- Amen, well it's great to be here
at the King James Conference.
I'm loving the conference
and I just absolutely love this subject.
And so this is one of my favorite subjects.
It has been for a really long time.
I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am.
And this morning I'm gonna talk about a subject
that could be considered maybe a little bit difficult
or daunting or maybe it's something
that you don't know anything about.
But I'm really gonna break this down
and make this understandable this morning.
So hang with me and bear with me
because I'm talking about the Septuagint this morning, okay?
And the reason that I'm talking about the Septuagint
is because this is really relevant online right now.
Just being on the social media platform X,
formerly known as Twitter,
it seems like this is something that is just being brought up
over and over again as an attack on the word of God.
You know, I'm posting beautiful verses
from the King James Bible in the Old Testament,
and then you get these people jumping on there like,
oh, you know, that's not the real Bible.
It's gotta be the Septuagint, Septuagint.
And where I think that this is coming from
is this attitude that just says,
well, because the Jews are not right with God,
because the Jews are anti-Christ according to scripture,
because they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah,
and we know the Jews are liars,
that ergo Hebrew Bible must be bad,
because Jews are bad, so Hebrew Bible's bad,
and we gotta get on the Greek Bible, the Septuagint,
and of course this is really bad logic,
and I'm gonna give you a bunch of reasons this morning
why the Septuagint is not superior to the Hebrew Bible,
and why the King James Bible is correct
being translated from the original Hebrew.
And I know that you're thinking like,
"Oh man, this is too much."
No, you're gonna like the sermon,
and if you don't like it,
then you can slap me in the face after the sermon,
and I will turn the other cheek, okay?
So what is the Septuagint?
(audience laughing)
So what is the Septuagint, okay?
The Septuagint is one of many Greek translations
of the Old Testament.
I'm gonna keep this part really quick,
just give you a little background
so you even know what the heck I'm even talking about, okay?
Is that obviously the word of God
was originally delivered to the children of Israel
in Hebrew right at Mount Sinai.
God spoke to them out of the cloudy pillar
and Moses received the 10 commandments engraved in stone.
And then also a lot of other things were given to Moses
orally at Mount Sinai and he wrote those things down.
They wrote those things in the book of the law
and it was written in Hebrew, right?
And then other scriptures over the centuries
from around 1500 BC, Mount Sinai,
all the way up until second century BC.
You have all these different scriptures
that are being written down in the Hebrew language.
Well, here's the thing about that.
Over time, languages change
and which language is the most important language
in the world changes.
And so when you get to the time of Christ,
Greek was the most important language in the world.
And it's sort of like English is today, right?
I mean, today, I think everyone would agree
the most important language in the world is English.
And everywhere you go practically,
it's like a universal second language, okay?
Well, by the time you get to the third, second,
first centuries BC before Christ,
that's what Greek was for them, right?
Greek was like their English.
Everybody's speaking Greek.
And by the time you get to the time of Christ,
believe it or not,
Hebrew had almost become a dead language, okay?
And by the end of the first century AD,
it was a completely dead language.
But by the time of Christ,
it was already almost a dead language.
It was dying as a language, okay?
So because of the fact that Hebrew is no longer
a lot of the Jews' primary spoken language,
they needed the word of God to be translated
into the language that they actually speak,
which is Greek and also Aramaic, okay?
Big languages at that time that are important.
So what happened is the Hebrew scriptures
were translated into Greek.
The most famous translation was called the Septuagint, okay?
But there were lots of other Greek translations also,
and there were lots of different versions of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint itself comes out of Alexandria, Egypt,
and then other people revised it
because they realized that it was different from the Hebrew
and things weren't matching,
and so it was corrected and revised later.
And I don't wanna go into a big historical thing,
but what we have to understand
is that when people today talk about the Septuagint,
this is the important thing here,
what people today talk about the Septuagint,
they're talking about things
from the fourth century after Christ,
fourth century AD manuscripts
of that Greek Old Testament.
The Greek Old Testament called the Septuagint
goes back to like second century BC,
but what do we actually have?
Fourth century AD copy.
These are the three main manuscripts of it.
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.
So I asked myself, do you trust these for the New Testament?
Okay, so we don't trust them for the Old Testament either.
All right.
So I don't wanna get too heavy into this,
but let's talk about why they're wrong
when people say that, oh, the Greek translation,
the Greek Septuagint,
that's actually the preserved word of God,
and the Hebrew original isn't the word of God.
They're wrong, okay?
Let's talk about why they're wrong.
Reason number one,
God's people have virtually all rejected the Septuagint,
all of them.
What do I mean by that?
Every Baptist church in America
is preaching from the Old Testament
that comes from the Hebrew.
Every modern Bible version uses the Hebrew Old Testament.
The King James Version used the Hebrew Old Testament.
There is not a mainstream translation in 2025
that anyone is using
that is totally translated from the Septuagint
because throughout history,
God's people have rejected the Septuagint
as being the Old Testament
and have gone with the Hebrew Bible
as the basis for our Old Testament.
So I don't, and even people that are not even saved,
Roman Catholics, Pentecostals,
every Bible that everybody's using
is from the Hebrew in the Old Testament
and the Greek in the New Testament.
I don't care if you're Baptist, Pentecostal,
mainline Protestants,
the Roman Catholics are doing the Latin Vulgate,
which is from the original Greek and Hebrew,
not the Septuagint, okay?
The list goes on and on.
Look down at your Bible there in John chapter 10 verse two.
It says in John chapter 10 verse two,
"But he that entereth in by the door
"is the shepherd of the sheep.
"To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice,
"and he calleth his own sheep by name,
"and leadeth them out.
"And when he putteth forth his own sheep,
"he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him,
"for they know his voice."
Now Jesus is the good shepherd,
and he says that the sheep follow him
because they know his voice,
and a stranger will they not follow,
but will flee from him,
for they know not the voice of strangers.
What are we saying here?
Saved Christians can recognize the word of God
for what it is.
The word of God is self-authenticating.
It proves itself to be the word of God.
It shows itself to be the word of God.
And since we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God,
and the ministry of the Spirit of God
is to guide us into all truth,
then God's people are able to recognize
the true word of God from that,
which is the imposter, the fraud, the fake.
So explain this to me.
If supposedly the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint,
is superior to the Hebrew,
that's the real word of God,
and the Hebrew Bible is a Jewish corruption,
then explain to me why all of saved Christians
for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years
have all agreed and decided
we're going with the Hebrew original.
Does everybody understand what I'm saying?
Because here's the thing.
Wouldn't the true word of God be the received text, right?
What do we mean when we talk about
the textus receptus in the New Testament?
The received text, that which is passed down,
that which God's people used 400 years ago,
300 years ago, 200 years ago,
where God's people are preaching it, using it,
soul winning, reading, right?
That's the real Bible, the one that God has used,
the one whose God's people have received.
The term textus receptus comes from a statement
that says it's been universally received by all
as the authentic Greek text in the New Testament, right?
Well, guess what?
The Old Testament is not the Greek text.
It's the Hebrew who was originally given at Mount Sinai
and through other holy men of God, as they speak,
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost in the Hebrew language.
And so that is known as the Masoretic Hebrew text.
And the word Masoretic simply means traditional.
The traditional Hebrew text,
it's the received Hebrew text, right?
And so if God's people have universally accepted it,
I'm talking about actual saved Christians,
Baptists, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, right?
They're all using that Hebrew Old Testament
because that is the preserved word of God.
It's been preserved.
And so when the King James translators
translated the Bible,
they did not translate from the Greek Septuagint,
which would have been a translation of a translation.
Instead, they went all the way back to the source
of the original Hebrew,
and they translated Hebrew into English.
That's what the Old Testament is in your Bible, okay?
Another wonderful verse, just a few pages earlier,
go to John 8 47, because we said,
the sheep hear the shepherd's voice,
and they don't know the voice of a stranger.
They're not gonna follow the stranger.
They're gonna say, hey,
there's something wrong with that voice.
That's not the voice of the shepherd.
There's something wrong with it.
Well, guess what?
That means that God's people can recognize
the word of God when they hear it.
And when they hear the Quran,
they know it's not the word of God.
They say, hey, there's something wrong with this book.
The Book of Mormon, there's something wrong with it, right?
Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants,
something wrong with it, right?
King James Bible, it's just music to our ears.
I like what Pastor Mejia was talking about,
that original Spanish Bible, La Biblia Del Oso,
the bear with the honey sticking his hand,
or sorry, the bear sticking his hand down
in the honey and everything, right?
That's us every day.
And oh, God's word is sweet to the taste.
We love it.
And you know what's funny is my own personal testimony
is that I was raised on the King James as a small child,
and my parents had King James Bibles.
That's what they gave me.
That's what all the churches did.
But when I was a teenager,
we kind of went through a period
where we were having trouble finding a good church.
So we kind of just threw up our hands
and started going to the NIV,
kind of liberal fund center church a little bit.
And so we spent five years in churches
that were not King James.
And I didn't know this issue at all.
I had not been shown the problems in the modern versions.
I did not understand the need
to be King James only or anything.
But I sat there for five years as a saved child of God
with the Holy Spirit inside me,
with a King James in my lap,
listening to NIV being preached.
And I said, there's something wrong with the NIV.
And when I heard the new American standard,
I said, there is something wrong
with the new American standard.
I don't know what it is,
but there's something wrong with it.
I had my youth leader come and confront me
and say like, hey, you need to get a Bible
that you can understand.
You can't understand that King James.
It's too hard.
You need to get an ice.
And he said, why are you so adamant on the King James?
And I was just kind of like, I don't know.
But just something told me,
there's something wrong with these other versions.
They're weird.
There's a problem.
Then later I learned the issue
and then I was able to actually explain why.
But even before I was King James only,
I was just like,
something's wrong with these other versions.
There's an issue there.
So number one, why is the Septuagint wrong?
Because God's people have virtually all
rejected the Septuagint.
Which is why there's no mainstream Bible in America
that uses the Septuagint for the Old Testament, okay?
Number two, what's wrong with the Septuagint?
It leaves out giant chunks of the Old Testament.
