It's great to be here.
This pulpit is way too big.
Man, my face cut off here.
Good to see everyone.
Glad to be here at Scher Foundation Baptist Church.
And I am happy to see you all.
I'm happy to see my friends.
We're out back there gossiping
and talking trash and all that.
And so it's really, it's reviving my spirit
and getting me excited about today.
But it's good to see the house of God full, amen.
And not just for anything.
It's about the word of God for the King James Bible.
It's a great conference.
I'm really thankful for Pastor Thompson putting this on
and for inviting me to preach on the Spanish Bible.
I don't know why he selected me
to preach about that specifically.
What's the deal with that, you know?
Can't find any other Mexicans to preach on this.
Just get Pastor Mejia, I guess.
You know I'm King James only, too, you know?
I believe in the King James Bible, too.
But hey, no, I'm glad to be here
and I'm happy to have Pastor Thompson as my friend.
I'm very thankful.
Of course, Pastor Anderson.
And I'm just really thankful to be here to see you all.
And so let's get right into it.
First Peter chapter one, verse 23 says,
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed,
"but of incorruptible, by the word of God,
"which liveth and abideth forever."
And the time I'm assuming this evening
is the corruptible seed of the 1960.
The corruptible seed of the 1960.
And no, I'm not trying to make it rhyme
like some other preachers do.
That's just kind of how it came out.
The corruptible seed of the 1960.
What does it mean when something is corrupted?
It means that it lacks integrity,
it has decayed, it's tainted,
it's made inferior due to its errors.
And that's exactly what's wrong with the Spanish Bible,
the 1960 Spanish Bible.
You know, we obviously know that the King James Bible
is the inspired and preserved word of God
for the English speaking people.
It is an errand, it doesn't have any errors,
it's perfect, it's pure.
Psalm 12 verse six says the words of the Lord are pure words.
As silver tried in the furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shall keep them, O Lord.
Thou shall preserve them from this generation for ever.
I'm thankful that we have a pure Bible, right?
I'm thankful that when I get up in the morning,
I can open up the word of God and I can read it
and rest assured that this is exactly
what God wanted me to read.
This is exactly what he wanted me to listen to.
This is the word of God
and I'm thankful that we have it in our hands.
I'm thankful that we have the freedom to read it,
to use it, to preach, to evangelize with.
It is important for us to understand
that God has preserved his word.
And let me say this is that, you know,
the same should be said of all Bibles in all languages.
You see, we don't take on this Rokmanite belief
that the King James Bible is the only word of God
in all languages, right?
That would be a ridiculous thing to say and to teach
since the Bible does not teach that.
Go to Leviticus, if you would, chapter 19,
Leviticus chapter 19, if you would.
It would be a ridiculous thing to teach
because at the end of the day,
God wants all people to be saved.
You think of the fact that, you know,
in Revelation chapter seven, which is a chapter,
the latter end, dealing with the rapture,
we have people of all different kindreds
and tongues in heaven, right?
Meaning that people all around the world
from different languages heard the gospel in their language
and they got saved because of it.
That's showing us, that's proof
that God wants the word of God to be in all languages.
He wants all nations to hear it.
And so it is God's will.
I believe it's God's will for the Bible
to be translated into all languages.
Look at Leviticus chapter 19, if you would.
And verse 19, we're gonna extrapolate
a secondary principle from what we see here in verse 19.
It says, "Ye shall keep my statutes.
"Thou shall not let thy cattle gender with thy verse kind.
"Thou shall not sow thy field with mingled seed.
"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen
"and woolen come upon thee."
And of course, we know that this is a foreshadowing principle
that we should never mingle the truth with a lie, right?
You know, we could apply this to the New Testament
in regards to salvation.
We should never mingle the seed of salvation
by grace through faith with works.
And unfortunately, you have a lot of churches
today that do that.
They'll talk about salvation
as by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ,
but if you don't do the work, you're not really saved.
You're mingling the seed together,
a seed of truth with a seed of corruption.
And God is specifically saying here
that that should not be done.
You know, getting saved should never be mingled
with discipleship, right?
Once you get saved, you're saved,
and then you move on to perfection,
but we should never teach,
well, if you're not following the Lord Jesus Christ,
you're not really saved.
If you're not reading the word of God,
you're not really saved.
You know, those things pertain to discipleship.
Don't mingle the seed,
is what the Bible's teaching us here,
in regards to those truths.
And you know, the truth of God's word
should never be mingled with the corruptible seed
of the critical text.
You know, the 1960, referring to the Spanish Bible,
is a product of two seeds, if you think about it.
The seed of God's word, which we use,
and the corruptible seed of the critical text.
They're both seeds, because quite frankly,
you can read, if you read in Spanish,
you can read the 1960, and there's portions of it
that read like the King James Bible.
There's portions of it that have the word of God
in the Bible, it reads with the King James,
but then there's other portions that align
with the critical text.
What is that?
That's one seed being mixed with the other seed.
And you say, well, what's wrong with that?
You know, if you have, you know, some good seed here,
you have a little bit of bad seed sprinkled there,
you know, at least there's some truth to it,
but we want 100% of the right seed, right?
We want to take out the wrong seed,
we want to take out the corruptible seed,
as the Bible talks about, and only have the right seed.
And the 1960 is that mixed seed.
This is why fundamental Baptists who have Spanish ministries
use the 1960, because it has a lot of truth to it.
There is a lot of stuff in it
that actually aligns with the King James Bible,
but that's not what we're worried about.
What we're concerned with is the corrupted seed
that actually goes against the Texas Recept,
that actually go against the King James Bible,
that actually teaches false doctrine.
And make no mistake about it,
the 1960 Raina Valera teaches a lot of false doctrine.
The 1960, we can say, because of these two seeds,
has grown into this massive tree.
And it's a big problem in fundamental Baptist circles.
And let me just say this is that whatever good fruit
that it has produced in some churches
is produced in spite of the 1960, okay?
Not because of the 1960.
And let me just quickly explain here.
You know, fundamental, of course,
I'm referring to Christianity in general,
but let's get specific about fundamental Baptist.
'Cause this is where the major problem is.
You know, in general, most fundamental Baptists
agree that the King James Bible
is the inspired, preserved word of God.
They take a hard stance on it.
They teach on it.
And you know, they'll defend it to the very end, right?
And thank God for that.
But then you have this issue
where they will have a Spanish ministry in their building,
meeting along with them,
being a part of their church that uses the 1960.
And you know, when the pastors confronted with this issue
and saying, hey, you know, it's kind of weird.
You know, this 1960 Bible reads like an ESV, you know?
It reads like a new King James.
It reads like an NIV in certain portions of the Bible.
It's like the pastors there are just like,
see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
They just completely ignore the elephant
in the room of the 1960.
Now, they wouldn't allow anybody to preach from,
to use an ESV in their church.
They wouldn't allow an NIV to be preached at their church.
They wouldn't allow a new King James version
to be preached at their church.
But for some reason, they turn a blind eye to the 1960,
which is the Spanish version
of those English modern versions.
Kind of crazy if you think about it.
And because it's gone unchallenged,
because pastors ignore this,
that tree of the 1960 has grown a lot, right,
within these churches.
To the point where it's taboo to question the 1960.
And if I were to compare it to something
that maybe we've combated over the years,
I would compare it to dispensationalism.
You know, dispensationalism is one of those doctrines.
Thankfully, it's dying out.
But within the last 20 years,
it was a major thing in fundamental Baptist church.
You just don't question it.
You don't question that the Jews are God's chosen people.
You don't question that Jesus Christ can come at any moment.
And if you do, it's just like you're ostracized.
Well, it's the same exact thing with the 1960.
It is flown under the radar of fundamental Baptist churches
and essentially being used from the pulpits
of these churches that promote the King James.
And it's gone unchallenged.
And so it's this massive problem in the Spanish world.
But let me just say this.
A lot of these churches do produce a lot of good fruit.
There's people that are getting saved
in these Spanish churches.
There's hard sermons that are being preached because of it.
And you think to yourself,
well, isn't that because of the Bible they use though?
Isn't that a byproduct of the 1960?
And the answer is no.
You say, how are they producing this fruit?
Well, I'm gonna tell you how they produce it
by the testimony of a pastor who preaches from it.
And he specifically told me this.
He says, the reason we see a lot of people saved,
the reason our churches are growing,
the reason we have zealous members
and are succeeding in the ministry
is not because of the 1960,
it's because we learned from the white man
who uses the King James Bible.
He says, we learned our doctrine from the white man.
We learned our doctrine from the people
who use the King James Bible.
And I'm thinking to myself, do you hear what you're saying?
He says, we learned our ministry principles
from the white man who uses the King James.
We learned our doctrine from that.
We learned our salvation presentation from that.
We learned everything from the people,
the pastors who use the King James Bible.
So the King James Bible is causing them
to prosper by proxy, basically, right?
That's what's taking place there.
And, you know, but let me just also say
this is a lot of these Spanish churches
have a lot of problems too, though.
And, you know, time will not permit for me
to go through all the issues that Spanish churches have,
but it goes without saying that who can bring a clean thing
out of an unclean thing, not one, okay?
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
And, you know, we have this tree of the 1960
growing in fundamental Baptist churches,
and why cumberth at the ground, let's cut it down.
