.
It tells of one whose loving heart can feel my deepest woe.
Who in each sorrow bears a part that none can bear below.
Oh, how I love Jesus.
Because he first loved me.
All right, we're going to have Brother Rick pray for us.
Dear Lord, thank you so much that we can be in your house tonight.
What a privilege it is to be in the house of God and to hear our pastor preach for us tonight.
We thank you so much, dear Lord.
Help us to count our blessings and to be thankful for what we have in Jesus' precious name.
Amen.
Thank you.
All right, turn to song 308.
Higher ground.
Okay, here we go.
Got to hit the higher notes for higher ground.
All right, can you play the first line?
.
I'm pressing on the upward way.
New heights I'm gaining every day.
Still praying as I'm onward bound.
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
Lord, lift me up and let me stand.
By faith on heaven's table and a higher plane than I have found.
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
My heart has no desire to stay where doubts arise and fears dismay.
Though some may dwell where these abound, my prayer, my aim is higher ground.
Lord, lift me up and let me stand.
By faith on heaven's table and a higher plane than I have found.
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
I want to live above the world, though Satan's darts at me are hurled.
For faith has caught the joyful sound, the song of saints on higher ground.
Lord, lift me up and let me stand.
By faith on heaven's table and a higher plane than I have found.
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
I want to scale the utmost height and catch a gleam of glory bright.
But still I'll pray till heaven I've found.
Lord, lead me on to higher ground.
Lord, lift me up and let me stand.
By faith on heaven's table and a higher plane than I have found.
Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.
All right, now we've got the announcements.
All right, good evening everybody. Welcome to Bible Believers Baptist Church.
Let's take our bulletins and go through the announcements real quickly.
Does anybody need a bulletin? I don't know if we have any more.
But if you don't, I have one extra one here.
Does anybody need one? I think there might be a couple more.
I don't think anybody needs one, though, unless you do.
If you do, raise your hand if you need one. All right.
My wife's pointing her finger, but I don't think she's raising her hand.
OK. All right. On our front cover, we have our verse of the week.
It says, Go your ways. Behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
So that's a scary picture of a wolf there.
And we definitely don't want to run into those.
Our church schedule is 10 30 a.m. on Sunday mornings,
and there's a sowing time between the services and then 3 30 p.m. for the afternoon service.
We have a Wednesday sowing time and then a 6 p.m. service on Wednesdays.
It's usually a Bible study, but tonight I'm here.
And sometimes I do Bible study, sometimes I don't.
Tonight I'm preaching about the New King James Bible and how it's trash.
So I've kind of been on a little bit of a kick on that lately and haven't really completely got it out of my system.
So I figured you guys might enjoy that. So I definitely haven't gotten it out of my system.
So this is part one. I've already preached a couple of sermons where I trashed the New King James,
but there's still more trashing to do.
And so, yeah, I'm going to cover some of that tonight.
And then I just want to thank you for being here tonight.
We're Independent Fundamental King James only Baptist Church.
We have a big thing that says KJV on the front.
That means we're King James only.
And while I'm here, if you have any questions for me tonight, I'm definitely here to be at your disposal.
And all the other stuff, all the other rules and all that kind of stuff is written below there.
You can see our preaching schedule.
And this might be the last time I'm here for the winter unless I fly in.
If I can find some good deals, I'll definitely try to take advantage of it.
Yakima is not exactly the easiest place to fly into during the wintertime or any time for that matter.
But they only have like red eye or super early in the morning flights.
So not that that's a problem for me, but it's usually just the expense of it.
So anyway, you can see the salvation totals.
We have 150 salvations for the year so far.
So that's pretty good for a small church, I think.
And it's probably 150 more than most of the churches in this city have.
So or at least a great deal more than most of the city has.
So I went to the missions conference last week.
It was a great conference.
Definitely inspired me to want to do more for missions and definitely do more soul winning.
So on November 20th, we're going to have a pie social after the service.
So feel free to bring a pie here.
And of course, the church can provide some pies.
I just need some place to send them so I can just buy them like Fred Meyer and have them delivered to your house.
If there's anybody wants to volunteer to have me do that, I just need your address.
I'm not going to use it for any any nefarious reasons other than to send you food.
You just can't eat the pie, Paul. All right. Because it makes you long time to sleep before the church service.
All right. So and then for Christmas, we're doing our Christmas service at our church on the 22nd there.
But you guys have a Wednesday service. Is that Christmas Day?
So I don't cancel Christmas services.
But if you guys don't have a Christmas service here at the church, you could do one earlier if you wanted to not do it at night.
Maybe if you wanted to do one in the morning or some other time, I'll let you guys figure that out and just let me know.
I think I put it on the schedule. Who do I have on the schedule for that?
Do you guys remember? OK. Do you want to still have a Christmas service or do you?
OK. I'm not going to judge you. You know, every man regardeth the day differently.
You know, so. But if there's like nobody going to be here besides you, then, you know, you're just preaching yourself.
So I don't know. But I'm not trying to make you feel guilty and say that I won't cancel service.
I'm not saying that at all. It could be snowing. It could be whatever.
But like we have church on Thursday and so we're just doing ours on the 22nd.
We're doing a Christmas dinner potluck at our church. So if you guys want to do something similar, you're more than welcome to do that.
And the church will provide whatever kind of meat you guys just have to cook it.
So if you want to do like a Christmas ham here and have like a dinner, the church will pay for the for the meat.
If you want to do like a prime rib or something, you know, a nice big old prime rib and a ham.
You guys think you can handle that? Then you're more than welcome to do that.
So anyway, that would be the 22nd or if you want.
I mean, I'm sure Christmas day would be kind of hard to do that because, you know, people want to see their families and all that kind of stuff.
But if you wanted to do the dinner on the 22nd and still just do like a Christmas service or sing some some songs and then, you know, have a preaching service, then, you know, that's totally fine.
So anyway, I think that that's all we have for announcements.
Go ahead. Sing another song. After that, we'll receive the offering.
Oh, and you're more than welcome to start doing Christmas hymns after Thanksgiving. That's when we start.
All right. If you find song 321.
Nothing between.
Nothing between my soul and the Savior.
Not of this world's delusive dreams.
I have renounced all sinful pleasure.
Jesus is mine.
There's nothing between.
Nothing between my soul and the Savior.
So that his blessed face may be seen.
Nothing preventing the least of his favor.
Keep the way clear.
Let nothing between.
Nothing between like worldly pleasures.
Habits of life, though harmless, they seem.
Must not my heart from him ever sever.
He is my all.
There's nothing between.
Nothing between my soul and the Savior.
So that his blessed face may be seen.
Nothing preventing the least of his favor.
Keep the way clear.
Let nothing between.
Nothing between like pride or station.
Self or friends shall not intervene.
