I just want to do a quick sound check first to make sure that the sound is working before
I get into the actual video.
Okay, so it definitely is working.
Anyway, so in this video I want to talk about why I am King James only, meaning that I only
use the King James Version of the Bible, as you see right there.
This is my personal Bible, it says KGV on the side.
That's the only Bible I use in the English language.
I believe that this is the final authority in the English language, the perfect preserved
Word of God in our own tongue, which is complete and reliable.
I reject all the modern versions, the ESV, the NIV, etc.
I reject all those translations and believe that they are corrupted, perverted, and not
the Word of God, and therefore the only scriptures that I will ever quote from on this channel
is from the King James Bible.
Now I want to talk about, and I didn't put this in my notes because it's something that
recently came up.
For those of you who don't know, I kind of plan out my videos ahead of time, a few weeks
in advance.
I had this idea to make this video about a month ago actually, and I kind of just set
a date that I'll do this video on this day so that I would have time to write some notes,
do some study on the issue before I made the video.
So this is something I had planned to do on this particular date for a while.
I've heard that there's some kind of controversy over some pastors recently, some Baptist pastors,
who have leaned towards this extremist position called Ruckmanism in which they basically
don't even just believe that the King James Bible is inspired, but they believe that it's
the only inspired version, and that the Textus Receptus, meaning the Greek version, the Greek
Bible is not reliable, and they say that the English corrects the Greek, etc.
And there's some pastors who I like who are now teaching that, I actually have them in
my recommended list on my channel because they preach great things, they're great preachers,
but they're leaning towards this false doctrine.
And I'm just saying right now that this has nothing to do with that.
And also another interesting thing is, coincidentally, my pastor preached this last Sunday on the
same issue, he talked about why we're King James Bible only, but I had been planning
this video and making notes for this video a week or two weeks ago, so it has nothing
to do with this.
This is just a coincidence that I happened to choose this particular date to do this
video.
Anyway, so getting back into the video, I am King James only, meaning in the English
language, this is the only version that I use.
Now I don't think that this is a minor issue, as I'll see by the end of this video, the
modern versions are so corrupted and in error that I think it would be foolish to use any
translations like the NIV, the ESV, the NLT, the NASB, etc. because they are simply not
God's word.
They're man's word with a little bit of God's word mixed in.
And of course, once something becomes a partial truth, then it's a whole lie.
It's not God's word.
It's not God's inspired and preserved word if it's been changed and twisted.
Even if there's one verse that's wrong in it, if there's one book or one passage that
has any errors in it, then it's no longer the word of God.
The importance of this issue is shown in the scriptures themselves.
There are warnings in the Bible about tampering with God's word.
In Revelation chapter 22, verse 18 to 19, it says, for I testify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out
of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this
book.
Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 2 says, ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your
God which I command you.
Proverbs chapter 30, verse 5 to 6 says, every word of God is pure.
He has 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 in these scriptures, it's written in very strong warnings that we should not change
what God's word says, whether that's adding to or subtracting or diminishing from the
scriptures.
In Revelation 22, God says that if anybody takes away from the book of Revelation, they're
doomed.
The word is blotted out of the book of life.
Anybody who has the pride to think that they can correct what God said can never be saved.
They have become reprobates.
Their names are blotted out.
It is the command to not add or to diminish from the word which has been given.
As it says in Proverbs 30, add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be
found a liar.
So I want to focus on the fact that in that particular scripture in Proverbs 30, verse
5, or verse 6 rather, it says words and not just general message or main idea or central
idea.
God's word is not just a general idea or theme.
It's not just what he kind of said, it is exactly what he said.
And unfortunately, when you bring up this issue of which Bible should be used to those
who use false perversions like the NIV, they always throw at you the unbiblical concept
that as long as God's word still generally says the same thing, it's all right.
But that's wrong because the Bible says every word of God is pure and add not thou unto
his words.
So we're talking about individual words.
We're not talking about just the general idea or just the main idea.
It's the individual words which are important.
I don't think it's difficult to figure out what that means.
Words is not a difficult word.
Every individual sound coming out of my mouth right now, every letter that's grouped together
in an individual little piece that has a meaning, that's a word.
On a page, each time there is a space, that is a new word.
Unless the Bible says what God said, it's not the word of God, it's the corruption of
man.
But the importance of the individual word of God is expressed in many other passages
in the scriptures, such as in Deuteronomy chapter 8 verse 3.
It says that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
Now Jesus quoted that when he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness.
He said in Matthew 4, 4, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God.
Luke chapter 4 verse 4 says that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
of God.
Again, it's not just the general idea, it's not just the message, it's not the paraphrase,
but every single word which God spoke and holy men of God who are moved by the Holy
Ghost wrote down, every single word is inspired, every single word of God is important.
What's funny is that 95% of Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant and inspired.
You can go out and ask any Christian, you can find any statement of faith on pretty
much any church website and they'll say, yes, the Bible is inerrant, yes, the Bible is inspired,
and yet they contradict themselves by using Bibles which change the individual words.
They'll say that multiple versions are correct even though these versions say different things
in different places.
See the issue of which Bible version we should use is summed up in whether or not Christians
actually believe that basic doctrine of inspiration.
The Bible teaches the doctrine of inspiration and the question is, do you actually believe
that or not?
Do you believe what 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 1 says?
If every word is inspired by God as it says in the Scriptures, then only one Bible can
be right.
It doesn't make any sense to say that the King James Version and the NIV are both God's
Word when the latter, the NIV, removes whole verses that are found in the King James, removes
parts of verses, removes words, adds words, translates things differently in some places
so as to change the meaning of the verse.
It doesn't make any sense to say that both can be God's Word.