And you know what, we have a previous generation
who just wanted to close their ears to the issue.
They want to ignore the issue.
It's time for a new generation to rise up
and say this Bible is trash, let's stand on principle,
let's have some integrity, let's study out the issue,
let's go ahead and get rid of the 1960,
and let's read the Gomez instead.
Let's go with the 1602 instead
because it's the right thing to do.
You say, why is it that these old preachers
just refuse to switch?
I'll tell you why, 'cause they're a respecter of people.
You know, just as, you know, we were ostracized
from fundamental Baptist churches
for rejecting dispensationalism,
rejecting Zionism,
rejecting the pre-tribulation rapture in like manner.
If one of these Spanish guys rejects the 1960
and embraces the Gomez,
they're not gonna get invited to go preach
at these other conferences and churches,
in the Spanish churches, that's how it works.
You know, and you say, well, why do they care so much?
I don't know.
You know, it's better to just be right
and be rejected of all,
than to be accepted of all and be wrong,
in the eyes of God especially.
Go to Acts chapter two, if you would, Acts chapter two.
Tonight, I wanna participate in cutting down
the tree of the 1960.
And I wanna expose some of the errors
that are found in the 1960.
I might speak with tongues tonight, just a little bit.
I'm not charismatic, but I'll try my best to translate here.
No, we'll be good.
Tonight, I got three points for you.
And the first point is gonna be,
we're gonna talk about the philosophy
of the word of God in different languages.
The second point is the path to the Spanish scriptures.
And lastly, we're gonna see the perversion of the 1960,
the philosophy, the path, and then lastly, the perversion.
So let's talk about the philosophy.
And I already kinda mentioned this in my introduction,
but you know, God's philosophy, God's will
is for all nations to have the word of God
in their language.
Look at Acts chapter two, verse seven.
It says, "And they," referring to these Jewish proselytes
who came on the day of Pentecost,
"were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another,
"'Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?
"Aren't these all gringos?
"Aren't these all white dudes?
"How hear we every man in our own tongue
"when we were born?
"Parthenians and Medes and Elamites
"and the dwellers of Mesopotamia
"and in Judea and Cappadocia and Pontius and Asia,
"Phrygia and Pamphylia and Egypt
"and the parts of Libya about Cyrene
"and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
"Cretan, Arabians."
I want you to notice this,
we do hear them speak in our tongues
the wonderful works of God.
You say, why is it important to have the word of God
in every language so that every nation
hears the wonderful works of God?
So that every nation can wake up in the morning,
pull out their Bible and sit at the feet of Jesus
and be fed the word of God to grow spiritually,
to grow in zeal, to grow in knowledge,
to grow in grace, to evangelize others
because that's God's will.
Now let me just see by a raise of hands,
how many of you speak Spanish?
All right, how many of you think you speak Spanish?
No, I'm just kidding.
All right, we're all got one right there.
I see that hand, all right.
Now here's the thing, the reason this is an important issue,
why we should talk about it in a King James Conference,
is because of the fact that Spanish is widely spoken
all over the world, right?
There's a lot of Latin countries,
but just in the United States alone.
I mean, I'm sure if you've done any, you know,
length of soul-winning for any length of time,
you've run into a lot of Spanish speakers.
And I'm sure a lot of you have been motivated to say,
you know, I need to start learning Spanish
because good night in the morning.
Mexicans are everywhere.
What is the immigration gonna start taking place?
I know that for a fact, 'cause even where we're at,
you know, there's people who don't speak Spanish
in our church, and you know, they get frustrated
'cause they wanna win souls to Christ.
And quite frankly, you know,
the Mexicans are the fish that are biting.
Okay, they're biting a lot.
They're very receptive to the gospel.
They wanna listen to the word of God.
They're very kind and gracious.
Not all the time, but most of the time they are.
I mean, over in Southern California,
we go to TJ, Mexico, about twice a month.
And man, we get at least 15 to 20 salvations
with four people in a matter of like two and a half hours.
You know, and they're just,
they're really receptive to the gospel.
So it's very motivating for a lot of people
to start learning how to preach the gospel in Spanish.
So let me just put this out there.
You know, you guys, you know,
be motivated, start studying to preach in Spanish
because those fish are biting, right?
This is a major issue here.
And so when we get people saved in Spanish,
we want to give them a Bible in Spanish too, right?
We want to be able to give them the word of God.
And you know, we don't want to give them some sucky Bible.
You know, you win someone to Christ,
if you had a bag full of ESVs, you wouldn't give them that.
You'd be like, no, I don't got nothing for you, you know?
Let me just give you this devotion instead.
You'll learn more from the devotion
than from this piece of trash, right?
We wanna be able to give out the word of God
so they can grow in grace and in the knowledge
because they deserve it.
We want them to hear the wonderful works of God
in their language, right?
And so it is God's will that his word be in all languages.
And specifically, I'm talking about tonight,
the language in Spanish.
The Bible says in Romans chapter 10,
you don't have to turn there, in verse 17,
"So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.
But I say, have they not heard?
Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth,
and their words unto the ends of the world."
Showing us that there's people in the Apostle Paul's day,
and even prior to that,
who were going into different nations,
preaching the word of God in different languages,
because they're going to the ends of the world.
Showing us that God wants people in different nations
to have the word of God in their mother tongue.
Turn with me, if you would, to 1 Corinthians,
if you would, 1 Corinthians chapter three.
1 Corinthians chapter three.
So the philosophy is that we wanna get people saved
in different languages.
We want, we know that God wants all nations to be saved,
and so this is why we should talk about the Reina Valera,
because it is the most widely used Bible
in a different language in the United States of America.
German Bible's not being used a lot here,
and you know, French Bible's not being,
the Portuguese Bible, it's the Spanish Bible,
it's being used a lot.
And so we don't wanna just ignore the issue,
and just think, well, I just speak English,
and so that's, you know, let the Mexicans deal with that.
You know?
We need to make sure that we have the right position
when it comes to this particular issue.
And I'm talking to you gringos out there, okay,
who are doing a lot of the soul winning.
You are zealous for the things of God.
Your converts need the right Bible,
and you need to have the right philosophy
when it comes to the word of God, okay?
So let's talk about, now that we went over the philosophy,
God's wills for the word of God to be in all languages,
let's talk about the path to the Spanish scriptures.
Now, what am I referring to?
Well, you know, we talk about the Spanish Bible,
the Reina Valera, and that's pretty much
where everyone just stops there,
they're just like, I just know there's a Spanish Bible,
it's the Reina Valera, what is that, you know,
who's that lady, you know, who's that queen?
Reina Valera, well, Reina Valera,
they're actually two men, okay?
Reina and Valera are two separate men,
but let me just give you a concise history
of the Spanish Bible and how we have it today in our hands.
It started off in 1543 with Francisco de Encinas,
and he essentially translated the New Testament into Spanish,
so it was one of the first translations
of the New Testament into Spanish.
After him, a man by the name of Juan Perez de Pineda
revised it in 1556, and again, these are two New Testaments.
Juan Perez actually also produced parts of the Psalms as well,
and this essentially became what Casiodoro de Reina used
for his canonization of the first Spanish Bible
during that time.
Now, Casiodoro de Reina came and published a Bible
called the Bible of the Bear in 1569,
so that's the first one.
And it was called the Bible of the Bear
because of the fact that it had an illustration
in the front of the Bible of a bear eating honey,
and it's supposed to symbolize eating the word of God, right?
So he produced that, it was a great Bible translation,
and he translated that Bible over a span of 12 years,
all the while fleeing persecution
from the Spanish Inquisition,
because of the fact that when he was a former monk
and he got saved,
and then he started converting other monks,
and so he had to flee from the Spanish Inquisition
because of the fact that, you know,
the Roman Catholic Church did not like that.
And so King Philip II of Spain
ended up placing a bounty on his head
for converting the monks in Seville.
And you know, they didn't catch him
because he ended up just fleeing,
he was running for his life,
all the while translating the word of God.
And you know, to the point where they ended up
just burning an effigy of him,
'cause they hated him so bad, they're just like,
well, let's just act like we killed them, you know,
and they just burned this effigy
'cause they just hated him so bad.
So he produced this Bible called the Bible of the Bear,
the 1569, after him, another man
by the name of Cipriano de Valera.
So you have Reyna and then you have Valera.
He essentially revised that version in 1602.
And that one's called the Bible of the Pitcher
because it had a picture of a man pouring water
where Casiodoro poured seed, you understand?
So Casiodoro is the one who brought the seed
and then Valera came and he watered that seed.
So essentially building upon the works of Casiodoro.
Showing us that they were both working together
to create a Bible for the Spanish speaking people.
And Casiodoro is referred to as the William Tyndale
of Spain.
And so this is where we get these Bibles.
The 1602 is essentially one of the last ones
of the translations of the word of God into Spanish
that is still being used today.
Now look at 1 Corinthians chapter three and verse six.
We see this concept here, it says I have planted,
Apollo's watered, but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth anything,
neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.
So that is where the Spanish Bible comes from.
These men who were fleeing persecution,
they're fleeing the Spanish Inquisition.
And so obviously, you know, the 1569 and the 1602,
they have some issues, okay?
But we need to cut these dudes some slack
'cause they're on the run while they're translating, right?
And they're kind of running for their lives
as they're producing these translations.