Though it may cost me much tribulation.
I am resolved.
There's nothing between.
Nothing between my soul and the Savior.
So that his blessed face may be seen.
Nothing preventing the least of his favor.
Keep the way clear.
Let nothing between.
Nothing between in many hard trials.
Though the world against me convene.
Watching with prayer and much self-denial.
Triumph at last with nothing between.
Nothing between my soul and the Savior.
So that his blessed face may be seen.
Nothing preventing the least of his favor.
Keep the way clear.
Let nothing between.
Alright, now we're going to have our offering.
Let us pray.
Thank You, Lord, for today, Father.
We can come here and fellowship and sing praises on to You, Father,
and get to hear Your precious mighty Word preached to us, Father,
and be edified.
Be the preaching today.
Bless the offering, Father.
Bless those that came, Father God,
and thank You for Your love, grace, and mercy.
In Jesus' precious mighty name, I pray.
Amen.
Let us pray.
Turn in your Bibles to 2 Corinthians, chapter number 2.
2 Corinthians 2, chapter 2.
Alright, 2 Corinthians, chapter number 2, the Bible reads,
But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness.
For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad,
but the same which is made sorry by me?
And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came,
I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice,
having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all.
For out of much affliction and anguish of heart,
I wrote unto you with many tears, not that you should be grieved,
but that you might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me,
but in part that I may not overcharge you all.
Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many,
so that contrary rise ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him,
lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you,
whether ye be obedient in all things.
To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also of if I forgive anything,
to whom I forgave it for your sakes, forgive I it in the person of Christ,
lest Satan should get an advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices.
Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel,
a door was opened unto me of the Lord.
I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother,
but taking my leave of them, I went from thence unto Macedonia.
Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ,
and maketh manifest the saviour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet saviour of Christ, in them that are saved,
and in them that perish.
To the one we are the saviour of death unto death,
and to the other the saviour of life unto life,
and who is sufficient for these things.
For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God,
but as of sincerity, but as of God, and the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Alright, let's pray.
Dear God, I ask you to be with the pastor tonight.
I just thank you for allowing him to be here with us and everybody else that came.
I pray you bless us and be with us in Jesus' name. Amen.
Alright, we're there in 2 Corinthians chapter 2.
Look at verse number 17.
The Bible says,
For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God,
but as of sincerity, but as of God, and the sight of God speak we in Christ.
And like I said, I'm preaching about the New King James Version is trash.
And this is just part one.
I have a lot of notes.
And like I said, the New King James Version is trash.
So I preached a couple sermons against a guy named Mark Ward
who is basically going around trying to say that the King James Version is unintelligible.
And that we can no longer understand it.
It's a sin to give children a King James Bible.
He said, To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Basically saying, if we give a King James Version, we know that they can't understand it.
It's sin to us.
And basically we should not do that.
And so he had a debate in an independent Baptist Bible college
called Dayspring Bible College, which, you know, I mean, I like.
That's where Dr. Stringer is.
You know, he's sent out as an evangelist basically of that, of the independent church there.
And so I'm like, I don't have a problem with them.
I just, I have a problem with Mark Ward, who's a devil, basically.
But this sermon isn't so much against him, because I already preached it.
This sermon isn't so much against him, because I already preached two sermons against him.
And he basically said he's done trying to fight with people at the King James.
So hopefully my sermons pushed him over the edge.
I mean, I'm sure that he knows that I preach those sermons.
But of course he wouldn't probably give them honorable, a dishonorable mention or whatever.
But I went pretty hard at him.
But, you know, when I began to look into just how bad the New King James is,
and I've known it's bad for a long time, but, you know, you get saved and you look into all this stuff,
and I've been saved for a long time.
So you get saved, you look into stuff, and then maybe you just go away from it for a long time
and forget just how bad it is.
And so, but there, you know, this verse here, just even in the New King James, it says,
we're not as many which peddle or, you know, it says here, corrupt the word of God.
But in the New King James it says, which are peddlers of the word of God.
They're the ones that are peddling the word of God.
They use, you know, they change things just enough so they can come out with a new version
so they can make money off of it and corrupt the word of God at the same time.
So they're making money off of the fact that they're also corrupting the word of God.
And why I say the New King James version is trash, well, corrupt means,
if you just take the definitions in the dictionary, it can mean of a text,
which of course this is what the verse is talking about here,
of a text made unreliable by errors or altercations.
So that's kind of what the Apostle Paul is talking about.
We are not as many which corrupt the word of God.
So there's many people that try to corrupt the word of God.
Why are there over 450 English versions of the Bible?
Why do you need to have all these different versions?
Because there's many people that corrupt the word of God
and they have an agenda to try to get this book out of our hands
and put a butter knife, an inferior corrupt version of the Bible in our hands.
It's not even the Bible anymore.
The Apostle Paul says they're corrupt.
And so it's become unreliable by errors or altercations by their corruptness.
Even in Paul's time, this was already being done.
So when they dig up these old, supposedly more reliable, better manuscripts,
well, they hadn't found those things yet when the translators translated this.
And they'll say that this, they had inferior manuscripts
at the time that the King James was translated,
but in reality they just found the ones that were garbage,
the ones that were already discarded, the ones that cults were using back then
and they think that modern scholars want to say that those ones were better
and they're absolutely wrong about that.
So another definition of corrupt is to, in a state of decay, rotten or putrid.
So when you're talking about food or just something that's rotting or corrupt,
what would you do with something that's rotting or corrupt?
What would you do with it?
You'd throw it in the trash, wouldn't you?
So these two words, or this word here,
when it's talking about being unreliable or an error,
what would you do with a Bible that has a bunch of errors and corruptions in it?
Well, you'd throw it in the trash, wouldn't you?
So that's why I say the New King James Version is trash
and I'm going to show you a bunch of,
I mean, if you listen to the sermons I preach against Mark Ward,
I go through and show a bunch of things that's wrong with the New King James,
but I'm going to do that against, I mean, I can't even get to all of them tonight.
There's just no way.
So that's why I'm going to have another part two of this also.
So that'll be four sermons just showing just how bad the New King James is
and that's just the New King James.
But why am I picking on the New King James?
Because they'll try to say that it's from the same exact text as the King James,
which also is not really true either.
So, you know, the devil basically found out a long time ago
that he was never going to be able to get rid of God's Word completely.
And it's not able to be destroyed completely.
God's never going to allow that to happen.
He's said that there'll be, you know, God's Word will be for this generation forever, right?
So he has a team of reprobates, though,
that it's their mission to cast doubt on God's Word and to corrupt God's Word.
And anybody that does this, the Bible says that all the plagues
that are found in this book will be placed upon them
and that he will take, if they mess with his Word,
then he's going to take their name out of the book of life.
That means that they're reprobates.