Now when we talk about the New Testament issue,
we're upset about 15 verses being missing in modern versions
or 16 verses missing from the NIV,
and that bothers us a lot, doesn't it?
That these verses are gone.
Okay, try this on with the Septuagint.
How about 35 verses missing
from the David and Goliath story alone?
Just the David and Goliath story, 35 verses gone.
How about 200 verses missing from the Book of Job?
200, just from the Book of Job.
How about 234 verses missing from the Book of Jeremiah?
How about 150 verses missing from Ezekiel?
So you can see that the Septuagint is completely mutilated.
It's like Swiss cheese as far as just giant chunks
being missing from, huge holes in it, right?
Which is why nobody wants it,
which is why every single English Bible version
in the world, virtually, right?
That any Baptist, Pentecostal, Protestant,
Roman Catholic would use are all using the Hebrew
as the basis.
Nobody wants this mutilated Swiss cheese, Septuagint,
as the basis for the Old Testament.
Did everybody understand?
You know, stop me if anything's difficult.
Deuteronomy 8, chapter three, or chapter eight, verse three,
says, "He humbled thee and suffered thee to hunger
"and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not.
"Neither did thy fathers know that he might make thee know
"that man does not live by bread only,
"but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God
"that man lived."
God wants to have every word,
and when there's a hundred verses missing over here,
200 here, half the David and Goliath stories,
it's a mutilation of scripture is what it is.
It's missing too much.
We want every word, we want the whole thing.
So, point number one, universally rejected by God's people.
John 10, the sheep are like,
"Nah, not the voice of the shepherd."
Okay, number two, it removes huge sections of scripture.
Right, it's mutilated.
But number three, the Septuagint
is the source of the Apocrypha.
And the Apocrypha is mixed into the text.
It's baked into the Septuagint
as part of the Old Testament scriptures.
So there's no separation in the Septuagint
between that which is Apocryphal
and that which is actually translating
Hebrew legitimate scripture.
It's just, the Apocrypha is just baked in
and that's where we get the Apocrypha, okay?
Now a lot of people will bring this up
when you're talking about being King James
and being King James only.
They'll try to throw this in your face and say,
"Well, the King James contained the Apocrypha."
You know, when the King James was originally published
in 1611, it contained the Apocrypha.
Who's been hit with this objection before
when you've talked about this with people?
And again, this is something that's popping up on X a lot
and that's why I wanna address it tonight
because apparently it's relevant.
And so here's what I say to that.
Number one is the Apocrypha in the King James Version
is segregated into a special section
that literally says Apocrypha at the top of every page.
This is Apocryphal.
This is Apocrypha.
Warning, this is not actually scripture.
And what you have to understand is that Bibles
will often contain things that are not scripture,
that are just helpful things.
Like for example, Bibles will contain these prefaces,
introductions, maps, concordances, glossaries.
Sometimes at the top of every book,
it'll give you like a long paragraph explaining that book.
Look at the things like the Schofield Reference Bible
or something, you just have all these notes
and extra things, but everybody understands
that those things are not the word of God, okay?
Well, guess what?
The King James, yeah, it included the Apocrypha
in a separate section labeled Apocrypha.
It even has notes and things criticizing the Apocrypha
on the page saying this is corrupt,
this guy's copying Solomon or whatever.
Now, here's the thing, we don't have to guess
about what the King James translators thought
about the Apocrypha or what the Church of England
at the time thought about the Apocrypha,
'cause I have right here their statement of faith
in front of me from 1611,
the Church of England statement of faith
known as the 39 Articles of the Church of England.
And in Article VI of their statement of faith,
they say these are the canonical books,
and they list the 66 books that we have today.
These are the books that are canon.
Then here's what they say after clearly stating
these books are canon, listing the books, they say this.
The other books, meaning the books that are not canon,
that are not scripture, the other books, as Jerome saith,
the church does read for example of life
and instruction of manners, but yet does it not apply them
to establish any doctrine?
Now, doesn't the Bible say all scriptures
given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine?
The Church of England statement of faith in 1611 said,
do not get doctrine from these books.
These books are not from doctrine.
They're not canonical.
These are the canonical books.
These other books that we've included
are just for examples of life and instruction and manners.
They're interesting.
They could have historical value or whatever,
but do not derive doctrine from any of these 14 books.
That's saying that they're not scripture,
and they already just finished telling us they're not canon.
These are the books that they list.
Third book of Esdras, fourth book of Esdras,
book of Tobias, book of Judith,
book of the rest of the rest of the book of Esther,
which is really bad.
The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the son of Sirach,
Barak the prophet, Song of the Three Children,
Story of Susanna, Belle and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasseh, first book of Maccabees,
second book of Maccabees.
So that's the list of apocryphal books
that the King James has in a separate section
labeled Apocrypha, and they say this is not scripture.
Do not derive doctrine from this.
But then you have people just repeating this lie.
Oh yeah, I mean, the King James just includes the Apocrypha.
It's just part of the King James.
I mean, it's just part of the Bible to them.
No, it isn't.
Well, you have to understand the history.
England had been totally Catholic.
Catholics are into the Apocrypha.
And so what happened is,
when they come out with the King James,
they've just only recently become Protestant,
and so they're weaning people off of the Apocrypha.
And part of weaning people off of the Apocrypha,
part of explaining to people and teaching people
why we don't see the Apocrypha scripture,
is you have to have the Apocrypha in English
so that people can see what it even says, right?
It's sort of like the famous missionary William Carey,
he went to India and he was translating the Bible
into English, or excuse me, not English,
into their Indian languages.
So, you know, he translated the Bible into Bengali,
for example, but then you know what else he did?
He took their Hindu script, oh, I got my Indian over here.
He took their, he took their,
I'm gonna preach to you for a while.
He took their Indian scriptures that were in Sanskrit,
which was a dead language,
and he took the Vedas and the Upanishads and things.
He put those into Bengali so that he could show the Indians,
this is what your own book says,
and this is why it's wrong, right?
How can I prove the Vedas and the Upanishads wrong
if people can't read them in Bengali?
So William Carey translated the Bible.
He's also translating their crap into Bengali
so that he can show them what it is.
And so they're trying to wean people off of the Apocrypha.
They're weaning people off of Catholicism.
And if you look at the various statements of faith
throughout the 17th century and 16th century,
you'll see that they're getting further from Catholicism,
and that's what they're doing.
And it's just, you know, it's a historical fact.
Look it up, article six, there it is.
But people will still say that, won't they?
Now, I'm gonna stop here
and just give you a little quick historical aside here
about who Jerome is and why this is significant, okay?
So Jerome is the guy who translated the official Bible
of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Latin Vulgate.
So Jerome's living in the fourth century A.D.
And there's another super famous guy named Augustine,
who is also in the fourth century A.D.
And he's like the Catholic's favorite scholar,
saint, church father, they love Augustine, okay?
And many of you may have heard of him,
many of you haven't, but not important.
Here's the important thing, okay?
There's an argument between these two guys,
Jerome and Augustine.
Augustine says the Septuagint is the word of God,
not the Hebrew Bible, we're not gonna use
the Hebrew Old Testament, we're gonna go Septuagint.
Then you have Jerome saying no,
we need to go the original Hebrew, original Hebrew Bible.
So Jerome's living in Bethlehem, learning Hebrew,
studying all the manuscripts, learning the language
so that he can translate it into Latin, okay?
So who won the argument, Jerome or Augustine?
Jerome won the argument and the Roman Catholic Church
said we're gonna use the Hebrew Bible
as our Old Testament basis, okay?
But the Roman Catholic Church loves the Apocrypha, okay?
So because they love the Apocrypha,
they want Jerome to also translate the Apocrypha, okay?
But Jerome's like, wait a minute,
I thought we're doing the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible does not contain the Apocrypha.
Does everybody understand this?
The Jewish Hebrew Bible is the exact 39 books
of your Old Testament.
They call it 24 books,
simply 'cause they, like 12 minor prophets,
they call that one book.
They mix some things.
But at the end of the day,
verse for verse, chapter for chapter,
our King James Bible is a translation of the Hebrew Bible.
Okay.
And so, Jerome, he's saying, we gotta go to the Hebrew.
And the Catholics are like, yep,
go ahead and translate the Hebrew, you're right.
But then they're like, translate the Apocrypha.
And he's like, okay, what the heck am I gonna translate?
Because it's not in Hebrew, it's in Greek only.
And so, he's the one who made up the word Apocrypha, okay?
Because before this, they weren't called Apocrypha,
they're just called Maccabees, Esdras, Tobit, Judith,
whatever, this is why he came up with the word Apocrypha.
Apocrypha is Greek for hidden.
And so here's what he's saying,
I can't find a Hebrew copy to translate.
Like, nobody has it.
So if these ever were in Hebrew, and he's thinking,
maybe these could have just been originally composed
in Greek, maybe there is no Hebrew.
But he said, if there is a Hebrew, I can't find it.
And so it's hidden, it's missing, where is it?
That's why he came up with the word apocrypha, okay?
To say there's no Hebrew.
So basically, when he translated the Vulgate,
he translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin,
and then the apocrypha books he had to translate from Greek,
simply because that's the only place he could find them,
and that's why he labeled them as apocrypha, okay?
But what's funny is that in 2025,
the word apocryphal,
what does that mean if I say that story may be apocryphal?
You know what it means?
It may be fake.
So originally, the word apocrypha just meant hidden,
meaning I can't find the Hebrew original,
but because these books are such trash
and so universally understood by Baptists
and Evangelicals and Protestants to be fake,
that apocryphal has come to just mean stuff that's not real,
stuff that's fake, stuff that is made up.
Okay, so what we're gonna do now and this is,
I'm gonna spend probably half the sermon on this,
we're just gonna look at weird stuff from the apocrypha.
(audience laughing)
Here's the thing about this is that, look,
if the Septuagint is supposedly the word of God,
you'd have to also believe that the apocrypha
is the word of God because the apocrypha
is baked into the Septuagint.
It's not a separate section, it's mixed in,
it's baked in, it's in the warp and woof of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint is the source of the apocrypha.