Most of the modern versions are similar but they do differ from each other in some way
and they definitely differ from the King James Version.
Even the New King James Version changes a lot of the words.
It's a myth to say that it just updates the language and I'll get into that in a little
bit.
There's actual meaningful changes in these modern versions but the fact of the matter
is if you believe that the Bible is God's Word, then it only makes logical sense to
stick with one translation in the English language.
Either it's right or it's wrong.
If any version is not exactly what God said, how can you say that it's reliable and authoritative?
How can you say that that is the Word of God?
It doesn't make any sense.
It's written in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 to 17, all Scripture is given by inspiration
of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It's not just some but all Scripture it says which is given by inspiration of God, meaning
that everything that is written in the Bible was breathed out by God.
The words that we see in the Bible today are supposed to be God's actual words and therefore
if two versions say two entirely different things, only one of them can be right.
That's just logic.
But the issue which then comes up is whether or not God's Word has been preserved and this
is what separates a lot of people who use the modern versions and people who use the
King James only.
Former the people who use the modern versions often do not believe that God's Word has been
preserved or if they claim to believe that then they contradict themselves and I'll get
into that in a minute but they often seem to have this attitude that God's Word is not
translatable into different languages.
There's often people out there who act like Hebrew and Greek or some kind of mystical
magical language, just some kind of special language or something like that even though
the Bible tells us that God created all languages at the Tower of Babel and of course the Bible
itself in the original version, the Old Testament and the New Testament as they were originally
written down was written in different languages.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was written
in Greek.
Now the reason why is simply because those were the common languages of the day, of the
audience.
The Old Testament was primarily written to the nation of Israel and the sections written
in Aramaic were written during or right after the captivity in Babylon when many Jews began
to speak and to read in Aramaic.
The New Testament was written in Greek because that was the lingua franca or the common language
of the Roman Empire and beyond.
Almost everybody in the Mediterranean region or Mesopotamia and Anatolia, they speak Greek
because of the vast influence of the Greek colonies in the Macedonian Empire at the time
in antiquity.
So it doesn't make any sense to say that God's Word can't be in any other language, that
it's only the originals that are inspired.
I mean in Acts chapter 2, there are at least 17 different languages that we see when people
are filled with the Holy Ghost, they speak the Word of God in their own languages, the
church in Jerusalem and it makes it clear in verse 4 that they are speaking by the Holy
Ghost.
So they are speaking the Word of God in other languages and declaring the wonderful works
of God.
The Word of God, the true Word of God is not just in one language, it can be in multiple
different languages.
But for some reason the liberal Christians out there have this idea that only the original
Hebrew and only the original Greek are inspired by God but that through the ages they have
not been preserved either in the original languages or in other languages and therefore
we need to rely on the so-called scholars out there to piece together what God actually
said.
Of course the problem with that is that there are constant changes to the critical text
of the Greek which today is the Nestle-Allen text which is used by modern versions and
it's in its 28th version or 28th edition.
And of course almost every year now a new Bible version of the English language comes
out and slowly older versions are being replaced with newer ones.
The NASB or the New American Standard Bible for example was very popular during the late
20th century but now is dying in popularity and being replaced by the ESV or the English
Standard Version which has become very popular in recent years.
And of course they do say different things in different places.
So the question is, is it possible to have the actual words of God as they've been preserved
which have been inspired by God, inspired by the Lord in our own language?
Now if the answer to that is no, then why are you even a Christian?
Why do you even believe the Bible?
Why do you even use the Bible to determine what to do and what to believe if you don't
even believe that every part of it is inspired?
How do you know which part is inspired and which part isn't?
Why go to church?
Why trust anything that the Bible says if you don't believe that it's inspired and preserved?
It doesn't make any sense.
If you take the position that the modern textual critics take, then you're no longer relying
on God but relying on man to tell you what's correct and what the Bible should say.
And I'll get to the problems with that line of thinking and the problems of the modern
versions a little bit later in this video in both the translations and the manuscripts
that they're based on.
But for the moment I want to point out that God promised that he would preserve his word.
In Psalm chapter 12 verse 6 to 7 he says, the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver
tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
So it's written that the Lord shall preserve not just the general idea, again, we're not
just talking about the message or just the main idea, we're talking about the individual
words.
It says the words of the Lord, they are pure, they've been purified seven times and that
these individual words are preserved by the Lord in every generation.
If the word of God was ever lost, this promise would not be true.
Likewise Jesus said in Matthew 24, 35 and also Mark 13, 31, heaven and earth shall pass
away but my words shall not pass away.
So Jesus Christ promised that his words, which he spoke, would never pass away.
What we see in the scriptures, being by the inspiration of God, have thus been preserved.
If somebody says that this is not true, but that there was a time in which the real word
of God was not present, in which God's word was lost, then they are thus denying the words
of Jesus Christ.
He didn't say my word shall pass away and be restored at some later point, he said they
shall never pass away, they shall not pass away.
And also Jesus said, he that heareth my word, or he said, he that heareth God's words, he
that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore hear them not because you're not of God.
If you don't believe that promise of Jesus Christ, you're not even of God.
Anybody who says that God has not preserved his word, if they do not even believe what
God says, they're not even saved.
People who have this prideful, presumptuous attitude that these so-called scholars out
there are restoring the word of God, that flies in the face of the promises that God
made in the scriptures.
It was written also in 1 Peter chapter 1, verse 23 to 25, being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man is the flower of grass.
The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away, but the word of the Lord endureth
forever.
And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The one thing which shall never pass away from this earth is the word of God.
Jesus said again, heaven and earth shall pass, but my word shall not pass away.
It is a guarantee.
It has always been and always will be, it liveth and abideth forever.
The word of God is quick, meaning living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.
