Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe,
Arizona to continue my response to the King James only controversy by Dr. James White.
Today I'm going to be dealing with chapter 7 on textual differences.
Now if you remember chapter 6 was about translational differences.
There are two reasons why the modern versions differ so dramatically from the King James
version and one of those reasons is a difference in translation.
They're translated much differently.
And then the other reason is that they are translated from a different underlying Greek
text in the New Testament.
And so if you want to know more about that, I did a whole sermon a while back called Two
Problems with the Modern Versions and I explain those two issues in great detail.
But in this chapter we're dealing with textual differences.
So here's what he says at the very beginning of the chapter, the largest portion of the
alleged textual changes in the modern versions has to do with differences in the underlying
Greek texts.
We've already discussed how such textual variants arose and how it is not necessary to assume
malevolent evil motivations on the part of Alexandrian scribes to understand why manuscripts
and manuscript families differ.
So what he's saying here is what he says throughout the book is kind of a common theme in the
book of there is no conspiracy.
There aren't these evil forces at work to change God's word.
It's no big deal.
And all of these differences in Bible versions, these textual variants, they're just accidents.
People got careless.
They made mistakes.
There's no agenda is what he's trying to say.
Okay.
Now here's what's so ridiculous about that.
If you start out in Genesis, the very first thing the devil does is question God's word
and try to plant seeds of doubt in Eve's mind when he says, Yea hath God said?
So he starts out by questioning God's word.
The Bible tells us in second Corinthians, we are not as many which corrupt the word
of God.
So there are many people out there who corrupt the word of God.
And then the Bible ends in Revelation chapter 22.
The last curse is a curse on those who would change the Bible.
He says that if anyone adds to the words of the book of this prophecy and if anyone takes
away from the words of the prophecy of this book and he puts that that curse upon people
who would add to or remove from his word.
So James White just acts like this isn't even a thing.
He basically just says there's no conspiracy and he mocks the fact that it's constantly
being brought up that the new versions are based on Alexandrian manuscripts and that
it's the Alexandrian text time.
Folks, Alexandria is in Egypt.
Egypt in the Bible is always a symbol of wickedness, ungodliness, worldliness.
And so it's obvious that, yeah, there is an evil agenda on the part of Alexandrian
scribes.
James White's totally wrong about this.
Now one of the things that he brings up in this chapter are the 16 entire verses that
are completely removed from the modern versions.
Now remember, James White says, hey, there's no evil or malevolent agenda here.
It's all just by carelessness or accident or well-intentioned scribes making mistakes
as he explained in previous chapters, but let me just read for you the 16 verses that
are removed and I'm going to show you that these are strategic changes.
There is an agenda here and it's pretty easy to see what that agenda is when you go through
these different changes.
These are the verses that are removed.
Matthew 17 21, how be it this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18 11, for the son of man has come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 23 14, woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye devour widows' houses and
for a pretense make long prayer, therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
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 9 46, 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.
Mark 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, the one shall be taken and the other left.
John 5 4, for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water
and 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 7, but the chief captain Lysias came upon us and with great violence took him away
out of our hands.
Acts 28 29, and when he had said these words the Jews departed and had great reasoning
among themselves.
Romans 16 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 Ghost, and these three are one.
So out of all those verses that I read to you, many of them are extremely significant.
They have a lot of doctrinal significance and so you can see what the agenda would be
to remove these verses.
Now some of these verses admittedly don't seem like they have a doctrinal agenda and
they do seem like they were just a careless mistake or whatever, but some of these do.
Let me give you the ones that I think are very significant.
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
That's very significant.
That's very important regarding the purpose of Christ coming and I'm going to get to that
later in this video, but that's pretty important because a lot of people will just make it
out that he just came to show us a better way or show us how to live our lives.
So you know that's a key point right there.
I think Matthew 23 14 is a very key point when he talks about people receiving the greater
damnation.
You know showing that everyone's punishment isn't the same.
Everyone's damnation isn't the same.
There's a false doctrine out there that says that all sin is equal, but if all sins equal
then why did Jesus tell Pontius Pilate, he that delivered me unto you has the greater sin.
Here he told them that they would receive the greater damnation.
Okay Mark 9 44 and 46 where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
Those are some terrifying verses about hell and we're going to get to that more later in the video.
But if you do not forgive neither will your father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
You know that's pretty important of a verse.
The Bible says in 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.
It's super easy to figure out what the agenda is there because the vast majority of so-called
Christianity baptizes babies.
And so this verse would be a fly in the ointment when he says what does hinder me to be baptized
and the answer is if thou believeth with all thine heart thou mayest.
And he answered and said I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
You know that shows that you have to believe on Christ before you can be baptized.
So that's a very extremely important verse and you can easily see why all of the baby
baptizers would want to remove that verse which is pretty much all of your Catholics,
your Orthodox and most of your Protestants.
You know that want to that want to baptize babies.
That verse would be a problem for them.
So you can see why it would be removed.
Of course 1 John 5 7 for there are three that bear record in heaven the Father the Word
and the Holy Ghost and these three are one important verse on the Trinity.