So let's see if the apocrypha is the word of God.
So I'm gonna give you a bunch of examples.
Here's probably the most famous weird example.
We're gonna look at Tobit chapter six, okay?
So you can't really turn in your Bible to it
'cause it's not in your Bible.
So you're gonna have to just listen for this part, okay?
So just listen carefully.
It says in verse one of Tobit chapter six,
"And as they went on their journey,
"they came in the evening to the river Tigris,
"and they lodged there.
"And when the young man went down to wash himself,
"a fish leaped out of the river
"and would have devoured him."
Okay, so we have a dude, he's down by the Tigris River,
and a fish jumps out of the water and is going to eat him.
Now, when was the last time you had a fish
come out of the water, onto the land, and try to eat you?
Now, you know, many of you maybe have seen Jaws, you know?
And I mean, okay, yeah, he kind of jumps in the boat
a little bit or whatever, but you know,
I mean, I was trying to like rationalize this somehow,
like is this a shark, like in a river?
Big enough to like eat a human?
And it comes out of the water to eat the human?
This whole, right away, this feels a little wild to me.
This story could be apocryphal, you know?
So the fish leaped out of the river
and would have devoured him.
You know, he almost got eaten by a fish from the river.
Verse three, and the angel said unto him,
take the fish, and the young man laid hold on the fish
and drew it to land.
To whom the angel said, open the fish,
and take the heart, and the liver, and the gall,
and put them up safely.
So the young man did as the angel commanded him.
When they had roasted the fish, they did eat it.
Then they both went on their way
till they drew near to Ekbetani.
Then the young man said to the angel,
brother Azariahs, to what use is the heart,
and the liver, and the gall of the fish?
So he's like, I know we ate the fish,
but why did you have me save
the heart, and the liver, and the gall?
Verse seven, he said unto him,
touching the heart, and the liver,
if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble any,
we must make us smoke thereof,
before the man, or the woman,
and the party shall be no more vexed.
So basically like, if somebody's getting troubled
by a demon, or an evil spirit,
what we have to do, is we have to take
the heart, and liver, of Jaws,
and we have to light it on fire,
and then put the smoke on them,
and then that'll keep all the vampires,
and zombies, and demons away.
Does this sound to you like the word of God?
As for the goal, it's good to anoint a man
that hath whiteness in his eyes, and he shall be healed.
So this is just kind of weird, voodoo,
kind of superstitious, mumbo jumbo hocus pocus,
and you know, it kind of reminds me
of some weird Catholic medieval kind of stuff,
about all the little demons, and things, and all that.
And obviously, look, we believe in demons, friend,
but we don't believe that you have to like,
do magic to like, counteract their magic.
You know what I mean?
Like, you know, I'm thinking about your magic sermon.
Brother Bill Sweeney preached that magic sermon,
and you know, yeah, he gets it.
All right.
Here's another one.
Okay, Judith chapter one, verse one.
It says, "In the twelfth year."
So the first thing we saw was just kind of just,
I'll just call that weirdness, okay?
Weird exorcisms with shark parts.
Fresh water shark parts.
Okay, but how about just a historical inaccuracy,
'cause a lot of people will say,
well, at least the apocryphal books are good
for like historical value.
Folks, these books have no value
because they're historically inaccurate.
Here's Judith, chapter one, verse one.
It says, "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,
"who reigned in Nineveh, the great city,
"in the days of our fact-set,
"which reigned over the Medes in Ecbatane."
So notice it says here that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh.
This would be like saying,
"In the days of President Donald Trump,
"who was the King of Canada, and he reigned in Ottawa."
What was that?
Yeah, he could have left, yeah.
But honestly, this is just, that's how weird it would be.
Right, now, I don't know,
maybe Trump will be ruling in Ottawa in a few years.
I don't know, you know?
Maybe we are gonna have that big, beautiful,
wonderful 51st state of Canada.
But at the end of the day, you know,
that's how wrong this is,
because we all know that Nebuchadnezzar
is the king of Babylon, not Assyria.
The capital of Assyria is Nineveh, right?
Not Babylon.
It's two totally different countries, places,
super wrong, anachronistic, and false.
Okay, how about this?
This is from Wisdom, chapter eight, verses 19 and 20.
It says, "For I was a witty child and had a good spirit.
Yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled."
Okay, so listen to that one more time.
I was a witty child and had a good spirit.
Well, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.
This is teaching that basically souls or spirits
preexisted before entering their human bodies.
This is Mormonism, right?
Mormons believe that, you know,
that God's up in heaven making a bunch of spirit babies,
and then those babies come into bodies on earth,
and if you're a good spirit, you go into a white person,
and if you're a bad spirit, you become a demon,
but if you're a neutral, if you're just kinda neutral,
you black person.
That's what the Mormons have taught historically, right?
Is garbage.
And what's funny is when, you know, we have a big family,
and so when we would come into contact
with Mormons in our community,
different like food co-ops or homeschool things that we did,
and this is what Mormons would say to us,
thank you for bringing God's children into this world.
'Cause we're just like,
we're like this importer of spirit babies.
We're just like, stick it in a body.
All right, give me another one.
Stick it in a body, let's go.
We're just over here churning out white people.
So we're, you know,
we're bringing God's children into this world.
It's false.
It's, you know what?
I did not exist until I was conceived in my mother's womb.
I didn't exist.
You know, God has, you know, no beginning, no ending.
I have a beginning.
I have no ending.
But I came into existence, you know, sometime in 1980,
you know, 'cause I was born in '81,
but sometime in 1980, you know, I was conceived.
And before that, I did not exist.
You know, my older brother and sister used to say to me
when I was a kid, they, you know,
talking about something that happened in the past,
they'd say, "You were just air when that happened.
"You were just air.
"That was, what are you talking about?
"You don't remember that, you were air."
And that's what we'd all, and then, you know,
then I turn around and would say that to my younger sister,
like, "Hey, you were just air, okay?
"When that happened, you know.
"Hey, we were all just air at some point.
"We didn't exist.
"We weren't spiritual beings up in heaven,
"and that's nonsense."
But it's taught in the Apocrypha, right?
How about this?
Work-based salvation taught in the Apocrypha.
Sirach chapter three, verse three says,
"Who so honoreth his father,
"maketh an atonement for his sins."
So basically, according to the Apocrypha,
by doing good works, by doing good deeds,
by following the commandments,
you can atone for your sins.
You know what the Bible says?
Without the shedding of blood,
there's no remission of sins.
And so, you know, the Bible's teaching the atonement.
He said, I've given the blood to be an atonement
for your soul, the blood on the altar, right?
Those animal sacrifices,
picturing the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ,
the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.
That's the sacrifice that makes atonement for our sins.
Same chapter, it says this, verse 30,
water will quench a flaming fire
and alms maketh an atonement for sins, right?
So basically giving, financial giving,
can atone for our sins.
You think the Roman Catholics like that doctrine?
Because remember, famously,
one of the things that was one of the sparks
of the Protestant Reformation
was people were upset about indulgences, right?
And this is what Martin Luther
was specifically upset about in Germany.
October 31st, 1517, the 95 theses
were about indulgences,
people trying to basically buy their way out of purgatory,
paying money to make an atonement for their sins.
And right here in the Apocrypha,
alms, what are alms?
Alms is like giving to the poor, giving to charity.
Alms makes an atonement for sins?
Nope, it's the blood.
So you can see why Catholics would like Serac 330.
How about praying for the dead?
This is another thing that Catholics do.
You know, and you'll hear people say this in our sites,
someone will die and then people will talk about
like praying for that person.
It's like, what's that gonna do?
They're dead, it's over.
They're either in heaven or hell.
But to a Catholic though,
they're trying to pray that soul out of purgatory,
pray him into heaven, right?
Listen to this from 2nd Maccabees 1240.
Now under the coats of everyone that was slain,
they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamknights,
which is forbidden by, or it was forbidden to the Jews by the law.
Then every man saw that this was the cause wherewith they were slain.
So these people, the Jamknights, they get smoked, they get killed,
and it turns out they had idols under their coats.
So I go, "Oh, that's why these people got killed, because they're wicked idolaters."
They got, they got idols hidden under their coats.
Verse 41, "All men therefore, praising the Lord, the righteous judge,
who had opened the things that were hid,
betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him
that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance."
Like basically praying for these dead people who were idolaters,
that their sin would be put out of remembrance.
"Besides, the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin,
for as much as they saw before their eyes the things
that came to pass for the sins of those which were slain,
and when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of
two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin
offering, doing therein very well and honestly
in that he was mindful of the resurrection." Okay,
so you say like he's sending money because he's thinking about the
resurrection. "For if he had not hoped the day that
were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray
for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there
was great favor laid up for those that died godly,
it was an holy and good thought whereupon he made a reconciliation for
the dead that they might be delivered from sin."
