Now, the part of the chapter that I wanted to focus on there is, of course, the famous
verse in Hebrews 4-12, for the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints
and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Bible tells here that the Word of God is quick and powerful.
Quick meaning alive.
The Bible says in John that Jesus said, the words that I say unto you, they are spirit
and they are life.
God's Word is alive, God's Word is powerful, and this isn't just an ordinary book that's
written by man.
Because it's the Word of God, it contains great power that no other book possesses.
Now, books that man writes can be understood by man, but the book that God has written,
the Holy Bible, is spiritually discerned.
The Bible says, but the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they
are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
And I believe that that's part of the reason why people in today's world are seeking for
other versions of the Bible.
They go to the King James Bible, it goes over their head, and they think it's because of
these and the vows, but really the reason why they're having trouble understanding it
is that they're not saved in many cases.
And because they're not saved, they're having trouble understanding the spiritual truths
of the Bible in their flesh.
They can't understand it.
They can't comprehend it.
So they seek out a man-made alternative and they look at it and it makes sense to them,
because they are man and it's written by man.
They don't have the spiritual discernment to understand the real Word of God, so they
embrace the fraud.
They embrace the counterfeit.
These new Bibles are counterfeits of the Word of God.
Therefore they do not have the power that the Word of God has.
I mean, God's Word has power, but a corruption or perversion of God's Word doesn't have that
same power.
Now, I read to you this morning the scripture that talked about the fact that we wrestle
not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the
rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
And if you go down just a few verses, it says, take the helmet of salvation and the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.
The weapon that we need to do battle with the forces of evil in this world, to fight
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against that spiritual wickedness
that's in high places, is the Word of God.
We need the Word of God as our weapon to cut through the lies, to defeat the darkness and
sin of this world.
We need the Word of God.
It has power.
See, the devil wants to take our weapon out of our hand.
It's like when the government wants to take away your guns and everything, you know.
The devil wants to take our weapon out of our hand and replace it, not with the two-edged
sword of God's Word, but with the butter knife that is the New International Version.
With the butter knife that is the New King James.
The butter knife of the New Living Translation.
It's exactly what the Philistines did to the children of Israel.
They took away all their swords.
They took away all their weapons.
The only one who had a sword was Jonathan and his father Saul.
They were the only ones that had a sword.
And Jonathan used that sword to fight a great battle and win a great victory, but all the
other people were without swords.
They were using tools instead of swords.
You know, we today with these modern Bibles, we don't have the sword of the Spirit unless
we have the true Word of God.
Therefore we're going to lose the battle.
You know, you ever hear the saying, don't bring a knife to a gunfight, right?
Don't bring a butter knife, you know, to a spiritual battle with the forces of evil.
You need the sword of the Spirit.
You need the Word of God.
The one that is sharper than a two-edged sword.
And as you study these modern versions of the Bible, you can see how they've really
just dulled the truth.
You know, the King James Bible is offensive to some people because of the sharpness that
it uses, but that's the idea.
It's a sword.
These modern versions are much duller and so it's more comfortable for people to handle
unskillfully.
But anyway, I want to pick up where I left off this morning.
I finished up this morning's sermon by talking about the fact that, you know, the King James
Bible was brought down to us through men like William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, you
know, John Rogers, all the different people that translated the King James.
And we saw there was a continuity.
It wasn't just that the King James just, poof, it appeared in 1611.
Because people say, well, where was the Word of God before that?
This morning we showed the continuity of all the English Bibles for the King James and
how all the English Bibles leading up to the King James in modern English, they all
read the same way that the King James did virtually.
I mean they didn't have the kind of perversion and corruption that these new versions have.
And all the examples that I gave this morning where these modern versions attacked Christ's
deity, you know, these original English Bibles before the KJV, they all lined up with the
KJV.
They didn't make those perversions.
They didn't make those corruptions, okay.
So where did the modern versions come from?
We learned this morning where the King James came from and how it was part of that line
of good Bibles that was produced in England.
The modern Bibles come from a completely different philosophy.
They're not something that has been passed down to us, but rather the modern Bibles are
supposedly the result of modern archaeology and modern scholarship and modern discovery.
I mean even the people who promote these modern Bibles will tell you, well, the modern publishers
just have more resources available to them today.
They just have manuscripts that just weren't available to the King James translators.
That's why the modern Bibles are better, they'll say.
You know, they had access to better manuscripts than what the King James translators had.
And the reason they say that is because the manuscripts that the modern Bibles are translated
from, the NIV, etc., are newer discoveries, meaning that they were buried for centuries.
Now let me ask you something.
Do you believe that the true Bible was buried for centuries?
For centuries, I mean God promised to preserve His Word to all generations, but they're basically
believing that God's Word in its true form was buried somewhere.
And that for all these centuries, everybody is reading and preaching and believing something
that's wrong and then thank God for the archaeology of the 1800s to dig up these new manuscripts,
the true Word of God that's been buried for all those years.
Look, if God took so much time and effort to bring us the Word of God through all the
prophets and holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost over the
course of hundreds, yay, thousands of years, and then He just lets it get buried, and then
we're lucky enough to dig it up in the modern day.
No, these ones that have been dug up of late, these newer, better manuscripts, are fraudulent.
They're corrupt.
Now we already saw how corrupt they are this morning, the way they attack the deity of
Christ, etc.
But let me give you the names of the three main manuscripts that these new modern Bibles
draw from.
They have names like Codex Vaticanus.
Now what is that called to mind?
Codex Vaticanus.
The Vatican, the Catholic Church.
Okay, here's another name of one.
Codex Sinaiticus, okay, like Mount Sinai.
Codex Sinaiticus was literally discovered in the garbage can of a monastery, okay?
This is the true Word of God, supposedly according to these people.
Forget all the hundreds and thousands of Bible translations that people have been using throughout
the centuries that God's people have read and believed and preached, nope, they were
all wrong.
It's this one that was in a garbage can in a monastery.
That's the accurate one.
But see, it comes from a philosophy of saying that God can't preserve His Word.
So God lets it get thrown in the trash, God lets it get buried, we have to go find it
and dig it up somewhere instead of just believing that it's been passed down from generation
to generation.
And I believe that since the apostles walked on this earth, there has always been the Word
of God on this earth.
I do not believe that the Word of God has ever been absent from this earth.