So some of these don't seem as critical like let's say Acts 15 34 notwithstanding it pleased
Silas to abide there still.
But everything in the Bible is of course important.
I'm not saying that they're not important but some of these are very important and they
are teaching important doctrines and you can see an agenda behind removing these powerful
or kind of hard edged verses.
Some great preaching would come from these verses.
So there is an agenda at work here but you say well what about the ones where there is
no agenda like you know notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
I don't know of any agenda why that would be removed.
I would say this number one they could just be carelessness mistakes.
You know of course those things happen on things where there's not an agenda at work.
But another thing that I would point out is that maybe the devil is just taking out key
verses and then he's also taking out verses that aren't as key just to throw us off the
trail.
You know for example I know Target was a pioneer in their marketing campaign where they would
send people ads based on a profile that they had of what you purchase when you're in the
store.
In fact there is even a story about a young lady who Target knew she was pregnant before
she even knew she was pregnant because of their algorithms based on what she's buying
when she comes in the store.
And a lot of people were very disturbed by the way Target was profiling their customers.
Now if they paid cash it wouldn't work but anybody who went to Target and shopped with
a credit card they kept a profile on each person and they would sell that information
to other people and so Target would send out an ad in the mail to you and you assumed that
it was just their sales and promotions same as everybody else is getting.
But in fact it turned out that Target's mailer of what was on sale and what was being sold
was actually tailor made for the people that they sent it to based on what they liked and
what they purchased.
But what Target found in their studies was that if they targeted everything toward you
to where you just opened the Target ad and it was all the stuff you were into all the
stuff you like that disturbed people it was too obvious people figured it out and it made
them very uncomfortable.
So what they would do is let's say they know that a woman is pregnant or she just had a
baby they want to come at her with all the baby supplies and things that they know she's
going to be into but then they would also just put like a lawnmower on the page or a
set of tools or something that they knew she wasn't interested in because they didn't want
to lay it on too thick or make it too obvious.
So that could be another reason why the devil makes all these really significant changes
like changes affecting salvation like we talked about in previous videos affecting salvation
doctrine affecting the doctrines of hell affecting the Trinity affecting important
things but then he'll also just maybe just throw in a bunch of changes that don't even
matter just to basically make it not so obvious so that people like James White could say
oh there's no agenda there's no conspiracy nothing to see here folks just move along
you know nobody would try to corrupt the Bible here don't worry about it.
So there is a conspiracy folks and the verses that are removed are significant and by themselves
they may not seem like a big deal but when you combine these 16 missing verses with all
the thousands of other changes many of them work together to produce specific agendas
and I've and I've gone through what those agendas are in my preaching many times.
So let's move on in this chapter the next section is called the process of determining
a reading.
So he goes into the rationale behind the decisions that the modern textual critics would use
in determining you know which reading to go with okay when we know why to deviate from
the Texas Receptus and go with you know something different.
So here's what he says on page 193 the vast majority of scholars he's saying follows the
perspective that has given rise to such modern Greek texts as the United Bible Society's
fourth edition and the Nestle-Allen 27th edition this approach basically can be characterized
as eclectic in that each reading is examined on its own merits and no absolutely overriding
rule is used to artificially decide every variant.
So what he's saying here is that the modern versions the NIV the New American Standard
the ESV are based on what's known as an eclectic text.
They go back to the Nestle-Allen 27th edition or the UBS 4th edition I'm sure you know since
this book's older I'm sure that we've gotten to I think UBS 5th edition or 28th edition
Nestle-Allen or whatever but the point is he's saying it's an eclectic text meaning
that they don't always go with what Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are saying they don't always
go with what the Byzantine text type is saying they're not always going to follow the papyri
they're not always going to follow the western text type or the Alexandrian text type what
they're going to do is pick and choose where they take some things from the Byzantine some
things from Egypt some things from the Western and basically just each verse they're going
to decide what the best reading of that individual verse is on its own and they're not going
to use the same principles every time they're just basically on each verse just deciding
what they think that verse should say and not basing it on one overarching principle
like you know we're always going to go with the majority text or we're always going to
go with the received text or we're always going to go with the Alexandrian text type
okay now let me just explain this to you for example you know the Jehovah's Witness Bible
is 100% the Alexandrian text type okay the Jehovah's Witness New Testament the New World
translation is based 100% on the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus okay now you will find a ton
of similarities between the New World translation and say the NIV because the NIV follows the
Alexandrian text type a lot they follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus a lot but they use an eclectic
text so whereas the New World translation is 100% following Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
the modern versions are based on an eclectic text so basically the New World translation
is even worse than the NIV it's even it's even farther from the truth because it's just
hook line and sinker for the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament which is you know
99% Sinaiticus Vaticanus it's it's an Alexandrian New Testament whereas the UBS fourth edition
the Nestle Allen 27th edition they're not just hook line and sinker for the Alexandrian
text type but rather they're eclectic so sometimes they will go with with readings that match