The people that intentionally mess with this book and corrupt it, they're reprobates.
That's what the Bible says.
So, you know, you're like, well, you talk about the reprobate stuff too much.
That's what the Bible says, though, friend.
You can get mad about it all you want, but you know that's what the Bible says.
So, you know, people that get mad about the reprobate doctrine,
how about that one, though?
You can't really deny that.
You know it says it.
You know it says if you take the mark of the beast, you're finished.
So, but yet even people will try to say, well, that's not what that really means.
If you go back to the, shut up.
Man, that stuff gets old.
But men like Mark Ward, who sounds like a fruity pants, queer anyway.
I mean, there's just no doubt you can hear the lisp.
All right.
I don't know if he'll probably say he's from California
and that's a surfer accent or something, but it's more than that, friends.
But so men like Westcott and Hort,
the ones that Frankenstein the text together of the Nestles, Greek,
and they just took these trashy, modern, so-called modern text
and put them together and made the new, what the new translations are made off of or whatever.
So the corrupted manuscripts, basically, that all the modern translations are translated from.
But these, they not only want to put doubt on God's true word, the King James in English,
but they want to make counterfeit Bibles that seem like they're God's word.
They want to pass them off as God's word, but they're not really God's word.
And Satan does this with religion.
He does this with church, all different types of churches.
He does this with ministers.
He does this with his angels.
He does this with followers that are called wolves in sheep's clothing.
Why does he call them that?
I mean, why does he say this?
Because they don't, you know, he doesn't send in things that look like this.
They don't dress.
He doesn't send people that dress like Satanists into church to come and blend in with us.
He sends people that look like us and they talk like us and they try to act like us,
but they're counterfeits.
And so they pretend to belong to God, but they really, truly serve Satan.
And they're hard to spot sometimes.
They seem like they're genuine.
They seem like, Mark Ward seems like he has some sort of genuine concern,
but for people that, you know, really understand the issue, he is a devil.
If he wants to take the King James version out of our hands and try to put a new King James,
and here's the problem, this is why I think the King James is, the new King James is so bad,
is because it is the gateway drug to get you on the modern versions.
And I will prove that by what the translators themselves said in a little bit,
but he knows that he can't go to a Bible college and say,
oh, well, you should get on the NIV.
He knows that any Baptist worth his salt is going to reject the NIV outright
because of the textual issue.
He knows that.
So they'll say, oh, well, the new King James is just an updated version of the language.
It's translated off exactly the same stuff.
And they'll be like, oh, really?
It gets rid of the these and the that?
Oh, well, that makes it easier to understand.
And so, see, that's the gateway drug.
So that's why I think the new King James version is the most dangerous version out there
because it bridges a gap to get King James people off the King James
and into the modern versions.
So that's why I think it's so bad.
Turn to John 843.
John 843.
John 843 says,
Why do you not understand my speech, even because you cannot hear my word?
They didn't understand what Jesus was saying half the time because they weren't saved.
They were children of the devil.
You're like the Jews were children of the devil.
How dare you say that?
They're God's chosen people.
Look at verse 44.
Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lust of your father.
Ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.
What did he call them?
He said you're of your father, the devil.
These are Jews.
These are supposed to be God's chosen people.
But look, you're not one of God's chosen people unless you're saved.
That's what the Bible teaches, folks.
There are people that are literally the children of the devil because they serve him.
You know, there's children of God, children of the devil, and then there's just the unsaved in between.
And we're fighting for those people in between.
And so there are people that are just given over to Satan.
Those are the reprobates.
We're the saved.
Once reprobate, always reprobate.
Once saved, always saved.
The people in between are the ones we're fighting for in the middle.
But Mark Ward says he's turned thousands from the King James only position.
He brags about it.
Thousands.
And his goal is to turn tens of thousands away.
That's his goal.
He just said that in a recent video.
The guy is a stinking devil.
And he said that he's done battling now with the King James issue,
but will only do debates in the certain situations where he has the advantage.
What does he mean by that?
Well, he didn't say the advantage, but this is me reading into what he's saying.
He will only do them in a King James only Bible colleges in front of students,
and the topic of the modern text is off the table.
It can only be about the readability of the King James.
Why does he want to do that?
Well, he wants to reach the students who are in the Bible college
and try to corrupt them out of using the King James.
He wants to take people that are still young in the faith
or maybe just are easily turned away from things,
and he doesn't want them to be able to bring up the text issues
because the text issue is a big issue.
There's two different texts.
There's the received text, the one that's been passed down and used for thousands of years,
and then there's the one that they found in a garbage can,
literally in a garbage bin being used to start fires.
And the other one was found in a cave and not being used.
And the other one was found in the basement of the Vatican.
The Vatican?
That's like the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
I mean, one was at Sinai, which was in a monastery of a Catholic Church,
and then they Frankensteined all those things together and came up with the modern text.
Modern textual criticism was born out of those three documents.
And so we're supposed to believe that the true word of God
was being hidden from us for thousands of years
and just came to pass in the 1800s and early 1900s,
that it was just hidden from our eyes.
The true word of God was in a garbage can somewhere.
But all the other stuff that came before was just not the best, not the most accurate?
You've got to be kidding me.
So all the saints before that were just wrong?
They just had the wrong one?
I don't think so.
So the New King James translation is the worst
because it's the gateway drug that's going to take you to the other stuff.
So he only wants to debate if he has his own specific rules,
his own specific little criteria.
And if I was a King James only,
first of all I just don't believe in Bible college anyway,
but if I had a Bible college I definitely wouldn't let that little effeminate
sugar tank, sugar britches in my Bible college to speak to all my students
and try to turn them away from the King James.
Because he's good at what he does.
He is smart.
He does know his points well.
But he uses that to turn people aside
and I just would not allow him around my people.
It just wouldn't happen.
Why would you let a false prophet into your church to try to turn people away?
It just doesn't make sense.
Look at 2 Corinthians 11.4.
And more aside than just,
there's people that are out to turn people aside from the faith with the gospel
and they use many different ways to do this.
But Bible versions is a way.
It is a way that they,
because why are there many that corrupt the word of God?
Because it is an engine that they used to corrupt God's people.
Or people that would be God's people if they,
you know, would they use a modern version to teach them lies.
Look at 2 Corinthians 11.4.
It says,
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom ye have not preached,
or if ye receive another spirit which ye have not received,
or another gospel which ye have not accepted,
ye might bear well with him.
Because look, you're going to get a different gospel from these different Bibles.
Like there's Bible versions that say repent of your sins.
You know the King James Bible never says that?
That term repent of your sins.
But there's versions that do say repent of your sins and believe the gospel.
And that's why, you know, people, when we argue with people about that,
they're like, no, the Bible, that's what the Bible says.