Since Jesus and the apostles were on the earth, I don't believe it was here and then it was
gone and then we rediscovered it, no, I believe it's always been on this earth.
I believe that every generation has had access to God's words and that if we find something
that's been buried and it says something different than what's been received, the received texts,
the textus receptus, you know, the Bible that people have used for centuries, then that
must be fraudulent.
It must not be the Word of God if God didn't preserve it and God didn't protect it.
But that's the philosophy behind these.
They're basically rejecting thousands of Bibles in all different languages that are all saying
the same thing.
Instead, they're going to go with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, just because they're supposedly
older.
Okay, but just because they're older doesn't mean that they're right.
It doesn't mean that they're not fraudulent.
Look, Paul told us in 2 Corinthians 2 that people were corrupting the Word of God even
in his day.
In 2 Thessalonians, they were already writing a false scripture pretending to be from the
apostle Paul.
In Revelation 22, God was already warning people who would try to take away from or
add to God's Word.
So that's already been taking place.
So just because you've got a manuscript that's from 200 years after Christ, oh, there's no
way it could be tampered with, right?
Of course it could.
And there are many, the Bible tells us, that corrupt the Word of God.
Not a few, but many corruptors of God's Word.
So they go with the Codex Alexandrinus or the Alexandria Codex.
Alexandria is a city in Egypt.
Of course Egypt is a city, I'm sorry, Egypt is a nation in the Bible that's always associated
with that which is ungodly or sinful or wrong.
So we have this Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandria, these anomalies that are
being used to trump basically the Word of God that's been passed down throughout history.
But the main thing I want to cover tonight as we talk about what's wrong with these modern
versions and why our church is King James Bible only, the main thing I want to show
you tonight is the Catholic influence on these modern versions.
You know, when they're being based on a manuscript that was found in a monastery, when they're
being based on a manuscript that's called Codex Vaticanus, you know, we can see where
all this is pointing to.
And we can see that the Roman Catholic Church is what's behind these false modern versions.
You might not think that the NIV is a Catholic Bible, I have a fly attacking me here, you
might not think that the NIV is a Catholic Bible and they'll say, oh it's evangelical,
it's for Baptists.
But you know what, honestly, I'm going to show you all the Catholic doctrines that it
props up because it's from these Catholic manuscripts.
Let me show it to you.
First of all, go to Acts 8.37.
And I want to show you how these modern versions, the NIV, the ESV, the New Living Translation,
I want to show you how they're used to support Catholic doctrine.
You see, in Acts chapter 8, we find a scripture that just completely destroys the doctrine
of baptizing babies that the Catholic Church teaches.
The Catholic Church will baptize an infant before it's even old enough to know what is
even happening, before it has any idea of who Jesus Christ is or what it means to believe
on Christ.
But the Bible gives a clear prerequisite in Acts chapter 8 of what we must do before we
are baptized.
And it says in Acts chapter 8.35, then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture
and preached unto him Jesus and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water.
And the eunuch said, see, here is water.
What doth hinder me to be baptized?
He's saying, what's hindering me or what's stopping me from being baptized?
And Philip said, if thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still and they went down both into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized them.
This scripture is clearly teaching that before you get baptized, you need to believe on Jesus
Christ before you get baptized.
But when we look at the NIV, the ESV, the New Living Translation, they completely leave
out verse 37.
So it literally goes 35, 36, 38.
So then when you're reading this, the guy says, hey, what's stopping me from being baptized?
And then he just baptizes them.
That's perfect for a religion that teaches baptism of babies.
And you know what?
The Catholics aren't the only ones who baptize babies.
You know, Presbyterians, what, Methodists?
There are other denominations out there that baptize infants, contrary to scripture, if
you have a King James Bible.
So first of all, infant baptism.
Another Catholic doctrine, go to Matthew chapter 1, is that the Catholics teach a doctrine
that Mary remained a virgin.
That basically Mary was still a virgin all the way throughout her life.
Now we know that of course Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ.
But the Bible is clear that after that, she had other children.
In fact, it lists four of Jesus' half-brothers.
It even gives their names, James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.
He gives the names of the brothers and then it says, his sisters, are they not all with
us?
So Jesus had at least seven half-siblings, maybe even more.
Because after the Virgin Mary gave birth to the Lord Jesus Christ, she then of course
consummated the marriage with her husband and went on to have children with her husband.
Now here's a great proof of that in Matthew 1.25.
Let's start in verse 24, it says, then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel the
Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife and knew her not until the end.
No that's not what it says.
It says, and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son and he called his
name Jesus.
So it doesn't say that he never knew her, it just says that he knew her not until she
had brought forth her firstborn son, he called his name Jesus.
It says in verse 25 in the NIV, but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave
birth to a son and he gave him the name Jesus.
What's missing?
Firstborn.
Now here's the thing, if Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary, that tells me there's a second
born.
You can't have the word firstborn unless there's a second, because that shows an order.
Jesus was Mary's firstborn son, not her only son.
But the NIV removes that so you can say, well, you know, that was the only son that she had.
And then when you take them to the passage that lists his brother and they'll just say,
well that's his cousins.
So again, eliminating a proof of subsequent children after Jesus from the Virgin Mary.
Also Luke chapter 2 verse 22, and this is one that's easy to kind of pass over and not
really notice, but we know that Mary was a sinner.
She was a wonderful Christian lady, she was a godly person, she was highly favored and
blessed among women, but Mary was not perfect.
Mary was not sinless, Mary was not God.
Mary was a human being, although she was a righteous human being, a godly human being,
she was human nonetheless and sinned.
That is why Mary called God her savior, because someone who is a sinner is in need of a savior
because he will save us from our sins, the Bible says.
So Mary needed a savior, but not only that, Mary offered a sin offering for herself in
Luke chapter 2, which shows obviously that she was a sinner just like the rest of us.
It says in Luke chapter 2, beginning in verse 21, it says, and when 8 days were accomplished
for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the
angel before she was conceived in the womb.
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they
brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, verse 24 says, and to offer a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two
young pigeons.
So the Bible says that the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were over, and
then she offered these particular animal sacrifices.
Well, you don't have to turn there, but back in Leviticus 12, it explains this.
And it says in verse 6, when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, it's exactly what
it said in Luke 2, 22, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first
year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtle dove for a sin offering under
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation of the priest, who shall offer it before the
Lord and make an atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.