the King James they will go with the Byzantine majority or whatever so they take it on a
case-by-case basis is what he's explaining there okay so basically they're producing
a text type that never existed okay because they're they're they're doing like this smorgasbord
where they're taking some stuff from the east some stuff from the west some stuff from Egypt
and just kind of put it all together and make their own unique eclectic text okay and eclectic
the word eclectic simply means that they have chosen in each case and they have taken
from a variety of sources so because it's coming from a variety of sources it's known
as the eclectic text okay so he's saying you know most scholars believe in this eclectic
approach okay where they're taking a little bit of everything then on the next page he
says this that is one reason why kjv onlyism has found no true proponent among Christian
scholars the position inherently is anti-intellectual anti-scholarship and anti-freedom so he says
if you're King James only you're anti-intellectual you're anti-scholarship and you're anti-freedom
and that's why he says kjv onlyism has found no true proponent amongst Christian scholars
but here's my question what defines what a scholar is he says you know there are no real
King James only is among scholars because you know King James onlyism is just anti-scholarship
okay well what defines a scholar you know a scholar is someone who devotes their life to
study okay you know what this reminds me of when he says this it reminds me of when scientists
will say well no real scientist believes in creationism you know all the real scientists
believe in you know the Big Bang and evolution no real sign even though there are scientists
of course that do believe in creation and the young earth they'll constantly say well no real
scientist you know believes in it or they'll say this well no real scientist questions global
warming you know every real scientist for global warming let me give you an illustration this is
basically like saying well every Catholic priest you know believes in Catholicism I mean you can't
show me a real Catholic priest who doesn't believe in it like for example you'll point out a scientist
who doesn't believe in evolution and they'll say yeah but is he an evolutionary biologist it's like
well if he doesn't believe in evolution why would he become an evolutionary biologist that's like
saying oh well sure you can find preachers that'll be against the Catholic Church but none of them
are Catholic priests and that's the ridiculous logic okay so here's the thing basically to be
a scholar let's bring it back to what we're talking about here to be a scholar in James
White's mind you have to basically go to one of these seminaries one of these institutions that's
gonna give you your master's degree or your PhD or your Doctor of Divinity and of course these
big schools and institutions they all believe in the corrupt textual critical Nestle-Allen UBS
approach so therefore yeah people who go through that system for eight years or six years or
whatever they come out not being King James only because that school is teaching them not to be
King James only and if someone were actually King James only they wouldn't want to go to that
seminary they wouldn't want to go to that school so therefore no one who has the degrees or
credentials that would make James White consider him a scholar would be a King James only is because
that'd be like saying well no no evolutionary biologists reject evolution because yeah once
you go to their school and spend six years there you're either gonna quit the school because they're
lying to you or if you go through that whole six-year program you believe like them so this
is ridiculous to say oh it's rejected by scholars well who decides who is a scholar and you know
what I've noticed is that if you're an independent fundamental Baptist or if you're King James only
it doesn't matter how much reading you do it doesn't matter how many books you read how many
languages you speak how much study you do you'll never be considered intellectual or smart by this
world or by mainstream Christianity look I personally get accused of being uneducated every
single day of my life there's not a day that goes by that I don't get a comment on YouTube or an
email telling me you're ignorant you're uneducated you don't know what you're talking about now look
I'm not saying that I'm the smartest person and I know that there are many men that are much smarter
than me and and there are many people who've studied a lot more than I have and then have a
lot more knowledge but to say that I'm uneducated is just simply ridiculous you know I'm very
educated I speak several languages I've read the Bible cover to cover in several languages I've
read the New Testament cover to cover in a ton of languages and you know I love studying I spend
hours a day studying okay but I will never be a scholar in the mind of James Wyatt or anyone else
no matter how much study I do I mean I could literally devote the next 20 years of my life
to intense Bible study an intense study of Greek and Hebrew and Latin and everything else and you
know what they'd still say you're uneducated you're ignorant you know you've never tried I mean look
it doesn't matter what I do because I'm a fundamental Baptist because I'm King James
only I will never be classified as a scholar and and neither will any other King James preacher be
classified as a scholar period just like anybody who believes in a young earth anybody who believes
in the creation account of the Bible is never going to be taken seriously by the scientific
community okay why because of the fact that that's not their agenda that doesn't fit their narrative
so a lot of these scholars I've got a news flash for you they're not as smart as they think they
are or even as you might think they are they're not that you know they put on their pants one leg
at a time like everyone else and there are many Baptist pastors that are very intelligent very
well-read that that do speak the original languages but you know according to James
White well there's no real scholars you know well that's because they're not in the club okay same
thing with creation you know I wonder I wonder what James White believes about creation I wonder
if James White believes in evolution because I mean you know James White there's no serious
scientist out there who rejects evolution James White so you must be an evolutionist you know I'm
not gonna speculate about what his beliefs are about that but it's the same type of logic and
it's just this ad hominem insulting if you're King James you're anti-intellectual and you're
anti-scholarship no we're not anti-scholarship you know we're all for studying but while they're
rewriting the Bible we're rereading the Bible okay so yeah we're all for scholarship but we're not