It's like they pull out this modern version,
and it says repent of your sins and believe the gospel.
They think it says that.
But that's not what the Bible says because they got a wrong Bible.
So they might receive another gospel from another Bible version.
They might receive another Jesus that preaches a different gospel.
They might receive the long-haired hippie Jesus that wears a dress.
That's not the Jesus I believe in, though.
The Jesus I believe in, in 1 Corinthians 11,
his head is God, our head is Christ,
and the Bible says it's a shame for a man to have long hair.
So how's my head have long hair if I'm, as a man,
I'm supposed to, it's a shame for me to have long hair.
That's weird.
And so it says in verse 13, scripture verse 13,
for such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,
and no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
There's people that think that the head of their religion or Joseph Smith,
you know, he saw this angel called Moron Eye or whatever, right?
And he gave him the secret seer stones,
and he divined them out of a top hat or whatever.
You know, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum.
It's ridiculous.
And nobody else was able to see except for Joseph Smith
was able to see the magic plates or whatever.
Mohammed had some genie come to him, you know, a jinn,
which is a genie, which is a devil, which is probably Satan, come to him.
And he had this angel come to him, which was, you know,
he thought it was an angel of light, but it's a devil.
And to have these people come to them, Satan, you know,
himself transformed into an angel of light.
They think that they're following this light, and in reality, it's a devil.
And it says, therefore, it's no great thing if his ministers also be transformed
as ministers of righteousness.
Folks, we can't trust everybody.
And that's the problem is that Christians are really trusting.
But you have to know, you have to test the spirits whether they are of God.
That's what the Bible says.
You're like, you're just so mean, Pastor Thompson,
because you think that this person's bad.
It's like, the Bible says to test the spirits.
What are you talking about?
If they have the spirit of error, then you're not supposed to follow them.
If they're teaching lies, if they're teaching lies about salvation,
if they're following some idiot named Joseph Smith
who's roasting in hell right now with all of his 50 million wives that he had,
Muhammad's in hell, too.
He's a devil. He was a wicked person.
He was conquering people and murdering people and then stealing their wives.
And he was a pedophile, too. How about that?
He married a six-year-old girl and consummated the marriage at nine.
That's what you call a pedophile, folks.
You can say whatever you want about it, and they get all mad about it.
But it's a pedophile religion.
There I said it.
But these people are ministers.
They say that they're ministers of righteousness,
but they're transformed into that.
But that's not really what they are.
Whose end shall be according to their works.
What are their works?
genocide people.
Making people twofold more the child of hell than they are themselves.
So what is the punishment for that?
They're punished according to their works.
So what's going to happen is they're going to go to hell,
and they're going to receive twice as much as what they put other people through.
And how they turn those people into hell,
they're going to have a worse place in hell than those people
that are twofold more to the child than they are.
I mean, it all is going to be multiplied to them.
If they turn people from the true faith to hell,
they're going to go to a way lower hell than that person is.
Because they are ministers.
They pretend to be ministers of righteousness, but they're not.
And this is what these people that like to corrupt the Bible.
I mean, it's one thing to be a Hindu and practice some other religion.
I'm sure that they're going to hell too for corrupting people.
But think about the fact that these people proclaim that they're Christians,
and know that they're not, and then mess with the Bible.
Mess with God's Word.
Pretend to be Christians and come in and play the hypocrite.
A true hypocrite is someone that knows that they are,
and still pretends to be so anyway.
That's why Judas was so bad.
That he knew that he was a devil.
He knew what he was doing and did it anyway.
And, you know, it doesn't seem to us like Judas was really that bad.
He even kind of gave the money back at the end and all that.
But he knew what he was doing.
So look at Galatians 1-6.
I mean, Paul's just constantly having to go back over to the people that he got saved.
And like, because as soon as he'd get people saved,
there'd be these people who would come and try to turn them away from what he's already taught them.
I mean, the people in 2 Corinthians,
he's basically, the whole book of 2 Corinthians almost is him just like going back
and having to defend himself over stuff that he shouldn't have to defend himself over.
I mean, he's the one that started that church.
And he's like, to those that want to say something, here's my defense.
You know, he has to like defend, I speak as a fool.
He's having to defend himself over all the stuff he said.
And Galatia, to the churches that are at Galatia,
he's having to say, I'm afraid of you.
You know, how is it that you're all saved by grace
and then now you're accepting these Judaizers?
But Galatians 1-6 says,
I marvel that you're so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ
unto another gospel, which is not another,
but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
You know, there's people out there that trouble Christians.
They come in and they try to trouble them and change them
and turn them into something that they're not supposed to be getting into.
Oh, you got to be circumcised by the law of Moses or you're not really saved.
That's the kind of stuff that they were doing.
You have to keep the law of Moses or you're not saved.
That's what was happening.
And Paul's like, no, that's not grace.
That is debt.
It says, but though we or an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
Let him be damned is what it means.
Accursed means damned to hell.
Paul was mean too.
Everybody's like, oh, I knew I'd be so mean.
Paul was mean too.
He said, and he says it twice.
He's like, hey, in case you didn't get it the first time, let them be accursed.
First Peter chapter one, verse twenty three.
And I've had people just try to get on to me about my interpretation of this passage here, too.
And they're like, no, it's just talking about Jesus only.
But it specifically spells out that it's talking about the Bible.
OK. First Peter one twenty three.
It says being born again.
So being born again is talking about getting saved, right?
Not of corruptible seed.
What is the seed? It's the word of God, but of incorruptible.
What does it say there? By the word of God.
Isn't that what it says?
Which liveth and abideth forever.
Skip down to verse twenty five.
It says, but the word of the Lord endureth forever.
And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
How do people get saved?
Does Jesus do you just wear a little name badge on your shirt?
You know, also, does your name badge say Jesus on it?
You just walk up to people's door, knock on it, go Jesus, and they get saved.
No, that's not how we get people saved, is it?
We walk up and say, can I show you what the Bible says it takes to go to heaven?
And we take them through the verses and we show them and we take them through the Romans Road.
But people will say to me, well, this is just, you know, Jesus is the word of God.
I agree.
But Jesus's words are in this book and he expects us to show his word and show people from the word of God.
The word of God is what gets people saved.
And it says not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible.
So these modern versions that change the verses in the Romans Road and change what John 3 16 says.
John 3 16 says, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
But what does the modern version say?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son.
Well, I'm his son, too.
You're his son.
You're his daughters.
He's we're not begotten, but we're still his sons and daughters, aren't we?
So that makes that that Bible a lie.
Jesus is the only begotten son.
So what versions, right?
The old King James, the old Book of Zion, the right one.
And, you know, I'm sure that other of the modern versions have it right.
But I guarantee you this, that most of the modern versions say one and only son.
Just look them up.
And I'm sure they mess with all kinds of other verses that have to do with salvation.