So what's he saying? Hey these people are idolaters,
they're not saved, but hey maybe if we just pray a lot,
maybe if we donate a lot of money to the church,
maybe these people can actually be saved if we pay money and pray for them and
so again you can see how this would feed into the whole
catholic indulgences and things like that and look besides these weird things
i'm showing you the apocrypha is just bad literature
it's hard to read because it's boring and lame
and people are just like oh that's just your opinion that's just subjective
but here's the thing though you know it just it just is though it's just boring
and lame you know what i mean and like you could
say oh it's your opinion no maybe that's the holy spirit when i'm
reading the how come when i read the bible every page is awesome
every chapter i'm just enjoying it every verse
it's so quotable you're just underlining underlining underlining
highlight highlight highlight and you just it's so quotable
i mean those of us who read the bible a lot we're always just like quoting
verses on occasions because it's just a perfect verse perfect
occasion beautiful wonderful powerful the apocrypha is
just it's just it's just meh it's just nothing
there is some weird stuff and then the rest of it is just like
there's nothing there you're reading psalms it's just awesome
psalm two is awesome psalm three is awesome psalm four is
awesome and then you get to the you know look i particularly love the book of
proverbs and i'm really emphasizing the book of
proverbs this year because i've been putting out a video every single day
called the proverb of the day and i'm going through the book of
proverbs like once a month and just coming out with just and it's
just every truth it just hits the mark but then you have
these two books in the apocrypha that are imitating
and that's what the king james translators say on the page like this
guy's imitating solomon okay and here's the thing about that is
that you have these two books you know ecclesiasticus and wisdom
and both of them are like proverbs copycats
and it is just such a low quality inferior quality
and it's just you should be able to tell folks and i
explain it to people this way you don't have to be a tree expert
you know to know that the palm tree is real and the cell phone tower dressed up
like a palm tree is not real you don't have to be like
well are you an arborist you know how what makes you an expert
to tell me this tree isn't real or like a fake christmas tree
and a real christmas tree like well are you qualified or you are you know
do you know biology or you know do you did you see where these trees came from
no it's just like you just look at it it's like duh and that's how it is with
looking at the word of god and the counterfeit
it's just like duh that's subjective no it's called the holy spirit guiding us
into all truth it's called our heart burned within us
when we read the real word of god and when we read the other you know
fake imitation we just we got a heartburn
because we threw up in our mouth a little bit okay that's the difference
so quick review number one god's people have virtually
all rejected the septuagint which is why there's no mainstream bible in america
that uses the septuagint as his base text nobody wants the mutilated text that
leaves 35 verses out of the david and goliath story they just don't it's not
going to sell nobody's into it except just a bunch of anti-semites on x
and look here's the thing hey i understand that the jews are the
synagogue of satan i understand that judaism is wicked who's a liar but he
that denieth the jesus the christ he's anti-christ
i get all that we came out with the film marching to zion
that takes the jews to task but you know what you don't want to throw out the
baby with the bathwater the bible tells in roman's chapter three
that unto them were committed the oracles of god
the scriptures were given to the israelites to the children of israel
that is the bible the hebra bible is the perfect word of god it's been
preserved to this day so don't just get all excited about
being anti-jew to where it's just everything's the jews now
everything just duh jews you know any any any problem
you just blame the jews just like that button just like the jews the jews the
jews what if i told you there are wicked people in this world that aren't jews
what if i told you that there are conspiracies perpetrated by people
other than jews there are all kinds of other wicked sinful
people in this world besides the jews jews aren't controlling everything
satan's controlling everything the jews are part of his program but
they are not the whole program okay and so you know we said number one
god's people have virtually all rejected the septuagint number two
septuagint leaves out giant chunks of the old testament number three
the septuagint is the source of the apocrypha
and it is baked into the text as part of the old testament scriptures
and so to say that the septuagint is the perfect word of god or the preserved
word of god or superior to the hebrew is to accept the
apocrypha which you know good luck with that because
you're swallowing a camel when you do that but number four the
claim that jesus and the apostles use the septuagint is false as a false
claim and you'll hear this all who's heard this before oh
well the jesus and the apostles that's what they use they use the septuagint
they quoted the septuagint ergo the septuagint must be the right
bible well if you would go to hosea chapter 11 hosea chapter 11
now again i don't want to lose you in the details here
i don't want to get too uh you know dry here
but i want you to grasp what i'm about to say because this is important
and that is that yes yes the septuagint was translated in the second century bc
but we don't know if the whole septuagint comes from the second
century bc it might have been just the first five
books that was translated in the second century bc
and perhaps other parts of it were translated later
okay first of all number one now i have read the entire septuagint
cover to cover in the original greek okay so i can speak to something about
the septuagint from like a big picture because i've read genesis exodus
leviticus numbers deuteronomy joshua and obviously this took me
you know hundreds of hours to do this to read the entire septuagint in greek
and let me tell you something there is a dramatic difference
in quality from one part of the septuagint to another
so parts of the septuagint are very well translated and very good
other parts are horrible and poorly translated
and overly literal and there is no as someone who's read the whole thing
there is no way that the same person or group of people translated the whole so
called septuagint that we have today it just isn't true they're just it just
isn't does everybody understand what i'm saying
because it's like you have a different translation style different translation
philosophy different levels of quality it was not
all done at the same place at the same time
that is for sure a fiction it's false okay now there's this legend about the
septuagint why is it even called the septuagint what does septuagint even
mean and septuagint means 70 it's latin and it'll sometimes be abbreviated lxx
so if you ever see lxx that's the roman numerals for 70
and that means septuagint because there's this legend that has
zero historical basis a fictional story just made up that says oh it was
translated by 70 scholars in alexandria egypt and they all went
and translated by themselves and then they compared and it was
identical because they were all just like
re-inspired by god and it was a miracle it's this miracle translation
and that's why the septuagint is just the perfect word of god so it's it's
basically like the original ruckmanism okay re-inspired double inspiration type
of a doctrine okay this story has zero basis in
reality the only thing that's true about that is
that the septuagint was translated in egypt
that can actually be demonstrated and proven that septuagint was translated in
egypt but remember the septuagint or at least part of the
septuagint is coming from the second century bc
egypt so then what you have is people coming along and saying
well jesus and the apostles are quoting from the septuagint but when they say
the septuagint and if i go to the store and buy a septuagint
what i'm actually getting is a fourth century
ad copy of the septuagint based on three manuscripts
sinaiticus vaticanus and alexandrinus you understand what i'm saying so this is
the bait and switch that's happening here's a second century bc translation
in greek called the septuagint did jesus and the apostles
use part of that or all of that or something maybe but this is what they're
doing they're saying this book over here from
the fourth century ad right jesus the apostles are quoting this
now that doesn't really work does it because how can they quote something
that was written over 300 years later but then people say that's not fair
because you know the septuagint goes back to second century bc
yeah but how do i know that this fourth century version of it
is the same as this second century bc version
you see what i'm saying could some corruption have happened in between some
changes and revisions we know that there were tons of changes
tons of revisions but i'll take it a step further you can't say
with certainty oh the the jesus the apostle quote the septuagint
because there were so many other greek translations floating around
they could be quoting other greek translations because i would say
that it's very likely that jesus and the apostles used greek translations of the
bible because of the fact that hebrew was a
dying language almost dead when jesus and the apostles walked on the earth
and so their main language that they spoke was aramaic
second language that they spoke is greek right i guarantee you that jesus spoke
all three hebrew aramaic and greek okay and
aramaic and hebrew are similar pretty similar but they're different
languages okay and so i hope i'm not losing you on
this part when i get all dry here but you just kind of need to know this
stuff a little bit okay what you have to understand is that
just because there was a greek translation of the hebrew bible
in the second century bc and just because jesus and the apostles
are using a greek translation and then you know 400 years after christ you have
a greek translation calling itself the septuagint
it's a leap to say jesus the apostles are for sure quoting
this fourth century book i hope everybody understands and doesn't get
lost in those details let me let me put it to you this way in
order to demonstrate that jesus and the apostles are quoting
the so-called septuagint here's what you'd have to have you'd have to have a
manuscript of the septuagint from before the time of christ right i mean if
you're going to say jesus is quoting this you'd have to prove that that thing
jesus quoting existed before the time of christ and and again they'll use this
straw man oh you're saying there's no septuagint before christ you're saying
there's no greek text no i'm saying that this fourth century text proved to me
that that fourth century text existed before the time of christ in that
form at all and what people will try to do they'll try to trick you
and say well they found copies of the septuagint of the dead sea scrolls
here's what you're thinking you're thinking when you hear this sometimes you
think oh they found septuagint of the dead sea scrolls you know you're thinking
you think they found the whole thing what they really found is like a little
scrap with like a couple sentences on it and you if you actually look on
wikipedia a list of every dead sea scroll look
at what they have for the septuagint it's like less than one percent of the
septuagint that they found and it's just little scraps mainly from
leviticus numbers and deuteronomy and then they want to tell you accept this
thing from jeremiah accept this false thing from jeremiah that we're telling
you because a chunk of leviticus at the dead sea
you see what i mean like but they want you to conflate
a second century bc document with a fourth century ad document number one
by just calling it septuagint when in reality there are lots of septuagint
lots of revisions lots of versions and it changed over the course of those
hundreds of years demonstrably so and they want you to ignore the fact that
there are tons of other greek translations
that jesus and the apostles could have been using now i hope i didn't lose you
with that let me now just give you just a concrete
piece of evidence that you can sink your teeth into
because of the fact that we're being told oh jesus and the apostles use the
septuagint okay well guess what in the so-called
septuagint fourth century ad alexanderinus vaticanus you know
sinaiticus if i went to the store and said uh sir i'd like to buy a copy of
the septuagint what they're going to hand me
if i look at hosea chapter 11 verse 1 you look down at your bible there
if i look at hosea chapter 11 verse 1 in the septuagint
you're looking at the king james i'm reading for you the septuagint here's
what it says in the septuagint because israel was a child and i loved him
and i called his sons out of egypt what does the king james say it says i
called my son singular out of egypt i called my son out of egypt right what
does the septuagint say it says i called his sons out of egypt so my has become
his and son has become sons now listen to matthew chapter two you look down at
your bible there in jose 11 1 i'm going to read for you matthew because they're