for digging in the ground trying to find the Word of God because we already have the Word of God we
got the King James Bible in our hand so we devote our lives to studying the King James Bible okay
studying the Word of God that's been preserved not studying a bunch of church fathers and digging up
old manuscripts and reading corrupt Bibles okay so we're not scholars well no no you can be just as
scholarly studying the Bible and rereading the Bible you don't have to rewrite the Bible to be
a scholar and you can be intellectual by building your understanding of the Word of God even if you
don't go to some institution of higher learning and get all this junk this liberal garbage and
ecumenical garbage crammed down your throat anyway I got to move on I'm spending way too much time on
that point but page 195 he asked the question upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine
text simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history was the best representative
of the original writings during those vital first few centuries if we were to transport ourselves to
AD 200 and look at the New Testament text at that time ignoring for the moment what was to come
later what would we find the evidence right now indicates that this text looked most like the
Alexandrian text type how do we know this every papyrus manuscript that we've discovered has been
a representative of the Alexandrian text type now what I want to point out first of all is that he
says the evidence right now indicates that this text looked most like the Alexandrian text type
you know what that means that if future discoveries are made James White will change his Bible so
that's why they're on the 27th 28th edition folks because when something new is dug up they'll
change what the Bible says they'll change verses in the Bible they would even make dramatic changes
if they found some treasure trove of of all these wonderful papyri from the 2nd century AD or 3rd
century AD in Egypt but they would just be thrilled and come unglued and they would all change their
Bibles they would make dramatic changes in their Bible if that's what they found okay which is
scary how their text just keeps changing keeps changing keeps changing folks the Bible doesn't
change okay and so the Bible is either preserved or it's not either we have the Word of God or we
don't and so he's even leaving an allowance to change his Bible in the future okay so the
evidence right now indicates that the text looked most like the Alexandrian text type so he's saying
you know if we could get a time machine and go back to the year 200 AD and look at the New
Testament what would it look like let's forget everything we know about what happened later and
let's just let's just guess based on these few little scraps of evidence we have from back then
now why would we want to make a decision ignoring as he says ignoring what was to come later folks
the fact that the King James Bible and the Byzantine text type became the Bible in the
english-speaking world for hundreds of years and that the entire Protestant Reformation that whole
period of time all of the Bibles in all of the languages French German Icelandic Hungarian Spanish
were all based on the textus receptus they were all Byzantine type texts that were translated why
would we ignore that that's God's Providence that's the Bible that God preserved and passed down to
us but he wants to throw that out the fact that there are just millions and millions and millions
of Bibles for hundreds and hundreds of years all from the textus receptus he wants to throw that
out and say well what about these little scraps of papyrus found in Egypt you know if we forget
every let's forget all those millions of Bibles let's forget all those thousand and thousand
manuscripts and let's just you know forget all that and get in our time machine and and I think
we're gonna find it to look like these papyri now here's what's wrong with this logic let me
illustrate it this way okay let's talk about the Old Testament for a moment okay until the 20th
century the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament only went back to around a thousand
ad okay so there were no Old Testament manuscripts before a thousand ad okay so why is that you know
you had you had New Testament manuscripts that that went back further but Old Testament manuscripts
only went back to like a thousand ad and this even caused some people to have crazy theories
about the fact that the Old Testament you know wasn't even written until around the time of
Christ or so you know just stupid things but in the 20th century with the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls you found Old Testament Bible manuscripts that went back to around the time of Christ and
you know one or two hundred years before the time of Christ a little bit after the time of Christ but
Old Testament manuscripts from around that time and let me just emphasize that there were there
were zero New Testament texts found at the Dead Sea Scrolls it's all Old Testament material okay
now stop and think about this folks okay here we've got the Old Testament that has been passed
down passed down passed down passed down right but the oldest manuscript evidence we have only
goes back to a thousand ad who cares what the Jews were doing is they would basically copy the
Old Testament text from one manuscript to another and then they would destroy the old one so they
they have an old beat-up copy of the Old Testament they would copy a new copy and then take the old
one and throw it in the trash okay that's what they did that's why there weren't any manuscripts
that predated around a thousand AD another thing that they would often do is recycle okay so some
of the materials that they would write on could actually be washed and reused so what you'll see
tons of evidence of people doing is taking an old ancient manuscript washing it off scrubbing it
clean erasing it basically and then using that material to make a new manuscript okay so throughout
history the the majority has been throwing their old Bible in the trash and getting a new one okay
just like me whenever I wear out a Bible when I have a Bible that gets worn out and falling apart
I throw it in the garbage and I buy a new one I don't just enshrine it and keep it most people
when something gets old and falling apart they just throw it away don't you know we don't want
to be a pack rat or a hoarder so I don't keep broken Bibles I throw them in the garbage okay
that's what people have done throughout history and especially if they could recycle it and use
that material for something else that's what they did but the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some accurate
Old Testament manuscripts but they also contain a lot of corrupt Old Testament manuscripts they
also contain evidence of people rewriting the Old Testament and changing things and and and you know