But, folks, these people actually do exist.
When the Bible warns us that grievous wolves will come in not sparing the flock, that there
will be wolves in sheep's clothing, it's just a guarantee.
I've already seen it so many times just being a pastor for the short time I have been.
This isn't just some independent Baptist folklore scare tactic conspiracy theory.
This stuff actually happens.
These people are real.
And when people say, yeah, they're just trying to scare everybody to say that just so they
can say that the King James is right.
No, it's just literally true.
There literally are evil workers out there and seducers that are out to overthrow the
faith of people that have a King James Bible on their hand.
And the reason why the new King James version was put out is so that they could take that
King James out of people's hands and give them a bridge way and a gateway to get into
the modern versions.
I'm going to read you some stuff from an article about, and you'll have to catch part
two for some of the other stuff.
I know this is going to be really boring.
I'm going to read through some of this stuff.
So the beginnings.
This is how the new King James came to be.
The new King James translation project, which was conceived by Arthur Farstad, was inaugurated
in 1975 with two meetings, Nashville and Chicago, of 68 interested persons, most of them prominent
Baptists, but also including some conservative Presbyterians.
The men who were invited to these meetings prepared the guidelines of the new King James
version.
The New Testament was published in 1979, the book of Psalms in 1980, and the full new King
James version Bible in 1982.
The aim of the translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James
version while preserving the classic style and beauty of the 1611 version.
Although it uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek text as the original KJV, it indicates
where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ.
So, but unfortunately, it also departs from the Texas Receptus over 1800 times.
Fact.
So this is what they're saying why they came out with it.
But this is, you know, this is what they purport why they did this.
So update to King James version.
According to the preface of the New King James version, the New King James version uses the
1967 to 1977 Stuttgart edition of the biblical Hebraic, the biblia, excuse me, Hebraica for
the Old Testament with frequent comparisons made to the Ben Chaim edition, the Micrate
get a lot.
I'm sorry if I'm not pronouncing those right, published by Bomberg in 1524 to 1525.
So we're talking about the Middle Ages, right?
Which was used for the King James version, both the Old Testament text and the New King
James version and that of the King James version come from the Ben Asher text, known as the
Masoretic text.
However, the 1967 to 1977 Stuttgart edition of the biblia, Hebraica are used in the New
King James version uses an earlier manuscript, the Leningrad manuscript B19A than that of
the King James.
So what they're using is something different than it is different than what the King James
uses.
So they don't use the exact text that the King James used to interpret it.
And I, you know, somewhere in this article, it says that they depart that it departs from
the Texas Receptus a thousand times.
But in reality, it's more like eighteen hundred times.
So what that means is that that it's not the same eight over eighteen hundred times.
So the New King James version also uses the Texas Receptus or received text for the New
Testament, just as the King James version had used.
So we're talking about Old Testament, now New Testament.
The translators have also sought to follow translation principles for translation used
in the original King James version, which the New King James revisers call complete
equivalence in contrast to dynamic equivalence used by many other modern translations.
The task of updating the English of the King James version involves significant changes
in the word order, grammar, vocabulary and spelling.
One of the most significant features of the New King James version was its abandonment
of the second person pronouns, thou, thee, ye, thy, thine.
So they got rid of the these and the thou's basically.
Verb forms, which were also modernized in the New King James version, for example, speaks
rather than speaketh.
So they drop the eth and put the S at the end.
Right. So which I don't necessarily have a problem with that.
But when you when you talk about messing with the pronoun parts of it, they say just you
for everything, basically, instead of letting you know the first person pronouns
when it's talking about thee, thou, thine.
That's a singular and you and yours is a plural term.
So they just say you for everything.
And so then you're you're not knowing the context of who is talking to.
So I kind of pointed that out with a verse in my I think my second sermon about that,
about this guy, Mark Ward, where it sounds like God's blaming Moses for something
that he's actually just telling Moses to tell the children of Israel something.
So, you know, those taking these knives and that and all that stuff out is is not good
because those things help you to understand the Bible better.
So the criticisms of the New King James version is some of the criticisms are language style.
One criticism of the New King James version is that it's rendered in a language format
that has never been spoken by maintaining much of the Elizabethan structure of this
and syntax of the King James version, an intentional effort of the part of the revisers
who intended for a reader to be able to follow along in one version as the other version is read aloud.
The New King James version at times has been criticized for putting modern words into archaic orders,
unlike the revised version of 1881 to 85, an American Standard version of 1901,
which sought to take advantage of modern scholarship,
but left the overall text worded in archaic Jacobean language.
The New King James sounds neither Jacobean nor particularly modern.
Also, many of the double meanings and many of the verses have now been lost.
Another criticism is the underlying text.
A second criticism involves the fact that it's based that is based, as noted above,
solely upon the ancient text available during the time of the King James
and not on manuscripts and documents that have since been discovered or largely rejected by the church,
i.e., Codex Sinaiticus Vaticanus, since these manuscripts,
most of which for the New Testament reflect an Alexandrian type text,
are arguably by most of today's biblical scholars to be more reliable.
So, of course, I don't agree with what it's saying here,
but I'm just saying that these are the criticisms by modern people.
And the New King James adherence to the majority text, which has ties to the Textus Receptus.
So, look, modern scholars hate the modern or hate the King James.
They hate the text that it's based upon because it's God's word. That's why.
And it says, is accused of violating the spirit of open scholarship and open inquiry
and to scribe a level of perfection to the documents available to the 17th century scholars
that would not have claimed for them.
However, not all textual critics agree that the earliest manuscripts are the most accurate.
Alternative readings based on other texts do appear as footnotes in the New King James Version.
And unlike the other translations, such as the New International Version,
the New King James does not contain value comments like the best manuscripts add.
Have you ever, like, looked at footnotes in some of the modern Bible versions?
You know, it'll say the best manuscripts do not say this because they won't necessarily take it out of that.
Like the Ethiopian eunuch verse, for instance, it'll say the best, you know, some manuscripts say,
you know, and you must believe with Jesus with all your heart.
But it'll say, but the best manuscripts do not say this.
And so they take it out. But then they put a footnote at the bottom saying that.
So instead, the footnote simply states which manuscript set does not contain the passage,
similar to the approach previously taken by the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
So, however, it is unlikely to placate those who feel that the Johanan comma at 1 John 5-7,
for example, is not a legitimate portion of scripture and should be treated as such.
The New King James Version holds to a loose stance for the Texas Receptus and Masoretic Text,
but incorporates other corrupt manuscripts in its footnotes and follows corrupt definitions from other versions,
which in doing so reveals their belief that the King James Version is an error in thousands of places.
So the people that translated the New King James Version, they did it.
But it's like the reason why they did it was disingenuous.