all jesus the apostle jesus septuagint well if i open the new testament i don't
have to get very far and i get to chapter two of matthew and it says this
verse 15 was there until the death of harod that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken of the lord by the prophet saying
out of egypt have i called my son now what does the hebrew bible say
out of egypt have i called my son is matthew using the septuagint is
matthew sitting down to write the gospel of matthew he's got septuagint
in front of him but yet he says jesus use the septuagint
apostles use septuagint really because he he didn't use it here well
he used it sometimes he used it in some places it's
but but here's the thing about that is that the the evidence is all over the
place and you can say i'm cherry picking an
example that's exactly what i'm doing i'm cherry picking an example
because guess what the examples are all over the place the truth of the matter
is you can't prove what bible jesus and the apostles are
using but one thing that is for certain is to
just take this fourth century septuagint say oh this is what they're
using well that's demonstrably false right here
whatever they were using it isn't that okay they could have been using
a different form of the septuagint a different version of the septuagint
a totally different greek translation or just going straight from the hebrew
if they were proficient enough in hebrew maybe they were just going straight from
the hebrew whatever and you say well why don't the
why don't things match up sometimes they're paraphrasing sometimes they're
just hey this is what the bible says we do
that in our sermons all the time hey the bible says jesus is god
it's not like there's a verse that says like jesus is god but does the bible say
that jesus is god yeah you know so sometimes you're paraphrasing
you're quoting things or you know you're basically just
uh you know i'm not going to go into a big dissertation on it but the point
that i'm making is that don't fall for this thing of just oh
all the evidence is showing that they're quoting the septuagen or whatever
because i have another just gigantic and i could show you other things where
you know the quote lines with the hebrew and not the greek i feel like one
example is sufficient in this sermon just to give you a taste
okay and this is just kind of a go-to that you could just shut people up with
hosea chapter 11 verse 1 hey you say how did you find this did you google this
did you search this on the internet no i found this because i was reading the
septuagen cover to cover and i came to hosea chapter 11 verse 1
and i was like what the heck like this no this jumped off the page at me
now here's the thing go to hebrews chapter 11 if you would hebrews chapter 11
let me give you the biggest reason why i don't believe
that the bible of the apostles was the septuagen
because if the bible of the apostles was the septuagen
why did jesus and the apostles never quote
the apocrypha or refer to the apocrypha like stop and think about this
if the apocrypha is the word of god if the septuagen is their bible
why do they never quote or reference any of the 14
books on the list right of the church of england's
statement of faith saying hey these books are not canon
why are they never quoting or referring to any of these books
and here's the thing if you go on google and google hey
where do the apostles quote the apocrypha because some people will make
that claim like oh well jesus and the apostles they quote the apocrypha all
the time they're like what the heck you look at the
examples and they're all bogus they're all a stretch okay
because there is zero reference to any of these 14 books
in the new testament whereas the new testament refers to
or quotes or references all the other books of the old testament you know
except you ester is kind of the glaring example
of like there's no references to ester but everything else you know genesis
exodus leviticus numbers deuteronomy joshua judges you know they're
constantly making reference to these books or quoting them in some way
authenticating them you know so the one thing that they'll try to bring up
because they can't point to any apocrypha references or quotations is
sometimes they'll try to pull this part out from hebrews 11 and claim that this
is a reference to the apocrypha because what happens is in maccabees
there's a story of some people getting tortured and killed
so there's a story in maccabees about some people being tortured it's not
like the details are the same like it doesn't line up in any really
significant way it's just yeah people got tortured and killed
jews are getting tortured and killed and then they have this passage look at
verse 35 of hebrews 11 it says women received their dead raised to
life again others were tortured not accepting deliverance that they
might obtain a better resurrection and others had trial of cruel mockings
and scourgings yea moreover of bonds and imprisonments
they were stoned they were sawn asunder were tempted were slain with the sword
they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins being destitute afflicted
tormented of whom the world was not worthy they
wandered in deserts and in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth
and these all having obtained a good report through faith received not the
promise god having provided some better thing for us
that they without us should not be made perfect so
why is this reference made to people being tortured and killed because people
were tortured and killed like it really happened so
the apocryphal book is talking about something that happened
and hebers 11 is talking about the same thing that happened but
there's no evidence there's no reason to think hebers 11 is referring to that
apocryphal book does everybody understand what i'm saying
it's not it's just yeah people were tortured and killed
that's vague that's just because they both you know what this reminds me of
it reminds me of people who say oh well all of the cultures of the world have
flood legends the bible is just copying all these flood legends from all over
the world how about this here's a better idea
there really was a flood so everybody's talking about it it's not that the bible
is copying other flood legends everybody in the whole planet is
talking about a universal flood because it happened so why are we
talking about people being tortured and killed
because people got tortured guilt there's no quotation
about it's not like oh this this quote is straight from maccabees it isn't
it's just same subject matter and that's how if you look at all the different
so-called like references to apocrypha they're all like
that where it's just like oh they're vaguely kind of talking about
the same subject and it's false i gotta hurry i'm almost done
i don't even know how many minutes i'm in i'm so confused
when did i start preaching 10 minutes ago okay that's what i thought
all right so i'm almost done i'm on the last point
uh number one god's people have virtually all rejected the septuagint
number two huge chunks missing number three apocrypha baked in and you
know good luck trying to defend that uh number four
the claim that jesus and the apostles use the septuagint is false it's
demonstrably false jose 11 verse 1 right but number five the
septuagint has serious internal problems meaning the septuagint has problems
where it's contradicting itself dramatically here's a famous example in
the septuagint in the book of genesis when we're getting these genealogies of
people like Adam Seth Enos a hundred years is added to the age they were when
they had a son in certain place so like Adam is a hundred years older when he
has Seth in the septuagint that he is in the Hebrew Bible Seth is a hundred years
older when he has Enos then he was in the Hebrew Bible and what this does is
it it messes up the numbers so that Methuselah lives 14 years after the
flood even though he's not on the ark now you know he could have left you know
but here's the thing about that okay in the King James Bible which is derived
from the Hebrew Bible in the Hebrew Bible Methuselah dies the year of the
flood right so there's a really famous saying go to my Indian again because he
also speaks German knock mere these in flute have you heard that before yeah I
hope I said that right did I say it wrong you say it okay whatever close
enough so basically after me comes the flood and after me the flood cometh
would say it there we go a prima a prima la deluge that's even cooler so people
like people say this in in French German is a saying and it and it comes from
Methuselah like basically the flood happening like after the death of
Methuselah like Methuselah dies and it's like all right here's the flood okay so
Methuselah is the oldest man who ever lived right 969 years old and he was
basically allowed to live out the full term of his life and die and then boom
you know then the flood cometh well because the Septuagint cooks the books
with respect to these numbers you actually have Methuselah living 14 years
beyond the flood so bro is just treading water at 969 years old he's swimming and
I don't know maybe maybe that super big fish that eats people maybe he was able
to also do battle with it kill it smoke it smoke out some demons chillin with
Melchizedek at Temple Zero maybe maybe maybe maybe Temple Zero was like a
floating fortress during this time maybe it was like you know some kind of a
movable you know island that was floating on the surface of the water or
something like that you know you have to ask Pastor McMurtry but again this is
this is just to show you if you're looking at the Hebrew Bible and the
Septuagint you're wondering like which one's right well you know this is just
a glaring error and it could also affect doctrine if someone wants to have this
weird doctrine of like a local flood only right it's like Methuselah just you
know was it was chilling at Temple Zero in a different town and then basically
it's a local flood well how can you have a local flood when the highest mountain
is covered you know and and here's and here's what I said well they just mean
the highest mountain that's near them was covered okay the highest mountain near
them is Mount Ararat and it's so tall that if Mount Ararat is covered the
entire planet is covered except for like the top of like Mount McKinley and top
of Mount Everest and like like what would be the point of flooding the whole world
and just leaving the tip of Everest sticking out or the tip of McKinley
sitting out nobody can live at those heights anyway then you know everybody
died friend Methuselah didn't just he didn't just
like climb Everest because it was there and then just hang out the top of
Everest it's crazy right doesn't make any sense
here's what makes sense Greek Bible's wrong and the Hebrew Bible's right
that's what makes sense which is why every Christian uh uses the Hebrew Bible
for their Old Testament in English okay uh we already talked about uh the the
translation quality uh varying dramatically and and just
internal inconsistency and so forth um it was obviously
translated by multiple scholars over time that they had varying levels of
skill different source text possibly different
translation philosophies also here's a big red flag Septuagint comes
from egypt what does egypt represent in the bible right corruption sin world
bad you know even in the end times that city
which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where also our lord was
crucified right so if you stop and think about it the
corruption of the word of god today is associated with two geographies Sodom
and Egypt Sodom and Egypt okay which are two places
that have a bad connotation in the bible why do i say that because the
critical greek text prioritizes new testament texts that are of the
alexandrian text type from egypt so the new testament corruption is
coming from egyptian new testament manuscripts
okay what about the corruption in the old testament it comes from
changing things to match with the septuagint which is from egypt
and they'll also say well we found things in the dead sea scrolls
and the dead sea scrolls that's Sodom you know dead sea is
is where Sodom is located and so it's just kind of like a
it's a really interesting coincidence that everybody who wants to correct our
bible is taking their documents from literal
Sodom in Egypt and they're like we found better manuscripts by right by Sodom
and we found other better manuscripts right over here in Egypt. Is everybody
kind of getting the hint here and so in conclusion
Jesus said till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law till all be fulfilled. The jot and the tittle
being preserved is referring to the Hebrew text of scripture.
Why? Because the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet is the yod which
is just like a little like you know and obviously I'm
more familiar with reading like modern Hebrew
and stuff like that it's just like a little apostrophe. In ancient Hebrew text
it's just like a line it's just it's always been like a minimal
simple letter when it comes to you know from the time of Christ until now.
It's the smallest letter and you'll even hear this expression in English like
one iota of it doesn't make an iota of difference right
because iota is the Greek version of the Hebrew letter yod.
It's just like it's it's an i but it's the tiniest letter
one iota. Now you could you could argue that the jot could either refer to the
Hebrew alphabet or the Greek alphabet because they both have this letter
iota or yod same thing but then it says every jot and every tittle.