writing variations on it and and and twisting it and changing it but here's what you have to
understand is that at the time of Christ okay around the turn of that millennium you have
approximately six or seven million Jews living at that time right so you got like six or seven
million Jews at that time and this Qumran community where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found
had about a hundred and fifty people in it max at any given time okay so this is this tiny group
that lives out in the desert out in the middle number it's it's what we would call today a cult
okay it would be what we would consider today a bizarre you know doomsday cult that's what
the Qumran community was okay they had strange doctrines that were totally different than the
rest of the Jews at that time deviating from the teachings of the Old Testament strange views
wicked views and and and I've done a YouTube video called the truth about the Dead Sea Scrolls if you
want to watch that but basically these people are not mainstream they're not the norm they're
a radical group of people and this is what it would be like it would be sort of like if a
thousand years from now somebody dug up the compound of David Koresh or they dug up the
compound of the FLDS the fundamentalist Latter-day Saints up in northeastern Arizona and then they
took all their Bibles and all their library and said like oh this is authoritative right here
you know what the FLDS has this is the authoritative text of the King James Bible or whatever or what
David Koresh has or what you know whoever has okay so the Dead Sea Scrolls cult the Qumran sect
represents an anomaly they're not the mainstream that's not the mainstream text those aren't the
mainstream people okay and again I did a whole video on that but but the point is the the correct
Hebrew text of the Old Testament is the one that was passed down and who cares if it only goes back
to a thousand AD who can I don't care if it goes back to 1200 AD I don't care if it goes back to
I don't care because it was a copy of a copy it's been passed down it's been preserved by God and
Jesus promised that one jot or one tittle would in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled
so I believe that it's preserved so I don't need to go dig up some weird cult and and figure out
what their Bible said and then adjust the Old Testament to reflect that which is what the new
versions do by the way they take into account the Dead Sea Scrolls and change things in the
traditional Hebrew text okay by the same token then why would we dig up a couple scraps from
Egypt look how many of these manuscripts are there from from the Alexandrian text type you
know from pre 200 AD because remember he wants us to forget everything after 200 AD how much
evidence is there before 200 AD not much in light of the fact that I promise you there were thousands
and thousands and thousands of copies of books of the New Testament back that probably even
millions of copies so there are just thousands and thousands tens of thousands hundreds thousands
of documents being copied and copied and copied people in the ancient world were very literate
scholars are finally trying to admit that that people back then were more literate than they
had previously thought and so most of them went in the trash most of them got destroyed they're
not gonna be around a hundred years later a thousand years later things get old and wear
out okay now the reason why there's an inordinate amount of Alexandrian material that's been
preserved it has to do with the climate in Egypt the dryness and the sand and everything like that
that's why archaeologists love Egypt because there's just a lot of stuff that survives because
of the climate but who cares we shouldn't go digging in Egypt's garbage can when we have the
traditional text that's been passed down to us so his idea let's get in a time machine and go back
to 200 AD and let's forget everything since 200 AD is just ridiculous because you know everything
that happened since 200 AD has proven to us you know what the real Bible is and what's the fraud
okay so let me get back into the book here so remember the Byzantine text type is representative
of the King James the Alexandrian text type is representative of the modern versions he says on
page 197 there are of course exceptions to the rules Daniel Wallace cites Philippians 114 as an
example of a uniquely Byzantine reading found in the papyrus manuscripts however this exception
proves the rule as there are not more than eight such examples to be found so he's saying sometimes
the Egyptian papyri actually you know prove that Byzantine readings are very ancient but typically
they're corrupt you know typically they're following the garbage modern versions okay page
198 it's common for King James only advocates to assert that modern textual scholars simply believe
the older manuscripts are the better manuscripts you know older is better while it is not true in
every instance that the older a manuscript is the better it is it is generally true surely it is
easier to understand that a manuscript that comes from only a century after the writing of the
original such as p66 or p75 should be given more weight in examining a variant reading than a
manuscript from the 14th century unless that manuscript was somehow copied from a very ancient
manuscript it probably is the result of a long series of transcriptions obviously a manuscript
from AD 200 is not a 10th generation copy so he's saying surely you will agree that older is better
surely you'll agree that if we have a manuscript like p66 or p75 you know which are just small
fragments they're not the whole New Testament folks they're just you know a page here a page
there they're just portions of a book or whatever he's saying you know surely we're gonna give those
more weight than something from the 14th century AD no wrong okay why would we just take some little
scrap dug up in Egypt and say oh well you know this is closer to the original so it's got to be
right because you know the one in the 14th century is like a 10th generation copy it's a copy of a
copy of a copy of a copy of a copy whereas this one we found in Egypt is just a copy of a copy
look folks I don't care if that thing in Egypt was copied from John's literal handwritten original
the book of Revelation guess how many generations it takes for an error to occur only one so it
doesn't matter whether you have one generation five generations ten generations folks it only
takes one to change it I mean how many generations does it take to remove act 837 wouldn't it be just
as easy to remove act 837 in the second century AD as in the fifth century AD as in the ninth
century AD as in the 13th century AD folks you can remove at 837 whenever you want right if
you're a damnable heretic if you're gonna if you want to go to hell when you die and so yeah the