And they did they didn't really believe that it was better than the other stuff,
even like I'll read you something else that was that was written by one of the translators.
And he obviously didn't believe that he was doing the best work that he could.
But the purpose of the New King James was to be like the marijuana of the Bible versions, basically the gateway drug.
So it says Bomberg edition of, let's see, where was I here?
The Hebrew text that the New King James is translated from is slightly different from the Masoretic Text
used by the King James. And the King James Version is primarily translated from the Bomberg edition
of the Masoretic Text prepared by Jacob Ben-Chayim.
The New King James Version uses the 1967-77 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Herbraca.
Herbraca, yeah, with frequent comparisons made with the Bomberg edition of 1525.
In addition, the New King James consulted the LXX or Subtugent Greek Old Testament,
the Latin Vulgate, a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So they basically, they still, the New King James still does go to the modern versions,
still does go to other stuff. And a lot of times you'll see as we go through some of these things
that they do prefer some of this stuff to what they're actually supposed to be translating off of.
But it says, Kirk DeVitro, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Franklin, Massachusetts,
attended one of the Thomas Nelson planning meetings and prepared the way for the publications
of the New King James. He testified to me that the Thomas Nelson representative plainly stated
that their goal with the New King James Version was to bridge, to create a bridge to the modern versions,
to break down the resistance of those who still revere the King James Version.
The following is brother DeVitro's testimony as he gave it to me by email on January 9, 2005.
And here it is. Over 20 years ago, I attended a pre-publication meeting of the New King James Version
held by the Thomas Nelson people and hosted by the Hackman's Bible Bookstore in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
I am personal friends with the owners who took great delight in seating me next to the brother of the main translator of the NIV.
The meeting was attended by over 300 college professors and pastors.
At the meeting, we were treated to a side presentation of the history of the English Bible,
in particular, the King James Bible and its several revisions.
During the presentation of the New King James Version, the Thomas Nelson representative made a statement,
which to the best of my memory was, we are all educated people here.
We would never say this to our people, but we all know that the King James Version is a poor translation based on poor text.
But every attempt to give your people a better Bible has failed. They just won't accept them.
So we have gone back and done a revision of the King James Version, a fifth revision.
So hopefully it will serve as a transitional bridge to eventually get your people to accept a more accurate Bible.
So you see what I'm saying? This is what I'm talking about.
This was their attempt to get people off the King James and into the modern versions.
This is what I'm talking about.
Because of the years and because I did not write it down, I cannot give you the speaker's name
and I cannot promise you that this is a word for word correct.
But the meeting so seared my spirit that I've never picked up and opened a New King James Version,
I can tell you that this is absolutely the substance and nearly the exact words of what was said.
The accuracy of Pastor Kirk DeVitro's recollection regarding the Thomas Nelson representative statement,
we would never say that this is to our people, but we all know that the King James Version is a poor translation based on poor text.
So this is what their opinion is of our King James Bible.
It is confirmed by the New King James Version editors, it was the editor's conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers.
They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text to insert words or phrases which had been left out by the revisers.
Here's what the translators said. This is just a couple things and we'll get into the errors and we don't have a lot of time for that, but I'll do as much as I can.
So here's what a couple of the translators said.
The New King James translators included nine scholars who had been in the translation team of the New International Version,
which was based upon the faulty Nestle-Allen Greek New Testament and which also used dynamic equivalents.
The influence of the nine NIV translators and their deviant philosophy and theology is clearly seen in the similar errors within the New King James Version
because the New King James Version is primarily based upon the Texas Receptus and follows a formal equivalence.
These errors are less, however, the equivalence is still there and transitional methodology and insertion of small words only found in the Nestle-Allen Greek New Testament.
Here's the one translator I got here, James Price. Dr. James Price was the Executive Editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version.
Price was formerly Chairman and Professor of the Department of Old Testament Temple Baptist Theological Seminary, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Price has been retired since 2005 and says, not a TR advocate.
And basically he just said that there's multiple different versions that he would prefer.
And he put the New King James Version basically below even some of the modern versions that are like, what was the old one that MacArthur liked?
Yeah, no, not the New American Standard, it was the one before the one he just came out with.
ESV, yeah. He put the New King James under the ESV and a bunch of other ones.
But he clearly didn't believe that the best ones were basically, he didn't believe that the TR was or the Texas Receptus was better than the modern Greek text.
This guy Arthur Farstad stated in his preface to the New King James,
Today scholars agree that the science of the New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux.
Very few scholars still favor the Texas Receptus as such.
And then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version for about a century,
Most have followed a critical text so-called because it's edited according to specific principles of textual criticism,
which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type text.
More recently, many have abandoned this critical text, which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort for one that is more eclectic.
Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the majority text, which is close to the traditional text, except for the Revelation.
Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the New King James Version Executive Review Committee.
So, I mean, I don't want to bore you with more reading about all that stuff, but there's a lot of stuff about even like the, you know, they have the logo on the front of it.
It looks like 666 or whatever.
I know some people, they're like, that's the sign of the Trinity, you know, whatever.
I mean, you can make up your mind on that one if you want.
But let's look at some verses and then we'll take about 15 minutes or so and look at some of these contradictions that they have.
So let's look at first, let's look at Genesis chapter 10 verses 8 through 10.
And so I can spice you up a little bit.
I'm going to have some guys stand up and read what the King James Version says.
And then I'll read to you what the New King James Version says.
So let's see. Genesis 10 verses 8 through 11.
Robert, will you read it real loud?
Okay.
Genesis 10, 8 through 11?
Yep.
Okay.
So here's what the New King James Version says.
And just follow along on your King James while I read this.
It says, Cush begat Nimrod, and he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.
Therefore, it is said like Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.
And then it says, Cush begat Nimrod, and he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Hunter before the Lord. Therefore, it is said like Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.
And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.
Eric, Akkad, Calneh, and the land of Shinar.
In the land of Shinar.
From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Reboeth, Ur, and Kala.
So what's the difference?
Anybody get it? Anybody catch that?
Why is it different?
It says in the beginning, out of that land, the way forward, Asher, it says nothing about Assyria.
Yeah, so the New King James Version is saying that Nimrod built Nineveh, right?
Well, in the New King James Version, it's saying that.
In the King James, it's saying that Asher built Assyria.
Because it's, like anybody that knows Nineveh is part of the Assyrian Empire.
And Asher is, you know, Asher, Assyrian, that's where the name Assyria comes from.
It's from that man who started the Assyrian Empire.
He built Nineveh. He built Reboeth, Ur, and Kala.
But, so they're taking Nimrod in the New King James Version and making it out that Nimrod built.
So it says, because it says in this, in the New King James Version, it says, from that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh.
So you see how it's changing who built Nineveh.
It's a big difference.
That's not who built Nineveh.
Asher built Nineveh.
