrote this, or way that the editor said is that they didn't write in there that this is the most reliable, you know, like the most NIV, they're like, well, the most reliable text says that this shouldn't be here. So they admitted, omitted that, but they basically said, I want the reader to decide for themselves. This is a quote from, it says, the reader is permitted to make up his own, his or her own mind about the correct reading. Does that sound like that's the way you should be reading the Bible? Well, I just want the reader to make up their own mind, do what's right in their own eyes, you know. I think I just preached a sermon about there's a way we seemeth right unto a man, but the end there are ways of death. Is that the way you want to read your Bible? It's like, well, I'm just going to, just let them figure it out. But what it comes down to is the executive editor of the New King James Version, Arthur L. Farstad. He was defending the majority text, and it says, claiming that the Texas Receptus is inferior to the majority text. So what was his thoughts about the Texas Receptus? He used it, but he obviously thought it was inferior to these other texts, okay. So that's who's translated, that's who's heading up this thing, someone that does not believe the Texas Receptus is the actual perfect and fallible word of God, okay. But then it says that the New King James references significant discrepancies among the text types and its marginal notes. Like I said, it's basically saying, well, in the Nestle Allen it says this, in the Septuagint it says this, and the majority text it says this, and he says, we didn't write whether which one was more reliable, we just want you to make up your own mind. Which one do you think is more reliable? Just be fully, you know when it says be fully persuaded in your own mind, that's not what it's talking about. When it comes to like which Bible to use or which text is right and all this, don't be fully persuaded in your own mind. No we need a rock, we need a foundation when it comes to the Bible, we should not be looking at this and be like, well, you know, choose your own journey, Bible, you know, where it's like you ever had those books where you're reading, you're like, all right, do you want to go through the right door or do you want to go through the left door? And then you're like, turn the page such and such for the left door, and you turn there and you're like, you died, okay? This is not choose your own journey Bible, okay? This is just what the Bible says, and you know, if I had to choose my own journey, I don't want to read it. I don't want to play that game and then go through the wrong door and end up dead. So now, one of the major things that when you're reading through this, this is what isn't this what everybody says, well, they get rid of the these and the those, you know, and that's what they're one of their big claims is, is that the most significant feature of the New King James was its replacement of the modern second person singular, you know, or second person pronouns, and what it comes down to is you're getting rid of the second person singular pronouns, okay? Now I'm learning Greek, and you know what, in modern Greek, they still use singular pronouns for a second person, and if you've learned Spanish, you remember there's a difference between saying tu or ustedes, right, when it comes to, now, in Greek, a lot of times it's more so like if you're being polite, you're gonna use the plural version of it, if you're being more of a informal, you use the singular, but guess what, even when you're talking, if you're talking to a crowd, you're gonna use the plural, and if you're talking to one person that's your friend, you're gonna use the singular. The King James uses thee, thou, thine, thy, that's important because it gives you context of who, is he just talking to one person, or is he talking to many people? One example of this is in John chapter three, marvel not that I said unto thee, Nicodemus, ye must be born again, so he's saying unto Nicodemus, the person, he's saying, I'm saying this unto you, Nicodemus, that ye, meaning everybody, must be born again, and you know, if you just put you there, is it wrong, no, because that's how we talk today, the other way of saying to you, you must be born again, that's not wrong, but it's not as precise, so what you're doing is you're basically making it more vague, and it's funny because these people are like, wow, you know, the King James is so hard to understand, but you need to learn Greek if you really wanna know what it means, so it's like, what are you talking about, Greek's a lot harder than learning thee, thy, thine, you know, and understanding that that's just singular for you, and so they're like, wow, we got rid of the spakest in the believeth, and you know, it's like, I don't mind it, to be honest with you, now when I'm out sowing sometimes, when I read it off, it says he that believes on the sun has everlasting life, nothing wrong with that, it's the same thing, okay, but I usually read it off to him with the modern English pronunciation that they used in the King James, and guess what, no one is just like, what is this believeth, you know, no one has said, what does hath mean, now I explain it to him, but, you know, anybody that understands English is gonna understand that when you say he that believeth on the sun hath everlasting life, they're not gonna be like, what are you talking about, what language are you speaking, now obviously that's not how you talk and be like, you know, when's comest thou, my brother, you know, you know, you're not talking in that language, you'd be like, you know, there's a snake outside and be like, we need to slay that serpent that's out there, you know, so what we obviously don't talk like that, it's not normal language, okay, but if you're reading it, you're not having problems with it, it's a very, actually, I think it's a very, it's a disservice to get rid of the thes and thes, and to say, well, many languages use it today still, and so it's not something that's obsolete, actually all you're doing is making it