For since it is written that the word of the Lord endureth forever, it makes no sense
to go looking for a new manuscript or some new book out there, which have been hidden
through the generations and say that that's the word of God.
It's a contradiction to say that you believe in the inspiration of God's word while simultaneously
denying the preservation.
If you believe that the Bible is inspired, then you must also believe the promise that
God's word being preserved is true.
If you do not believe that, then you are not of God, for it is written, again, in John
8.47, he that is of God heareth God's words, ye therefore heareth not, because ye are
not of God.
So this is a very important issue.
Some people will downplay the issue of Bible versions as if it doesn't matter, but the
fact of the matter is it does matter because if the translation is in error, that is no
longer the perfect, inspired, preserved word of God, and if somebody ignores the true word
of God and say that's not the word of God, that's not true, then according to Jesus,
they're not of God.
They're not even saved.
So I believe not only in the inspiration of God's word, but also in its preservation.
Not only in the original languages, but also in the English language.
As I already pointed out, it's absurd to act like the word of God is untranslatable.
When even looking at the original languages, we know that there were three of them, and
Greek is far different from Hebrew and Aramaic.
It's an entirely different language family.
It uses an entirely different type of script and writing system, and yet you still have
the word of God in multiple languages.
What's funny is that people out there who claim that there are errors in every Bible,
the people who repeat mindlessly the myth that there's something that's lost in translation,
often these people don't even speak any foreign languages or even know the languages in question
very well at all.
The vast majority of people who go back to the Greek to try to figure out what the Greek
says, they can't even speak a single sentence in Greek.
They're just repeating what they saw in a commentary in a lexicon and using that as
their final authority, despite not knowing the language.
Instead of trusting in the Bible, they trust in what man wrote somewhere.
So anybody who actually speaks multiple languages knows that the idea of something being lost
in translation is ridiculous, especially when it comes to the English language in which
it's estimated that there are nearly a million words total.
English is one of the most complex languages in the world.
To translate a Greek text into English is not difficult.
There's a word to express every word that was written in the Greek text.
It's not difficult to translate into English.
There are plenty of words in the dictionary that we can pick from.
But before we go too deep into the issue of translation, I want to talk about the manuscripts
themselves, which itself is core to understanding why I'm King James only and why many others
are King James only.
You might hear from the pseudo-scholars out there of the people who lift up the modern
versions and the ignorant people who use the modern versions like the NIV and the ESV.
They'll say that the modern versions are based on newly discovered manuscripts, which they
call the best manuscripts, which they claim are older and therefore that somehow makes
them more accurate.
Now, I made a video about the absurdity of that claim about a month ago.
It's called Why Historical Christianity is Not a Reliable Source of Doctrine.
And to summarize that video, I recommend that you go watch it.
But to summarize, the Bible tells us that even in the first century, there were heretics
creeping into churches and teaching false doctrine.
As it is written in 2 Corinthians 2 17, for we are not as many which corrupt the word
of God, but as a sincerity, but as of God and the sight of God speak we in Christ.
So even a few decades after Christianity began, there were people already who were changing
and corrupting the word of God.
For some reason, people have this illogical concept that for errors and corruptions of
the text, there has to be something that happens over time.
Like the text just gradually evolves.
Like if there's any errors in the Bible, it happened over time.
It came centuries later.
Well, that's not true at all.
All it takes is one copy.
I mean, you just have to get the original manuscript, let's just say the book of Matthew,
for example, the actual piece of paper that Matthew wrote on.
Somebody could get a hold of that and they could copy that and write something different.
They could change a verse or a word here and there.
They could just remove something right then.
They don't have to just gradually change it over hundreds of years in order for it to
be a mistake.
That copy could be perpetuated and the mistake could therefore continue into following centuries.
So even in the first century, there are corruptions of the word of God.
But the Bible also promises us that the Lord will preserve his word and keep it into all
generations.
Or even among corruptions, there is still the true word of God.
Now, the textual critics claim that the Alexandrian text type, which are the manuscripts which
the modern versions are based off of, they claim that those are the most accurate, that
those are the best manuscripts because they're supposedly the oldest.
But by oldest, they mean the fourth century, nearly 300 years after Paul said that there
were already many that were corrupting the word of God.
So I'm going to give a summary of how the King James Bible was translated, where it
comes from, and where the modern versions come from.
And you tell me which one sounds like it's more accurate.
The Hebrew Old Testament of the King James was mainly based off of the Masoretic text
of the Hebrew.
And the Greek New Testament is based off of what is called the Byzantine text type, also
known as the majority text.
It's called the majority text because of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
which exist.
Over 95% of them belong to this text type.
That means that all of the codices and the manuscripts which exist, 95% of them agree
within the text and say the same thing.
Now, in the 1500s, a scholar named Erasmus compiled most of these Greek texts to form
a single completed Greek New Testament, first in what is called the Confutengen Polyglot,
which was the entire Bible containing the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin side by side.
Then in 1516, he published the first printed Greek New Testament on its own called the
Novum Testamentum Omne.
Through continual study, several new editions of this text were published in the following
years which corrected minor errors.
The first printed English translation from this Greek text was made by William Tyndale
who translated the New Testament in English and who was burned at the stake by the Roman
Catholic Church for doing so.
Tyndale's New Testament was edited and the Old Testament was translated by Miles Coverdale
and was published as the Great Bible in 1539.
Now, there are some translations in between and a little bit after, I'm not going to go
over every single English translation which was made during this time, but they pretty
much all said the same thing and were all worked on and based off of the earlier versions
which were made.
Several other scholars worked on revising and translating the English Bible in several
other versions in the next few decades all under the threat of persecution.