So that's kind of a big deal.
So they're claiming, I mean, so like people, you think, well, that's not that big of a deal.
Well, it's a mistake.
It is a big deal.
So let's look at another one.
Genesis Chapter 22, Verse 17.
This one is a huge deal.
This one's just a flat out blunder.
And a lot of modern versions make this one.
Genesis Chapter 22, Verse 17.
Who's my next man that's going to stand up and read it proud and loud?
Verse 17.
Yep.
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand which is upon the seashore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.
Okay.
Very famous passage in Scripture about Abraham, right?
It's a promise to Abraham and to his, this is to thy seed.
Now, in the New King James Version, it says, blessing I will bless you,
and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand which is on the seashore, and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.
What's the problem there?
Well, seed and descendants are different.
Now you could say, well, you know, it kind of means the same thing.
It's like, what's the big deal?
Well, the big deal is that you need to turn to Galatians Chapter, what is it?
Galatians Chapter 3.
Yeah.
Galatians Chapter 3, Verse 16.
So this is a big deal because seed is a singular term there in the King James,
and descendants there is plural, and also it says, it changes it to you,
and so blessing I will bless you, which is a plural term, isn't it?
And in the King James, it says, blessing I will bless thee.
That's a different, that's, talk about him.
So it says in Galatians Chapter 3, Verse 16, someone read that one.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promise made.
He saith not into seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ.
Okay.
So it's correct, so if you said seeds, Paul's getting real specific here.
He's saying it didn't say to seeds, as of many, it's specifically saying to his seed,
which is a singular term.
So he's getting down to the details here.
So when the New King James says your descendants, that's wrong.
It's not many people, it's one.
So that is, they're making that a mistake in the Bible,
and that's why all these people think that the Jews still have some claim to the land over there,
which is complete trash, but more than that, that's a mistake in the Bible.
That's a mistake in the New King James.
So how's that more easy to understand for us?
It's not.
Let me read the New King James, what it says.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promise is made.
He does not say into seeds, as of many, but as of one,
and to your seed, who is Christ.
So, I mean, they technically, they get that right, but it's a contradiction.
So anybody that's reading the New King James Version, and they come across this,
and they go, well, let me cross-reference this back, and they see that,
and they're going to say, my Bible has a contradiction in it.
And that's going to cause them to doubt God's word, isn't it?
That's a huge problem because Paul made it very clear that it's talking about seed.
It's talking about Christ.
It's talking about the seed, which is Christ, is going to come forth out of Abraham's loins.
And Paul made a very specific statement there saying it's talking about one person.
That's talking about Christ.
We're going to be blessed through his seed, which is Christ.
All nations of the world will be blessed because anybody that believes in Christ,
in the whole world, is going to be saved.
And so that's why the blessings will come from Abraham.
All right, here's another one.
Look at Numbers 21, verse 14.
Numbers 21, verse 14.
There's so many contradictions.
I might have to make this like an 18-part series.
Kidding.
All right, who's going to read for me this time?
Next man up.
All right, what do we got?
It's pretty clear, right?
Everybody knows he did something in the Red Sea, right?
Part of the Red Sea, all that.
Here's what it says in the New King James Version.
Therefore it is said in the book of the words of the Lord,
Waheb and Supa.
Waheb and Supa, the brooks of the Arnhem.
That's real clear, isn't it?
And then, yeah, so there's a little footnote that's next to it that says,
Numbers 21, 14, ancient unknown places, V.G.
So the Vulgate, they're going with what the Vulgate puts here.
What he did in the Red Sea.
I mean, if you're so, so like, this is what Mark Ward says.
He's like, the things in the New King, in the King James Version
are unintelligible to children and unintelligible to adults.
Does anybody know what Waheb and Supa means?
Kind of sounds like, hey, the soup's ready or something like that, you know.
Like, hey, well, he'd come in for dinner, the soup is ready, you know.
But that's, that's what is, hey, what you did in the Red Sea,
that's a little more, like, everybody knows what God did in the Red Sea, right?
And then he even says on the footnote what he did in the Red Sea is like,
that's the right translation.
Weird.
All right, let's look at another one.
Number, or 2 Kings chapter 23 verse 29, 2 Kings chapter 23 verse 29.
This is a long distance relation to Maria Nico.
It's Pharaoh Nico.
Who's the, who's the reader?
Paul.
2 Kings 23, 29.
Nico.
Okay, so in the days of Pharaoh Nico, king of Egypt, the king, of king of Egypt went against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates.
King Josiah went against him and slew him at Megiddo when he had seen him.
So here's what the New King James Version says.
In his days, Pharaoh Nico, king of Egypt, went to the aid of the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates.
And King Josiah went against him and Pharaoh Nico killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him.
Anybody catch that?
Yeah, exactly.
That's exactly what it is.
Clearly, the New King James is false by its own admission here in the parallel count in 2 Chronicles in the New King James Version itself.
Now, I'll just save some time here and read what the New King, go ahead, you can go ahead and turn to King, the 2 Chronicles 35, 20.
Because, of course, you know, 2 Chronicles is a parallel count, usually doesn't have all the information necessarily that kings and 2 Kings would have, but here it has the same story.
Look what the King James says.
The King James in 2 Kings 23, 29 and 2 Chronicles 35, 20 say the same thing.
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Nico, king of Egypt, came up to fight against Charchemesh by Euphrates and Josiah went out against him.
So the King James nearly identical to it, right?
And here's what the New King James says.
After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Nico, king of Egypt, came up to fight against Charchemesh by the Euphrates and Josiah went out against him.
So what's the problem here?
Well, Pharaoh Nico of Egypt fought against Assyria during the days of Josiah.
King Josiah was killed in a battle at Megiddo when he went against Pharaoh unadvisedly.
Everybody knows that story, but the New King James changes the entire history to make Pharaoh Nico an ally of Assyria in one place to deny the inspired history and to contradict itself in another place.
If the account of the kings is true in the New King James version, then what of Chronicles in the New King James version?
I mean, it's a direct contradiction.
Why didn't any of the 130 translators notice this and fix it?
Well, I mean, yeah.
But 54 of the 1600s, in the 1600s, 54 scholars managed to get it right?
Okay.
But they're just, the modern scholars are just so much smarter.
Look at 1 Chronicles chapter 25 verse 3, 1 Chronicles chapter 25 verse 3.
Who's going to read for me this time?
All right, Robert.
1 Chronicles 25 verse 3.
Yep.
Of Jedeltham, the sons of Jedeltham, Jedeliah, and Ziri, and Josiah, and Jesseziah, and Asherahabiah, and Mathadiah, six under the hands of their father, Jedeltham, who prophesied with a heart to give thanks and praise to the Lord.
Yeah, you got to remember when you're reading the Chronicles, you're going to come up with some names.