more vague, and you're losing some precision that the King James has, so you say, well, I can't understand it, get some smarts, I mean, if you can't figure that out, it didn't take me that long to figure it out, okay, actually it didn't take any time at all to figure it out, all it took me is a little time to get used to saying it, used to reading it that way, used to get an understanding, you know, like to read it and it flows, and now it's just normal, when I read it, I'm just like, I have no problem, it's intuitive, I have no problem understanding what it means. Now, but anyway, all that to say is that that's one of their big things, is like, well, they got rid of the s's and the th's at the end of stuff, and you know, like I said, if you did that, I don't see anything wrong with that, if you had a Bible that got rid of all the, it puts s's instead of the th's at the end of words, or that got rid of the spakest, and put spoken, and you know, like different things like that, that's not wrong, that's not like saying you tampered with the word of God, okay, but that's not all they did. Now, let's get into some discrepancies in the New King James, okay, like I said, this isn't the easy, let me just show you all the verses they ripped out, you know, because the NIVESV New Living Translation, or you know, or Goodnight, the New World Translation, we could spend a whole like evening just making fun of that one, right, that one's not even really considered an actual legitimate Bible translation, but at the same time, that's easy, I could do a tour de force on that and say, hey, where's verse 37, in Acts chapter 2, or Acts chapter 8, I'm sorry, where's, you know, 1 John 5, 7, where's this or that? No, this one's a little harder, this one's a little more deceptive, okay, but go to Matthew chapter 7, Matthew chapter 7, and if you don't believe me, which I don't think anybody's not trusting me here, but I have a New King James up here that you can look at, you can beat it up, you can throw it around, I don't really care, but this is just for illustration and showing you, I bought this thing, I mean, and then Brother Luke actually found a Gideon one, by the way, the Gideons, the Gideons used to pass out King James Bibles, back when I was in college, it wasn't that long ago, they were passing, and then, while I was in college, they switched to the New King James, do you know that they don't even pass this out anymore, you know what they pass out now? ESV, old ESV, the old Calvinist Bible, and so, you know, ESV, NIV, MIK, MIC, KEY, MOUSE, you know, they're all the same, and really, the New King James is the same, the difference is they actually just keep the verses in there, instead of putting it at the footnotes, that's the big difference between the New King James and the NIV. Now, I want you to read in your Bible, or look at the verse in your Bible, I'm gonna read it in the New King James, so I'm gonna start there in verse 13, enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it, because narrow is the gate, and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. You figure out which part is different, you ever had, you know, those puzzles like which part doesn't match, you know, yeah, yeah, what does the King James say? Because straight is the gate and narrow is the way, but it says difficult is the way in the New King James. Is salvation difficult? No. It's the easiest eating a piece of bread, walking through the door, taking a glass of water, who so ever will let him take up the water of life freely. We are easy believism. Here, it's easy to get saved, it's easy to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not difficult. By the way, that's not what it says. It says narrow, and straight is not straight as far as like not crooked. When it says straight is the gate, you think of this, the straits of Gibraltar, okay, and what is the straits of Gibraltar? If you think of Spain, where it comes down to the Mediterranean, and then Africa is coming up there, and I forget what country is right there, that's a forgive me, but when you're coming out of the Mediterranean Sea into the Atlantic Ocean, there's what you call the straits of Gibraltar, which means it's a narrow passageway. So these are just pretty much synonyms of straight and narrow. The straight and narrow, it just means that it's, there's not much room, you're not going one way or the other, and the contrast is the broad way. Did it say like easy in the other passage there? I mean, if you're going to contrast this broad gate and everything, wouldn't you say, well, this is the easy gate, right? And then this is the difficult gate. No, they were consistent with that and said that you're dealing with the broad way, and you know, and the wide gate, they were consistent in that, but then they just threw in difficult, okay, because they want you to think it's difficult to be saved. It's not difficult to be saved. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved in thy house. He that believeth on the sun hath everlasting light. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is past from death and the light. Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. It's not hard. Just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That's not difficult, but it is narrow, because Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by me. That's narrow. That's straight. It's not difficult. And so, yeah, strike one, New King James. Go to 1 Corinthians chapter one, 1 Corinthians chapter one. Now, I read through a lot of New Kings, more than I wanted to, you know, researching this sermon, but time would fail me to go into all the places where it literally changes from like either past tense to future to present tense to past tense, and it'll read it in present tense in the King James, and it'll put it in the past. And I'm just like, no, like it'll say, you know, is past from death, has passed from death on the life. It's like, okay, but at the same time, that's not what it said. It's saying right now you are passed from death and the light. And you can say, wow, you know, that still wouldn't be