Now, the most commonly used one for many years was the Geneva Bible which was published in
1560 and then the Bishop's Bible was the most commonly used among clergy published in 1568.
All of these were translated from the Greek majority text and were very similar in their
readings.
Now, in 1550, a man named Stephanus edited further the Greek text published by Erasmus.
This revising became simply known as the Texas Receptus or received text simply because it
was based on the Greek manuscript which has been used and passed down for centuries.
Now, Stephanus' Texas Receptus was then edited by Theodore Beza in 1588 and again in 1598.
From this Texas Receptus, both the one that was published by Beza and then also the one
published by Stephanus, from those were translated the King James Bible.
In 1604, King James of England commissioned 54 scholars to produce a new translation of
the Bible.
These 54 scholars were split into groups of six which would work on different sections
of the Bible.
Each of these were fluent in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other classical languages.
For example, one of the translators, the English Bishop Lancelot Andrews, knew over 15 languages
including Syriac, Aramaic, and Arabic among many other classical languages which was very
helpful in the translation because he could compare with other translations and other
languages.
Now during translations, the translators prayed for three hours a day for the Lord to give
them guidance in translating and during the translating process continued to compare manuscripts
in Greek alongside manuscripts in other languages like Latin and Syriac.
After seven years of hard work, the King James translators published the King James Bible
in 1611.
Now that Bible replaced all other previous versions including the popular Geneva Bible
and Bishop's Bible and became the standard in the English language for hundreds of years
and is still the most widely used Bible in the English language today and has been the
Bible used by missionaries sent from England, the United States, and other English-speaking
nations for the last few centuries.
Millions of people have been led to the Lord through the preaching of the King James Bible
with its great power and ability to change the life of many, many people.
But in the mid-19th century, a manuscript was discovered called the Codex Sinaiticus
by a man named Konstantin von Tischendorf.
He found the text in a wastebasket at a monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, hence the name Codex
Sinaiticus.
It was ready to be burned because it was deemed as completely useless having been untouched
for well over a thousand years due to its obvious scribal errors, erasures, and removal
of verses from the Greek text.
However, because this text was deemed as older, being from the 4th century, the textual critics
of the 19th century came to the erroneous conclusion that it was somehow closer to the
original text.
Another manuscript known as the Codex Vaticanus, which had been stored in the Vatican library
for several hundred years, was similar in some ways to the Sinaiticus text and also
considered to be one of the oldest manuscripts and therefore more reliable since it was also
from the 4th century.
In the 1880s, two textual critics named Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published a new Greek
edition of the New Testament, which were mainly based on those two manuscripts, the Codex
Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.
Since both of these texts were different from the Byzantine text type or the majority text,
the Westcott Hort Greek text differed in many places significantly from the Texas Herceptus.
From this new Greek text was published the first modern version called the English Revised
Version or the ERV, and from the ERV came the ASV, the American Standard Version, in
1901, then the RSV, which has been revised further from that version in 1952.
And although the King James Version remained in popular use by this time, there was a slow
change in the mid-20th century towards these modern versions.
Now throughout the 20th century, the Westcott Hort text was edited minorly first by a man
named Eberhard Nestle, who continuously published new versions and editions revising the Greek
New Testament based on new manuscript findings.
Another influential textual critic was Kurt Alland, the associate editor of the 21st edition
of the Nestle text, and currently the accepted Greek New Testament is the Nestle-Alland text,
which is in its 28th edition.
Towards the end of the 20th century, new versions began to be published in the English language,
all using the Alexandrian Greek text as their source.
In 1971 came the NASB, or the New American Standard Bible, which was popular among preachers
and theologians of the time.
Then in 1978 came the first edition of the NIV, or New International Version, which was
revived and published again in 1984, and then it was revised and published again in 2011.
Now there are hundreds of new versions which have been published since then, which I could
talk about.
There's the NLT, the ESV, the CSB, the, you know, I don't even know all of them, but there
are all kinds of different acronyms and things like that.
You can find on like Bible Gateway, Bible Hub, all the different versions that they
have out there, but most of them have been published within the last 20 or 30 years.
Because of copyright laws, it's necessary that each Bible differs from the other in
at least 4% of the text, therefore making each version slightly different.
So that's how the King James Version came about and how the modern versions came about.
Now here's the problem with the modern versions and why I refuse to use them both in my personal
study and on this channel.
Firstly, the source is undoubtedly corrupt.
As I've already explained, God promised to preserve His Word in all generations.
Jesus said that His Word will never pass away.
I believe what God said, that it's not just the main idea, but the actual words which
would never pass away.
The belief and the inspiration of God's Word is useless if you don't believe that God's
people have had God's real Word.
That doesn't make any sense.
It's written that the Scriptures make us wise unto salvation, that it's profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might
be perfect.
The Word of God is the truth, to say that it's passed away from the truth and that fallible
man without the guidance of God must restore it is absurd.
Here's the fact about the Greek manuscripts.
The King James Version was translated from the Texas Receptus, meaning the received text.
As I pointed out earlier, it was called such because it was passed down since the time
of Jesus Christ, and therefore literally thousands of manuscripts agreed in the same reading.
The Greek text has always said the same thing in the majority of the manuscripts, and even
when it's translated into other languages, it said the same thing.
As they were copied and spread throughout different parts of the Roman Empire in the
early days of Christianity, the early Christians read the same exact thing, but hundreds of
years later, texts which had variant readings appeared, and somehow because they're the
oldest and because they're around today, that somehow makes them more accurate, despite
there being really only two complete ones, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
I think there's a third one.
I don't know if it's complete.
I think it's just like the Gospels or something.
It's called the Codex Alexandrinus, and there's only a handful of other minor manuscripts
which agree with these.
