Hello everybody, it's me, SirTol23, back with another video, and in this video I want to
continue this series defending the New IFB in my church, Faith Award Baptist Church,
and other people in the New IFB movement against the slanderous attacks by people
out there who just don't like us for whatever reason, and attack us and accuse
us of things, or just don't like our doctrine even though these doctrines are
biblical.
And so today I want to talk about the subject of King James Onlyism.
Now this is not something which is exclusive to the New IFB.
The IFB in general, which would be Independent Fundamental Baptists, believe in the King
James Only doctrine.
They believe that only the King James Bible is the Word of God in the English language.
So there's thousands of churches in the world which only use the King James and reject
the modern versions, but the New IFB is also well known for this because of the fact
that my church, Faith Award Baptist Church, has put out a documentary which had gotten
a lot of popularity in the past on YouTube called New World Order Bible Versions, and
then also Steadfast Baptist Church, or I guess it was Pure Words Baptist Church
in Houston, produced the movie The Preserved Bible earlier this year, which is again
on YouTube and has gotten many views, and some popular false preachers online like
James White have attacked us and our church and attacked my pastor for being King James
Only.
And so this is something that the New IFB is also known for and people don't like and
people will attack us for and say, you know, you're splitting hairs and you know all
of these modern versions, you know, they're based on newer discoveries and they're
more accurate and there's nothing wrong with them, you know, people are just using
them because it's easier to understand or whatever.
But I want to explain in this video why we're King James Only and why you should
be King James Only too.
First of all, this boils down to whether somebody believes the doctrine of preservation
or not, right?
So one of the main issues here is that people who aren't King James Only, they
don't believe in the fact that God has preserved his word for all generations, even
though that's what God in the Bible said that he would do.
So not only does the Bible say that God's word is inspired, but he also says that
his word would be preserved and would exist in all generations and would exist forever
and would never pass away.
That's what God promises in the Bible itself.
But here's the thing with these churches that use the modern Bibles, oftentimes you'll
find in their statement of faith, they say things like, we only believe that the
Bible is inspired in its original manuscripts.
The problem with this is that the original manuscripts no longer exist.
You can't show me an original manuscript of the book of Matthew or the book of Isaiah
or the book of Psalms or the book of Deuteronomy, what we have are copies of copies of copies
of copies.
So the original meaning like when the prophet Isaiah actually wrote it down or
the prophet Daniel or when Matthew actually penned the book of Matthew or the letters
of Paul, the original that he sent to the churches, these don't exist anymore.
So if you say that only the originals were inspired, then basically what you're saying
is that we don't have the word of God anymore.
And that's what this whole issue is about, of who actually believes that we really
have the Bible.
And so we believe that we do have the actual words of God and that God preserved
his word for all generations and that in the English language we do have the King James
Bible as the preserved word of God.
I'm going to read some verses about this subject for you, just so you can see that
this is important to believe in the doctrine of the preservation of the words of God.
It says in Isaiah chapter 30 verse 8,
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for
the time to come forever and ever.
So God is saying that when he writes it in the book, it would be for the time to
come forever and ever.
Isaiah 59 verse 21, God makes a very similar promise to Isaiah.
It says, 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.
So God says, out of your mouth Isaiah, out of the mouth of your seed, your seed-seed,
and forever, henceforth forever.
So God is saying that the words that Isaiah preached will exist forever, basically.
And so the words that we have in the book of Isaiah today, we still have, otherwise
God didn't keep his promise.
Proverbs 30 verse 5, the Bible says, Every word of God is pure.
That is another thing that shows us that it's the actual words, the individual words,
because he says every word of God.
It's not just the thought, it's not just the idea, but he says every word of God is
pure.
He's a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
So if there was a version out there, which there are many, where somebody adds to what
God said, then according to the Bible, that person is a liar, right?
So why do we make a big issue with the modern versions?
Because as I'm going to show you later, these modern versions add things, they take
things away, they change what God said.
So not only are they not preserving every word of God, which the Bible says every word
of God is pure, but they're also a liar, the people who translated these modern versions,
because they added to God's word, right?
Psalm 12 verse 6 to 7, the words of the Lord are pure words.
Again, words, right?
Not just the idea, not just the thought, but he says the words, plural, right?
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.
So it's not man's job to preserve God's word, but David speaking by the Holy Ghost
says that the Lord, he says, thou Lord will preserve them from this generation forever,
right?
So if there was a generation where the word of God did not exist, then this statement
would not be true.
So what do we believe?