fact that it's old does not mean that it's right because Paul said in the first century AD we are
not as many which corrupt the Word of God so Paul already said that many people in his day corrupted
the Word of God so the fact that something's old and look folks if you're gonna follow James
White's logic here well surely we're gonna give more weight to these older manuscripts this is
the same logic that says oh well surely you know the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are
correct because they're the oldest you know I mean they're their traditions go back to the
the the second century third century the church fathers and everything folks it doesn't matter
because there were already damnable heretics false teachers corrupt Bibles even while the
Apostles were still alive okay so the fact that it's old does not mean that it's immune from
corruption and the fact that it was passed down and survived actually proves its authenticity okay
because God promised to preserve his word so the the text that has endured unto us today the
received text the Texas Receptus it makes more sense to believe that than some scrap dug up in
Egypt just because it's old that doesn't mean it hasn't been corrupted then he says in page 199 he
starts talking about the missing verses and we already talked about those earlier in the video
the 16 verses that are removed but he says in some examples it's fairly obvious that a verse
has been either repeated or imported from another place in the text in both 944 and 946 of Mark the
phrase where their worm diet not in the fire is not quenched has been inserted in later manuscripts
in both places repeating the very same phrase found in verse 48 so he's claiming that you know
that well that's just obvious even though the majority of manuscripts contain that thing
repeated three times where their worm diet not and the fire is not quenched he claims well it's
it's obvious that they're just repeating it they're just adding it okay well I don't see why
why is that obvious I mean why is it any more obvious he just claims oh well they clearly just
added that three times well what if I said well I think it's just obvious that he deleted they
deleted it two times now what would be the motive to add that two times I guess just to beef up the
passage and make it more powerful make it scarier about hell what would be the motive to remove that
passage two times well maybe to soften the passage and and to take away a little bit of the scariness
of God just hammering three times where their worm diet not and the fire is not quenched now here's
a key point that I want to make in this video because this is something that he really talks
about a lot in this chapter here's a major logical fallacy that he has in this chapter he says if the
modern versions intent was to remove this phrase where their worm diet not and the fire is not
quenched why did it only remove it twice why didn't it remove it all three times and then the next
thing he brings up is Matthew 1 25 where the Bible says that Mary brought forth her firstborn son and
he called his name Jesus the new versions omit firstborn and his answer to that is yeah but over
in Luke chapter 2 it says that he's the firstborn son so you know if they were gonna take it out
why didn't they take it out in both places and I've heard this argument for the last 20 years
since I've been King James only people have always brought this up to me like well sure you know the
NIV removes the deity of Christ over here but what about this other spot where it has it or you know
why didn't it just remove it everywhere and this is so easy to answer because let's take the the
word hell for example okay the word hell is found in the King James Bible 54 times okay in the NIV
the word hell is found 15 times okay and not only that but the NIV never mentions the word hell
until you get to Matthew chapter 5 so the entire Old Testament never uses the word hell one time
if you're reading an NIV in the King James it's used 54 times and it's used throughout Old and New
Testament so if we were to apply James White's logic here and this is like the basis of many
many pages in this chapter if we were to apply James White's logic and say well if they're
gonna remove hell why didn't they just remove it everywhere because if they removed it everywhere
it would be too obvious okay so they leave it peppered in but let me tell you let me ask you
something has the doctrine of hell been weakened when you reduce it from 54 mentions to 15 mentions
that is a severe weakening and not only that when you completely remove hell out of the Old Testament
like the modern versions do well then it becomes easy for someone to come along and say well in the
Old Testament the Bible doesn't teach that there's a hill and then that's gonna lead you to believe
that hell is not a real place because if hell were a real place wouldn't be mentioned in the Old
Testament too I mean if hell is this big thing and people go there when they die and it's something
that's you know eternal damnation then you'd expect to find something like that mentioned in
the Old Testament and the New Testament the fact that it's never mentioned in the Old Testament
could be used as ammunition to say well see it's just figurative it's a New Testament metaphor that
Christ is using and it's not a real place you know the Jews didn't believe in it or it's not
in the Old Testament right so that's what the modern versions are doing whereas in the King
James Version you have a much stronger doctrine of hell because you can follow hell from the Old
Testament through to the New Testament and then even in the New Testament you have twice as many
mentions of hell as in the NIV now here's the logical fallacy that he's making when he says
well so what if the if the NIV takes out the blood here well over here it has the blood or well it
takes out the virgin birth here so what it's got it over here all right well if it takes out the
fact that Jesus is firstborn it has it over here that is to assume that people are reading the
whole Bible and the sad reality is that 99% of Christians will never read the entire Bible in
their whole life the sad reality is that 99% of born-again Christians I'm talking about Christians
that are actually saved 99% of them will go to the grave without ever having read the entire
Bible Genesis to Revelation so the vast majority of Christians do not read the whole Bible so if
something goes from being mentioned 54 times to 15 times they're a lot less likely to come across
it if something goes from being mentioned 10 times to 5 times they're a lot less likely to
come across it in their sporadic Bible reading if something's mentioned one time instead of two
times one time instead of three times much more likely that people aren't gonna find it and let's
face it 99% of people that are Christians get most of their teaching not from reading the Bible on