Now, just stop and think for a moment.
Let's say a publishing company prints a thousand newspapers and spreads them throughout a certain
city.
Let's say two out of the thousand newspapers were messed up or messed with by some publisher
who wanted to change the story a bit.
What makes more sense, that the 998 newspapers were the corrupted ones or the two were the
corrupted ones?
I mean, it makes no sense to say that because we think these manuscripts are older, that
somehow makes them better, even though they've been buried for over a thousand years.
The Codex Sinaiticus was literally dug out of a trash can.
The Vaticanus was stored in the Vatican library, but somehow that makes it the reliable, preserved
word of God.
The only reason why they survived for so long is because nobody was using them.
See, if I have a book, let's just say this Bible right here, and I use it every day,
I flip the pages, open it up, it's going to wear out and eventually decay.
I mean, I've only had this Bible for about a year and a half, and already the pages in
the back are starting to fall out.
You can see on the bottom, I don't know if you can tell, I don't know if you could tell,
but right here, this is the New Testament, obviously, and I use the New Testament a little
bit more than the Old Testament.
You can kind of see where the pages are creased and worn out at the bottom because they have
the gold, what's it called, the gold coating.
Down here it's worn out because of how many times I flip it.
I tend to flip on the bottom of the page instead of on the top, so that's where that comes
from.
So already, after only a year and a half of use, my Bible is being worn out, and this
is with modern printing, this is with modern technology.
Imagine what it was like 1,500 years ago where it was on papyrus and they didn't have printing,
they didn't have as good preservation techniques and things like that.
So if I flip this and use it every day for my life, I can guarantee this Bible that I
use will fall apart in probably a couple decades and I'll probably have to get a new one.
But if I have a book which is never touched, which I just store away somewhere underground
or in a library or something, it's much more likely that it will survive for a longer period
of time because it's never been used.
It won't decay as quickly, it won't fall apart.
But as explained earlier, even in the days of Paul, people were already corrupting the
Word of God according to 2 Corinthians 2.17.
It's not a difficult concept to figure out that even in the 4th century we would find
manuscripts that have been corrupted.
Just because it's a bit older doesn't prove anything at all.
It only shows that its ability to survive shows its worthlessness, since it's never
been copied to later versions, since it was buried away and not preserved by God, since
God's people never used it.
It's not the Bible.
It's simple.
I don't know why it's so difficult for people to figure this out.
Anybody who's seen pictures of the Codex Sinaiticus knows that throughout the years it had been
edited.
There's certain places where things have been erased and rewritten and words and verses
have been entirely removed.
It's literally a piece of junk.
Why it was going to be burned at the monastery because it was unused, it was buried away.
People who owned it could clearly see on the pages that the verses and the words had been
carelessly removed and added.
Let me give a few examples of the verses which are missing from these manuscripts and therefore
are missing from the modern versions.
Usually if they're included in the modern versions there's a footnote at the bottom
or on the side or something like that that says something like, the best manuscripts
remove this verse or something like that.
You'll find that in a lot of the modern versions which don't flat out remove these verses.
And of course by best manuscripts they actually mean the worst manuscripts.
But they're doing the work of Satan and asking the question that Satan asked to Eve in Genesis
3, Yea hath God said.
They're saying, well these versions are not reliable because we said so.
Because the best manuscripts, even though the reader, most readers out there have no
understanding of the manuscript issue at all, they have no understanding of what best manuscript
means.
They're asking these translators because they said so and they know that people are gullible
like that so they're going to fall for it and be deceived by the deception of Satan.
Now here are a list of verses which are missing from the modern versions as a result of the
changes made to the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Matthew 17 21 says, how be it this kind goeth not out by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18 verse 11 says, for the son of man has come to save that which is lost.
Matthew 23 verse 14, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you devour
widows houses and for pretense make long prayer, therefore you shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 7 16, if any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 9 44, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 11 26, but if you do not forgive, neither will your father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.
Luke 15 28, and the scripture was fulfilled which saith and he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 17 36, two men shall be in the field and the one shall be taken and the other left.
On 5 4, for an angel went down in a certain season into the pool and troubled the water,
whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever
disease he had.
Acts 8 37, and Philip said, if thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest, and he answered
and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15 34, notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24 verse 6 to 8, it would have judged according to our law, but the chief captain
Lysias came upon us and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding
his accusers to come unto thee.
Acts 28 29, and when he had said these words the Jews departed and had great reasoning
among themselves.
Romans chapter 16 verse 24, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
Amen.
1 John 5 7, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Goats, and these three are one.
All these verses are omitted in the modern versions.
And although these are the main 16 verses which have been removed, there are other verses
and fragments of verses which have been taken out in some versions as well due to their
absence in some of the Alexandrian text.
This includes the following.
Matthew 20 16, for many be called but few chosen.
Mark 6 11, verily I say unto you it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in
the day of judgment than for that city.
Luke 4 8, get thee behind me Satan.
Luke 9 56, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy men's lie but to save them.
Acts 9 5 to 6, it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
And the Lord said unto him, Acts 23 9, let us not fight against God.
Now those are things which have been flat out removed from the modern versions.
You won't find that in the modern versions.
But there are also some passages with the modern versions put down on by putting them
in parentheses or adding notes that these are spurious and aren't in the original text
and things like that.
And therefore anybody who picks up the NIV and gets to verses like this, they assume
that these are not reliable stories because the translators put that note in there that
says, this is not in the original manuscript.
This is spurious.
This is dubious.
This is not really the word of God.
This is just something that was added later.
That's what they'll say, even though they include it in the text and therefore the readers
just kind of ignore these passages a lot of the times.
I'm going to read one of the passages which has been removed from the Alexandrian text
and is therefore, doubt is placed on in the modern versions.