We believe that since the time of David wrote the book of Psalms in like 1000 BC,
from that time, 3000 years ago till now, there's not been a generation which has existed that
did not have the words that David spoke by the, you know, the Holy Ghost spoke by
the mouth of David.
So every word that God has exists, or that God has spoken exists today, and has
existed for all generations since the time it was written, otherwise these promises
would not be true.
Jesus also made this promise in Matthew 24 verse 35, it said, heaven and earth shall
pass away, but my words shall not pass away, again, words, not just ideas or thoughts
or doctrine, but he says my word shall not pass away.
So we have every word that Jesus Christ spoke today, I mean, I think it's pretty
clear.
Otherwise, if you deny that you're just saying Jesus is a liar, right?
Psalm 100 verse five, for the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting, and his truth
endureth to all generations, again, not some generations, but all generations.
Psalm 105 verse eight says something very similar, he hath remembered his covenant forever,
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
So the Bible says that the word that he gave, he commanded it to a thousand generations.
Okay, so there's not been a generation where God's word did not exist since it was
written down, right?
So this is the doctrine of preservation of God's word.
There's many clear verses on this where God promises that his word would be preserved
and exist forever, right?
So this is the issue with the King James only movement, that we believe that God has
preserved his word for all generations, and we believe that particularly in the English
language, that's not to say that it doesn't exist in other languages as well, but particularly
in the English language, we have God's words, the actual words that he said, okay?
So the thing with the modern translations, things like the NIV, the ESV, the NASB,
the NLT, the CEB, the Holman Christian Standard Version, you know, all these other versions,
all these acronyms, these modern versions change what the Bible says, and they're different
from the King James, so they can't both be right, and I'm going to show you some
of these differences in a moment, but the thing is it's not an issue of just which
Bible do you prefer, which Bible do you think sounds better, which Bible do you think
is easier to understand, but it's actually an issue of which one is right and which one
is wrong. They can't both be right. Now here's the thing, most of the modern versions agree
with each other in their changes and in the weird things that they say and the false
doctrines that they teach and the verses that they remove, most of them agree with each other,
but they don't agree with the King James. The King James is the one that stands apart from
all of them, right? So the thing is, out of these, you know, 30, 40, 50, however many
modern translations there are, they all say something slightly different from each other,
but they all generally kind of say somewhat of the same thing and they make the same mistakes
over and over again, but those verses that are missing and those things that are changed are
there in the King James Bible, right? So that's why the King James stands apart. Now,
part of the reason for this difference is you have to understand the history of how these
Bibles were translated, okay? Because it's not just a matter of translation that causes these
errors in the modern versions but it's also a matter of where the source is, right? So the
King James in the Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew and in the
New Testament was translated from what's called the Texas Receptus. Now what that
basically means is it receives texts, right? So there's about 5,000 manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament that exist today that we have and 95% of them are part of this class of
manuscripts called the Texas Receptus or the majority text, the Byzantine majority text,
and of those majority texts or that majority text is basically, it's called the received text
or the Texas Receptus because that's what's been used throughout all generations. So since
the time that the Apostles wrote the Bible in the first century, they wrote the New Testament,
since that time in every generation the Word of God has been passed down, it's been copied,
it's been distributed, it's been translated into other languages, etc., and so that's why
the Bibles that were translated in like the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, the Bibles that were translated
at those times from the, not as I said 1400s, but the Texas Receptus was kind of compiled
together by Erasmus in the early 1500s. So the Bibles that were translated like into German
and into French and into Spanish into English, they all pretty much say the same thing
because of the fact that they were all translated from that same source, right? Now the modern
versions that didn't really start coming out until about a hundred to a hundred fifty years
ago, the reason why they say things different is because they're translated from a different
source. So in the 1800s, some pseudo-scholars, most of them who didn't even believe the
Bible, who were just atheists or people who were, you know, just not saved, people who
just completely rejected the preservation of God's Word, the inspiration of God's Word,
these people started digging up in archaeological digs in Egypt and other places, they started
digging up new manuscripts of the Bible that they thought were older and therefore concluded
that they were more accurate to the originals, right? Now here's the problem with thinking
that a Bible unearthed in the 1850s or found in a monastery in the 1850s, which is where the
Codex Sinaiticus, from which the modern versions are translated, that's where it comes from,
here's the problem with thinking that that Greek manuscript is the actual Word of God or
accurate to the originals. It wasn't used and it wasn't preserved for all generations because
there were several hundred years where it was just hidden in a trash basket or some of these
were literally just buried underground or in the Vatican library where nobody used them or
they're just locked away and the Word of God that everybody was using was different, right?