And so they created it and the 1602 was essentially used
from then on out.
There's other versions that came out,
but they didn't necessarily catch as much popularity
until the 1909 came out.
But the 1909 has a lot of issues, okay?
And in fact, it's, in my opinion, worse than the 1602,
all right?
Well, then you have the 1569, you have the 1602,
you have the 1909 that's used for a long time.
And then all of a sudden, a Bible comes out in 1960.
Now, just think about this for a minute.
Did anything good come out of the '60s?
(audience laughing)
Right?
So you have all this debauchery,
all the moral standards of the nation just falling apart,
and then this Bible just shows up, right?
And quite frankly, the Bible reflects the '60s for sure.
Which leads me to my third point,
and that is we're gonna talk about the perversion
of God's word, referring to the 1960,
produced by the American Bible Society.
Now, turn with me if you would.
You're in 1 Corinthians, go to 2 Corinthians chapter four,
2 Corinthians chapter four, 2 Corinthians chapter four.
Now, what kind of makes me laugh and scoff sometimes
is that a lot of churches will say like,
we're not gonna use the Gomez,
we're gonna stick to the old Bible.
The 1960s, like 1960 was not that long ago.
And if you're gonna say you're gonna stick to the old one,
then go way back to the 1602.
Go back to the 1569.
Why are you so just adamant about going to the 1960
when that wasn't that long ago?
But the reality is this is the American Bible Society
flooded the market with this Bible
and essentially removed all the other Bibles.
And unfortunately, for whatever reason,
Spanish churches just don't fight that stuff.
They don't really care about it.
They don't really care about the Bible issue a whole lot.
And so they're giving it, it's just like,
well, this is what we use, this is what we always use,
and so we're just gonna use it without question,
and that's it.
And so fundamental Baptists inherited this Spanish Bible,
and by the way, not just fundamental Baptists,
a lot of Christian denominations.
And I'm saying Christian like loosely
because we're talking about Catholics,
Jehovah's Witnesses use them,
Pentecostals use them,
all the spectrum uses it, why?
Because it's fitting for every denomination, okay?
But primarily we have Spanish churches
and fundamental Baptist circles
that are using the 1960 without question.
Now, the reason this even came to my attention,
and let me give you a little bit of a testimony,
my testimony regarding this particular issue,
because I got saved from a King James.
You know, I got saved in a fundamental Baptist church.
It was a King James-only church,
and they used the King James Bible to get me saved.
You know, I came to church as an unsaved person
with the new King James,
and I remember sitting there in church
with the new King James, and my pastor was preaching,
and I'm like, it sounds similar,
but mine's a little different.
And I remember a guy came up to me,
he's like, "Hey, what'd you think of the preaching?"
I was like, "Oh, it was great."
I was like, "But there's only one issue, though."
Like, my Bible doesn't sound like his Bible.
And he's like, "Well, what do you got?"
I was like, "This one."
"Well, that's a new King James. That's trash."
(audience laughing)
He said, "Throw it away. I'm gonna get you a new Bible."
You know, and my unsaved friend gave me that Bible
and so I was just like, "All right, well, you know,
guess you throw it in the trash," or whatever.
But then he ended up giving me a King James.
And then, you know, our church was really big
on educating the congregation on the King James.
And obviously, as a safe person,
I fell in love with the King James.
So that's what I would use.
And I understood the importance
of evangelizing the Spanish community.
So I said, "You know, I'm gonna memorize Spanish verses."
And I said, "What Bible do we use in Spanish?"
They're like, "1960, all right."
I got the 1960, memorized the verses,
used that to evangelize.
Everything was going hunky dory for a really long time.
But then, you know, my pastor asked me
to take over the Spanish ministry, okay?
And at this point, I was already preaching for a long time.
I had a lot of sermons.
And I remember preparing to preach a sermon in Spanish.
And what I did is the cheat code was
that I would use my English sermons
and just basically translate them to Spanish.
And just basically copy and paste, right?
I got to catch up, you know?
And so I'm just, you know, I'm like,
I don't have time to come up with new sermons in Spanish.
I'll preach against whatever Mexicans struggle with later.
I'm just gonna preach whatever I preached in English
in Spanish, okay?
So one of my first sermons that I preached
was on soul winning,
'cause Spanish churches love soul winning.
And they understand the need for soul winning.
And I was just kinda preaching about that.
So one of the text verses that we would always use
is Jude 22 for that, Jude 22 and 23.
And so I'm copying and pasting,
I'm translating it over.
But that particular passage, I couldn't.
I was like, why does it say something completely different?
And I was like, what in the world?
And I had my King James and I had the 1960,
and I'm just like, I can't preach the sermon.
'Cause the verses that I was using as the text verse
to preach the soul winning sermon
was using Jude 22 and 23.
But Jude 22 and 23 in the 1960
say something completely different.
And I'm like, then it just kinda clicked like,
hold on a second.
Why is this saying something completely different
than what I have in the King James?
So then I went to the Spanish pastor,
and I said, hey, there is a variant here
that it says algo diferente.
(audience laughing)
And this is what he said, it reads with the King James.
And I'm just like, no, no pastor.
And I'm like, why does it say something different?
It doesn't say the same thing.
He's like, yeah, but you already know what it means though.
I said, well, yeah, because it's the King James,
but I'm just like, I guess I have to preach a sermon
and I can't preach it using this passage.
So what am I gonna do?
And he just kinda tiptoed around the tulips
and beat around the bush and just didn't answer my question
and just said, this is what we've always used
and we're never gonna change that.
So then I went to the senior pastor and I said,
hey, you know, I have an issue.
I'm preaching in English or in Spanish
and I'm translating my sermons,
but I can't because this is saying something different.
Are we using the right Bible?
And he's like, I don't really speak Spanish.
I don't really know.
You're just gonna have to look into that.
So then I'm just grieved.
I'm just grieved 'cause there's a lot of sermons
that I could not preach in Spanish
because of the fact that the Spanish Bible
says something different.
So that took me down a rabbit hole.
And then I realized, oh stink, this is a modern version.
What are we doing?
And it was a monster.
And you know, it was very intimidating
because there was no one on my side.
Everyone just collectively agreed this is the word of God
and if you wanna keep preaching,
this is what you have to use.
So then eventually I just had to go to my pastor
and said I can't preach in the Spanish ministry anymore
out of conviction.
You know, because it's just, I can't preach this
because it's not saying the same thing as my King James.
And so I just, I can't do it anymore.
And then I didn't preach in Spanish thereafter.
But obviously that kind of woke me up to the fact
that this 1960 is like the golden calf
of the Spanish ministries
in independent fundamental Baptist churches.
Because no one, no matter how much evidence you provided,
no matter what you showed them,
they're just kind of like, no, no, no, no, no, you know,
this is what we use.
Every preacher, every man of God,
are you gonna tell me that this pastor
who's running this many and has seen this many souls
that he's using the wrong Bible?
And I'm just like, that's not the point.
You know, integrity says that we need to switch our Bibles
because this is wrong.
How are we saying that we are King James only church
and we're using a Bible that reads the opposite,
that reads like the critical texts
of the modern versions of the Bible that we fight against?
And you know, just no one listen.
So I realized it was a major issue in the Spanish world.
Major issue.
Now, let's talk about the 1960, okay?
Let me give you a couple of quotes here.
A man by the name of Eugene Nida,
who was a prominent linguist,
he's the one who essentially oversaw the translation
of the 1960.
And let me read to you a quote from his book.
He says, "The better educated people
"naturally tended to desire more radical changes,
"while the lesser educated were suspicious of alterations."
So when asked about, hey,
how come you're not using the Texas Receptives?
Why are you going with the critical texts
in these portions of scripture?
His answer was, well, people who are smarter
want radical changes.
Whereas people who are dumber, the common people,
they are more suspicious of these alterations.
So, and by the way, yeah, amen to that.
And by the way, you know, I'm suspicious,
and I don't think I'm dumb or anything,
but you know, I'm suspicious of them too.
He says also, "Nevertheless, in some instances
where a critical text is so much preferred
over the traditional Texas Receptives,
the committee did make some slight changes,
particularly if such changes were not in well-known verses
where an alteration would be unduly upsetting
to the Constitutity."
What he's saying is like, you know,
we put the changes in areas that, you know,
we just kind of tuck them away
in different portions of the Bible.
And let me give you an example.
I don't want to jump the gun here,
but for example, you know, hell in the 1960s
completely removed from the Old Testament.
Now you'll find it in the New Testament,
but you just won't find it in the Old.
But I'll tell you why,
'cause a lot of Christians don't even read the Old Testament.
They don't even read the Bible cover to cover.
So, you know, they can make those alterations there
'cause most people are not just gonna read through the Bible.
Let's just be honest.
They're not gonna read it cover to cover.
And if they do decide to read the Word of God,
most likely they'll start off either in Genesis,
and then once they're done with chapter eight,
they'll jump to the New Testament,
and then they just go on from there, okay?
But he specifically admitted to doing that.
He's saying the alterations that he's making
was in areas that people would not be able to see.
This is from his book, "The Bible Translator,"
volume 12, page 113.
The Bible says in 2 Corinthians chapter four,
verse number one, "Therefore, seeing we have this ministry,
"as we have received mercy, we faint not,
"but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
"not walking in craftiness,"
listen to this, "nor handling the word of God deceitfully."