This is the law for her that hath borne a male or female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles or two young pigeons,
the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering, and the priest shall make
an atonement for her and she shall be clean.
Look, the Bible is clear in these three verses that these animal sacrifices are being brought
as a burnt offering and a sin offering for the mother, to purify her, to make an atonement
for her.
And that's exactly what the King James Bible said in Luke 2, 22 when it talked about the
days of her purification and these animal sacrifices are being offered for a sin offering,
to make an atonement for sin.
In the NIV Luke 2, 22 it says, when the time came for the purification rights required
by the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.
So now it's become completely disassociated from her.
It's just the purification rituals, or the purification rights.
Whereas the King James said her purification.
Well, I thought she's just so sinless and pure that she'd never need any purifying and
would never need to offer a sin offering, right?
To the Roman Catholic Church that teaches that Mary is without sin.
So number one, we've seen from the new versions, basically, they've been altered to allow for
infant baptism.
They've been altered to allow for the perpetual virginity of Mary.
They've been altered to prove that Mary had a sinless life.
Go to 1 Corinthians chapter 9, verse 27, we'll see more Catholic doctrine coming from these
new versions.
Now you say, well I'm just surprised to hear you speak against the Catholic Church.
Well you are sitting in a Baptist Church.
I mean, you know, did you accidentally think you walked into the Catholic Church?
If we were Catholic, I'd be wearing a dress right now, I'd have my collar turned around
backwards right now, I'd be emptying a dust buster right now, I'd be going like this right
now, I'd be sprinkling holy water right now, okay?
Look, we wouldn't be preaching the Bible right now, we wouldn't be saying salvation is by
grace through faith right now.
I mean, obviously it's the Baptist Church, we believe the Bible, and we're preaching
the Bible.
We're not Catholic, so why would you bring home a Catholic Bible and read it?
You know, why are you reading a Bible that has been specifically altered by the Catholic
Church to support Catholic doctrine?
That's what these manuscripts are, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and so forth.
Another doctrine of the Catholic Church that is supported by the NIV is the doctrine of
beating yourself, and yes, you've heard me correctly, self-flagellation or beating yourself.
Now your Catholic friends that you know in the United States probably do not beat themselves,
but throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has taught and encouraged the practice
of beating yourself, okay?
In fact, when Henry VIII made Catholicism illegal in England and kicked the Roman Catholic
Church out of England, he also at the same time passed a law against beating yourself.
And even today in the Philippines, the devout Catholics will beat themselves today in 2013.
In the Philippines they crucify themselves, they beat themselves, they crawl on their
knees until they're bleeding, I mean they do these types of acts to themselves.
Look what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 9.27.
The King James Bible says, "...but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection,
lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
Now when Paul says, I keep under my body, another word for under would be the prefix
sub, right?
A submarine goes underwater, okay?
So we would say that he's bringing his body into subjection.
Do you see that word there?
He says, I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.
What does that mean?
It means that his body is not going to rule him.
His flesh is not going to control him.
He's not going to base his actions on what the flesh wants to do, what his body wants
to do.
No, Paul is saying I want to have a chain of command where my body takes orders from
my mind.
My body takes orders from the spirit and not that my body is ruling and the flesh is ruling,
but rather he's saying I want my body to be in subjection.
I want it to be under the power of my spirit and under the power of my will.
He says, I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means when
I preach to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Okay, listen to what the NIV says.
Here's the 1984 NIV, the most common NIV that's been out throughout the years.
I beat my body and make it my slave.
Did you hear that?
So instead of what Paul said here, I keep under my body and bring it into subjection,
the NIV says I beat my body and make it my slave.
Now the NIV was updated in 2010.
Now it says, no, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have
preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
And pretty much most of the modern versions, they're all following the same type of a philosophy.
They pretty much plagiarize from each other heavily on these translations and so for example
in the ASV, it says, but I buffet my body and bring it into bondage.
Okay, the amplified version.
I don't know about you, but the amplified version was always too loud for me.
I never even got, but anyway, listen to the amplified version.
But like a boxer, I buffet my body.
Now let me ask you this, have you ever known a boxer who beats himself up, because I haven't.
Now I've actually, I've done a lot of boxing, I've been a member of a few different boxing
gyms in my life and I've studied boxing and participated in boxing, but you know part
of my training was never to hit myself and to beat myself.
I never buffeted my body or struck a blow to my own body as part of the training.
The Common English Bible really makes it easy to understand for you, because isn't that
why you like these new versions, because they're easy to understand?
The Common English Bible, rather, I'm landing punches on my own body and subduing it like
a slave.
Okay, the Darby translation, but I buffet my body and lead it captive.
First Corinthians 9.27 in the GW, God's word translation, rather I toughen my body with
punches and make it my slave.
The good news translation, good news everybody, I hardened my body with blows and bring it
under complete control.
The N-O-G, I mean there's so many hundreds of versions, have you even heard of some of
these?
The N-O-G Bible, the names of God Bible, you know Nog sounds like a tasty beverage, but
it says rather I toughen my body with punches and make it my slave.
The RSV, but I pummel my body and subdue it.
The World English Bible, but I beat my body and bring it into submission.
Look on and on, you see how all these modern Bibles are just in lockstep with one another,
just about beating yourself.
Look, beating yourself is not a biblical doctrine, and you say well he's just meaning it figuratively.
Well what about all these people who actually beat themselves?
What about the Roman Catholics in the Middle Ages who beat themselves and would flagellate
themselves?
What about in the Philippines today and elsewhere where people are still beating themselves?
And then you've got this Catholic Bible saying I beat my body, I buffet my body, I punched
myself, I hit myself.
It's a strange doctrine my friend, I don't believe in it.
Number five, go to Matthew chapter 6, Matthew chapter 6 verse 7.
Another Catholic doctrine that is propped up by the modern versions, basically the modern
versions have made another change to help support Catholic doctrine.
Matthew chapter 6 verse 7 is where Jesus Christ is teaching us how to pray.
And in the scripture where he teaches us how to pray, he says, but when you pray, verse
7, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do.
For they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
So the Bible's teaching us here not to just vainly repeat things over and over again,
thinking that if we say something over and over again, God's going to hear us more than
if we just said it once.
What's a repetition?
Saying the same thing twice, or three times, or five times.
He's saying look, don't use vain repetitions as the heathen do.
Okay, the NIV on the other hand, and all the modern versions pretty much change this, it
says in the NIV, and when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans.