So in the 1700s and the 1600s and the 1500s and the 1400s, the Bibles that people had were
pretty much the same thing as the King James, right? They did not line up with this new line
of manuscripts because that version of the Greek text did not come about until the 1800s. Yes,
it existed before that, they were made in like the 200s, 300s, 400s AD, but then they passed
away off the earth, right? Or not passed away off the earth, but you know what I mean,
they weren't used by anybody, they weren't given to all generations, they were not preserved, right?
And that's why for this modern version crowd they keep coming up with new Bible translations
because they can't agree on what it actually says because they keep finding new things and
they're like well this corrects what we thought it was supposed to say but it actually shows us
you know this is older so we're going to change it now, but if they have to keep changing
it that just shows that these changes they're making are not based on the preserved Word of
God because God's Word is preserved to all generations. I hope this makes sense. The
point I'm trying to make is the Texas Receptus and Bibles translated from the Texas Receptus
has been passed down for all generations versus the modern versions. They have only been out
for 100 to 200 years because they're translated from newer discoveries and there were many
generations that did not have that Bible, right? So that's the issue with the King James versus the
modern versions, right? So it's pretty obvious to see which one is the actual Word of God
based on the fact that the King James is the one that's been used in English for
over 400 years versus these other ones have just come out within the last 100 years or so.
Now you might, that might not be enough to convince you because you might not know all the
history behind that and you might not want to take my word for it, you might want to do your
own research on that, where these different Bibles come from, and that's okay. But I want to
explain to you that these modern versions are radically different and they're not just minor
changes, they're not just changes in spelling or using synonyms, but they actually remove whole
verses, whole phrases from the Bible and they literally add things to it and change things that
literally teach false doctrine and heresy and which contradict itself. Let me show you a few
examples. So here's some verses that are missing from the modern Bibles.
Matthew 17 verse 21, Matthew 18 verse 11, Matthew 23 verse 14, Mark 7 verse 16,
Mark 9 verse 44 and verse 46, Mark 11 verse 26, Mark 15 verse 29, Luke 17 verse 36, John 5
4, Acts 8 37, Acts 15 34, Acts 24 verse 7, Acts 28 verse 29, Romans 16 24 and 1 John 5 7. These
verses are removed from the modern Bibles, from the NIV, the ESV. Some of them don't completely
take it out but they just put a footnote or they say like this verse or they put in
parentheses or something to kind of put doubt in the mind of the reader. So these verses are taken
out from the modern Bibles and some of these verses are very important for doctrine. The one
that I point out the most often is Acts chapter 8 verse 37 which is when the Ethiopian eunuch is
with Philip and it says, he says, hair is water what doth hinder me to baptize in verse 36.
Verse 37, and he said, if thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest and the answer said
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So that shows us that the prerequisite for
getting baptized is that somebody has to believe with all their heart. But the modern versions
remove that and then number one it makes the story not make sense because he says,
what doth hinder me be baptized and then Philip doesn't even give him an answer he just baptizes
him. So it just turns the story on its head it doesn't really make any sense anymore.
And number two it's pretty obvious why they remove it because there's so many churches today
which practice infant baptism. So I wonder why they would remove the verse that teaches that
you have to believe before you get baptized because of this false doctrine of infant
baptism which is so prevalent today in the Catholic church and in the Orthodox church and
in the Lutheran church and Episcopalian and Anglican and Methodist and all the you know
famous well-known Protestant Catholic churches all these churches all practice infant baptism
which is contrary to the Bible. So it's very clear that these verses which are removed they're
not just you know minor verses but some of them actually affect doctrine a lot.