Get ready.
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene
out of whom he had cast seven devils.
And she went and told them that had been with him as they mourned and wept.
And they when they had heard that he was alive and had been seen of her, believed not.
After that he appeared in another form unto two of them as they walked and went into the
country.
And they went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them.
After he appeared unto the leaven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their
unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after
he was risen.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Me that believeth in his baptized shall be saved, me that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe, and my name shall they cast out devils.
They shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them.
They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on
the right hand of God.
And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming
the word with signs following.
Amen.
Well if you didn't recognize that, that's the last eleven verses of the book of Mark
which have been entirely removed from these so-called best manuscripts.
Now what's funny is that even in these older manuscripts you can clearly see at the end
of the book of Mark that there's a blank space where the verses could have been written.
There's just a large empty column.
You can find the Codex Sinaiticus online and just look up Mark 16 to see this.
That's just a large empty column as if they could have put it there but they just chose
not to.
Or they just forgot or maybe they just never did because maybe they were working on something
and they died or whatever and it was just unfinished.
The Alexandria text also removes the following passage, and every man went unto his own house.
Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives and early in the morning he came again unto the temple
and all the people came unto him and he sat down and taught them and the scribes and Pharisees
brought unto him a woman taken adultery and when they had set her in the midst they sang
unto him, Master, this woman was taken adultery in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stone but what sayest thou?
This they said tempting him that they might have to be able to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he heard them
not.
So when they continued asking him he lifted up himself and said unto them, He that is
without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground and they which heard it being convicted
by their own conscience went out one by one beginning at the eldest even unto the last
and Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst.
And Jesus had lifted up himself and saw none but the woman.
He said unto her, Woman, where are thine accusers?
Hath no man condemned thee?
He said, No man, Lord.
And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.
That's a long passage.
It's the last verse of John 7 and the first 11 verses of John 8, a total of 12 verses
completely missing and removed from the text.
And the modern versions place doubt on these verses as well.
So don't believe the lie that some Christians for some reason actually believe.
They say that the purpose of the modern version is just to help them understand the Bible.
Just making it easier to read because they make this weird claim that the King James
Bible is written in Old English, which is not even true.
Anybody who speaks English can open the King James Bible and understand it if they're safe.
There's an agenda behind the modern versions.
It's not to make it easier to read.
It has nothing to do with that.
It's to change the Bible.
And regardless whether or not the Bible is easy to read is irrelevant.
If it's been corrupted, it's not God's word.
It doesn't matter whether or not it's easier to understand.
If you change either by adding or removing or changing what the words actually mean,
then you're changing God's inspired and preserved work.
It doesn't matter the difficulty of the text.
Not only that, but as I said, it's a complete lie to say that the modern versions have the
purpose of making it easier to understand.
In fact, people who usually state that the modern versions are easier, they've never
actually read the King James version and compared it with their own version.
They're mostly just Christians who let their Bible sit on their shelf and don't actually
read it.
Because if you actually pay attention in the modern versions and compare it with the King
James, there are a lot of examples in which the modern versions actually make it more
difficult to understand.
Here are a few examples, and you tell me which word is easier to understand, the King James
or the NIV.
In Ezekiel 40, 13, the King James says little chamber.
The NIV says alcove.
In 1 Kings 7, 6, the King James says porch, and the NIV says colonnade.
In Hosea 4, 13, the King James says elms.
The NIV says terebinz.
In Deuteronomy 21, verse 20, the King James says glutton.
The NIV says profligate.
In Exodus 28, 20, the King James says enclosings.
The NIV says filigree.
In 2 Kings 17, 32, the King James says sacrificed.
The NIV says officiate.
In Psalm 76, verse 4, the King James says glorious, and the NIV says resplendent.
In 1 Peter 4, 4, the King James says riot, and the NIV says dissipation.
In Jeremiah 46, verse 20, the King James says destruction, and the NIV says gadfly.
In Numbers 34, verse 5, the King James says river, and the NIV says wadi.
In Esther 1, 6, the King James says red, and the NIV says porphyry.
In Exodus 29, verse 14, the King James says dung, and the NIV says ophol.
In 2 Samuel, chapter 6, verse 5, the King James says cornets, and the NIV says cystrum.
In Judges 8, 13, the King James says the sun was up.
The NIV says the Pass of Harries, and the ESV says the ascent of Harries.
Now I don't think it takes a genius to understand which one is easier to read.
If you present these verses to a five-year-old, or let's just say a ten-year-old, even a ten-year-old
who is saved, who has the Spirit of God living inside of them, which one are they going to
understand better, the King James or the NIV?
Because most of these words that are used in the NIV are not used in common everyday
language.
I mean, to say that the NIV is just trying to update the language and make it easier
and same thing with the ESV and all these other versions is just a lie.
It doesn't make it easier to understand.
That's not the purpose at all.
The only reason why people sometimes have trouble understanding the King James Version
is because they're not saved.
They don't have the Holy Ghost inside of them to teach them what the Word of God actually
says.
Now that's especially true of the modern translators who created these versions and of the textual
critics who are responsible for the modern movement of questioning the text of Scripture.
I'm going to be talking about those people who are responsible for the creation of these
modern versions and the modern movement away from the King James.
Of course the first two are Westcott and Hord.
They're the ones who originally published the critical text in 1881 based on the Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and they also worked on the translated committee of the
English Revised Version, which is the first English modern Bible.
They were the heretics who rejected the clear teachings of Scripture and changed what the
Bible says.
A lot of people have this weird understanding of the Westcott and Hord text that somehow
it's more reliable, but if you actually know anything about Brooke Foss Westcourt and Fenton
John Anthony Hord, they were heretics.