For they think they'll be heard because of their many words.
So the NIV is just saying don't just babble.
Babble is when you're just talking about meaningless things and going on and on and on, just blathering.
It's not the same as vain repetitions.
See if I said to the Catholic, you know, you are repeating 50 times the identical prayer,
whether it's an Our Father or a Hail Mary, which we shouldn't even be praying to Mary
in the first place because there's one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
If I said to a Roman Catholic, you know, you're repeating the same prayer of the Our Father
over and over and over and over.
You're not going to be heard for your much speaking.
That's a vain repetition.
You need to say that one time and be done with it and not just keep repeating the same
thing over and over again.
You know, that's supported by Matthew 6.7.
But if I say to them, hey stop babbling like a pagan, they're going to say well this isn't
babble.
They're going to say the Lord's Prayer is God's word.
Because it is God's word, right?
It's in the Bible.
Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
You know, you say, well why do you have that memorized?
You keep chanting that?
No, just because I memorized the chapter.
But I'm not going to chant that or repeat that in a vain way to God.
But the Catholic Church teaches vain repetitions so that alteration has been made.
Go to Matthew 23, Matthew chapter 23.
And we'll see another Catholic doctrine that's protected by the modern versions.
You see there is a doctrine, and again this might not be prevalent in modern day America
Catholicism, but there is a doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church of Purgatory which Catholics
believe in, which is not a biblical doctrine.
But this doctrine of Purgatory teaches that after someone has died and gone to Purgatory,
people need to pray to get them out, right?
After they die, they're going to pray to get them out.
And there was a practice that took place in the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church
would sell indulgences.
And basically what this was, you could give money unto the Catholic Church, give money
unto the priest, and he will pray, your loved one, out of Purgatory and that will buy you
some favor with God to get that guy out of Purgatory, get that loved one out of Purgatory.
Now I know this, the Catholic Church is not selling indulgences today, but if you follow
the current Pope on Twitter, he will give you time out of Purgatory.
Now look, you might think that's a joke, but it's true, I mean, it's real.
He said, you know what, if you will tune in to his inauguration, you know, when he was
crowned as the Pope, if you would tune into it and tweet it, he basically said, that could
help get you some absolution and get you a little time out of Purgatory.
You think it's a joke?
Look up this new Pope, what's his name?
Pope Francis.
So if you look up Pope Francis, the stuff that he's been saying, he's saying atheists
are going to heaven, he's saying that homos are going to heaven.
He's saying, you know, follow me on Twitter and you'll get to heaven a little sooner.
I mean, this guy's way out to lunch, he's not a biblical preacher.
Okay, I mean, it sounds funny even saying that, okay.
So this doctrine of indulgences, remember, this Dark Ages, Middle Ages practice of indulgences
taught that you pray your loved one out of Purgatory and that you could give money to
the church to help speed up that process.
Okay, with that in mind, look at Matthew 23 verse 14, it says, woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayer,
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Now what's interesting about this verse is that it's basically talking about devouring
widows' houses, which means what?
Financially.
He's talking about basically taking away their goods, taking away their money, taking away
their possessions, and the pretense, what does pretense mean?
Excuse.
If you're looking for a pretense to do something, you're looking for an excuse, aren't you?
So the excuse for taking away all the finances, taking away all the possessions and inheritance
of a widow was long prayers.
Does everybody see that in your Bible?
You devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayer, therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation.
Now what's funny is if we get the context of this passage, go to verse 9, 5 verses earlier,
it says, and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father which is
in heaven.
And in those 3 verses, 8, 9, and 10, he says don't be called rabbi, don't be called father,
don't be called master, and he said basically these people, these phony religious leaders
who call themselves names like rabbi, father, master, he said they devour widows' houses
and for a pretense make long prayer, therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Isn't that exactly what the sale of indulgences was?
Going to a widow whose loved one has died, taking away her money, and for the pretense
you make long prayers.
I'm going to say a bunch of prayers, you know, a bunch of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and
whatever to get your loved one out of purgatory.
Okay, you say well what does that have to do with the modern versions?
Oh nothing except the fact that this verse is completely missing in all modern versions.
Nothing except the fact that the NIV doesn't have Matthew 23.14 and that most modern versions
remove Matthew 23.14.
So we see how the verses, you say well there's 16 verses that are removed, okay but they're
strategic removals.
They remove a verse that's a strong verse on being saved before you get baptized, believing
before you get baptized.
That goes against Catholic doctrine.
Then they remove a verse that's a strong verse against indulgences that can be used to defeat
indulgences and show the greater damnation upon those who sell them and yet it's removed
in the modern versions.
Go to James 5.15.
So we're seeing a lot of verses that have strategically been removed and altered to
support Catholic doctrine.
Catholic doctrine like baptism of infants, the perpetual virginity of Mary, Mary's sinlessness,
the doctrine of self-flagellation or self-beating, the doctrine of repeating prayers over and
over and over again, the doctrine of indulgences or extorting money from someone in order to
get their loved one out of purgatory which doesn't even exist.
Not only that but the Catholics have a very strong doctrine of confessing your sins to
the priest instead of just confessing your sins unto God, confessing your sins unto the
Lord.
They have a strong doctrine of confessing your sin to the priest.
One of the verses that they'll point you to, because if you talk to Catholics about this,
which I have many times, the scripture that they'll always take you to is James 5.15.
They'll take you to James 5.15 and in the Catholic Bible there's a note in the column
that says, hey, this verse is telling you to confess your sins to the priest.
It says that, for example, in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, in the notes, that's what
it says.
But if we look at what the King James Bible says, it says in James 5.15.
I'm sorry, I only have the Catholic version in front of me.
Let me get out my Bible here and read it to you from the Bible.
James 5.15 says, I'm sorry verse 16, I got it wrong, confess your faults one to another.
James 5.16, confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that you may be healed.
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Now listen to what the NIV and the modern versions change this to, therefore confess
your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.
The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective, that's the NIV.
So we see that the difference here, it seems like a very small difference.
It seems like a very subtle difference when the King James Bible is telling you to confess
your faults one to another and the NIV is saying confess your sins one to another.
Now you say, well that's the same thing, but it's not the same thing.
First of all, if you go back to the original language, if you go back to what it actually
says in the Greek, the word is fault, it's not sin.
The Bible used a different word for sin in other places.