1st John 5 7 is another example which is a very clear verse on the trinity where the Bible says
for there are three that bear record in heaven the father the word and the holy ghost and
these three are one and yet the modern versions just say for there are three that bear record
in heaven they remove over half the verse right. So again that's an attack on the trinity
doctrine. I wonder why they would remove that when people are denying the trinity nowadays
right. Now here there's also some partial removings as well there's some verses where
the whole verse isn't gone but like half the verse is gone. So for example Luke 9 56 the
phrase for the son of man has not come to destroy men's lives but to save them that is
removed from the modern versions. Luke 23 verse 38 where it talks about when Jesus crucified the
sign that was put above him it says in letters of Greek Latin and Hebrew that's removed from the
modern versions. John 6 47 this is an important one a doctrinal one where in the ESV a popular
modern version it says truly truly I say unto you whoever believes has eternal life so what's
missing whoever believeth on me hath everlasting life is what Jesus actually said he didn't just
say whoever believes he says whoever believes on me because Jesus has to be the object of your
faith but you can kind of see why in these modern versions they remove on me because people
are trying to change the definition of believe to doing works right so they're saying well
whoever believes that means whoever obeys God and lives right but if it's whoever believes on
me you can't really change the definition of believe because that shows that the belief is
has to be in Jesus right that he's the object of our faith right so it's not very hard to
see why they remove these things right and there's many of other examples you can look them
up verses or partial verses or words or phrases that are removed from the modern versions where
they literally just take things out of the word of God which by the way I didn't read this
earlier but revelation chapter 22 says if any man will take away book words out of the book
of this prophecy his name shall be blotted out of the book of life so what does that show you
about somebody who translated the esv whoever translated the esv and took words out of that
book according to the bible their name has been blotted out of the book of life so this
is why we make a big deal about this because God makes a big deal about it he says if you
add to my words you're a liar if you take my words out I'm going to blot your name out of
the book of life so the people who made these modern versions are wicked
now not only do they remove things and add things but there's also just a lot of things
that are just evil or just teach false doctrine or foolish things in these modern versions I'm
going to give a lot of examples of these stupid things in these modern bibles to show you very
clearly that these are not the word of God and that you should stick with the King James
so a perfect example is in the NIV so anybody out there who's watching this who happens to use
the NIV pay close attention because in revelation 22 verse 16 this is Jesus speaking
I Jesus have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches I am the root and
offspring of David and the bright and morning star so this is pretty much the same thing as
the King James says right but the problem is when you go back to Isaiah 14 verse 12 in the
NIV where it says how you have fallen from heaven morning star son of the dawn where in the
King James it says Lucifer son of the morning right so in revelation 22 in the NIV Jesus calls
himself the morning star and then Isaiah 14 in the NIV it says that the morning star fell
from heaven so what is it saying it's saying that Jesus fell from heaven in the NIV that's
blasphemous right versus if you have the real Bible the King James Bible you know that
it's Lucifer also known as the devil that's that fell from heaven right now first Samuel 13 verse
1 in the ESV you know the one that all these uh you know pseudo-scholars who pretend like
they're so smart all these Calvinists out there like to use the ESV says in first Samuel
13 verse 1 Saul lived for one year and then became king and when he had reigned for two
years over Israel so in the preceding chapters it already told us that Saul was anointed to be
king and it tells us that Saul was head and shoulders taller than everybody else in Israel
so according to the ESV a one-year-old baby was taller than everybody else in Israel now
do you really believe that to be true no that's not true because it's a false translation so
it's not what God said okay that's not anything close to what it's supposed to say that's not
what it says in the Masoretic text so the ESV in Matthew chapter 7 and I believe it also does
this in the NIV and also in the New King James as well don't be deceived by the fact
that's called the New King James stay away from it it's also a modern false translation
so in Matthew chapter 7 it says pretty much the same thing in all these modern Bibles
it says enter by the narrow gate for the gate is wide and the way is easy at least the
destruction and those that enter in by it are many for the gate is narrow and the way is hard
that leads to life and those who find it are few now that's completely different than what
Jesus actually said what Jesus actually said is that the way is narrow that leads to life
he didn't say the way is hard he's talking about how many people are going because in a
parallel passage in the book of Luke the question is asked are there few that be saved
right so they're asking about how many are going to be saved not about how hard it is
so they say are there few that be saved and he says narrow is the way that leadeth
unto life and few there are that find it right so he's talking about the fact that
not many people are going to go to heaven right but it changes it to saying it's hard
despite the Bible teaching us in many places that salvation is easy it literally calls it a
gift it compares it to walking through a door to eating bread to drinking water these are all
easy tasks to do yet the modern versions say that salvation is hard so they are teaching a false
gospel the esv in luke chapter 2 verse 33 tells us that joseph is jesus's father it says
and his father and his mother marveled at what was said about it and the king james it says
joseph and his mother because joseph was not the father of jesus god is the father of jesus