What does Eugene Knight do?
He's handling God's word in a deceitful manner.
He's intentionally changing the word of God, why?
Because the more educated want
these radical, heretical changes.
Heretical, I'm inserting that.
But the Bible's saying here,
we should renounce the hidden things of dishonesty.
We want the pure text.
We want what the Texas Receptus says.
We don't need the critical text.
We don't need the modern versions of the Bible
to correct our Bible.
We want what's pure, and we don't have to be like,
well, let's just tuck it away a little bit.
Let's just sweep it under the rug
so that no one sees these radical changes.
He says, "But by manifestation of the truth,
"commending ourselves to every man's conscience
"in the sight of God."
Go to 1 Corinthians, chapter one.
1 Corinthians, chapter one.
Eugene Nida, of course, he made those statements,
but let me read another quote from Jose Flores,
who was a consultant on the 1960.
He says this in his book,
"The Text of the New Testament," 1977.
He says, "In cases where there is doubt
"over the correct translation of the original,
"we consulted preferentially the King James."
No.
So, you know, if there's doubt in a portion of scripture,
they're like, "I don't know if it should read this."
What should we reference?
If only we had a Bible that we can reference that's perfect.
What do they reference?
Preferentially, the English Revised Version of 1885.
The American Standard Version of 1901,
and the Revised Standard Version of 1946,
and the International Critical Commentary.
No King James.
It's just like you have the pure word of God in English,
and it's not like they're ignorant of it.
It's been used throughout churches
and throughout hundreds of years, successful,
but let's just forget the King James
and go with these other critical text versions of the Bible.
Why?
Because the better educated wanted more radical changes,
and they knew that these phony versions of the Bible
read, you know, they had these radical changes
that they can institute into their Bible.
Here's the problem.
Let me read to you from Isaiah chapter 30, verse one.
Woe to the rebellious children who say to the Lord,
that take counsel, but not of me,
and that cover with the covering, but not of my spirit,
that they may add sin to sin,
that walk to go down into Egypt
and have not asked at my mouth.
Right?
You know, it's just like, oh, well, what should go here?
Well, why don't you ask God?
Why don't you pray and then crack open the King James Bible
or go to the received text
and that'll tell you what God says.
But he says, won't you?
Because you didn't even ask at my mouth.
You want counsel, but not of me.
You want to go down to Egypt, Alexandria, Egypt.
You want to go to the critical text to get the answers
for your phony version of the Bible.
It says to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh
and to trust in the shadow of Egypt.
The 1960 basically consulted with the witch at Endor.
Right?
Basically what it did.
They get the answer that they wanted
because they wanted more radical changes.
Whereas the laymen, the common people heard him gladly.
They knew if radical changes were being made,
they're like, "Hey, we don't wanna read that.
"We don't want that to be in our Bible."
Forget what the educated say.
And I'm not against the educated.
I'm not against the scholars, but I am against the scholars
if they're not referencing the right word of God.
If they're sweeping things under the rug
and trying to deceive people, that's obviously wrong.
1 Corinthians chapter one and verse 19 says,
"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.
I will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Where is the wise?
Where is the scribe?
Where is the disputed of this world?
I'll tell you where these people are in hell
for tampering with the word of God.
He says, "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that and the wisdom of God,
the world by wisdom knew not God."
The world by these phony versions of the Bible don't know God.
He says, "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching
to save them that believe."
Verse 25, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than man,
the weakness of God is stronger than men."
Go to Mark chapter seven, if you would, Mark chapter seven.
Mark chapter number seven.
And here's the thing, folks, is that one of the biggest lies
that's being promoted out there when it comes to the 1960,
and I've heard this over and over and over again,
and that is the Spanish 1960 reads just like the King James.
You hear this all the time.
I've heard this at conferences, Spanish conferences all the time.
It goes, oh, our beloved random letter in 1960
reads exactly what the King James.
And you know what?
No one really decides to kind of like study it out.
We just kind of take their word for it.
Because the preacher wouldn't lie to us.
He's not going to lie.
He's not going to just make a bold-faced lie like that
from the-- yes, he would.
Either because he's ignorant or because he's-- listen to this--
willingly ignorant.
But this is what you hear all the time.
No, it's the perfect translation.
It breeds with the King James.
You know, I have my King James.
I love the King James Bible.
That's why I have it with my 1960.
They read it like, and you have these people
trying to come in and corrupt the word of God.
It's already corrupted.
Why is the 1960 perverse?
Well, let me give you a couple of examples this evening.
Let me check my time here.
Oh, man, all right.
First and foremost, the reason it's a perverse Bible
is because it defects from the original Greek, OK?
You know, the 1960 actually departs from the TR 191 times.
Now, let me read to you from Deuteronomy chapter 4,
verse number 2.
It says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall you diminish art from it,
that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God
which I command you."
Now, here is the biggest example.
And that is, I mentioned that already, the removal of hell.
Hell is completely removed from the Old Testament.
And it's about 60% of the time hell
is removed from the New Testament.
Now, a lot of times, people will say, you know,
yeah, but it's still mentioned in the New Testament, though.
So someone who's reading it is going to believe in hell,
even though it's not really mentioned in the Old Testament.
Well, here's the good thing about what I'm about to say,
and that is that that's completely false.
Because if you are the boots on the ground,
you're doing the work, you're dealing with people,
you're going to find out if that's true.
A lot of people who make these statements,
they're not even soul winning.
They're not talking to people.
So let me give you an example of this, OK?
Years ago, when we first started the church,
it was Faithful Word Baptist Church at the time.
Me and one of my church members were out soul winning
in El Monte, that blessed city.
And it's Spanish speaking, a lot of Hispanics there.
So we knock on the door, and the lady opens up the door,
and we're giving her an invite, and we're
talking about the gospel.
And she's like, oh, come in.
I'm a Christian, come in.
We're like, oh, great.
So we go in, we sit down, and I start giving her the gospel
and talking about salvation.
And she's really receptive, she's a sweet lady.
And so I get on my second point about hell,
because you're supposed to talk about hell
when you give the gospel, right?
You don't want to skip over that, it's very important.
So I'm talking about hell, el infierno, and just,
and then midway through that second point,
she basically says, oh, stop, I'm sorry.
Let me just interrupt you real quick.
Can I ask you a really sincere question?
No, obviously this is in Spanish.
And I said, sure, and she's like,
does the Bible really teach that there's a hell?
And I was just like, yeah, of course.
She's like, that's weird because I read the Bible
and I don't see hell in the Bible.
And I was like, what Bible are you using?
She's like, let me go get it.
Comes back and I see it, 1960.
She's like, I read, and she was one of those,
she's not the one that I was referring to before
where it's just like, they don't read the Bible at all.
She actually read through the Bible.
And you know, she's reading the large chunk
of the Bible of the Old Testament.
She's like, I don't see hell there.
You know, the Bible doesn't really talk about it.
I said, well, no, this version is really bad.
And so hell does exist.
And I gave her all of these examples of the Gomez
where it says infierno, and she was like, whoa.
And she ended up getting saved because of it.
So don't tell me, you know, it's not a big deal
if it's not in the Old Testament.
There's plenty of parts of the New Testament.
People will find out about it.
I have an example of someone who used the 1960,
thought she was saved, was not saved,
and didn't even know hell existed.
And I promise you, she was probably going to a church
that they used in 1960 and said, say, oh, ades,
and never talked about infierno,
'cause she didn't think it was a biblical concept.
Hey, look, folks, you know, I'm glad the original language
is to say ades and seol, but, you know,
in English, it's hell.
In Spanish, it's infierno.
You know, you don't say, get the ades out of here.
What, the sheol?
Sounds kind of cool, but, you know,
you thought I was gonna say something else.
That's Pastor Shelley when he comes out here.
That's not me.
Infierno, everyone knows what infierno is.
Inferno, infierno, that's important, my friends.
And look, when I was in that Spanish ministry,
prior to us establishing the current church that we're in,
I was in that Spanish ministry, and I was out soul winning.
And again, this is a church that used the 1960,
the Spanish ministry that used the 1960.
And I went soul winning with someone,
and he was preaching the gospel to someone.
And he basically, you know, she's just like,
"Well, I don't believe in hell."
You know, the lady he was witnessing to.
And he said, "That's fine, just pray real quick,
"so you can be saved."
It's one of those moments where you're just like,
'cause you know, you agree with them.
You ever agree with someone
and then you realize what you're agreeing to?
You're just like, "Wait, hold on, wait, what?"
And then I told him, I said, "That lady didn't get saved."
He was like, "Why not?"
I said, "'Cause you said that, well, first of all,
"'cause she didn't believe in hell.
"And you said that she didn't have to believe in hell."
But let me tell you why he said that,
'cause it's not an important thing to him.
'Cause the Bible he's reading from,
the preaching he's listening to, doesn't emphasize hell.
Folks, this affects ministry,
this affects doctrine, the subject of hell.
So don't tell me, oh, just because it's found
in the New Testament, it's not found in the Old.
Folks, God put it there for a reason.
It's where it needs to be so we can talk about it.
And it's not up to you, it's not up to me,
it's not up to Eugene neither to decide
where it needs to be placed
and where it doesn't need to be placed.