They didn't even believe in the infallibility of God's Word.
They didn't believe in God's Word at all.
They were not Christians.
They were bishops.
They were Christians, but just nominal Christians who didn't actually believe what God's Word
said.
They had an agenda.
Let me give you a few examples by quotes from what they said.
Hord said the following, he said, I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance
of text, having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with a villainous textus receptus.
So they didn't just have the attitude that this is just a new text that is just a little
bit better or whatever.
They believe that the textus receptus is villainous.
They blasphemed what God's Word actually says.
And the reason behind it is clear because they were heretics who hated the Bible.
They didn't believe that it was authoritative.
Of course they're going to change the scriptures because they don't even believe it was inspired.
Hord said evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and
especially the authority of the Bible.
That's from Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hord, page 400.
He's saying that the evangelicals who say that the Bible is authoritative, he's saying
that they are perverted for believing that.
He said also I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden, I mean the popular notion
ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants
as Coleridge thusly argues.
And that's from Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hord, page 78.
So Fenton Hord, he didn't even believe that the Bible was the inspired Word of God.
This is the guy that people are trusting in to produce an authentic version of the Greek
scriptures which he treated it as if it was not a divine work, as if it was not divinely
written and inspired by God.
His denial of the Genesis account is further shown by the fact that he believed in evolution.
He wrote, have you read Darwin, and he wrote this to Westcott by the way, have you read
Darwin?
I would like to talk with you about it.
In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable.
In any case, it is a treat to read such a book.
That's Life and Letters page 414, where he's praising Charles Darwin, the creator of the
theory of evolution.
Now if you still aren't convinced that Fenton Hord was a wicked lying devil and not a Christian,
he said this about Christ's atonement, one of the most basic doctrines of the Bible and
of the faith.
He said in page 430 of Life and Letters, certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the
modern limiting of Christ bearing our sins and suffering to his death, but a deed that
is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.
He says that Christ's atonement on the cross, that his death, his shedding of his blood,
that that is what atones for our sins, he's saying that that is a universal heresy.
And I can go on and on about the basic doctrines of the Bible which Hort denied.
He was really a heretic of heretics.
He didn't believe in a literal hell.
He didn't believe in the book of Genesis.
He didn't believe in biblical inerrancy.
He didn't believe in the atonement.
He believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, et cetera.
Now Westcott, his colleague who also participated in the 1881 Greek version and also in the
ERV, he was also a heretic.
He denied also the book of Genesis.
He said, no one now I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example,
give a literal history.
I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did,
yet they disclosed to us a gospel.
That's from Life and Letters of Brookfoss, West Court, volume 2, page 69.
He's saying I can't believe anybody would ever say that Genesis is true.
Well, of course he can't believe that because he isn't saved, doesn't have the spirit of
God to help him understand clear scripture.
Now he also attacked the infallibility of scripture by saying simply I reject the word
infallibility of holy scripture overwhelming.
That's from Life and Letters of Brookfoss, West Court, volume 1, page 207.
Now Westcott was basically a Roman Catholic.
He leaned towards Roman Catholicism and many of his beliefs including the practice of venerating
Mary.
He said, after leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered
on the summit of a neighboring hill.
Fortunately we found the door open.
It is very small with one kneeling place and behind a screen was a pieta, the size of life,
i.e. a virgin and dead Christ.
Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours.
So he's going to a place, a Roman Catholic, a Roman Catholic trying and worshipping and
kneeling there and praying before the Virgin Mary.
He says he wants to do it for hours.
That's from Life and Letters of Brookfoss, West Court, volume 1, page 81.
Now there are many other heresies that we could talk about about these two men.
I suggest to just look up quotes from Westcott and Hort.
There's plenty of them that you can find and they're all pretty much from their own writings
from their own words of them denying the inspiration of the Bible.
I think they also denied the Trinity as well.
They denied the Atonement.
They didn't believe in a literal heaven.
I think Hort said that he believed in Purgatory or something like that and he said that he
didn't understand why modern Christians are attacking the Romish doctrine of Purgatory.
He says that it's clearly taught in Scripture or something along those lines but I think
the point is made.
These guys weren't even saved and yet somehow people think that they had the ability to
understand and to handle God's Word at all.
I mean just stop and think.
There's these two that believe in Roman Catholic doctrine.
They're using the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in a Catholic
monastery and they're using that to produce a new version of the Bible to replace the
Texas Receptus which had been translated in the midst of the Protestant Reformation
when believers were being killed by the Roman Catholic Church for translating the Bible.
If you don't think there's anything suspicious about that, you need to get your head checked.
They didn't have the Holy Spirit in them.
They weren't even saved.
They didn't even believe the Bible.
They didn't believe that it was absolute truth.
Of course they're going to treat it like it's not preserved.
They're going to treat it just like any other book and that's the source for the modern
Bibles, this West Connor Hort text.
I'm fully convinced that those who partake in the modern versions are going to be damned.
Remember at the beginning of this video that I read from Revelation 22 verse 18 to 19 which
warns that anybody who removes from that book, from the book of Revelation, would have their
name removed from the book of life.
So anybody who's ever tampered with the book of Revelation is surely going to hell and
it just so happens that the modern versions change the book of Revelation and I'm going
to give one example to make a certain point and that's Revelation 21, 24 and we can see
why they changed this very clearly.
It says in the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it and the kings
of the earth who bring their glory and honor into it.
That's from the King James Version.
The phrase of them which are saved is removed from many of the modern versions and I don't
think that that's coincidental because the phrase in Greek which is translated are saved
is exactly the same as the one which is used in 1 Corinthians 1.18 which says for the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness but unto us which are saved it
is the power of God.