wrong, you know, that you have passed from death and the light when you believe, but that's not what it said, okay. It's different. There's a lot of cases like that where it's different. Sometimes it does change what it means, and it would actually affect doctrine, okay. Again, do you want to play that game? You want to play pick your own adventure and figure out if you're right? So, again, I don't want to play games. I want to know what's right. I want to, you know, and if it's like a little harder to read and I need to learn some vocabulary, well, then so be it. At least I know this is the rock. At least I know there's no error in it. I'm not picking my own journey here. But in 1 Corinthians 1 and verse 18, again, you're looking in your King James Bible. I'm going to read the New King James. It says, for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. So being saved, not saved, being saved. When you read through there, what did you see? Unto us, but first of all, it says the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, not perishing, but perish, foolishness, but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. We're not being saved. We've done been saved. You know, that's past tense. It's already there. We're saved. We are saved right now. We have everlasting life. We will not go into condemnation. We're not being saved. And this is not even a textual issue. This is just a translation issue. They just don't know what the words mean in here. They're just literally, they're putting in their doctrine here. So in some of these you've probably seen before, go to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. This is a common one that they do in a lot of the other versions, and it shouldn't marvel you. It shouldn't astonish you that the same mistakes they make in these NIV, ESV, New Living translation are the same things they do in this one, because the people that are doing the translating are the same type of people. And what are they doing? They're comparing it. You can't say in the notes while this deviates from the Nestle-Allen, and now the Nestle-Allen, just to give you an idea, the Nestle-Allen is dealing with the West Court and Haught, West Court and Haught, good night. West, Caught, and Haught, critical text. You can't know it deviates unless you know what that text says, unless you're comparing it with that text. So these people didn't just come in here and say, well, we're just sticking with the old King James. We're going to pull out the Scrivener, Texas Receptus. We're going to pull out the good old faithful, you know, Hebrew and Aramaic text that was used on the King James, and we're just going to update spelling and grammar. That is not what they did. The fact that they put all these notes and said, hey, this is where it deviates is proof enough for you right there that they have an agenda, that they have their own bias when they're doing this. And even the editor himself said the Texas Receptus is inferior to the majority text. He said, well, it's not as bad as saying it's inferior to the critical text. I don't care what he says is inferior to the Texas Receptus. That's enough for me. He says the Texas Receptus is inferior in any way. I say this guy should not be touching the Bible with a 10-foot pole. So in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, you're in your King James Bible. I'm going to read it in the New King James version or the not King James version. That's what I'm calling it. Now brethren concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter as if from us as though the day of Christ had come. Now is that what it says in the King James Bible? Now I wonder what agenda they're trying to get across here because this is the nail in the coffin to the pre-tribbers. Because what does it say in the King James Bible? It says that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us as that the day of Christ is at hand. There's a big difference between someone saying well it already came and that it's saying what's at hand. At hand means that it's about to happen right now. Had come means it done happened. Why are you speaking like a hillbilly? I'm trying to get the point across as far as you know. Anyway, the pluperfect past, you know, it done did happen. Anyway, all it says is that that's obviously not what it says. That's not what it says in the original Greek. They just put that there. So a lot of this isn't even textual criticism or like well it varies. Now some of it is. Now most of the places where it's like a textual criticism meaning that it's saying well this is what it says in the majority. This is what it says in the Nestle-Allen. This is what it says in the Septuagint. They'll just put a note there and make you go down and read and pick your own journey. But a lot of the stuff I'm showing you is just straight up translation error. Now you can see where the pre-tribbers love this because now they have no problem. It's like well we're not telling people that it already happened. We're just saying it could happen at any moment. But the actual Bible says that you're telling people it could happen at any moment. Isn't that what people say when it says it's imminent return? It's at hand. It could happen tonight. Put your paycheck in the offering box. It's full paycheck Sunday because Jesus could come back at any moment because the day of Christ is at hand. But the Bible is rebuking that saying don't give heed to people. Don't be deceived by people that says it's at hand. So the pre-tribbers probably love this. And it always baffles me, people that are King James only, that will take that rendering. They'll say wow in the Greek. It really should have been had already come. It's like no you've been reading the New King James then. You've been reading the NIV. And I still remember to this day when Holly and I were coming home from somewhere we were driving separately for some reason. This was before I started church or anything like that. And we were listening to BBN which their music a lot of times is really good but their preaching is awful. But there's this guy named Lowell Davey and he died