What is the tittle? Okay the tittle is actually
that if you if you look at the literal greek word behind
tittle it means horn okay and what the tittle is
it's a little decorative mark on the letter
that helps distinguish two letters that are very similar to one another
so that you can tell them apart because one thing about the hebrew alphabet
and if you have a bible that has this if you flip over to psalm 119 real quick
and then i'll be done if you go to psalm 119 you should have
the hebrew alphabet written out in your bible okay so
if you go to psalm 119 you'll see in verse one it says aleph
and it has a symbol next to it that is what the hebrew letter aleph looks like
okay and then you have bet gimel dalet who
is seeing this in your bible right now you you can see the aleph the bet the
gimel dalet and you're seeing this little symbol and maybe you're not
familiar with it it's just like what's that weird little letter
and it's labeled everybody's seeing it right lots of people seeing it okay
well like keep your finger by the dalet do you see the dalet in verse 25
okay and then go over to verse 153 and look at reich so if you look at reich
of 153 and you look at dalet of verse 25 do those look pretty stinking similar or
is it just me am i just going blind in my old age who
sees the similarity between these two that they are virtually identical that
they're almost identical and if to the untrained eye you could
easily mix these up couldn't you easily mix up the dalet and the reich
okay and i could show you other examples but i think one example is enough you
can compare on your own but i'll show you one more okay how
about look at 57 and 33 you're going to see the hey
and the chet notice that hey and chet look almost identical would you have a
hard time telling these two apart who sees them and sees how dramatically
similar hey and chet are okay so in order to not mix up these
letters you know what you have is the tittle
which is basically you have just like a little flourish
on some part of the letter to make it look distinctly different so when you're
writing in hebrew you have to differentiate these letters
and make them look different by adding a little horn or a little flourish
and so let's say we were to think of an example in english right
you know if we think about the way that we hand write like an a
and an o right what's the difference between the a and the o
is like that just that little leg on the right that just kind of like
turns it from it you kind of start making an o and it's like oh psych it's
an a right or like how about we draw an o
and then we just put one little line now it's a q without that little one thing
it's not you know we could think it's an o or something
like that now obviously context is going to tell us a lot
but we have these little differences and there are letters that get mixed up a
lot in english because they look real similar
right or like an i and a j the j just has this little tail or something
just slight little differences they can mean all the difference
between one letter and another or like sometimes we get mixed up between a
lower case l and a capital i so then we could add those little bars
at the top and bottom of the i to make sure hey this is an i right
that's what we're talking about with the tittle okay so what he's saying is
not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law he's saying
the smallest letter is not going to pass away from the law the yacht isn't going
to be missing but then also we're not going to get to
a point where the hebrew text becomes so corrupt
that we that we mix up a hey and a head or we mix up a dalet and a race
because you know god's going to make sure that we get
the true meaning of the text passed down to us
and there's not going to be mix-ups to where we end up with a mutilated text
that's the tittle so we have every jot meaning every letter
is preserved of the original hebrew text and every tittle
meaning that we're not going to get confused and need some scholar to come
along in 2025 and say oh everybody's been reading the hebrew
bible wrong this whole time and in 1611 they didn't know this back
then but we just figured out that you know
we've restored the corrupt text it will not be corrupted
it will be preserved and it has been preserved
and so my point in showing you this is that the jot
and tittle is a reference to the law of god
we're talking about the hebrew bible and we're using words that would be used
about the hebrew bible you wouldn't talk about a jot and a
tittle of greek or a jot and tittle of english necessarily
it's primarily a reference to a phenomenon that has to do with the hebrew
alphabet of putting like a little horn because
that's what the word tittle literally means in the original greek it's
like a horn a little flourish a little thing sticking off
that's what we're talking about we're not talking about greek letters talking
about hebrew letters okay because it's the hebrew that's
preserved the hebrew old testament has been preserved
the greek new testament has been preserved the king james bible
currently translates the original greek and hebrew what are modern versions
doing modern versions are coming along and saying the hebrew is corrupted
every jot and tittle has not been preserved and so when they come to a
part that they think is corrupted you know what they do
they say do the septuagint instead and so if you have an esv
don't miss this do not miss this if you are holding an esv in your hand
you do not have an old testament translated 100 from the original hebrew
part of that esv is translated from the septuagint instead
now why don't they do the whole thing for the septuagint because nobody will buy
it because it's so mutilated but what they'll do is they'll just
slip in a little septuagint and just say oh and how do you find these
get an niv look at the bottom of the page and it'll say oh the hebrew
says this isn't that the job to translate the hebrew into
english but whenever they say oh the hebrew says this
what they're doing in the niv they're translating the septuagint so
even though i said earlier oh everybody's using the hebrew bible
everybody agrees it's the hebrew no mainstream bible comes from the
septuagint but guess what every main every modern bible
other than king james new king james and modern english version
other than those three all the other hundreds of versions they're all
translating from the septuagint in little spots here and there
piecemealing in the septuagint bringing in corruption
is what they're doing they're bringing in corruption it's like we heard last
night in the sermon sowing the field with a mingled seed
there's they got the good seed of the hebrew bible and then they're bringing
in corruption from the septuagint sprinkling it in
corruption from the dead sea scrolls sprinkling it in
every jaw and every tittle has been preserved the hebrew bible
today that we have is the same hebrew bible that
christ would have had and and and what they
received holy men of god in the old testament and not only that
okay the hebrew bible has been you know perfectly preserved it's been kept pure
it's the basis for our king james bible okay
now this is what the people on x will say no no it's a jewish conspiracy
to change the hebrew bible to make it anti-christian
first of all i don't know about you every time i read this this uh
king james old testament i'm seeing jesus on every page so
if they're trying to hide jesus they didn't do a very good job right
i'm reading my english translation of the hebrew bible and i'm seeing jesus
everywhere so they didn't hide it very well but
number two even though the dead sea scrolls contain a bunch of weird
corrupt things they also contain copies of
old testament books that are lining up perfectly with the masoretic hebrew text
it's a mixed bag some of it's good some is bad and and
and you have there copies of masoretic text type hebrew books that match
with the masoretic text from first century bc
so i guess they're just like preemptively being anti-christian before
jesus was even born doesn't make any sense folks that theory
is just something that people just it's just stuff that anti-semites like to say
and you know i am i an anti-semite oh kind of yeah okay
that seems like a good place to end let's probably have a word of prayer father we
thank you so much for your word lord we thank you so much for
preserving the hebrew old testament and for preserving the greek new testament
lord and we thank you so much for the
certainty that we can have in our king james bible
thank you lord that we don't have to just
teach everybody greek and hebrew and spend thousands and thousands of hours
just trying to figure out a language uh thank you so much that we have the
bible in our native language and that we can just read it in english
and we have everything we need and be edified lord help us not to be fooled
by the septuagint so-called fourth century ad
you know corrupt bible that's being foisted on us
help us not to uh be fooled by people who tell us the hebrews corrupt and
that's why we need an esv lord help us to just stick with the
tried the true the traditional text king james bible and lord bless us as we
now continue with the conference of jesus name we
pray amen how's it going everyone we're here for another q and a session we've
got pastor steven anderson to my left we've got pastor jonathan
shelly and before we begin i just want to say that
i find it interesting how you look at some of these critical text
people who want to deliver their dissertations and pontificate about all
their theology and they're using all their big words and
kind of speaking into the air but here at this conference we've been
able to take and the pastors have been able to take
some complex issues and actually break it down and make it palatable
for the rest of us and so i want to say i appreciate that as a listener
and thank you to the preachers for putting in the work to do that
and of course pastor anderson had just finished preaching
on the septuagint issue so i want to bring up a question about that of course
i invite everyone else to bring your questions up
just don't be shy walk right up hand me a piece of paper
and we'll ask some audience questions i do have one in my hand before i get to
it though i wanted to ask you something i thought of
which is this the argument that jesus and the apostles
quoted from the greek septuagint would necessitate one to believe that there's
no distinction between the second century bc version
and the fourth century ad version that you brought up is that correct did i
understand that right there are lots of different versions of the
septuagint there are lots of different revisions
and what's interesting about these revisions is that you see
a trend of revising the septuagint trying to
make it conform more to the hebrew because there was an understanding always
well the hebrew is the original the hebrew is the authority and so
you know you have this egyptian greek text that has problems and it's
constantly being like corrected and brought into line with the
you know the right hebrew but then what they want to do
is basically say no no no let's let's go to
you know this fourth century ad septuagint which is one of many versions
of the septuagint and and just claim this is what the
septuagint has always been for 500 years and jesus the apostles just carried it
around with them and that's just what they used
and it's just an oversimplification but i'm sure they used greek
bibles and they probably used this septuagint
as far as the you know the second century bc
translation of the pentateuch but who knows we don't know
follow-up i had is if a new testament quote seems to line up perfectly
with the fourth century septuagint that you brought up in your sermon
is it possible that the septuagint was actually
corrupted in some way or was changed intentionally to match
the new testament reading in the king james to create sort of this
connection that doesn't really it's it that is it's absolutely possible
since the septuagint manuscripts we have are from the fourth century ad
that if they match perfectly with the new testament that someone actually
changed it to make it match the new testament because there was actually a
guy that was considered to be one of the king james translators
who had this philosophy he wanted to bring all old testament
and new testament quotations into perfect alignment
so that in our king james anytime the new testament quotes the old
it lines up word for word and they're like we don't want this guy because
you know that we don't want to do that what the king james does
is it translates the hebrew in the old testament translates the greek in the new
testament and when there's a discrepancy they
don't fix it they leave it there and so that's why the quotations are
different so you can see that there are people who have that mentality
so yeah absolutely the only way to prove that that didn't happen
would be to find copies of that greek text from before the time of christ
hopefully that all made sense to everyone and i want to mention
that someone has already come up to me and said hey i did
know that the apocrypha originated in the greek septuagint
and so new information being brought here today and one of the questions that
was brought to me from the crowd just now is
is it up to the get it one more time here
is the burden of proof on the king james only is to prove the preservation of
scripture or it is on the modern bible crowd to
prove that it hasn't been preserved and perhaps
pastor shelly if you wanted to tackle that burden of proof question
well the king james bible survived the last 400 years
and they bring in a new translation and they're comparing it to the king james
so it seems like they have to prove why the king james is
insufficient or has some kind of an issue which they never seem to really do
in fact i don't know if i'll bring it up in my
sermon or not but if you read the esv it's pretty funny because the very
beginning of the preface of the esv all it does is just explain how the
king james bible is a immeasurable treasure that could