their own but from going to church now obviously Christians should read their Bible every day they
should read it cover to cover that's what we teach at our church but the vast majority of churches
are filled with people who are learning from the pulpit not from their own Bible reading so if you
have all these verses that have been neutered all these verses that have been softened all these
verses where hell has been removed all these passages that corrupt salvation or corrupt the
Trinity or whatever that's just giving more passages for false teachers to get up and preach
from okay and then when people actually do where they read their Bible they're less likely to find
these things because they're mentioned half as many times as they are in the King James or
whatever okay so in the King James are there gonna be verses that false teachers can get up
and twist of course but they're gonna be way more that they can twist in the modern versions
and then when people actually go to read their Bible look if I hand somebody a New Testament
and tell them to read it where do you think they're probably gonna start typically they're
gonna start in Matthew chapter 1 okay they might not ever make it to Luke 2 maybe they will but
maybe they won't you know but they're gonna read Matthew chapter 1 that's probably the most read
chapter in the whole New Testament and the Old Testament's probably Genesis chapter 1 because
people start at the beginning but they Peter out most of the time so the point is that this this
this idea that says well as long as the Bible says it somewhere else it's okay no it's not okay
because God wanted it said twice or God wanted it said three times because if something is said
three times it's emphasized if God says something three times in a row where the worm died not and
the fire is not quenched that gets your attention you know when you're reading Mark chapter 9 and
you get to that part where Jesus is hammering where their worm diet not and the fire is not
quenched boy that's a terrifying passage about hell it's softened when you remove two of those
and trim it down and make it shorter soften it and then over here you're changing hell to Hades
and she'll and get why don't you just change it to heck while you're at it why don't you just call
it heck fire you know so these Bibles they take things out they'll take out the blood half the
time but then you're like well you know why'd you guys take out the blood well come on if we
were gonna remove the blood why'd we leaving it over here but what they're doing is they're
reducing the emphasis on the blood they're reducing the emphasis on hell they're reducing
evidence for the Trinity they're reducing mentions of this that or the other and then they're
they're creating confusion about salvation now let's go through some of the actual examples that
he gives we talked about Matthew 125 where the King James says she brought forth her firstborn
son the NIV just says she gave birth to a son why is this important because the Roman Catholics and
the East Orthodox teach that Mary remained a perpetual virgin so they don't believe she ever
had any more kids whereas by the by saying her firstborn son that tells us okay if you have a
firstborn you can't have a first without having a second you know if there's a movie called part
one you know there's a part two out there or wouldn't have part one in the name okay or at
least a part two was planned so firstborn son is a slap in the face to the Roman Catholic Mary
worshiping doctrine so you can see the agenda just like removing acts 837 on baptism to remove this
word firstborn from Matthew 125 then another one I'm not gonna go over all these because he gives
just tons of examples and a lot of these aren't really doctrinally important they don't really
change any doctrine and obviously it's still wrong for them to be different but most of the things he
bring up brings up they don't affect doctrine so I'm gonna focus on the ones that do affect doctrine
Colossians 1 14 in whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins the NIV
says in whom we have redemption the forgiveness of sins now you say what's the agenda in removing
the blood okay well John MacArthur I mean John MacArthur who is one of James White's buddies I
would assume I mean they're both Calvinists they're both into the ESV I'm pretty sure that those two
would get along famously but that whole crowd they downplay the blood of Christ John MacArthur
blasphemed decades ago and said that the blood is not what saves us it's not the blood the only
reason that we feel that way about the blood is because of songs that we sing like washed in the
blood and nothing but the blood he said we have an emotional attachment to the blood but it's not
the blood that saves us and that shows that he's a damnable heretic what kind of a weirdo would
such a wicked doctrine as that the blood of Christ doesn't save us and he claims that when the Bible
says blood it just means death it's just like a euphemism for death it's not literal blood whereas
the King James Bible teaches that Jesus you know sprinkled the blood on the mercy seed and and it's
the blood that saves us we're washed in his blood the Bible says in Revelation well if you get the
modern versions they'll they'll take away the fact that we're washed in the blood and just say
something that were saved by the blood or I don't remember exactly how they put it but they take
out the washing which really drives it in and then they also do things like this in Colossians
1 14 where they remove the blood in whom we have redemption through his blood the NIV just says in
whom we have redemption and it doesn't mention the blood so again their argument would be and
let me read for you from page 204 here the first thing we note of relevance to the KJV only
controversy is that in each instance where the NIV lacks a phrase in its text that is found in
the KJV the same material is found elsewhere in the NIV New Testament the importance of this
should be clear if the NIV or any other modern translation is attempting to hide something why
include the very same material in another place so again the fact that Ephesians chapter 1 verse 7
still contains the blood in the NIV to him he says well if they were gonna remove it they'd remove it
everywhere folks by removing it half the time they water down the doctrine they soften the
doctrine and they paved the way for damnable heretics like John MacArthur to come in and start
denying the blood and saying it's not important and whatever now James White likes to make fun of
people who bring up MacArthur denying the blood saying oh man I was a quarter century ago okay
but guess what he never took it back he dug in when he was called out on it he didn't say hey
guys I'm sorry I made a mistake I repent I got carried away in my teaching I never should have
said that I made a mistake he dug in and to this day has never recanted those blasphemous