It's a trap.
So it says, okay, so it says six under the hands of their father, Jedeltham, right?
Now, in the New King James Version, it says, of Jedeltham, the sons of Jedeltham, Gedeliah, Ziri, Josiah, Shimei, Asherahabiah, and Mathadiah, six under the direction of their father, Jedeltham, who prophesied with a heart to give thanks and praise to the Lord.
Now, the New King James, along with the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, adds the name Shimei to the text, even though it's not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
So the text that they're supposedly, you know, getting this from, they add that name Shimei.
Did you see, look down at your Bible, does it say Shimei in the text there?
But they add that name in there.
Why?
Well, because they want it to add up to seven.
That's why.
But, you know, and then it's not found, so it's not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It's not found in the RV, the ASV, Jewish translations, or Geneva Bible, just to add a few.
This is an attempt to fix the perceived error that the six people listed did not include.
It didn't include the, sorry, the six people, not seven, but it did not include the father, Jedeltham.
They forgot to add that one.
Whoops.
So, I mean, so they just didn't think about adding the father's name to the group.
And so it's a perceived error, but you got to add daddy too.
Daddy's part of the group, right?
So the footnote says, so with one Hebrew manuscript, LXX manuscript, Shimei is the sixth, verse 17.
So they just take some other one that someone added it in to try to fix a contradiction
that wasn't really there, and then they add that as a footnote, and they add that name
to the list, even though they don't need to, because it doesn't belong there.
So are they really going by the Texas Receptus?
Are they really, or are, I mean, not Texas Receptus, are they really going by the Masoretic text?
No, they're not.
They're just trying to fix stuff that's not wrong.
Second Chronicles, chapter 17, verse 4.
I kind of want to end on a spicy one, but this one's pretty good where they just omit one.
Second Chronicles, chapter 17, verse 4.
I've got to wrap up here in just a minute here, but Second Chronicles, chapter 17, verse 4.
Who's going to read for me?
But sought to the Lord God of His Father, and walked in His commandments, and not after the doings of Israel.
Here's the 1611.
So you read that this is the 1769, you know, where they, you know, so the 1611 has font changes
and spelling changes and stuff like that, but there's nothing wrong with the wording.
Here's the 1611.
But sought to the Lord God of His Father, and walked in His commandments, and not after the doings of Israel.
Same words though, right?
Okay, here's what the New King James Version says.
But sought the God of His Father, and walked in His commandments, and not according to the acts of Israel.
What's missing there?
Let me read it again.
But sought the God of His Father, and walked in His commandments, and not according to the acts of Israel.
What's missing?
The word Lord is missing there.
And so the original 1611 doesn't have an italic or a footnote there.
Your Bible doesn't have any kind of, is it an italics there?
So why did they remove it?
Why would they remove Lord out of there?
They just remove it, and they don't have a reason why.
They just take it out.
So, no reason to do that.
But the New King James Version is better.
Okay, let's see.
Let me do one more.
One more.
Okay, Isaiah 9 and 3.
Let's go to Isaiah 9 and 3.
This will be the last one, because we've got to wrap it up.
I could do this all night.
I could keep knocking this thing out all night long.
I had 25 to go through tonight, but obviously this is number 7.
Isaiah 9, verse 3.
Who's going to read the final one?
Noah.
He's got it.
Okay, I'm going to try to see if you guys can guess what's wrong here.
Here's the New King James Version.
You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy.
They rejoice before you according to the joy of harvest as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
What's missing?
Yeah, it completely changes the meaning of the whole verse, doesn't it?
That was multiplied the nation and not increased the joy, and in the New King James Version
it says you have multiplied the nation and increased its joy.
It changes the meaning, doesn't it?
It removes the word not, which makes the text say exactly the opposite of the King James.
And in the footnote it says the following quare, that's quare all right,
antargham, kethib, and vulgate read not increase joy.
Septuagint reads most of the people you brought down in your joy.
So, yeah, it's supposed to be translated from the Masoretic text,
but then they refer back to a Catholic manuscript.
They go back to the modern.
They go forward to the modern version, which are supposed to be the oldest and the best manuscripts.
And then they just make a mockery of God's word.
They delete words that should be there.
And then, I mean, there's a ton more in here that are just like egregious.
And I mean, if you go back and if you haven't listened to my sermons about Mark Ward,
I have a ton more of things that they mess with salvation.
And one of them I show where they mess with the word sodomite.
Like they completely take out all the mentions of sodomite in the Old Testament
and then put sodomite in the New Testament where it doesn't have it.
So figure that one out.
That's all I got time for, folks.
So next week in Seattle, I'll preach more of these.
And, you know, maybe I'll preach a couple more of these.
I don't know.
I mean, I only got to seven tonight.
So maybe I'll preach a little less, a little less verses at the beginning
and just try to go right to the contradictions.
All right, let's bow our heads in a word of prayer.
Lord, we thank you so much for the King James Bible.
And, Lord, that we can trust the Bible that's been passed down that you preserved in our language, Lord.
We thank you, Lord, that we have just an abundance of King James Bibles.
Lord, we thank you for the fact that English is the most important language in the world right now
and that we can have a huge effect on those around us with an English Bible.
We thank you, Lord, for just all the opportunities we have with a great Bible that we have.
I pray, Lord, that you'd help us strengthen us, strengthen our faith in the Bible and in you, Lord.
And I pray that you just bless our church here and pray that they'd have a great holiday season here.
Lord, that soul wanting would be something that would not die out in any of our churches.
Lord, that we would take this book and we'd show people how to get saved.
Lord, pray to bless and take us all home safely tonight.
In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.
All right, if you'd open your hymnal and go to song 477.
At Calvary.
Years I spent in vanity and pride
Caring not my Lord was crucified
Knowing not it was for me He died
On Calvary
Mercy there was great and grace was free
Pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty
At Calvary
By God's word at last my sin I learned
Then I trembled at the law I'd spurned
Till my guilty soul imploring turned to Calvary
Mercy there was great and grace was free
Pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty
At Calvary
Now I've given Jesus everything
Now I gladly own Him as my King
Now my raptured soul can only sing
Of Calvary
Mercy there was great and grace was free
Pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty
At Calvary
Oh the love that drew salvation's plan
Oh the grace that brought it down to man
Oh the mighty gulf that God did span
At Calvary
Mercy there was great and grace was free
Pardon there was multiplied to me
There my burdened soul found liberty
At Calvary
Thank you Father for this day.
Thank you for the word of God and for that sermon.
And if we have friends and family who are using the New King James or a false modern Bible version,
I pray that we'd share this sermon with them and the countless others out there
and to get them on the real word of God.
To get them on the solid rock, the real Jesus.
And protect us as we go our separate ways. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.
Thank you.