never basically be replaced and that is basically perfect and i'm just thinking
like that's the worst way to start of
like explaining why you need this other book
when it just says hey the king james is basically perfect
and it's this treasure that can never be distinguished it's just like
well it sounds like we should just get a king james bible so
um to me you know with this quote burden of proof
we should be considered innocent until proven guilty
so if the king james bible has continued to be innocent for the last 400 years
well then why in the world are we changing but i mean honestly
the burden of proof argument also is probably being
just misused because they know they really don't have an argument
i mean the king james like he said in his sermon and other sermons
is the most read it's the most popular if you go all over the world you go to
the caribbean you go to jamaica you go to the bahamas
hey you go into inner city chicago and they're king james only
and so it's pretty much the burden of proof is on them in a sense but
this is a legal term that i don't even think really is that valuable because the
king james is superior the modern texts don't really hold water
and i would i would say that you know in this argument
when when you start getting really technical you know i i don't feel like a
lot of people get one over and i think that a lot of our conference has been
focusing on a lot of the technical and i'm for it
and i like it but at the end of the day it is a spiritual argument
and we need to show people in the bible why it's been preserved
and you know our documentary the preserved bible my goal
with that film was to illustrate that hey
there's only one bible that can be preserved there's only one
bible that fits the bill so if you just believe in the doctrine of preservation
you're just king james only so so that's kind of where i try to shift the
argument just to add one thing to that is that when you look at the attacks on
the king james as far as like if you ask someone well show me a
problem with the king james show me an error show me where they
translated it wrong it's always some like meaningless minutia
that doesn't even affect any doctrine like oh well it says
lord here and it should say lord god or like oh here it says you know which is
and which was and which is to come instead of which is and which was the
holy and it'll just be like these meaningless minutia
that don't affect the meaning or anything like that it's all this little
straining it and that but isn't it funny that when we point
out the problems in the modern versions it's like hey look this whole verse is
missing and now there's no prerequisite to baptism
hey the most powerful verse on the trinity is gone it's like
big issues of like hey this verse is teaching work salvation
when they're just like hey it's uh you know
fellowship of the mystery instead of dispensation of the mystery
and you're just like what is that even different
yeah bring a good argument first yeah agreed bring an argument that matters
yeah next question someone is asking what year was the apocrypha
taken out of the king james bible and as i said in my sermon it was never
part of the text of scripture always in a separate section
for reference understood to be non-canonical i already proved that
six ways sunday but i just want to say it again in case anybody's just watching
just this video or something but uh when was it taken out i mean i
know that it was published in the 1800s without it
but you know i don't i don't know exactly when it was taken out i don't
really care you know because at the end of the day it was never
part of the text of scripture even in 1611 it wasn't so
it's just saving money to not print it because essentially it's trash
and if you look at the replica over here you know
most of these quote apocryphal books are like kind of this old testament section
but in fact you have to go all the way past the new testament
pass all the indexes to the trash section to find the apocrypha in the 1611
so there's no way to conflate that between the testament it's between i
thought it was at the very end of the replica you had
maybe it's a different edition in the first edition it's okay well i guess
there is a couple editions but whatever replica you have it is at the very end
i believe you i'm just saying the first edition i know it's between
maybe some of them let's prove it let's bring it out right now
right now but again it is it is trash we get that that bible here since we're on
the topic of the apocrypha you had brought up in your sermon the reason why
it was included in the first place was to sort of wean people off of it
and could show the yeah and that's actually what i was going to ask
uh part of the mentality also was to make it excessive
people can see the absurdity correct yeah and i and and and keep in mind
finally finally they made a bible that fits past the box
whoever's wrong has to beat themselves with these drugs
man i'm getting my workout there it is in the middle
apocrypha well look here's the gospel of luke
apocrypha apocrypha you're right all right and then this is uh
revelation i stand i sit corrected all right
it was in the middle well i carry this out soul winning every day so i should
know catch this thing is incredibly heavy if
you haven't tried and here's the thing if you go to a museum you can actually
get a real first edition and the weight is identical that
replica is a extremely good replica in the sense that the paper feels the same
the weight is everything about it's identical that is
a very high quality replica so there's no point in even seeing a real one
because that is in essence the real one so perfect let's move on to this next
question this person says dr gawson 1850
switzerland posited that if jesus or the apostles quoted the
septuagint it was not that they were quoting as such
but were as scriptural authors themselves speaking by their own
authority in ways that the septuagint happened to render correctly
or in the alternative that they were using the septuagint in the same way we'd
use the ostevald referencing it where correct as a
practical tool not as an instrument of the entire corpus as
perfect he corrects i mean yeah i mean yeah let's go to the next question
i mean honestly like i don't think that uh yeah i would say that that's a that's
a great theory you know like like it's hard to know
exactly what the situation was but that's not a bad theory at all no
sounds good have any of you heard of the one book stands alone
book by doug stoffer is no next question can you discuss a this person is
basically asking why a translation a bible translation that would use an idiom
for example god forbid rather than may it never be
is superior than just simply going word for word
you want to i mean you know you can try other common phrases in english it's
raining cats and dogs might sound really awkward in a foreign language because
they're going to think like you know los peros and el gatos is like what
what you know the dogs and the cows what are you talking about like they would
totally miss the fact you're talking about rain
so you know again sometimes it could be something like that
but like i think pastor inderson brought up a good example on our
baptist bias podcast as well in spanish it's like
mayama wan is like my name is jonathan but if i'm translating it like really
strictly it would be something like i call myself and again if you go with
ruckmanites would be like me call myself jon and and again that's
almost like how google translate sounded at the very beginning
where it was just like not even getting word order correct because it's going so
ruckmanite and it's just like that would be
awkward if i'm just like me call myself jon and so at the end of
the day to call that ruckmanite because not even ruckman was there that's
sure okay that's boil that's one line boil
i'm i'm reviving ruckmanism okay but uh yeah essentially you know sometimes you
want to have an idiom come across and again
king james is not this is like overly literal
strict word for word translation it's going to do a little bit of just
thought for thought and phrase for phrase in certain sections like that so
you have to i think yeah exactly otherwise it's not a translation
and people people have this misconception if they don't speak two
languages they have a misconception that literal
means more accurate more but but literal is not more accurate
literal is bad translation and misleading and less accurate
you know it's just true and and and again you know
mayamo means i call myself if i said i call myself steven
you would think my name is not steven right if i said well i call myself steven
you'd think my name is not steven okay so that's not a better translation of
mayamo because if you said mayamo is stable my name is steven
so it's literally you're going to get the opposite meaning by translating
literally and by using a thought for thought of
my name is steven you're getting a better more accurate translation
so it's just true keeping with the theme of ruckmanism
is there any one aspect of ruckmanism that irritates you or angers you the most
i don't know maybe maybe like uh patrick boil throwing the greek new testament on
the ground and saying it's trash the actual perfect preserve pure
word of god that was used to translate the king james or or gene kim getting up and saying the
original greek is garbage and someday all of you are gonna have to bow the knee and say peter ruckman
was right and confess peter ruckman to the glory of god i mean these people are crazy like we're
gonna have to someday stand before god and say yes god the original greek was garbage and peter ruckman
is your prophet there's a gene kim clip and i'm not i'm only exaggerating like this much
i mean just i guess just the most annoying thing about ruckmanites is ruckmanites
pretty good answer master shelly anything you wanted to add to that or did you want me to just
yeah there's a couple quotes we have in our film so you can check them out and they're included but
again they're saying that the english is somehow correcting the greek well then you don't have a
preserved bible and that's a main point that we make in the film and again you listen to ruckmanite
sometimes they're making the same point that james white is they're almost both trying to
make this point that the underlying greek doesn't really exist or there's no legitimacy to the texas
receptus and you know again we can be king james only and also believe in the texas receptus hey i
can believe the king james bible is the word of god and i can believe that the bishops was the word
of god and i can believe that the tendo was the word of god and i can believe that the underlying
greek and hebrew is the word of god and so you know i'm not limiting myself to say hey this is
the only word of god but it just is the word of god and so we we want to basically kind of
differentiate from that retardism ruckmanism that a lot of people will reject this good doctrine
because they think well what do you what about spanish speakers or what about greek speakers or
what about hebrew or what about just common sense and logic and a brain in your head
and then they just get mad because ruckmanism you know leads to a just a flawed thinking
and then you'll notice a little levin levin's a whole lump they're a bunch of flat earthers
and weirdos and all kinds of other stuff you know what's funny is that people think it's so crazy
to say well the king james bible doesn't have errors in it the king james bible is 100 accurate
it says the same thing as the greek and hebrew that's actually not a crazy thing to believe and
i'll tell you why because you have the bishop's bible which was i forget how many scholars involved
like 16 or 18 of these really super high level scholars spent years and years and years translating
the bishop's bible which is an awesome bible you already have something that's 99.9 percent
then then on top of that you have the 54 scholars spending seven years going over the bishop's bible
with a fine-tooth comb comparing it with the original languages studying the original languages
looking at other translations just going over it and over and over it but like why would we just
well there it must just be filled with mistakes after that kind of rigor and that kind of effort
and how about the providence of god in 1611 we didn't know english was going to be the most
important language in the world but in 2025 two out of eight billion people two billion of them
speak english okay it is the most as their first language no not no not not as the first language
but as a second language i thought it was larger than that when we talked about second and third
languages no it's it what's it's maybe it i mean it's growing every day so i'm sure it's two point
maybe it's 2.1 2.2 yeah i don't know but i i'm talking first or second language you know when i
say that because because first language it's it's way under a million first language but but but you
include secular it's a universal second language super important language god knew it was going to
be the lingua franca of the world which is why god allowed events to take place to give us this
awesome bishop's bible and then just put this insane amount of effort into getting it from 99
to 100 and it's just like here we are and it's just the par excellence translation in the history of
mankind well and you can look at it too like the tindale they've analyzed it and suggested it's
about 85 identical to the king james and when we talk about like these differences again it's
virtually non it's not even different if i just read a bishop's bible out loud large sections of
it wouldn't even be different at all yeah didn't you was it you that was saying there was this one
chapter it was pastor thompson just read john chapter three in the bishop's bible out loud
it's just like yeah pastor thompson said like john 17 between the bishops and the king james had like
one word different it was yeah for even from tindale to king james there's like one word
different or something but like these are the type of differences like in the tindale bible at the