just recently and he was an older guy but he's like the reason that they would still read the King James like they were just like King James. And anytime he would ever bring up it he would just kind of give this discussion about things that are going on in the world. And he just seemed like a good guy that loved the Lord and all this stuff. And he said right things about salvation. And every time he would talk about something he would bring up the Bible and he would read King James. And then he's like talking about pre-trib. I'm like I want to see what this guy has to say about this. He's like just like it says in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and Holly like called me up. She's like you better listen to BBN right now we got to hear what this guy says about 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. And so we listen to it and guess what he didn't quote from the King James. He quoted from a different version. I'm like wow that's how far you go to defend that isn't it? And but here's the thing they're getting this confused with another passage. Listen 2 Thessalonians is different than 2 Timothy. 2 Timothy chapter 2 says this in verse 17. 2 Timothy chapter 2 verse 17. And their word will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus who concerning the truth have erred saying that the resurrection is past already and overthrow the faith of some. That's a different passage my friends. So it's not the same passage. So just because I overhear someone saying the resurrection is already past because they're a bunch of preterists or something like that doesn't mean that that's what 2 Thessalonians was talking about. 2 Thessalonians is talking about saying that the day of Christ is at hand and it wouldn't make any sense with the rest of the passage because he goes on to say listen this has to happen first. So if he's warning you saying people are saying it already happened you know why would that even it wouldn't even really make sense to say well these things have to happen first before that. So all I have to say is that you can see why the pre-tribbers like these new versions because it's getting rid of that nail in the coffin which is 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 2. That one annihilates pre-trib because it says that there has to be a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed and the day of Christ is not at hand. Don't let anybody deceive you about that. Now here's a big one because well you know if you're dealing with pre-trib then we might as well get into Zionism okay as far as let's just bolster Zionism while we're at it. Now I want you to go to Galatians chapter 3. Galatians chapter 3 very familiar verse. Verse 16 and it's not that I don't already trust that you know this verse but I want to read to you the new King James in this verse because the new King James actually from what I can see pretty much does the same thing okay. So in Galatians 3 16 we know that now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not the seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ. That's the King James right. It's very important it's thy seed not seeds plural. Well in the new King James it says this now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he does not say and to seeds as of many but as of one and to your seed who is Christ. Okay pretty much the same. Well let's go back to the Old Testament where he's talking about and see if they're consistent. Go to Genesis chapter 12. Genesis chapter 12 and we're gonna see that yeah okay they got Galatians right but they didn't follow through with the Old Testament and what was actually said back there. So what they're actually doing is contradicting themselves. There's actually a contradiction a major contradiction in their version of the Bible where in the New Testament says he did not say seeds as of many but he said seed your seed which is Christ okay. Now this is following suit with the NIV the ESV and all these other versions so again should you be surprised by who's translating this and so you're in Genesis chapter 12 verse 7. For sake of time I didn't put down all these you could actually look at all these places where it's supposed to say seed and see what they do. Okay you know that I have like you're like from my beard or something like that I just got like hair in my mouth just bothering me. Anyway Genesis chapter 12 verse 7 it says you're reading it in the King James there. This is what it says in the New King James. Then the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to your descendants I will give this land. Now what does it say in the King James? Unto thy seed will I give this land. Well guess who that's talking about? Christ. And you say well you know in a lot of places it'll kind of speak in a kind of a plurality like it's talking about more and more people. Yeah because if you be Christ then are you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. But the point that he's making here is that he's not talking about just the descendants of Abraham. He's talking about the Lord Jesus Christ, his seed, and all those that believe on him are part of that singular seed. Okay. Well it doesn't stop there. Go to Genesis chapter 13. Again this isn't all inclusive. I took out some because I didn't want to spend the whole point on this point. But you can see you know people are going to love the New King James that are Zionists because guess what? They have a verse that says it's to his descendants that this promise of the land is. Right. So John Hagee probably loves this version and all the other Zionists on TBN. Genesis chapter 13 and verse 15. Genesis 13 verse 15. It says for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. I should have mentioned I'm reading the New King James right? Because well let's keep reading. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth so that if a man could number the dust of the earth then your descendants also could be numbered. Now what does it say in the King James Bible? For all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever and I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth so that if a man can number the dust of the earth then shall thy seed also be numbered. See the Bible is not contradictory when it says in Galatians chapter 3 that it said unto thy seed that these promises are made to Abraham and to thy seed. It did not say seeds. It did not say descendants and the New King James is a liar. And you know go to Genesis chapter 17. I just want to put this point in the ground because in today's day and age when it comes to Baptist churches you know when there are a bunch of Zionists why don't you just say you're not King James anymore? Why don't you just say I'm not KJV only? Because you're getting your doctrine from a bunch of corrupt versions. And I'm sick of it. And you know when I hear people talk when I hear preachers talk a lot of times I know what they're reading. And you say well you know they don't ever have a King James. They're not ever reading New King James but they're reading commentaries of people that read the New King James. They're reading commentaries of people that are like that that whatever his name is that wrote the New King James that was the head of the committee. They are reading commentaries of people that did that believe the Texas Receptus was inferior to the majority text that was inferior to the critical text that was inferior to even the Septuagint that they're saying well that you know it should have been rendered this way or that way. They're reading a bunch of commentaries that are read that the people that are writing commentaries are reading these books. And so when they get into this I go well doesn't it say that he promised it until all his descendants. No it's not what it said. Stop reading these commentaries and stop reading these false versions. Galatians 3 and the reason I read it the Galatians 3 16 from the New King James is by their own mouth their own mouth out of the horse's mouth they are saying to you that they're lying because they didn't change that. They didn't say well that was different and this is why and all these other places it says descendants. And so there it's just like the new the NIV that says the bright morning star and Revelation 22 but then it'll say that the morning star fell from heaven in Isaiah 14. It contradicts itself but in Genesis chapter 17 and verse 7 it says and I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and your descendants after you. Is that what it says? Now what does your King James Bible say? I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations before an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Sounds consistent. Who's he talking to? Abraham. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. And just constantly it just says descendants descendants descendants descendants. And one last place is in Genesis chapter 22. You know this actually is quoted off by Zacharias. We read that in Luke chapter 1 this morning about how Zacharias is talking about how you know he promised unto our fathers that he would deliver us from our enemies and all this. So this is a very important promise that's made to Abraham about this covenant that he made with Abraham and to his seed. So you're looking in on King James. I'm reading New King James here. It says I think that's how it starts there blessing all bless you. I don't have it. Who cares? I have most of it written here. So if I cut off part of this from the New King James doesn't really matter as far as I think this is how that verse starts in verse 17 there's this blessing I will bless you and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is in which is on the seashore and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. Notice this in verse 18 though it says in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because you have obeyed my voice. It's almost like they remember oh I forgot in Galatians it talks about this right. In Galatians it says in Abraham all the nations are going to be blessed and that those promises were to Abraham and his seed we better not change that portion right there it might be too obvious. You know like in thy seed shall all nations be blessed or it talks about another place it talks about Isaac shall thy seed be called you know it's like we better not change that it's actually quoted exactly in the New Testament you know as far as being seed. So you can see why right. The pre-tribbers like the second Thessalonians chapter 2. The Zionists probably love this because it just bolsters the fact that we should worship the Jews and worship all descendants from the Jews and that that land belongs to them forever. No it belongs to Jesus. It belongs to Christ and we're in Christ guess what we're heirs of the promise. Whether Jew or Greek there's plenty of Jews that are part of that promise but not just because you're born a Jew okay not just because you're a descendant it's because you're of that seed which is Christ. Now another thing that they do in the New King James is they take out hell a lot okay. Now basically hell in the King James Bible is that the word hell is used 54 times and it's only used 35 in the King the New King James. So it's missing like 19 times okay. Now this is I'm telling you this all of this is on purpose okay. Every time they change hell in the New Testament is because when it said Hades okay use the Greek word Hades they won't put hell they'll just put Hades okay and then in the Old Testament they'll put shield okay. I wonder what kind of doctrines are trying to fix here or what kind of snowball effect with Abraham's bosom and all this other stuff because think about this verse and go to Acts chapter 2 and verse 31 Acts chapter 2 and verse 31. Well that's just a transliteration of you know the word that's in Greek yeah but no one knows what that means and what you're doing is making it ambiguous and what you're doing is saying well this is what Hades means. Well that's not really hell this is what it is and Acts chapter 2 and verse 31 very famous verse as far as dealing where Jesus was for three days three nights. You're in your King James Bible but in the New King James it says he foreseeing this spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in Hades nor did it did his flesh see corruption. So you can understand why do they say this because well Hades is just a holding place for the dead and Jesus was in Hades he wasn't in the fires of hell and so they use this and same thing with Luke Luke 16 where was he where did he open his eyes up in Hades every time it's talking about hell beneath in the New Testament they put Hades and not hell but the funny part about funny I think it's funny Jonah chapter 2 this is what it says in the New King James when he's in the fish's belly this is just so profound says he said I cried out of the Lord or to the Lord because of my affliction and he answered me out of the belly of Sheol I cried what does that even mean right I mean if you're now obviously when we think of like let's say you didn't believe Jesus went to hell and let's say you were just saying well he's just meaning figuratively we could all understand where that's coming from like out of the belly of hell cried I meaning I'm into it you know it's like hell in here you could understand that but out of the belly of Sheol what does that mean like it just doesn't make any sense okay and here's the thing if you ask anybody on the street what Sheol means what Hades means well we're just trying to get people to understand it better we're just want people to more to better understand the Bible that you know it's just so archaic that word hell we need Hades and Sheol it has nothing to do with trying to get people to understand it better it's everything to do with their false doctrine because they want to prove their Abraham bosom that Old Testament Saints didn't actually go to heaven that they went to some holding chamber down in Hades and that Jesus went to Hades and preached unto the spirits in prison and you know then he led captivity captive out of the the pits of Hades and then you know basically brought him up to heaven and finally Old Testament Saints can go to heaven that's what they want you to believe and they're using wordplay word games guess guess what Hades means hell so that's why the translators put it as hell okay Hades is the Greek underworld okay and so the Bible used certain things like Gehenna which was like a place where they would burn people alive like the valley of Gehenna you think of the the sons of Hinnom Hinnom right Tophet we talked about this with the Kings so what the people that were writing the Bible see listen you know you're writing in a language that's not a biblical language does that make sense like you're writing in Greek and the Greek speaking people they're not they're not saved it's not a saved culture right so what they had to do is they had to use words that were in Greek to describe hell okay so in the Greek mythology what was the bad place you didn't want to go Hades and even when you're trying to compare hell like Gehenna to the lake of fire outer darkness what are you gonna compare to this valley where people are being burned alive okay and so it's not that complicated but if you put Gehenna you put Hades and modern name speaking English speaking people today you're not gonna know what you're talking about they don't speak Greek they don't speak Hebrew the whole point of the English translation is because we speak English speak to us in English now anyway so that's just throughout you can look up all the places where it says Hades and doesn't say hell and says she'll and all this other stuff some other things is that they follow suit with all the new versions saying heavens instead of heaven singular and in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 Genesis 1 1 says in the beginning God created the heaven in the earth while on the New King James it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth well what you say well does the ass matter does it matter that it's plural and it's not singular well it does in Galatians 3 16 doesn't it you know it's a big deal because when God created the heaven in the earth then he split it right after that as far as it being now there's heavens as far as the first heaven second half and third heaven okay why is it does it really affect doctrine listen I'm not gonna dive into whether it affects doctrine I'm gonna dive into whether it's right or wrong and they're obviously following suit with the new versions when it comes to that all right so in Romans chapter 3 verse 23 some of these are very familiar so you don't necessarily have to look at these but we know Romans 3 23 is what for all of sin and come short of the glory of God guess what the New King James says we're all of sin and fall short of the glory of God now we've all messed up and said that now we've all fallen short of the glory of God and we've all messed up why because it's parroted so much because we've heard so many preachers say that and why do I actually think they're probably you know like the preachers that I've heard it say that reading the NIV reading the New King James no but I believe they're reading commentaries someone may be reading this I don't know but fall short and come short are two different things fall shorts means that you were there and you fell from it come short means that you can't attain to it those are two different concepts and so it's something that you say well is it that big of a deal listen every jot and tittle every line everything's important to be right and accurate and I'm not playing games when it comes to the Bible like I said I'm not gonna pick that journey and be like well it's fall short really gonna affect doctrine it could be if someone's trying to say you lose your salvation maybe I like it while you fell well you say well it says fall from grace over here listen I I believe this has fallen from grace over there but that's a different concept than coming short of the glory of God falling from grace and not believing it's by grace and coming short of the glory of God meaning that you can't attain unto salvation or two different concepts and so yeah fall shorts wrong come shorts right okay so first Corinthians chapter six go to first Corinthians