Here it uses the word for fault.
See how important it is to go back to the Greek to figure out that fault means fault?
But what I'm saying is that they have just changed it to sin, even though it says fault
in the correct Greek manuscript, they changed it to sins here just to provide the Catholics
with a strong verse about confessing your sins to a man.
You say, well what's the difference of confessing your faults?
For example, confessing your faults, the Bible talks a lot about a fault between brethren.
One person has a fault with another, meaning that you've offended me and I go to you and
apologize and confess my fault to you.
That could be one interpretation.
Not only that, but if you think about it, confessing my sins would be going to you and
saying, here's what I've done wrong.
Here's a sin that I committed.
That's exactly what the confessional booth is.
I go to you and I tell you my sin.
Whereas confessing my fault to you could just be, you know what, here's an area that I struggle
in, here's an area that I'm weak in, can you pray for me that I would do better in this
area?
Big difference confessing a fault, a fault just means that you have a weakness, you have
an imperfection in you personally.
It's not confessing something specific that you sinned and you committed, confessing your
sins to one another.
I mean look, do you really want to be in a church where we all confess our sins to each
other?
Every sin that I do, I'm going to confess it to you and you're going to do the same
for me.
I mean good night, who wants to listen to a bunch of sinful, I mean I guess Catholic
priests do.
I guess they enjoy sitting and listening to all the filth and garbage that everybody unloads
on them and you know what, they might as well confess right back to you because that Catholic
priest is a man just like you, he's a sinner just like you.
Who can forgive sins but God only?
So therefore we see that the NIV has just gone against what the Greek says and just
changed this in order to provide the Catholics with a nice pretext for the confessional booth.
Not only that, go to Galatians 5, Galatians chapter 5.
Here's another change that the modern versions make and I wasn't sure whether to put this
in the category with the Catholic changes or not.
I've already given you seven Catholic doctrines that are supported by changes to the modern
versions that the King James Bible just demolishes.
These new versions however protect these false doctrines.
This is a very strange doctrine right here in Galatians chapter 5 because it says in
Galatians 5, 9, it says a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
And in Galatians 5 Paul is talking about the fact that there are a lot of people who are
bringing in false doctrine and specifically they're bringing in a false doctrine that
says you have to be circumcised to be saved.
And he calls that false doctrine leaven.
He says a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Look at verse 11.
It says, And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?
Then as the offense of the cross ceased, I would they were even cut off which trouble
you.
For, brethren, you've been called unto liberty, and on and on.
So look at the verse there in verse 12.
I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
Now what does that mean?
You look at that and you say, well what does it mean I would they were even cut off which
trouble you?
Well if you look at what the NIV changes it to, the NIV says this.
You look down at your Bible in Galatians 5, 12.
The NIV says, As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate
themselves.
Emasculate themselves.
Now I was afraid you'd ask what it was.
He says I wish they would emasculate themselves.
That means to basically cut off their privy member as a man.
Now does that sound like something that the Bible would teach that the Apostle Paul would
say?
Okay, and you say, well I don't think that's what they meant in the NIV.
Well is that why the Common English Bible translated it?
I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves.
Or how about the contemporary English version, the CEV?
I've seen this one on sale at the Christian bookstore.
I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised but would cut
off much more.
I mean are you listening to this?
Or what about the ESV?
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves.
See the word masculine, emasculate?
Okay or what about the Holman Christian Standard Bible?
One of the top ten Bibles in America today.
I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated.
The amplified version.
I wish those who unsettle and confuse you would go all the way and cut themselves off.
The CEV, what's the CEV?
We already went over that one, sorry.
Some of these are really repetitive.
I've got like 30 different versions talking about a man cutting something off.
But let me just go to the NOG.
I wish those troublemakers would castrate themselves.
But then some of these Bibles got a little more creative.
They didn't just talk about castrating yourself or emasculating yourself.
It says in the New American Standard for example, I wish those who are troubling you would even
mutilate themselves.
Or for example, the New Living Translation also says, I just wish that those troublemakers
who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.
Now first of all, circumcision is not a mutilation.
Didn't God teach circumcision in the Old Testament?
So isn't it a little bit blasphemous to call it a mutilation?
But here he says, well they want to mutilate you by circumcision, I wish they would just
mutilate themselves.
The Revised Standard Version, I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves.
The Voice Translation, mutilate themselves.
Now let's use some common sense here, and in fact let's use the rest of the Bible.
Because this term cutoff has nothing to do with being emasculated or castrated or mutilating
yourself.
Read it again and let me prove this to you from the Bible, because listen to me now,
the term cutoff is used over a hundred times in the Bible, exactly as it's used in this
verse.
But the New Modern translators didn't read those hundred some verses, hmm I wonder what
he meant by cutoff.
Well that just must mean that he's just telling them to just cut it off.
No that's not what he meant.
Because if we get the context of the rest of the Bible and we understand that the term
cutoff is used over a hundred times, listen to the first time the term cutoff is used
in the Bible.
Tell me if it applies to the passage we just read.
Genesis 17, 14, and the uncircumcised manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised,
that soul shall be cut off from his people.
He had broken my covenant.
So he talks about a person who's not circumcised being cut off from the people.
Wouldn't that make sense that Paul is saying that the people who are coming in and teaching
salvation by circumcision, they're the ones who need to be cut off.
You say, what does he mean cut off?
Well what about when he says in Exodus 12, 15, that if anyone has leaven in their house,
that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
Didn't he say a little leaven, leaven's the whole lump?
I would, they were even cut off, which trouble you?
It's obvious what he's referring back to, Paul is referring back to these Old Testament
scriptures about people who disobey God's word and rebel against God that they would
be cut off.
Look, I don't have time to show you all the hundred and some examples of this.
It's used over a hundred times.
Exodus 12, 19, seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses, for whosoever
eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of
Israel whether he be a stranger or born in the land.
And then there are a lot of other places throughout the Old Testament where he's just talking
about how sinful evildoers, God's going to cut them off.
They're going to be cut off by God.
God's going to cut them off.
Listen to this, Psalm 37, 9, for evildoers shall be cut off, but those that wait upon
the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
Psalm 37, 22, for such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth, and they that be
cursed of him shall be cut off.
I would they were even cut off, which trouble you?
The wicked are going to be cut off, the sinful are going to be cut off.
The rebellious are going to be cut off.