Don't handle the word of God deceitfully.
So it defects from the original Greek.
But not only that, it also corrects the original Greek.
Now you're in Mark chapter seven, look at verse 19.
Mark chapter seven and verse 19 it says,
"And he saith unto him," this is in the King James,
"Are you so without understanding also?
"Do you not perceive that whatsoever thing
"from a thou entereth into the man,
"it cannot defile him?
"Because they entereth not into his heart,
"but into the belly and goeth out into the drought,
"curging all meats."
Okay, we see that verse 19 is what we're focusing on here.
It says that whatever goes into the person
doesn't go into his heart, but it goes into the belly,
goes out into the drought, curging all meats.
The 19.60 says this,
let me just translate it for you here, okay?
Let me say it first, let me just read it in Spanish.
Esto decía haciendo limpios todos los alimentos.
Now what does that mean?
It means that when it goes into the belly,
it makes all food clean.
That's not what it says.
Making all foods clean?
Now you say, yeah, that really that big of a deal?
Yeah, because that actually goes against the timeline
of what's taking place here, because in the gospels,
that's still considered Old Testament, right?
And in the Old Testament, you still have the dietary laws
that are being instituted and enforced.
So there are foods that are not clean.
So what are you talking about?
You're like, well, you know, it doesn't affect salvation.
Other portions do affect salvation,
but it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect salvation.
If it's wrong, it's wrong, okay?
Making all foods clean, whereas the King James says
that it goes into the drop purging all meats.
And obviously we know what purging all meats mean.
Go with me if you would to Jude,
the book of Jude, if you would.
I'm gonna show you the portion of scripture
that I sought to preach from, but could not in Spanish.
Now I love the latter end, I love all the book of Jude,
but especially the latter end
when dealing with salvation and soul winning,
it's a great passage to use to motivate people
to go out there and preach the gospel.
Look at verse 18, it says how that they told you
there should be mockers in the last time
who should walk after their own ungodly lust.
These be they who separate themselves,
sensual, having not the spirit.
And obviously in context referred to false prophets
that are not saved.
Verse 19 says that they separate themselves,
they're essentially elevated themselves,
they separate themselves,
they want the preeminence among the brethren,
they want people to only listen to them, okay.
Verse 20 says, but ye, referring to Christians,
believers, beloved,
building up yourselves upon your most holy faith,
praying in the Holy Ghost,
keep yourselves in the love of God,
looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
unto eternal life.
Verse 22, and of some have compassion,
making a difference.
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,
hating even the garment, spotted by the flesh, right.
So it says that those who have compassion,
we make the difference between those who can be saved
by fear and those who need mercy and compassion.
You know, you'll notice that when you go out soul winning,
some people are more readily motivated
by the fear of hell, right.
Other people are just motivated by the gift of God,
salvation, to live forever.
Those who have compassion can make the difference.
They can make the distinction between the two, okay.
Very important there.
It's a powerful verse.
And verse by the way,
let me just spend a little bit of time on verse 23.
It says others save with what? Fear.
Meaning that some people use fear as a tool,
as an instrument, as a motivator to get people saved.
Oh, you know, you shouldn't be motivated by fear.
Yeah, you should.
Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Fear is a very motivating thing for people to get saved.
You know, hell is a fearful thing.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands
of the living God.
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men.
Hell is terrifying.
And I don't mind you, I gotta say,
'cause I was afraid I was gonna go to hell.
Right?
Like, I don't wanna burn forever.
I don't wanna just go to hell and burn in fire and brimstone.
Therefore, I'm gonna accept the free gift of eternal life.
Well, you should do it 'cause you love God.
No one who's unsaved just loves God,
and that's why they get saved.
I don't even know Christians who love God all the time.
No one loves God all the time.
I know Christians that love God.
I'm saying, like, perfectly love the Lord though, right?
You know, fear is a great tool to use.
And you say, well, prove it.
Well, right here, verse 23.
Some of us save with fear, pulling people out of the fire.
Okay?
Powerful verse.
Now, what does the 1960s say?
Well, when it comes to verse 19 regarding those who separate themselves, it actually
says that they cause division.
So instead of saying that they separate themselves sensual, having not the spirit, it says that
these false prophets are people who cause division.
It's a lot different, right?
Now, you know, someone like myself, Pastor Shelley especially, Pastor Thompson for sure,
and then that man right over there, you know, we would be accused of causing division because
we preach horror doctrine, right?
And they would say, oh man, you guys are just causing all kinds of division.
And you know, you can see how people can point to passages like this.
If it had a translation like this, and say, oh man, this is what false prophets do, they
cause division.
I came not to bring peace but a sword, the Bible says.
So this is a wrong translation here, okay?
But that's not even the worst part.
In verse 22, what we have in our King James is, "And if some have compassion, make it
a difference."
Well, in Spanish it says, "Those who doubt, convince them."
And if some have compassion, make it a difference, those who doubt, convince them.
What is this, like a verse for apologists or something?
What is this talking about?
Like, well, you know, it's not really teaching like false doctrine.
It doesn't matter.
You're not faithful and loyal to the text.
You're saying something completely different.
He says, "Those who doubt, convince them."
Now, verse 23, you know, "Others save with fear.
Others save with fear."
In the Reign of Valera, it says, "Others save."
I know some pastors would just love this translation, by the way, because it says, "Others save,"
you know, pulling them out of the fire.
With fear is removed.
"Others save," comma, pulling them out of the fire.
And then it adds, "I'm going to keep going, sorry."
You know, it says, "Others save," pulling them out of the fire.
And then it says, "And others have mercy with fear."
That's not even found.
You're just going to put that in there as if we wouldn't notice that it's there?
It just literally just inserted this entire sentence, the stupidest verse ever, by the
way.
It's kind of even hard to decipher what that's even referring to.
Because it says, "Others have mercy with fear."
So to almost, I would interpret it as saying that you should be merciful and tread lightly
with people.
You don't want to offend people.
You don't want to start causing division.
So you should have mercy with fear.
So instead of saving with fear, no, you should have mercy with fear.
You should fear.
No, folks, the fear here is referring to the unregenerated person that we come to preaching
about hell, preaching about the lake of fire, preaching about the judgment of God that's
going to come upon them.
And in light of that, they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because we say it with fear.
You're going to go to hell.
Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
And in light of that, they say, "Well, I want to be saved."
I use fear all the time.
And even if someone just rejects the gospel, I always leave them off with fear.
If they choose not to believe what I'm saying, I always leave off with, "Well, think about
it, though.
If you're right and I'm wrong, when I die, I just die."
I'm right and you're wrong.
You shall go to the place where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, and there
shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
See you later.
It's a textual variant following West God and Hort.
It adds to, I mean it literally just added an entire sentence.
And you know, you're telling me that Spanish preachers read the word of God and they believe
that it reads just like the King James, there's nothing like that in the King James.
You're being dishonest or you're just stupid, but I would say maybe they're just, maybe
both.
I don't know.
I don't know what it is because it only took me a few months going into the Spanish ministry
to see all that.
I was just like, "Well, it's time to start reading the Spanish Bible."
I was like, "What in the world?"
Whereas these Spanish pastors have been preaching from this for years.
I'm assuming they're reading it cover to cover, but just preach, I mean, I want to say like,
when was the last time you preached from June 22nd and 23rd?
So what's the problem here?
The problem is that Reina Valera 1960 is corrupt.
It is perverse.
Why?
Because it corrects the original Greek.
Not only that, but it also, it deflects from the original Greek.
And then it also reflects poor accuracy.
Go to Mark chapter one, Mark chapter number one, if you would, and let me just briefly
go over this.
Now, I don't know if you've noticed here that a lot of these examples that I'm giving could
be essentially be said the same thing about the ESV, the NIV, the new King James, meaning
that in 1960 matches up with not the King James, but the ESV.
We're going to skip Mark chapter one, actually, I just want to make sure you know how to get
there.
Go to first Peter chapter two instead, first Peter chapter two, that was a Bible drill.
Let me get into this last point here.
And that is, and this is, this is obviously the most important one.
Okay.
Obviously it's all important, but you know, specifically when it comes to doctrine, this
is really important.
And that is that the 1960 corrupts the message of salvation.
Now does it have, does it have John 3 16?
Yeah, of course.
Has John 3 16.
Does it have Romans 5 8?
Yep.
Has Romans 10 9?
Yep.
It has a lot of portions of scripture.
It has a lot of good seed in it, but I'm not talking about the good seed.
I'm talking about the bad seed.
I'm talking about the corruptible seed.
Okay.
And you know what?
There is corruptible seed found in the 1960 when it comes to the matter of salvation.
Now this is a portion of scripture that, again, I was trying to preach a sermon, and it was
just a regular sermon on spiritual growth.
What pastor does not preach on spiritual growth and not use this verse, right?
I love this passage in the King James.
Let's read it.
1 Peter 2, 2, "As newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word, they eat and grow
thereby."
Beautiful, right?
You know, a newborn babe, someone who's newly saved, they believed on Jesus Christ, they're
born again, they should, they need to develop an appetite for the word of God.
When someone gets, that's why when we get people saved, we give them a New Testament,
we give them a Bible, we try to teach them how to read the word of God and build up consistency
in their walk with God, how to study the Bible, love the word of God, delight in his word,
right?