The problem with the modern versions is that they change are saved in 1 Corinthians 1.18
into our being saved thus making it look like salvation is a process and not a one-time
thing which happens when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Bible clearly teaches
in many places.
So the NIV, the ESV and many of the other modern versions they all change that verse
and they coincidentally take out the phrase in Revelation 21, 24 that proves them wrong,
that proves that it's supposed to be are saved and not are being saved because there's no
doubt that in the New Jerusalem after the millennium everybody who is there is already
saved.
So if it says they are saved in the future of eternity and it says the same exact thing
in Greek in 1 Corinthians 1.18 that means that we are saved right now and are not being
saved progressively as the modern versions say.
The modern versions have a habit of changing verses which teach the gospel clearly so that
it corrupts salvation.
Another example which I could give is Matthew 7.14 where Jesus said straight is the gate
and narrows the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it.
The modern versions such as the NLT, the ESV and the New King James Version among others
they change few to difficult.
Making it seem like, or another word that some of them will use is hard.
So they'll say the way is hard or the way is difficult that leadeth unto life.
Making it seem like salvation is something that you have to work for, that it's something
that's difficult.
When Jesus said he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Salvation's not difficult, it's not hard.
What Jesus is saying in this verse in Matthew 7.14 is not that it's hard, he's saying that
there's few that are going to find it.
Has nothing to do with the ease of salvation.
Has everything to do with the number of people who are going to be saved.
And there are numerous other examples of that as well.
But I think I've made my point.
There's other verses which change believe to obey in the ESV and other versions like
that.
There's versions which take out where Jesus said he that believeth on me they'll just
take out on me to just believeth.
So it's not the faith is placed on Christ, he's not the object of your faith, they'll
take that out.
There's verses which will take out the word blood which talk about the importance of the
shed blood of Jesus Christ, they'll change that as well.
So the modern versions are nothing like the King James Version.
The issue of the Bible versions is very complex.
Hopefully I've made my point.
I'm trying to kind of get this across in as concisely as possible and as much information
as possible to explain it simply, hopefully you can understand it.
It gets really complex especially when you argue with people who are really stubborn
about using the newer versions.
But if I just want to summarize the points made in this video, it can be summarized like
this.
The King James Bible was a work of seven years of daily work by 54 scholars fluent in the
classical languages who actually believed the Bible, they prayed and trusted in God
to guide them in the translation, and it was based on nearly 80 years of previous work
by other scholars in the English language and translated from the Texas Receptives,
which is the Greek text which had been preserved for well over a millennium and which constituted
the majority of the manuscripts of the Greek language.
The King James Version when published became the primary English version used by English
speakers which has led millions of people to Christ throughout the centuries being the
most powerful and influential book ever written and ever published in the history of mankind.
Modern versions, however, are based primarily on only two manuscripts which have been buried
away for centuries which contradict themselves, show evidence of erasures and rewritings
and had dozens of missing verses and phrases.
These manuscripts were used by unbelievers, heretics who did not believe that the Bible
is God's word, to compile a new Greek text and from these Greek texts were translated
hundreds of new versions which are rolled out almost every year for Filthy Lucre's sake,
which contain numerous contradictions and changes to basic doctrines of the faith and
which have no power whatsoever.
I mean, have you ever read some of these newer versions?
It's like you're reading something written by a robot or something that was produced
by Google Translate.
They're terrible.
There's no power in them.
We know and believe that God inspired his word and preserved his word and the Bible
teaches that every word of God is pure and has been preserved.
It would simply make no sense to say that God's word is infallible, inspired, inerrant
and preserved and then say that there are multiple versions which are correct.
The differences between the NIV, ESV, NLT, et cetera, and the King James Version are
not minuscule.
Whole words, whole phrases and verses are entirely removed.
Some things are added.
Some words are translated entirely differently.
They say different things in many places.
You can't say, well, I believe that there are multiple right Bibles.
That doesn't make any sense.
If they say different things, they can't all be God's inspired and preserved word.
Only one can be God's word and I believe that that is the King James Version, the reliable
and trustworthy standard in the English language.
So that's why I'm King James only.
That's why I believe that the King James Bible is God's word.
Because of historical fact, because of what the Bible says, because of logic and many
other things.
It just simply doesn't make any sense to attack people who are King James only.
I mean, there's all kinds of weird attacks that they'll throw at us.
A lot of times it's just lies about what we believe.
But I think the issue is pretty clear.
God inspired and preserved his word.
His inspired and preserved word can be translated into all languages because God is the author
of all languages.
It was translated.
And this is the translation right here.
This is God's translated inspired word right here in my hand.
So what's the need for the modern Bibles which change it?
You can't say, well the NIV is right and the ESV is right.
They say different things.
You can't say the King James Version is right and the New King James Version is right when
they say different things.
You can't say the King James Version is right and the NIV is right when they say different
things.
Either one is God's word and one isn't.
One is God's word and one isn't.
You can't have both.
That doesn't make any sense.
That contradicts what the Bible says.
So hopefully I got my point across in this video.
I think that's all I have to say for now.
So if anybody ever has any questions about this in the future, this is the video I'll
refer them to.
Also just as a recommendation, if you have any, this is a book that I read like five
or six months ago.
This I think is a good summary of the issue.
It's called The More Sure Word.
Which Bible Can You Trust is written by R.B.
Ouellette.
You can find this online at Striving Together Publications.
This is a book that I recommend to read.
There are a lot of books out there about the King James issue.
I've only read a few of them so I can't really recommend all of them but this is the one
that I particularly recommend if you want more information because obviously I'm not
going to sit here and talk for four hours.
I think I've made the point.
So thank you everybody for watching, goodbye and God bless you.