Any mention of being castrated in these hundred and some mentions?
So look, if God used the word cut off, the term cut off, if God used the phrase cut off
over a hundred and some times, and he always meant the same thing, just get rid of them.
Just kick them out.
Throw them out.
They're going to be cast out.
Why would he just suddenly mean something different in Galatians 5 when he said cut
off?
All he's saying there is that they need to be kicked out.
He wished that they would be cut off.
He wished that they would be destroyed by God.
That's what cut off means.
They're going to be either destroyed by God or cut off can mean that they need to be kicked
out of the congregation, kicked out of the assembly, kicked out of the nation of Israel.
That's the term cut off.
But these weirdos with their modern versions are having the Apostle Paul saying, man, I
wish those guys would just emasculate themselves.
I wish they'd all castrate themselves.
I wish they'd all mutilate themselves.
I mean, that is not what he was teaching at all.
Very strange indeed.
So again, I don't know whether that fits in the Catholic category or not, just cutting
off your manly parts.
I don't know.
You be the judge.
I don't know if that was in the wrong place in the sermon or not.
But anyway, when we get to next, the New King James Version, because we've talked a lot
about the modern version.
We've talked about the NIV.
We've talked about the New Living.
We talked about, and you say, well, what does that have to do with Catholicism?
Because honestly, what I just talked about.
Well, first of all, if you study where these modern Bibles came from, there was a guy named
Origen.
Have you ever heard of Origen?
He was one of the early church fathers and he's considered one of the Catholic fathers.
He's from just the first few centuries A.D.
I don't have the notes in front of me on Origen.
Do you remember, Brother Garrett, Origen?
What time period was that?
Yeah, so Origen, Garrett's given me a date of like 187, like maybe the late second century,
okay?
Origen, considered one of the church fathers, one that the Catholic Church would look to.
Okay, he did this to himself.
He felt that that's what God wanted him to do.
He felt he would be better Christian by castrating himself.
And by the way, the Roman Catholic Church castrated boys to sing in the choir, the castrados
that would be able to sing more high pitched because they had been castrated.
So maybe that fits in, I don't know.
But anyway, there's another version that I want to talk about because this morning we
talked a lot about what's wrong with the NIV just now, the New Living Translation, the
ESV.
A lot of the stuff that I preached this morning and tonight doesn't really apply to the New
King James.
But the New King James has its own set of problems.
The New King James is one that's pretty deceptive because a lot of people who wouldn't touch
the NIV with a 10 foot pole, they wouldn't touch the ESV or the New Living Translation
with a 10 foot pole, but they say, come on Pastor Anderson, the New King James.
It's pretty much the same as the King James.
It just gets rid of the these and the thou.
It's just like the King James except a little easier to understand.
That's what they'll say about the New King James.
And so a lot of people think that the New King James is fine.
Even though they reject these modern versions, most of them, they'll say, well but the New
King James, lighten up.
Okay, well let me give you some stats on the New King James.
The New King James omits the word Lord 66 times.
It removes the word God 51 times.
It removes the word heaven 50 times.
It removes the word repent 44 times.
And by the way, those are all strategic.
I've gone over that in sermons on repentance.
The blood is removed 23 times.
The word hell is removed 22 times and he completely removes the word Jehovah, which is mentioned
seven times in the King James Bible, completely removes the word damnation, completely removes
the term New Testament, completely removes the word devils, and the New King James, even
though it claims to be in the vein of the King James, it ignored the Greek textus receptus
1200 times and went with the critical text derived from Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandria
Codex.
So 1200 times it went with those faulty Catholic Greek manuscripts.
And not only that, but the entire Old Testament of the New King James is translated from a
different Old Testament Hebrew text than the King James.
It's translated from a completely different manuscript.
It's translated from the manuscripts that the new versions are translated from in the
Old Testament.
The Stuttgart edition or Ben Asher Hebrew text of the Old Testament is where the New
King James is coming from.
But Pastor Anderson, the New King James is so much easier to understand, people will
tell you.
Well yeah, but if it's corrupting all this doctrine by removing all these words and removing
all these teachings, then it doesn't matter how easy.
You know, I've got a really easy book for you to understand.
It's Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss.
It's really easy to understand.
In fact, my favorite Dr. Seuss book is One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish.
That's my favorite.
Who's read it?
All over the building.
Hands all over the building.
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish is a very easy to understand book.
It's much easier to understand than the King James Bible and so I suggest if you really
want to get to know God, just read One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish or Hop on Pop
because they're much easier to understand.
See it doesn't matter how easy a book is to understand if it's not God's word.
I mean it doesn't matter how easy it is, right?
Now I mean how easy does it need to be?
Should we just write the Bible?
Should we just keep dumbing down the Bible because you're getting dumber?
I mean as this new generation rises up in our dumbed down school system and children
are graduating from high school that can barely even read Dr. Seuss, we're just supposed to
keep making the Bible dumber and dumber.
No, maybe you need to get smarter.
Maybe it's time for you to get some smarts instead of us dumbing down the Bible.
I jokingly said, you know, why don't we make a Bible version where we just simplify the
Bible down to words of only one syllable.
No words above one syllable allowed.
But it's going to be just like the King James except only words of one syllable.
So it's going to be called the, because they all have a little acronym, the NOG, the ASV,
the RSV.
This is going to be the KJV one.
And everything's one syllable.
So instead of in the beginning God created the heaven and earth, it's going to be in
the start.
Because we have to simplify it down.
One syllable only.
In the start God made the sky and the earth, right?
And the earth had no form and the dark was on the face of the deep and the ghost of God,
and it's hard to do it.
You know, I'm trying to get it down to one syllable.
Move on the face of the wet.
You know, because you can't say waters, that's too long on the wet.
You know, so is that what we're going to do?
Are we just going to keep dumbing it down?
One syllable words.
Dumb it down.
I mean, what are we going to have, the texting version?
Where everything's just broken down into LOL, ROFL.
You know, look, why don't you just start learning English?
Because every single word in the King James Bible is in a modern English dictionary.
You can go get the most current, hot off the presses edition of the Webster's Collegiate
District.
It doesn't even have to be the big one.
Just the desk size, just the little reference size.
It'll have every word in this book in it.
And so the Bible's not obsolete, you just need to get some smarts.
You need to do some studying, you need to learn the language.
And it's funny how my little children can understand it.