chapter six you know they're gonna be they're gonna want to try to prove the sodomites can get saved so if you know the argument in first Corinthians chapter six this is where they'll say well you know this is where it's saying homos can get saved and so you're you're in your King James Bible in verse 9 there I was gonna read it in the King James it says know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind and then it goes on to say and such were some of you but you are washed you're sanctified and all that and it just constantly people are saying well see so did it say sodomites there did it say homos there it said effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind it did not say that these people were men with men working out which is unseemly or that they was sought it doesn't say sodomites but guess what it says in the New King James Version it says do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God do not be deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites so it'll say well you know the the Greek word effeminate you know that they translated for effeminate there you know that people use that today to mean homo okay but you know at the same time you know that same word is used for you know when it says that they that are in King's palaces wear soft raiment you know what you word is used there the same word for effeminate soft I can't imagine why you would think someone that's soft is a fag so you know if something's used today in modern vernacular if you said this person's you know how about the word gay people use that to describe this to say who you're talking about does gay mean that no gay means joyful it means happy it's not in the Bible uses that word to talk about the gay clothing it's not talking about these flamboyant clothing that the queers wear and so no the the the the King James says effeminate okay you can be effeminate and not be a reprobate you can be an abuser of themselves with mankind that's such a vague phrase to say well this definitely means sodomite and I don't have time you know the it does this in the other place too where and first I think it's First Timothy where it says them that defile themselves with mankind but when you look at that passage what it's giving you a contrast with is whoremongers and those that defile themselves with mankind what you're dealing with is the feminine aspect of a whoremonger of women defiling themselves with mankind and it's talking about the fact that you know because it says men slayer or murderers or fathers or murderers or mothers it's giving you a contrast and you know did you really need to say both I mean you're a murderer you're a murderer but at the same time it's been giving you contrast of mothers fathers whoremongers and them that defile themselves with mankind and it's giving you the contrast of it and so I don't have time to preach that as far as what it means to be an abuser of themselves with mankind but you could abuse yourselves in many other ways it's not a sexual manner as far as abusing yourself with mankind whether it's with drugs whether it's in a lot of different manners that you can abuse yourself with mankind and it does not mean you know men with men okay so but if you're reading New King James that's what it means so therefore the the homo can get saved even though the Bible says that their past feeling that they're haters of God that God gave up on them but according to New King James they can get washed they can get saved okay this is one that really just this is the last one I'm going to show you you don't have to miss your turn there but this is throughout the Old Testament they do this they put slave in the Bible all over the place okay it is a pet peeve of mine because I'm constantly hearing these so-called biblical apologists try to say well the Bible did teach slavery but you know times have changed and culture changes and all this other stuff no so in Exodus chapter 21 what the King James Bible says in verse 7 it says and if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant she shall not go out as the men's servants do I'm just giving you an example but there's many places where it does this in the New King James it says and if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave she shall not go out as the male slaves do and it just does this throughout all these places we're talking about bond servants maidens men servants it's saying they're slaves okay and you say what's the big deal because the difference between someone's stealing somebody what this person is doing I'm not saying it's right but they're selling their daughter because they have a debt okay and they're in servitude until that debt is paid okay say well I don't think that's right I don't care what you think okay if the Bible is not against indentured servitude then I'm not against indentured servitude and maybe that'll make you think about the debt that you go into or the things that you do with your life maybe people wouldn't be you know going through all this stuff as far as debt goes if you knew that would be the outcome you know but at the same time it doesn't say slate it doesn't say you know we stole somebody and then just threw him into being a slave for life but when you put slave in all these places you know I'm a slave for Christ I'm all this other stuff no I'm a servant of Christ I'm bought with a price he owns me but that's different than being a slave okay and they do that throughout where they put slave instead of just servant or bond servant and all that there's only actually two places where it even mentions the word slave ones in Revelation when Babylon is being destroyed and talks about where they Babylon would bring over souls of men and slaves well that's not condoning it my friends you're talking about Babylon doing this and another place it says are you not a servant or a bond servant or a home-born slave and it's just kind of giving you a list of different things that's it everywhere else it says servant but new King James not so much I got a first Peter chapter one I'm gonna end with this that's the not King James version