Why?
Because we want them to grow.
We want them to go on into perfection.
We want them to learn about the unsearchable riches of Christ.
We want them to enjoy the preaching because one of the most enjoyable things about preaching
is when you read something in the Bible and then your pastor preaches on it.
We've all experienced that, right?
You're reading the word of God and then Pastor Thompson comes up and preaches and he's just
like, "Whoa, that's crazy.
I was just reading that."
It's one of the greatest experiences as a Christian because it just confirms the ministry
of the Holy Spirit, right?
The point that I'm making here is just God is saying here you need to develop an appetite
for the milk of the word for the sake of growth, spiritual growth.
Very simple.
Well, what does the 1960s say?
Let me translate it for you.
It says desire like newborns the unadulterated milk of the word so you can grow into salvation.
Now my heart dropped when I first read that and I was like "para salvacion?"
What the?
I almost busted a Pastor Shelley.
And I'm thinking to myself, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa."
And I go back to my King James, I'm like I know for a fact that doesn't say anything
in the King James.
And you know at that time obviously just I'm still not newly saved but I'm still like young
in the Lord.
And I'm like well maybe in the Greek it does say something different, I don't know.
But that just doesn't sound right because it just sounds like a workspace salvation.
So I brought this to the attention of a Spanish pastor and I say, "Hey, why does it say this
in 1 Peter 2 2 when my King James says that it's just for growing?"
And he ended up sending me all of these commentaries in Spanish and I'm like bro I didn't ask these
dead people, these commentators who have been dead for a long time, I'm asking you, why
is it saying that?
And he's like, "Well, you have to understand the 1909 says to grow in health and you can
interpret health as being like spiritual growth."
I said, "But it says salvacion in the 1960 though" and the King James just says to grow.
And he just didn't talk to me after that.
But once I became a pastor and started learning and growing in Greek and just learning Greek
and reading Greek, I love reading through 1 Peter chapter 2 and obviously it just cuts
off at growth.
I think the word that he uses is augment, which means to grow.
And I'm thinking to myself, they just added this word here.
And let me just be honest with you, dealing with Spanish ministries, there's a lot of
people who are just mixed up on salvation.
You know why?
Because of stuff like this.
If you don't read the word of God to grow into salvation, you get saved, and then you
grow thereafter.
You know, because then how, you know, the people who are reading this in Spanish churches,
they're going to get the impression, oh man, I have to stay in this thing, I have to keep
reading the word of God, I have to keep, you know, walking with the Lord to stay saved
or to be saved.
There's like doubt there.
It's very wicked.
Go with it if you would to John chapter 12, skip John chapter 12, go to Revelation 19.
For me, 1 Peter 2, 2 is like the straw that broke the camel's back because June 22 and
23 is just like, whoa, that says something completely different, but it's not teaching
like damn double heresy.
This is damn double heresy.
Damn double heresy.
And you have fundamental Baptist churches all across America who are fighting against
a workspace salvation all the while the Spanish department is promoting it through this verse
right here.
Crazy.
It's insane.
Look at Revelation 19 and verse eight.
In the King James it says, "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine
linen clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints."
Now what is the righteousness of the saints?
It's the righteousness of Jesus Christ that was imputed upon us through faith in Jesus
Christ.
Right?
The 1960s says that the fine linen are the righteous actions of the saints.
Righteous actions, acciones justas de los santos, meaning the righteous actions of
the saints, promoting a workspace salvation.
And there's plenty of other examples that we can give, but we're going to stop there.
I'm just showing you just like the tip of the iceberg of the problems that we have here.
And look, if all we had was First Peter, if all that was wrong with the 1960s was First
Peter 2-2, that's enough for me.
If all we had was crezcais para salvacion, growing to salvation, it's just like oh, oh,
oh, oh, oh, and just toss it.
This does not read with my King James.
Last passage, go to Luke chapter six, if you will, Luke chapter six.
What's the point that I'm making?
What I'm making this evening is that the 1960 has flown under the radar and it's really
sad if you think about it because fundamental Baptist churches are just known for being
so strict on the King James and having the Word of God and fighting this front, but they've
neglected this little portion of their church that the devil has infiltrated through the
1960.
And look, it's a stronghold in Spanish churches.
You cannot question, now we do because we don't care what churches say and you know
whatever.
If we get ostracized, so be it.
You know, I feel like if you're not ostracized, you're not doing something, you're not doing
something right.
You know what I mean?
We're just kind of looking for a reason to be ostracized every once in a while.
But you know, there you will get ostracized.
You will not be invited to preach at your, at the conferences.
You will be separated from, but so be it.
And look, I've had a lot of Spanish pastors who separated from me because of the issue
and I don't feel bad about it.
For me, it's just like, man, you guys suck.
I've esteemed you as a student of the word of God, but no longer because of this.
Here's my last point, and that is the preeminence of a pure preservation.
And obviously, we want to get people off of the 1960, but we want to get them on the right
Bible.
And I recommend the Reina Valera Gomez.
I think the 1602 is a great version too.
But let me just be real honest with you.
The reason I am biased towards the Gomez is because in my observation, churches that are
doing the most soul winning, preaching the hardest sermons, doing the most works for
God are using the Gomez.
I could be wrong about that, but that's just my observation.
And I'm not downplaying the 1602, if people use the 1602, great.
I'm just saying like our church uses the Gomez.
Most of our French churches use the Gomez and that's what we use to preach the word
of God in Spanish.
So I want to use what's working.
And look, you can compare the 1602 to like a bishop's Bible.
Those who came before the King James are still good.
But you know, I'm going to go with the Gomez and I think it's great that we give Gomez
Bibles to converts.
Teach people how to use it.
Let me read to you from a quote from Cipriano de Valera regarding the 1602 Bible that he
revised from the 1569.
He says, "Therefore," and here's a great message for all Hispanics today, okay, who are in
these Spanish churches, "Therefore, open your eyes, O Spaniards, and forsaking those who
deceive you, obey Christ and his word, which alone is firm and unchangeable forever, established
and found your faith on the true foundation of the prophets and apostles and sole head
of his church."
And you know what?
This is what we are echoing today, telling all the Mexicans and the Guatemalans and the
Andurians and, you know, all of the Hispanics of the world, open your eyes and forsake those
who deceive you.
Forsake the 1960.
Look what Luke 6 verse 48 says, "He is like a man, referring to the wise man, which built
an house and dig deep and laid the foundation on a rock.
And when the flood arose," you know the floods of false doctrine, the floods of tribulation,
the floods of hardship, "the stream beat vehemently upon that house, could not shake it, for it
was founded upon a rock."
Oh, but he that heareth and doeth not is like a man that without a foundation built an house
upon the 1960 upon the earth, "against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately
it fell, and the ruin of that house was great."
Let me tell you why a lot of pastors avoid any conversation regarding the 1960, because
it just falls apart.
John 1 Peter 2, 2 falls apart, like it's founded upon the earth.
It's built upon the earth.
You can challenge the King James all you want stands alone for 400 years, just be just thundering
forth from the pulpit, getting people saved, getting people doctrinally grounded and sound
in the word and causing people to prosper.
The 1960 doesn't have that same fruit.
It's built upon the earth.
And so what's the message this evening?
Throw your 1960 in the trash if you have one.
First and foremost, you can burn it too.
That works just as well.
But you know, I don't think anybody hears using the 1960, but you know, if this sermon
motivates you to do anything, it's to do this.
You know, be conscious of your converts, Spanish converts, to get a right Bible in their hands
because we need us, we need to raise up a new generation of Spanish speakers who take
this issue seriously.
Previous generation didn't take it serious.
They ignored it.
There's an elephant in the room and they're just kind of walk, they don't, they don't
want to disturb the tradition.
We need a new generation to rise up who actually cares about this issue.
And you know what has the conviction, the strong conviction to have the word of God
in their language, just as they have the strong conviction to have it in the English language.
They're King James only is they need to be Gomez only is too.
1602 only is as well.
Let's pray.
Father, we thank you so much for your word.
And I'm thankful for the word of God in the English to the King James, Lord, and Lord,
it's blessed me beyond measure.
As a Christian, it's helped me to be successful and to prosper.
But it's also helped me from the floods and the winds that beat upon this house.
All the trials that I've experienced, all the hardships and, and just days of affliction
and hardships, Lord, it got me through those nights.
But it also helped me to prosper as a Christian, to get other people saved.
It's a wonderful, wonderful translation, Lord.
It is the word of God.
And I would hope that the Spanish speaking world would feel the same way about their
Bible through the Gomez, through the 1602, Lord.
And I pray that they would open their eyes and reject the modern versions of the Bible
in their language as well.
Please raise up a new generation of Spanish speakers who esteem the issue and are willing
to just put themselves out there and speak out against the Golden Calf of the 1960.
We love you and we thank you.
We pray these things in Jesus' name.
Amen.
Q&A session.
Pastor Bruce Mejia on the hot seat.
Thanks for doing this.
And I'm not even mic'd, so that's a great way to start off here.
It says RF mute off, question mark.
Is mine on?
I'm good?
Okay, well thanks for joining us for the Q&A.
We're going to go right into it here, not going to waste any time.
This person is asking here, is there anything gringos can do to call out people pretending
to only speak Spanish?