And you're an adult and you can't understand it?
And isn't it funny how the same people that say the King James is too hard to understand
tell you you need to learn Greek if you really want to know what the Bible says?
Yeah, that's really going to be easy to understand.
The King James is too hard for you.
Here's a Greek New Testament.
These people are nuts.
But anyway, let's test out, because supposedly the whole purpose of the New King James is
to make it easier to understand.
So let's check out some verses and see which one's easier to understand.
You don't have to turn to these, but in Genesis 9, 9 the KJV uses a really hard word, seed.
And in the New King James they use an easier word, descendants.
In Genesis 18, 1 there's a really hard King James word, plains.
Now the New King James makes it a lot easier by changing it to terebinth trees.
Terebinth trees.
Okay, same thing in Genesis 35, 4, the King James used a really hard word about a kind
of tree, an oak.
So the New King James thought, wow, that's way too hard.
Oak, are you serious?
They changed it to terebinth tree.
That's a little easier to understand, right?
And in Leviticus 4.11, the King James was way too hard to understand when it said the
word dung.
So they changed it to offal, O-F-F-A-L.
That's a word we all use every day, right?
Awful.
I'm not talking about awful like A-W-F-U-L.
I'm talking O-F-F-A-L.
Okay, and the King James Bible uses a really hard word in Deuteronomy 15, 7, coni.
Because coni, I mean most people don't know what a coni is, right?
I mean who knows what a coni is?
Only the homeschooled children and a few adults.
Okay, I'll admit that coni is a tough word.
Maybe the New King James was right when they changed it to rockhirax.
Because you know, I mean, you thought coni was hard?
How about rockhirax?
And then here's another really hard word.
In Deuteronomy 28, 50, the King James used this really hard word old.
And so the New King James had to update that to something easier, elderly.
That was easier.
And then there's a tough word in Joshua 22, 24, children.
So the New King James needed to make that a little easier to understand, they changed
it to descendants.
Now Judges 8, 13 contains a really tough phrase in the King James, the sun was up.
Okay, I mean that almost could be in hop on pop.
The sun was up.
So because the editors of the New King James thought that was a little too hard to understand,
the sun was up, they changed that to the ascent of Herese.
The ascent of Herese.
Now in Ruth 4-5, the King James used a pretty tough phrase, raise up.
So the New King James went with the easier word, perpetuate.
In 1 Samuel 13, 21, the King James used a really tough word, phile.
So the New King James changed that to pim, pim, p-i-m, pim.
I mean that's probably good to know for Scrabble, but I've never heard of that word.
The King James used a very difficult word in 1 Samuel 16, 14, evil.
So the New King James decided to update that to something a little easier, distressing.
Here's a tough one.
1 Samuel 22, 6 uses this really hard word, tree.
So the New King James decided to update that to tamarisk tree to make it a little bit easier
to understand.
2 Samuel 6, 5, the King James says cornet.
Who knows what a cornet is?
It's a type of horn, right?
It's a type of trumpet.
So they decided to use an easier word, systroms, systroms, because everybody knows what systroms
mean.
Who knows what systroms means?
Who knows what cornet means?
There you go.
And then there's a tough word in 1 Kings 10, 2, train.
So they changed it to retinue, make it a little easier for you to understand.
2 Kings 12, 5 uses a very tough word, breach.
So they changed it to dilapidation in the New King James.
Ecclesiastes 2, 3 uses the difficult word give, so it's changed to gratify in the New
King James.
Isaiah 13, 12 used the difficult word man in your King James Bible.
I mean, good night.
Put the King James in a museum where it belongs.
Man?
Give me something I can understand.
Mortal.
Mortal is way better, right?
And then Isaiah 28 verse 1 and verse 4 subject us to this tongue twister of a difficult,
obsolete word, fat, fat.
The New King James decided to make that a little easier to understand by giving us the
word verdant, verdant.
Now that's probably less offensive if you call somebody that, but it's not easier to
understand.
You know, Isaiah 34, 14 used a really tough word in the KJV, a screech owl.
A screech owl.
So the New King James made it a little easier to understand.
A night creature.
Okay, whatever that may be.
Use your imagination.
The boogeyman, the night creature.
You know, evil is too tough in Jeremiah 19, 3.
So the New King James changed it to catastrophe.
The word mouth was too difficult for the editors of the New King James in Jeremiah
36.6, so they changed it to instructions.
Because that's the same thing, right?
Just updated?
Daniel 1.17 used a hard word, learning.
So the New King James made it easier to understand by changing it to literature.
Daniel 6.2 used a really tough word, princes.
So they used the easy word in the New King James, satraps.
The King James used the difficult word elms, like an elm tree in Hosea 4.13.
So the New King James did us all a favor and changed it to terebinths.
How long do we need to go on with this?
I mean, there's a lot.
Let me just give you some of the best ones.
I can't go through all of these, it just takes too long.
Well the word before, before is a pretty hard word, right?
That's why the New King James changed it to previously.
Did D-I-D, like you did something, that's tough.
So the New King James decided to make that easier to understand by changing it to performed.
Done becomes happened in the New King James.
More in the King James, tough word folks, more becomes increasingly in the New King
James.
Banned, banned in the King James, that's way too hard.
Let's change it to regiment.
Okay and nobody's going to understand what quicksand means.
That's so obsolete.
Quicksands in Acts 27-17, cirtis sands is a lot easier to understand.
You better get a New King James, much easier to understand.
And gained is a pretty tough word, incurred is the easy New King James word.
House in the King James, the New King James makes that much easier by changing it to habitation.
Okay and then riot, what's a riot?
Riot in the King James becomes dissipation in the New King James.
For example, the King James in Titus 1.6 used the term unruly.
So that's kind of a mouthful, so they decided to change it in the New King James to insubordination.
Much easier to understand.
Now look, is the New King James really that much easier to understand than the King James?
I mean that was a lot of examples where the King James is a lot easier.
And that wasn't a complete list, that was just a bunch of examples.
It really has nothing to do with making it easier to understand, it just has to do with
changing it, corrupting it, twisting it, perverting it.
The only thing that they can really point to and say, well this is where we made it
a lot easier, is getting rid of the these and the thous.
But you've got to have the these and the thous.
Because the these and the thous are singular and the you, ye, your is plural.
The ones that start with a th are singular, the ones that start with a y are plural, it
affects the meaning.