so I'm sure there's other stuff in there but I just get tired of reading it there was one thing at first Peter chapter three you know where it says the light figure we're into back to baptism that also now save us it says that the anti-type and yeah I looked up the word and it literally can mean one or the other it could either mean and it's the opposite or that it's like kind of like a foreshadowing but how how like just cryptic could you be with that by putting in anti-type you're almost saying like this is not what it's like it's actually the opposite of this that's what you would if you were reading that's what it would be but I know people like well you know anti-type means that it's the foreshadowing and it's showing you this and that it's like okay buddy but you know could you not just say the light figure you know that that's what the King James says I think everybody got it that it's like that it's the figure of that of the of Noah and the flood pretty simple but we're trying to make it easier to understand not not really now first Peter chapter 1 and verse 22 it says this says seeing ye have purified your souls and obeying the truth through the spirit and unfeigned love of the brethren see that you love one another with a pure heart fervently being born again not a corruptible seed but if incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever for all flushes as grass and the glory of man is the flower of grass the grass withered and the flower thereof falleth away but the word of the Lord endureth forever and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you you say why is this so important to you because this is the word which by the guy you know the gospel is preached unto you this is how faith comes by hearing here by the Word of God people are getting saved by the incorruptible word and it is important whether we actually have it you say well can someone get saved off of this yeah if you pulled out a verse that was exactly like the King James that was not corrupt but you want to play that game you know when I go out soul winning I'm not playing games we're not playing church tonight we're dealing with eternal souls of people that are either gonna go to heaven or go to hell depending on whether they believe what the Word of God says I'm not gonna play games like that and anybody says well I think they can get saved off that I'm gonna try it you're playing with fire and why would you do that if you know that without a shadow of a doubt that the King James Bible is the Word of God and that that will get someone safe why are you playing with this junk you know I'm tired as well you know in this passage it says exactly what it says then rip that verse out and use it but how about all these other verses where it says it's difficult how about the verses where it says it you're being saved how about where it lies to you and says it's dicey but then it's descendants how about all the places where instead of saying hell it says Hades and people don't know what that means you know how about all these other places where it screws up things or puts all the notes in there and says well it should have said Jesus father and mother but it says Joseph's Joseph and his mother and they put all the footnotes and make you choose your own journey and all this other garbage I'm not gonna mess with this you know I'd burn all these it'd be like if you took out a King James and you took a King James and you messed up a whole bunch of stuff in it you made a bunch of copy of stairs burn that thing and get a King James Bible that's right you know this isn't some sacred thing like well there's some verses in here that are right I don't want to get rid of it listen I have this thing for illustration purposes but if you really want to know what I want to do with it I want to throw it in the trash but more likely I want to rip it up or burn it so that no one could ever just dumpster dive and find it over there and think that that's the word of God but ultimately too this is a big point because the fact is is that this is salvation's banking on it you know that the incorruptible word and the Bible says for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believe it to the Jew first and also the Greek for the righteousness for there it is the righteousness of God revealed it says as it is from faith to faith to think that you know well you know we didn't have a complete until you know these guys excavated this stuff in 1800s and then in the 1900s you know they basically started putting this stuff together and fixed it we didn't really have it all together until then that's hogwash to think that there's this broken chain if there's no broken chain in salvation there's no broken chain in the Word of God and that's why we believe in the received text the Texas Receptus that's why we hold to the King James Bible because there's an unbroken chain of the Word of God and I'm not gonna believe for one second that we didn't have it for hundreds of years until these translators came by and fixed it and it doesn't sound like they're fixing anything it sounds like they're messing it up so that's the not King James version and so this one's a little harder like I said you know to dive into because they put the verses in there it's easier to say well it's not there you know what are they doing it and but as you can see it does affect doctrine what they change it's not just taking out the these and the vows but I'll say this if they took out the these in the vows I don't like it I think it's bad to take out the these in the vows so but stick to the King James Bible it is the Word of God it's without error and I love it you know read it memorize it use it let's end with a word prayer the only father we think today and just pray to be with us as we go throughout the rest of this week and we'll just thank you for your word and we'll just pray that you would help us to not just put it on the mantle but to actually pick it up and read it to memorize it to use it and we'll just thank you for giving us the Word of God in our language and Lord we love you if I also Jesus Christ name amen