We know that they can speak English.
So I didn't pre-read this question.
Wait, wait, wait, is there anything that gringos can do?
If you call out people who pretend to only speak Spanish, we know that they can speak
English.
So I think what they're asking is this.
It's like when you go out, I don't know...
They're at a door, and then they...
No ingles.
Yeah.
No ingles.
Yeah.
So this works all across the board for any language, okay?
And in fact, when I used to...
When I helped with a church plant in Monterey Park, there was a lot of Chinese people there.
And I wanted to get the gospel to the Chinese people there, so I started learning a little
bit of Mandarin.
But then I started realizing that they all speak English, right?
Because then you go knocking on the door, and they're just like, "No English, no English."
And so I would just learn a couple words, and then I would just cite those couple words,
"Ni hao ma?"
And they're like, "Oh, you speak Mandarin."
I'm like, "Yeah, I do.
You speak English, huh?"
And then it would soften up to that.
And that actually happens more with Hispanics, though, because Hispanics love it when you
learn their language.
Like, if you say a couple words in Spanish, and they're very forgiving, they're very patient,
they're very kind.
So don't be embarrassed, like, "Oh, man, but my Spanish is not that good."
They love it, though.
If they see that you're putting in the effort to try to put yourself out there to speak
Spanish, they will love to hear it.
And so just learn a couple words, just learn an introduction, and then they'll end up slipping
into English, and then you can just segue from that.
That's what I would say.
Question here, when you're having a conversation with a new convert and you want to try to
get them to understand the distinction between the 1960 and either the 1602 or the 2010,
you know, typically in English we would go to 1 Corinthians 118 or we would go to one
of these passages to show that it's teaching works.
What's your go-to verse you would use?
Verse 222.
All right.
Already covered it in the sermon.
Next up here, someone's asking, would you ever burn the 1960 like keywords used to?
I have, and yes, I will continue to, I have a 1960 on my bookshelf, but I don't burn
it because I kind of use it, not for like devotions or anything like that, but just
to kind of see what it says sometimes if I'm trying to reference it, but I'm pro-burning
false versions of the Bible.
Someone says that the claim is made by Peter, someone that the 1602 is a Rockman Bible.
Is this true?
So from what I've heard it is that the Purificada would be considered a Rockman Bible, but I
think they say that because of the fact that that chipmunk looking guy, what's that guy's
name?
Robert Breaker promotes it.
And so, you know, if that makes it a Rockman Bible, okay, but you know, yes, no.
Right.
All right.
Moving on.
Gracias, hermano, you want to come up here?
Why, you trying to take over the service?
You want a prayer read?
Have you looked into the use?
Have you looked into?
All right.
Let's get back on track here.
Good night.
RVG 2010, John Chapter 1, evidently the use of el verbo.
Someone is asking, why does it have that in John Chapter 1 and RVG 2010?
I personally think that people are just splitting hairs over that, because they'll often say,
well, it should say, well, some people will say, well, it should say el verbo instead
of la palabra, because la palabra seems to imply that it's a female.
But the thing is, is that Jesus Christ is la luz, he's la puerta.
There's a lot of instances where that happens, and so I think people are just kind of splitting
hairs.
I think both of them are fine.
They're all good.
OK.
Any added commentary?
Just kidding.
Anything else?
All right.
So when it comes to the doctrine of preservation, I do believe it allows for a refining process
to occur.
We saw it with printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
We see it with the English Bibles, obviously, that precede the King James, culminating in
the King James Bible.
Would you say that the refining process for the Spanish Bible has reached its conclusion
or is there room for improvement?
So years ago, I used to think, you know, we need to revise it again because it has minor
issues.
But I think I've just come to the conclusion that this is what we need.
This is what we have.
And this is probably what God wants us to have right now.
And I think it's all based upon what the Spanish people are actually asking for.
So if they really wanted a perfect version of the Bible, I believe God would have given
it to them.
Right.
So if they wanted, if he, if they really, if they really had an issue with it and they're
just like, no, we got to make this happen.
You know, God would have provided something for them in that regard.
And like I was mentioning in my sermon, I think that's just a weakness of the Spanish
world is that they don't seem to make a big issue about it.
So they're just kind of content with whatever.
Now, I'm not saying that if there's people out there who they want an updated version,
we'll then make it happen.
But I think the Gomez is great.
I think it's perfect.
And yeah, we can split hairs over minor issues with it, but I think it's the one we should
be using.
As far as the church is concerned that you brought up in your sermon that was using the
1960.
Are you aware today if they're still using that version or is that something that they've
maybe changed?
As far as I know they're still using it.
And as far as I know the majority of fundamental Baptist churches still use the 1960.
I talked to Dr. Gomez yesterday and he did say that there's still, there's a lot of churches
that have converted even in California to the Gomez.
I don't know exactly what church he's referring to.
I'm assuming he's, you know, he's telling the truth and I'm not saying that's not happening.
I just, I personally don't know of any churches that have made the switch.
For me it's just like, I just know of new IFB churches that are using the Gomez.
This person is asking if you think there may be a resistance to the RBG 2010 or the 1602
because pastors would like to be the "final authority" for their congregation and essentially
be able to correct the 1960 and explain what it really means.
Is that a motivation you've noticed perhaps?
I've never seen that in the Spanish churches that I've associated with where they kind
of want to be like the "final authority" in the translation and commentary of the 1960.
And not to be critical or anything like that but just from the Spanish churches that I've
seen they don't really go down deep that far into Bible teaching to the point where they're
getting really deep into doctrine and they are breaking the sermons and the verses and
they're breaking it down for people.
A lot of the sermons that I've heard from Spanish churches are very topical and so I've
never really heard a sermon where they're just going down deep into doctrine to that
extent.
There's a few questions that are the same.
The gist of them are basically like, "Hey, I go to a Spanish church and my pastor is
using the 1960.
Do you have any advice that you could give for somebody in that situation on what they
might be able to say to their pastor to bring this issue to them and put it on their radar?"
Well, obviously I can't really speak for everyone because I don't know the pastor and I don't
know what kind of relationship you have with the pastor.
I will say this is that you're rolling the dice if you try to come to the pastor even
in a meek manner because once you express that you're using the Gomez you're probably
going to be marked by him if he's completely against it.
And so there's two ways you could do it.
If you have a good relationship with your pastor and you're an outstanding member of
the church, you're heavily involved, you're a blessing to the church, I don't see anything
wrong with just coming to him and showing the differences between the two.
And if he kind of bucks at it and he starts batting an eye at it, I would just leave it
because he's probably not going to change on it.
Or you can just not say anything, just continue to use the Gomez and just realize that that's
just the church that uses the 1960.
But that's pretty much all you can do.
Now, just as a reminder, Pastor Mejia does also speak English, so if you have some questions
about the KJV, you know, we'd be happy to answer those.
But having said that, I do have a question that--
I speak better English than I do Spanish.
Right.
Now, having said that, I'm about to hypocritically ask you something again about the Spanish
Bible.
I want to ask you this.
You mentioned in your sermon that there are some Hispanic churches, Spanish churches,
whatever you want to call them.
Mexican churches.
They have some problems.
And I believe you were insinuating that those problems stem from the Bible version that
they are using.
You didn't give us detail, though, for the sake of time.
I'm curious if there's something you could maybe point to, a specific issue you notice
in those churches that you can directly relate to the Bible that they're using.
Well, you know, I mentioned Jude 18 and 19 and how, you know, in the 1960s, it talks
about the fact, or I'm sorry, in the King James, it says, "These be they who separate themselves."
And obviously we see that difference there.
I do, in my experience, what I've seen with Spanish churches, two things that has always
been a problem in every Spanish church that I've ever seen.
Number one is major division from the English.
So there's always like this power grab between the Spanish pastor and the English pastor.
And I'm sure Pastor Anderson could attest to this, where it's just like you hear about
Spanish churches splitting from an English church.
And this will happen when, you know, maybe the English pastor is trying to exercise some
authority, and the Spanish pastor does not agree with it.
He will literally, and this has happened multiple times, I've seen this throughout the last
18 years, where he'll just take the entire Spanish congregation and go start his own
church.
And that happens a lot.
That's one major problem that I see a lot within Spanish churches.
And we actually even have some Spanish churches in Orange County.
And you're kind of like, where do they come from?
You know, like, how'd you guys even get started?
Like who sent you out?
And they weren't sent out.
They split from an English ministry.
And unfortunately, a lot of the times, they'll go to an English ministry to kind of build
up their resources.
And when it's time to kind of, you know, when they got enough, they're just like, all right,
we'll see you.
And they split from the church.
That happens all the time.
That's one problem.
The second problem I see is a lot of issues with money, where they kind of run their own
program.
You know stuff about that, right, Pastor Shelley?
You know, they kind of run their own program.
And I remember one specific ministry where the English service, the money goes all into
one place, right?
It's supposed to go into one place and into one account.
And they had, you know, checks and balances for it all.
But the Spanish ministry had like their own program.
So they actually had one guy who would collect all the offerings and it would go to his house.
And I remember reporting this guy to the pastor and saying like, "Hey, this guy is keeping
the money at his house.
Isn't that illegal?"
You know, and so that's just one of the most mildest examples.
There's instances, and I'm just not talking about one church, I'm talking about multiple
churches where they will literally take up offerings for the pastor.