Because you often would have no way of knowing whether he's talking to one person or the
whole group unless you had the these and the thous there to tell you that.
It's important.
It's all important.
But let me just show you some doctrinal, I've got to be done soon, but let me just show
you some doctrinal changes that the New King James make that pervert doctrine.
Go to 1 Corinthians 1.18 and when you get your finger there in 1 Corinthians 1.18, put
another finger in 2 Corinthians 2.15.
Alright, now let me pull out the New King James here and I'm going to have you turn
to these, Brother Garrett, in the New King James.
Turn to 1 Corinthians 1.18 and 2 Corinthians 2.15.
Let's see if the changes in the New King James affect doctrine or if they just made it easier
to understand as we just demonstrated for you how much easier it really is to understand.
Okay, 1 Corinthians 1.18 in the King James, For the preaching of the cross is to them
that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Brother Garrett, read that for me nice and loud in the New King James.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who
are being saved it is the power of God.
So notice in the King James it said that we are saved.
In the New King James it said we're being saved.
Big difference because salvation is not a process.
Salvation happens in a moment of time, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, we believe
on Christ and we are passed from death to life.
It's not a process, I'm not being saved, I done been saved.
Look at 2 Corinthians 2.15, let me give it to you first from the King James Bible.
2 Corinthians 2.15 says this, For we are unto God a sweet saver of Christ in them that are
saved and in them that perish.
Read it for me from the New King James.
For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among
those who are perishing.
Again, not that are saved, but those who are being saved as if it's a process.
Go if you would to Matthew 7, this is the last place we'll turn in the New King James
tonight.
Matthew chapter 7 verse 14, this is an important scripture, it's a very famous scripture from
the end of the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew chapter 7, and I'll begin reading for you actually in verse 13, it says, Enter
ye in at the straight gate.
Now notice the spelling of the word straight there.
Straight there is spelled not with a gh, but without a gh, which means narrow, because
straight with a gh means not crooked.
This straight means narrow like the straights of Gibraltar.
So he says, Enter ye in at the straight gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way
that leads to destruction and many there be which go in there out.
So what's the opposite of the straight gate?
The wide gate, because straight means narrow in that spelling.
Now look at verse 14, because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth
unto life and few there be that find it.
He's just explaining, look, most people aren't saved.
Most people are going to destruction, they're on the wide path, the wide gate, go the narrow
way.
Few there be that find it.
Read it for me, Brother Garrett, verse 14 from the New King James.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are
few who find it.
So notice, now the New King James has said that salvation is difficult.
It's hard to be saved, right?
So in the King James Bible, we're already saved.
In the King James Bible, it's easy to get saved.
Leave on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Hey, Jesus did the hard part.
How hard is it to accept a gift?
How hard is it to take a drink of water?
How hard is it to walk through a door?
How hard is it to eat a piece of bread?
These are the things that Jesus compared salvation to because it's easy to be saved because you
don't have to work your way to heaven.
You know what salvation is referred to in the Bible as in the book of Hebrews?
Rest.
We're resting in Christ.
Look, is rest hard?
If I gave you a rest day, would that be a hard day for you?
No.
So why is the New King James saying it's difficult to get saved?
And why are they saying it's a process?
Because it's teaching work salvation, basically.
You work at it, it's a process, it's difficult, it's going to be hard.
Look, that affects doctrine.
There are many other changes to the New King James.
I don't have time to go over tonight.
Let me just close by saying this.
God's word has been preserved unto us in this generation.
The Bible says in Psalm 12 verses 6 and 7, the words of the Lord are pure words.
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, thou shalt keep them, O Lord.
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
He says look, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
He didn't say the thoughts, he didn't say the ideas, he didn't say the doctrine, he
said my words shall not pass away.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
He said it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one jot or one tittle to
pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
Listen to Isaiah 59 21, as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, my
spirit that is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out
of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, seed,
saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever.
He said look Isaiah, the word that you're preaching, your descendants will preach it.
Your seed will preach it.
Your seed will preach it forever.
Your children and their children and their children from henceforth and forever will
have these words, and I believe that those are the words that are in my hand right now.
And you sit there and say well, you know, God's word is kind of preserved because the
Bible that we have today is pretty close to what was actually written originally, no.
It's word for word, every jot, every tittle.
And look, the modern versions, whether it be the NIV, the ESV, the New Living Translation,
or the New King James, that 1200 times followed the critical text.
That philosophy is a philosophy that says God's word is not preserved.
We had to go dig up a new one, we had to go dig up an older manuscript to fix all the
problems in it.
I believe that it's been preserved from the time of Christ until now.
It's been passed down and what we have today is a copy of a copy of a copy that has been
passed down.
Not one manuscript that's different that was found in a garbage can in a monastery.
I'd rather go with what God's people have believed and preached all these years and
centuries.
God promised to preserve His word.
The King James Bible is the preservation of God's word.
It came down to us through all the previous English versions, it came to us through the
Tyndale translation, through the other translations that followed, and we've gotten it today.
It's preserved, it's been passed down, it's been used by God.
These new versions are from a corrupt source and they have corrupt fruit.
Look at the fruit of these new versions.
Look at the way churches have become, fun centers.
Look at the way churches have become as a result of these new modern versions, filled
with unsaved people.
Filled with people who don't know doctrine, don't care about doctrine, because when you're
reading a book that's filled with contradictions, it's hard to care about doctrine.
But when you're reading a book that is perfect and pure and preserved, you know, you look
at every word and you care about doctrine and you care about what it says and you care
about what it means.
Not just, well yeah, I kind of got the gist of it, Jesus died on the cross, I get it.
No, I want to know specifically every doctrine that God has for me from the word of God.
It's important, it's all important.
Let's pray and have a word of prayer.
Father, we thank you so much for your word and we thank you that we have the King James
Bible today, an accurate English translation, the perfect, pure, preserved God.
I thank you that we can trust it, we don't have to wonder which verses are wrong but
that we know that it's trustworthy.
It's been here for hundreds of years, it's always been correct, it teaches us the truth,
it gives us what we need.
Father, thank you for a church that's King James only.
Thank you that we don't have to go to a church where somebody's constantly pulling out some
phony version of the Bible or going back to the Greek and telling us that our King James
Bible's wrong and that we need to listen to him and so forth.
Help us to read it, study it, love it, and help us to attend church and hear it preached
in Jesus' name.