right so again they're attacking the virgin birth of jesus christ and the sonship of jesus
christ by making this change even though it's subtle it's still changing what the word of god
says the niv in mark chapter 1 verse 40 a man with leprosy came to him and banged him on his
knees if you are willing you can make me clean jesus was indignant okay now in the king james
which is the real bible it says jesus had compassion on him but in the modern bibles it
says jesus was indignant which means angry he reached his hand and touched the man i am
willing he said be clean now again this is just stupid and just doesn't make any sense
that jesus would be angry at this man for asking to be healed jesus was not angry at this man
the real bible the king james says he had compassion on the man which actually makes sense
the man comes to him he's like can i be healed and jesus had compassion and he healed
him but they changed it to he was indignant and then he just says it angrily like be
clean like that's just stupid that's not how it actually happened right here's another mistake in
the niv this one this one should be clear i mean and this it does the same thing in the esv
also and some of the other modern versions in mark chapter one the bible says as it is
written isaiah the prophet i will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way
now here's the issue this is not from isaiah the prophet this is from the book of malachite
chapter three now in the king james it says as it is written in the prophets right so it's
talking about multiple prophets yet the niv the esv says that isaiah said this but this is not
what isaiah who said this this is malachi who said this so it's just wrong you can if you
compare scripture with scripture it's wrong it's a mistake it's an error so how can you say that
this is the word of god if it has a mistake in it niv and esv make jesus a liar in luke chapter
seven i'm sorry john chapter seven john chapter seven jesus in these modern versions says you
go up to the feast i am not going up to this feast for my time has not yet fully come
after saying this he remained in galley but after his brothers had gone up to the feast
then he also went up not publicly but in private so in the modern versions jesus says i'm not
and then he goes so they're literally making jesus a liar but if you had the king james which
is the real bible he says i am not going yet to this feast right so he's not going at that time
but then after his brothers go then he goes right so jesus is not a liar in the king james
but he's a liar in these modern versions so which one are you going to use the one
that says jesus is a liar or the one where jesus is actually telling the truth all the time
another example this one is pretty obvious why it changes matthew 4 verse 4 and jesus answered
him it is written man shall not live by bread alone that's what it says in the esv notice
that something's missing right and the king james it says man shall not live by bread alone but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of god i wonder why the modern versions which
take verses out and change things would remove the phrase every word that proceeded
out of the mouth of god because the people who are making them making these modern versions
don't believe that every word of god has been preserved even though god said he would
preserve every word there's another change that attacks doctrine collagens 1 14 and it's the
same in ephesians 1 7 it's a parallel passage it says basically the same thing in the esv it
says in whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins but in the king james it says in whom we
have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins i wonder why they would remove that
maybe because these calvinist people who love the na the esv and the nasp uh like um like
john mccarthur maybe it's because they're attacking the doctrine of the blood of christ
i even though the bible says you know uh we're saved by faith in his blood in romans 325
the bible says unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood in
revelation they change verses that tell us that we're redeemed by his blood again they're
attacking very important doctrine there's another important doctrine that is attacked
first corinthians 1 18 in the esv and it says this again in all the modern bibles
for the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing but to us which are being
saved it is the power of god right so it changes salvation from something that already
happens to a process whereas the real bible says to us which are saved right because according
to the bible if you believe you are saved but they say no we're being saved right
philippians 2 verse 6 teaches that jesus is not equal with god in the esv it says who
though he was in the form of god did not count equality with god a thing to be grasped right
and this is something that people who deny the trinity will will use a verse like this in
the modern versions in order to justify that right because in the modern versions it says
that equality with god was not something that jesus could grasp what does it grasp me to
take hold of so it's saying jesus could not take hold of the the ability to be equal with
god but the real bible says that who being in the form of god thought it not robbery to be
equal with god what does that mean it means that jesus did not take anything away from the
father by being equal with him so the the bible in philippians 2 verse 6 and the king
james says that jesus was equal with god the modern version says he wasn't so again they're
denying the deity of christ and attacking the trinity mica 5 2 teaches in the niv that jesus
had a beginning but you bethlehem of ratha though you are small among the clans of juda
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over israel whose origins are from of
old from ancient times versus the king james says whose goings forth had been from of old
from everlasting right so according to the bible jesus is from everlasting and he says i am the
alpha and the omega the beginning and the ending the first and the last that's what jesus
said in the real bible but in the niv jesus apparently had an origin right so they're
teaching that jesus had a beginning that jesus is not god so here are very clear verses
to show you that these modern versions change what the bible says right and many of these things
are blasphemous many of these things are heretical many of these things are just very clear