And there's nothing wrong with taking an offering for the pastor to help the pastor, you know,
if it's sanctioned by the pastor, if he's like allowing it.
But the Spanish pastor would often do this and he would have members go and say, "Hey,
the Spanish pastor needs this, you know, can we raise up some funds?"
And the English pastor just didn't know anything about it.
So I would say that those are some of the main issues that I would see with Spanish
churches.
With money, and then secondly, division, splitting the church, that happens a lot.
Well, we talked a lot about the 1960, but when it comes to the 2010, are you aware of
whether or not this is a translation that came directly from the received text in Greek,
the Masoretic Hebrew, or was it a King James translation, or all of the above?
Do you have any insight into the process there?
My understanding, he used the TR for the New Testament, but he also compared a lot of it
with the King James.
Okay.
That's from my understanding.
And you mentioned earlier that there are some critiques of that Bible that are unfair.
Is there anything specifically that maybe comes to mind that people try to criticize
it when in reality there isn't an issue, or are there legitimate criticisms you could
bring up that you want to...
I can't think of a legitimate criticism.
Probably the only one that people keep bringing up to me is 2 Thessalonians chapter 1, where
it talks about, in King James, it says that, if someone help me out here, Pastor Anderson,
if you want to interrupt me at any time, you're morally welcome to.
If you want to take over, you know, where they're destroyed, the destruction comes from
the presence of the Lord.
Right?
Am I right?
Hello?
What's that?
Yeah, it's 2 Thessalonians 1.
Yes.
Did I say 1 Thessalonians?
I said 2 Thessalonians.
Oh, I'm sorry.
2 Thessalonians chapter 1, where they're destroyed from the presence of the Lord.
Right?
And in the Spanish, obviously what that means in the King James is that the source of the
destruction is coming from the Lord.
Right?
And, you know, obviously that verse has been used and misused to teach that when someone
dies and goes to hell, they're away from the presence of God.
Like hell is a separation from God, and they'll use 2 Thessalonians chapter 1 as a proof text
for that.
I know that in the reign of Valera of Gomez, it reads the way that interpretation reads,
whereas that's not what it says.
Go ahead.
And different editions of the Gomez Shelleys backing me up, it doesn't even always read
that way, because it's still getting kind of dialed in.
So what does the 2010 say?
And it's like in Italian, they're kind of acknowledging that it's not in the Greek language.
They're kind of helping you with it, make it wrong.
Yeah, so the way they worded it was the way the bad interpretation would be, and so that's
the only example that people are brought to my attention, which obviously, even if it
read the way people interpret it, the wrong interpretation, I still don't think that's
a big issue.
That's just the one that they keep bringing up to me in that regard.
So that's another instead of defile themselves with mankind in first Timothy chapter one
verse number 10, it says solo mitas, which again, obviously I don't agree with that,
but we can't really say what Arsinochites is anyways.
We don't know for sure.
So if someone interprets that as being sodomized, because that would, it's only used twice,
right?
You got first Timothy chapter one verse number 10, and then you have first Corinthians chapter
six, verse number nine.
Is that what it is?
And so it's a word that the apostle Paul came up with.
And in the Gomez, I think it uses sodomized for both.
Is that correct?
In first Corinthians six, he actually-
Abusadores?
No.
Los que echan con barones.
And then first Timothy one, verse 10, says sodomitas.
So there's obviously a contradiction there if it's using the same word, but he translates
it different.
Yeah.
That would be another issue.
But again, because Arsonochtitis is not even clear what it, what it's referring to, it's
almost like open for interpretation and translation.
I don't agree with it.
But I'm just saying that that would be an issue that people bring up.
In your sermon, you had brought up that there was a woman mixed up on hell as a direct result
of the Bible that she was using.
Have you ever come across another situation like that, whether it's English or Spanish,
where someone was mixed up on something and you were able to actually figure out that
it was because of the Bible they were reading, that that was the fruit of the Bible that
they were reading?
Are you talking about in Spanish?
Either English or Spanish.
We'll broaden our horizons.
Because we're talking about Spanish, the only other one I can think of is the 1960, instead
of alms, it says limosna.
Is that correct?
Oh, no, no, no.
Yeah, what does it say in the 1960 for alms?
Is that what it says?
I remember that's the only example I can think of where they kind of use like a Catholic
term for either tithes or offerings of that sort.
That's the only other example that I can think of.
Perfect.
Well, someone else is asking as we look up, there's a verse being looked up here.
So we'll go back to it.
But this question is, if someone doesn't seem to care about the differences in the Bibles,
is that a reason to even question if they're saved?
This is what this person is asking.
I would question someone's salvation based upon what they tell me they believe about
salvation.
Because people who get saved don't necessarily start reading the Bible right off the bat.
You know, obviously if you have a saved person that's a diehard ESV or a person who claims
to be saved, just a diehard ESV, they see all of the errors in it and they embrace it,
they love it.
I would definitely question that person's salvation at that point.
And then obviously I would want to know what they believe about salvation, but quite frankly
any person who is diehard on the modern versions of the Bible rarely if ever have the right
gospel anyways.
And when we talk about this issue, often one of the big arguments that we would use is
the fruit argument.
You look at the fruit of the King James Bible.
You even brought up in your sermon about the Spanish Bible, the fruit that you see with
the right Spanish Bible, the RBG 2010.
I'm kind of curious though, one of the fruits that you could point to is perhaps persecution.
Have you noticed on the other side, are there modern Bible believing churches that are using
NIV, ESV, etc., that are getting persecuted like King James churches are?
Is that something you notice?
Not that I've heard of, unless they're standing for like Republican conservative values or
something like that.
But for spiritual matters, I've never heard of a church that uses the modern versions
of the Bible being persecuted by the sodomites or by the enemies of God in any sort.
When you started going to your church, you mentioned that you were using a New King James
Bible.
If someone's unaware, because you bring up the Republican party, I view the New King
James as almost like the Republican party of Bible versions, because just as they are
conservative in name only, often the New King James is KJV in name only.
If someone's unaware of the problems with the New King James, what would you point to right
off the bat to help them understand?
1 Corinthians 1.18.
Which is basically saying, "For the preaching of the cross to them that pares foolishness
but unto us which are being saved is the power of God."
And I actually have someone who contacted me on social media, Instagram, Wild Olive
Tree if you haven't followed yet.
And they're like, "Hey, I know that you are King James only, but I don't see anything
wrong with the New King James."
And I was saying, "Have you actually read it?"
They're like, "Yeah, I've read it all the way through."
And they actually gave me the right gospel, as far as what they believe about salvation.
And I said, "Well, it does deviate from the TR in certain places."
And they said, "I don't believe it does.
I've read it all the way through."
And then I sent them 1 Corinthians 1.18, and his response was, "I've actually never seen
that."
And I'm like, "Well, didn't you just tell me you read it?"
And he's like, "That's so weird.
I didn't really notice that."
And then he said, "Let me get back to you," and he never got back to me.
All right, let's wrap up here so that we don't spend too much time.
This is the last question.
Oh, right.
Oh, go ahead.
The mic doesn't work.
We can hear you without it.
I feel a little more important.
That's good.
The question that you asked me earlier about the alms thing.
Yeah.
So, what it is, is that it still uses the word that most of us are talking about giving
alms in Matthew 6, but the first verse of Matthew 6, in the King James, it starts out
like, "Take heed that you do not your alms before men to be seen of them, otherwise you
have no reward of your father which is in heaven."
All the modern English versions in Matthew 6, 1 change that to like, "Oh, take heed that
you do not your righteousnesses before men," and then in Spanish, 1960 version goes with
the critical text there, that you don't do your justicia before men, and so it would
act as like an overarching, you can't do any righteousness before men to be seen of them,
whereas the King James reading, it's more singling out things like alms, prayer, and fasting,
as opposed to like just, you know, don't do anything before men. You gotta hide all your good
works. You gotta hide it all under a bushel and make sure nobody sees your good works, you know.
So that's, I think that's what you were talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that was, that was,
that was. That's good. Thank you. Let's go ahead and end it here, and this is the question I want
to ask and we'll stop. So when it comes to this issue, you can really geek out on the manuscript
evidence. You could talk a lot about the Greek and the Hebrew and things like that in different
readings, and we did some of that. But at the end of the day, do you think there's an element
of faith involved with whether it's King James onlyism or just our faith in the received text
of scripture? Is there an element of faith that people often overlook? Absolutely, and in fact,
the vast majority of converts who get saved will never know all this information. Yeah. They're
basing their beliefs off of the faith in the Bible. They just believe what the Bible says.
When I got saved, I didn't know all these things. I didn't know all the details and
how it was translated. I just believed the word of God because the Bible says that it's the word of
God. And I believe God blessed that, you know, and I prefer someone who might be ignorant of all of
the historical facts and the details, but has faith in the Bible than the person who's just a scholar,
but actually undermines the word of God, you know, because they're so puffed up. And so obviously
there is an element of faith and I think it's the most important element. I think at the end of the
day we just need to believe that it's God's word because the Bible says that it's God's word. And
I think I believe and know that God honors that person for having that position. Perfect. Well,
I think that's a great stopping point. That's it for the Q&A session. God bless you all.
Talk to you guys again soon.