end of ephesians chapter 5 it says see that the wife fear her husband and then in the king james
it says see that the wife reverence her husband you know that's the kind of difference so it's
like i like them already no because because here's the thing the tindale tindale is translating more
literal yeah see the wife fear her husband because it's literal interprets the bible it's a literal
like word where we get phobia like phobeo that's the word that it uses in ephesians 5 but then the
king james is coloring it or shading it as like see that the wife reverence her husband because
that's like giving you a clearer more accurate picture of you know just to make sure no one
thinks that wives are supposed to be terrified of their husbands and just trembling before them
you know what i mean so some of us my wife is trembling but the but but but but the point is
what i'm saying is you can't say like oh tindale's wrong when he says see the wife is tindale's wrong
corrupt no he's not wrong tindale translated it right and so did the king james those are
both legitimate translations of that greek word they're both correct the king james is just better
style better nuance more beautiful and some of you wives are like thank god for the you know
the king james i mean yeah i have a book on comparisons and what's even crazy is like the
duet reams which is coming from the latin is still so much more similar to the king james than any of
these modern versions the latin bulgate isn't as bad as the modern version right and and the
translators of the readers they say explicitly that they believe that even the meanest translation
which the word mean is more like an arithmetic type definition where we talk about the average the most
average common translation of the bible right is still the word of god and i think that's the
right philosophy i think that as long as the text has been translated accurately it is the word of
god and so we don't want to get this idea that the bible didn't exist until 1611 it's still in the
bishop's bible it's still in the tindale bible and so majestic it got more majestic got a little bit
refined it got fancier and more majestic tindale is just he's giving you the it wasn't the meanest
translation it's the greatest translation the king james bible tindale's giving you the facts
the king james is giving it to you in a more magnificent beautiful way but they're both
accurate again what king james is being quoted as said in the epistle dedicatory is that it's to be
one more exact translation of the holy scriptures into the english tongue tindale's the rough draft
bishop's bible is another draft king james the final draft exactly we've been using terms
throughout the conference critical text even textual criticism for anyone listening who's
unfamiliar with the concept of textual criticism how would you define it in layman's what does
that mean to you textual criticism this concept i mean there are two different terms uh textual
criticism is just the process by which you just determine what reading you're going to go with
and of course even the king james bible is going under quote textual criticism because they're
comparing the bishop's bible with the underlying hebrew and greek and they even considered other
languages and they're trying to make sure they have it quote dialed in the quote critical text
is just a more like a colloquial term or just kind of a phrase used to describe certain manuscripts
that are in minority readings that were just cherry picked for the modern versions for a
modern greek text with wescott and hort specifically being kind of the origin of this quote critical
text but you could even go beyond that because you could say that the uh what he talked about
the septuagint is the quote critical text in some ways but i mean to me typically when someone's
bringing up the critical text i'm thinking of wescott and hort cyanaticus vaticanus usually
people just use the term critical text to just refer to you know the modern scholars decisions
about what they think the real text is as opposed to that which is the traditional received text
what's the opposite of the received text the critical text so it's like because they're doing
they're reopening the can of worms of textual criticism and they're like well no it actually
says this so anything that's not really based on the texas receptus uh as far as what was used in
creating the kings names by er but if we really got strict everything's a critical text yeah
i mean again it's kind of a hard definition strictly but typically they're talking about
west cotton hort greek because because that cotton hort in the late 1800s came out with the first
like greek new testament to compete with the texas receptus they came out with their own
greek new testament and then the new you know versions are still kind of based on their
mentality in a lot of ways right and it's based on mostly three manuscripts sinaiticus vaticanus
and alexandrinus and they are septuagens they are greek copies of the bible they have their
septuagens in the old testament yeah that's what a lot of people think of sinaiticus vaticanus and
alexandrinus as being new testament manuscripts but they're full bibles they're septuagens in
the old testament and a corrupt greek new testament bundled that's what they are they're full bibles
seeing some yawns so i'm gonna go ahead and ask something exciting here i appreciate the
answers though all kidding aside but um which critical text advocate would you say because
i asked you about ruckmanism which critical text advocate going to the other side irritates you the
most angers you the most pastor shelly i have an idea about who you might say but go kind of a tight
race because i just i can't stand mark ward hearing his voice but to me jonathan burrish just takes the
cake because he's just the most idiotic foolish nonsensical uh fake pastor and basically nobody
knows who he is so that's why you know i can't stand basically a failed pastor who got fired
from his church because he tried to turn his church away from the king james to modern versions
and they threw him out on his butt and now he killed still comes old pastor but he's a
pastor of nothing no i think he just got he just became a pastor of a new blog oh he took over
something to destroy it just kind of has a punchable face and i'm and i'm not even a violent person
he really does he makes you like physically angry listening to him talk and i'm not joe jones or
anything just i don't i don't just constantly think about you know like beating and killing people you
know he just does have kind of a punchable face i'm not gonna lie yeah i mean but do you have
do you have another answer i mean no no because like like like here's the thing even though even
though like you know james white is just such a is just such a liar and a false teacher and a fraud
like i still like at least respect him on some level just for being like a smart guy whereas like
some of these other guys are just so stupid it's just like you're so stupid like at least at least
james white is like smart at least peter rockman was smart can i throw it back where are you at then
on this question it's a tough question yeah i just if i have to pick a name i'm gonna have to go with
mark ward just because of the fact that he sounds like such a flaming faggot i'll end with this
question so that we can one last question and we'll wrap it up here so we can go have some food and
enjoy the rest of our day you bring up james white pastor anderson one of his big arguments
against king james onlyism is that if the translators were aware of the preponderance
of evidence that the textual critics of today have at their disposal that they would actually
be on his side how do you react to that statement that he makes often i would say that they rejected
it because they did have a lot of this crap and they didn't even want it so it's not like these
manuscripts didn't exist because the the whole point is that they did exist they were either hidden
rejected not used why in the world would god have one of the king james translators go through all
this work effort and then be like haha i was just joking it was in a monastery somewhere and you
didn't have it i mean it's just kind of stupid yeah and i i would say if they if the king james
translators didn't have it then that just proves our point even more that it will if they didn't
have it it must not have been the word of god because why would the god allow the word of god
to just be missing in action for like most of church history just for like you know 90 percent
of church history is just missing or something stupid makes no sense doesn't the bible say the
word is 90 yeah and obviously we believe it's been preserved in all ages not just that we have it
today but that it's been preserved in all ages and and so if they didn't have it then that just
proves that it wasn't around well they just didn't know about it it's like well there's a lot of
people that have traveled a lot and seen a lot if they don't know about it it must not be a thing
you know and and then there's there's that issue and then there's something else i was going to say
about it though. While you're thinking about that Constantine von Tischendorf was going on an
expedition to go and find this crap and he's one of the ones that went to these monasteries to find
Sinaiticus and that's where we get this quote you know critical text that's really important
and some of you in modern bible versions some of their verses are based on one manuscript
Sinaiticus so it's pretty much provable that Sinaiticus was not available to the king's
name's translators because it's hidden away in this one monastery some people would argue that
they did have access to Vaticanus and they rejected it didn't didn't care about it or whatever
but the other point i wanted to make is that besides the fact what those types will say is
like oh they didn't have access to you know the manuscripts that we have but then another argument
they'll make is like oh they didn't have access to like the grammatical knowledge that we have
we've we've got more grammatical knowledge first of all that's just false because the king james
translators had all read greek literature like illion and the odyssey cover to cover i want to
know how many people on the translation committee for the esv have read the illion and the odyssey
cover to cover i want to know how many people on the translation committee for the niv have read
the illion and the odyssey cover to cover i want to know if the people behind the legacy standard
bible have read the illion and the odyssey cover to cover and i'll bet you that most of them haven't
and i would not be surprised at all if none of them have and i would guarantee you that all of
the king james translators have but we're supposed to believe that all they didn't know about the
grammar and here's the if these grammar concepts are so unknown that the king james translators
can't figure it out from reading just like just thousands of pages of greek literature then you
know i wonder if the i wonder if the people in corinth who got the letter to the great i wonder
if they knew about these grammar rules you know what i mean like how the heck can anybody even
understand the bible if the grammar rules are so hidden that they're not figured out until the
20th century they didn't know about the grandville sharp rule it's like well did anybody know about
it then i mean what about shakespeare i mean is this guy supposed to be known as someone that
doesn't really understand grammar vocabulary isn't he supposed to be the one that basically is creating
grammar and vocabulary in the english language i mean it's kind of a renaissance of vocabulary
and i don't look at america the day is think like people are getting more advanced
in a lot of these ways but at the end of the day more tools but grammar rules who gets to decide
what's a grammar rule or not anyways so it's all arbitrary it's again it's just an it's a it's a
silly argument all right i had one last one because i have one last piece of paper in my hand and it's
an easy one we could probably get through it quickly i have two more now as a result of
this request and uh as long as pastor thompson's okay with it is it is it all right pastor thompson
all right this one this one's a question a quick one the the person is basically asking if the
primary issue with the new king james version is translational and you could argue it's the only
issue with it perfect and pastor shelly agrees brother remy yeah yeah yeah right so people have
argued to say that when paul used the word arson in the new testament that has to mean that
my question to you back there to repeat it again was do you think that they because they could have
do you think that that uh people took and like added that in the septuagint yeah it seemed like
that or do you think that paul derived his meaning from that or what was your opinion no i i think
that that's i think that that's what the septuagint always said i think that that's uh uh just a
perfectly normal natural greek translation of you know leviticus 1822 leviticus 2013 those are not
like strange or obscure words for laying and man you know because who so lieth with mankind as he
lies with the woman and so forth those are just really standard basic greek words and so yeah the
apostle paul in his epistle to timothy his epistle to corinthians will you know makes a compound word
out of those two words and you know is he thinking about leviticus 18 and leviticus 20 when he does
that maybe maybe not because they're the words are so common that he might not necessarily have those
two verses in mind and that that word is just shrouded in mystery because there's no greek
literature before the new testament that uses that word nobody knows for sure what it means
different people have different opinions you know i'm not even sure 100 what my
opinion is on it because it's just it's one of those things that you know it's hard to pin down
but yeah all right well i think we're going to go ahead and wrap it up at this point so thank you
pastor shelly pastor anderson for participating in the q a and uh we'll talk to you guys again soon