false doctrine and just changing what the bible says so you think we're crazy for saying that
the king james is the only bible but it's very clear with just a few verses i mean why would
you even defend the niv after it calls jesus lucifer and says he fell from heaven why would
you even defend the niv after it says that jesus was not equal with god he fell from heaven
he had an origin that's and that joseph was his father this is foolish right you can't even
defend it if you actually believe these fundamentals of the faith but some people
will say well i just read the niv and these modern versions because it's so much easier to
understand because the king james has all these archaic words which is false because every
single word in the king james bible you can look up in a modern english dictionary and it
will be there and give a definition number one and yes some things have changed in meaning
over time but again they're all things that you can find in the dictionary or you can even just
find out by reading in the context right the king james bible often defines itself right
just in the context of verses it'll use words interchangeably or it'll just give more definition
or explain what a word means right so it's not really that hard to figure out if you actually
read the thing and if you look things up in a dictionary but that is really a lame excuse
because of the fact that the modern bibles also have a lot of hard words in it that most people
probably don't know and so they're not any easier to or more easier to understand than the
king james right let me give you a few examples these are all words that the niv uses where
the king james uses a much easier word that everybody knows for example in ezra 3 verse 10
the niv says vestments right the king james says apparel now which do you think people would have
an easier time understanding apparel or vestments terebinth in hosea 4 13 the king james says
elms which which do you think is more commonly known a terebinth tree or an elm tree i'm pretty
sure everybody knows what an elm tree is right deuteronomy 4 verse 45 stipulations versus the
king james says testimonies which one is easier systroms in second samuel 6 verse 5 the king james
says cornets right like a trumpet type of thing right now i'm sure most people don't know what
a system is i've never heard of a system resplendent in psalm 76 verse 4 versus the king
james says glorious portico and first king 6 3 versus the king james says porch porphyry
and esther 1 3 versus the king james says red right such a hard word to understand red right
i wonder what that means you know porphyry that just makes it so much easier to understand
right everybody knows what that means huh parapet in deuteronomy 22 verse 8 versus the king
james says battlement again which one do you think is easier genesis genesis 6 4 nephilim
versus giants and this is not just one where it's not easier to understand but it also leads
people into false doctrine because they leave this word nephilim untranslated where the word just
means giants and people like think it's like some magical like half angel and they get this
from the book of enoch and all this crap and so people come up with this weird doctrine based
on the fact that these modern versions don't translate nephilim into giant which it just
means giant so they they see this word they think it's like some has some extra meaning to
it when it's just an untranslated word so which do you think people would have an easier time
understanding nephilim or giants job 13 verse 12 maxiums versus the king james says remembrance
again that's not a hard word jeremiah 46 verse 20 the king james says destruction but the
niv says gadfly whatever that means exodus 28 verse 20 the modern versions say filigree
and the king james says enclosings in ezekiel 40 verse 13 says alcove versus the king james
says little chamber again not a hard word to understand and there's many examples that i could
go on and on about but those are just some very clear examples of hard words which are
used in the modern versions to show you that the modern versions have nothing to do with
being easy to understand it's just about changing the word of god it's just about a matter of
which one's right which one's wrong and the answer is the king james is the one that's right
the king james is the one that doesn't contradict itself and that doesn't attack the d of d of
jesus christ and which teaches a consistent plan of salvation and the king james is the one
that is translated from the texas receptors which has been used in all generations versus
these modern versions they contradict each other they say all kind of blasphemy they say
stupid things that don't make any sense and they're not they've not been used for
hundreds thousands of years they're modern versions they just came out in the last you
know the niv has only been around for like 50 years or something the king uh the esv has
only been around for like 20 years if we had the word of god which we do then why do we have
to get all these modern vitals so that just shows us that the people who make these vitals
they don't believe we have the word of god which means they don't believe in the preservation
of god's word which they means they don't believe the bible they don't believe that god has
the power to preserve his word in all generations otherwise they wouldn't think that they would have
to piece it together so that's the whole point of the king james issue and that's why
i'm king james only you should be king james only also so i hope this makes sense for
everybody who's watching i made other videos on this if it doesn't make sense go watch the
preserved bible on youtube it's like a two-hour documentary and it'll explain in more detail
what i explained in 35 minutes so i kind of condensed everything together because obviously i'm
not going to sit here for like two hours and explain everything but in a nutshell that's why
we're king james only and once again we're right and you're wrong the king james is the
word of god in the english language the niv isn't the esv is not the word of god the nasp
is not the word of god the ce ceb is not the word of god the h csb is not the word of god the
hiv is not the word of god the whatever is not the word of god but the king james is
right so that's if you speak english is what you should be using and if you speak spanish
use the reign of the letter gomez or i think the 1602 partificata is also a good one
um but yeah thank you for watching god bless you and goodbye