statements so that what there's no statute of limitations if he denied the blood and 25 years
later he's still denying it then why not bring it up he's a false teacher by the way John MacArthur
also says that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved so there you go so anyway
the NIV and other versions the ESV taking out the blood in many passages they're basically watering
down that doctrine because the more something is mentioned the more it's emphasized so to cut the
mentions at half is to de-emphasize hell or the blood or anything else okay let's see we already
talked about this let me keep moving forward here some of this is repetitious firstborn son we
already talked about that we already talked about Colossians 1 14 Luke 9 35 King James and there
came a voice out of the cloud saying this is my beloved son hear him NIV a voice came from the
cloud saying this is my son whom I've chosen listen to him so in the King James he's the beloved son
and the NIV is the chosen son obviously Jesus is both chosen and beloved so it doesn't change
doctrine but it is a change in emphasis okay let's keep going here a lot of these don't change any
doctrine don't change doctrine I mean they're they're wrong but they don't really change
doctrine okay here's a good one that we need to talk about Mark chapter 1 verse 2 King James
Bible says as it is written in the prophets behold I send my messenger before thy face which shall
prepare thy way before thee now behold I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare
thy way before thee is a quote from Malachi listen to the NIV it is written in Isaiah the Prophet I
will send my messenger ahead of you who will prepare your way here's the problem with that
it doesn't say that in the book of Isaiah it says it is written in Isaiah the Prophet and then it
quotes Malachi folks that is demonstrably false we have the book of Isaiah and it doesn't say that
it says that in Malachi the King James says it is written in the prophets plural behold I send my
messenger before thy face which shall prepare that way before thee that's Malachi 3 then in
the next verse verse 3 he quotes Isaiah so he quotes Malachi then Isaiah so the King James has
it right with prophets the NIV says it's written in Isaiah and then proceeds to quote something
that is not written in Isaiah this is just a clear contradiction a clear error okay now listen
to what he says and this just cracks me up so much is so ridiculous the problem here with the
KJV only argument is simply one of ignorance as to the common citation forms at the time of the
New Testament's writing so he says you know the problem with the King James only is is just that
there's ignorant of the fact that it was common to make citations this way back then what translation
he's saying you're just ignorant of the way they quoted things back then he's saying back then they
quoted things like this all the time you're just ignorant of that citation practice okay oh that
was common back then here's the problem folks there's no evidence of that practice this common
practice but listen to how he tries to pull the wool over the readers eyes the problem here with
the KJV only argument is simply one of ignorance as to the common citation forms at the time of the
New Testament's writing we have at least two remember that at least two instances recorded
for us by the Apostles where a conflated citation of two different Old Testament prophets is placed
under the name of the more important or major one so he says we have at least two examples of this
where two prophets are quoted and it's put under the name of the major ones okay folks no such
example of that exists but he claims this he says first because remember we have at least two
examples of this first in Matthew 27 9 Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a quote drawn primarily
from Zechariah and then he says the other instance is here in Mark 1 2 & 3 so basically he's like hey
we got we got at least two examples we got Matthew 27 9 and this one in Mark well listen James White
this one in in Mark 1 is not an example of that because in the King James it says it's written in
the prophets you want to talk about circular logic okay this is the ultimate example of circular
reasoning to say oh well you know we know and you King James all this are just ignorant of this fact
we know that it was very common at that time to quote two prophets and then just attribute it to
the major prophet and you're like okay can I have some evidence for that well yeah Mark 1 2 he says
it's written in Isaiah and then he quotes Malachi so how do you know that that's right when it says
it's written in Isaiah and then quotes Malachi shouldn't we go with the King James where it says
it's written in the prophets well if you just don't know about that common citation practice
from back then well what's the evidence for that common citation practice Oh Mark 1 2 & 3 is the
evidence so Mark 1 & 2 & 3 Mark 1 2 & 3 is the evidence for Mark 1 2 & 3 so what but but isn't
it funny how he tries to make it sound like there's more evidence so he says well there's
at least two folks he only has two but he says at least two to try to make it sound like more
like to try to beef it up like well there's at least two what are you saying James White you
haven't read the whole New Testament so there might be a third there's not a third example of
this that you have there is so why do you say at least two you have two examples James White you
don't have at least two or you want to come back and tell us when you're finished reading the whole
New Testament it whether there's a third example or not no there is no third example you're giving
two examples one of which doesn't count because it's the thing we're talking about okay it can't
be evidence for itself okay so let me go to his other example here which is not an example by
the way there is no example of this so you know why King James only is so ignorant of this common
citation practice is because the practice didn't exist and there is zero evidence for it and I
challenged James White in person I said can you show any example of this in the ancient world and
he had no example for it so there isn't one but let me read for you what he's trying to claim as
an example of it in Matthew 27 9 in Matthew 27 9 let me get on the King James Version here because
and the NIV pulled up as I was preparing this in Matthew 27 9 the Bible says then was fulfilled
that which was spoken then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet saying
and they took the 30 pieces of silver the price of him that was valued whom they have the children
of Israel did value and gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me so he says here it
was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet notice he didn't say it's written in Jeremy the Prophet so it
shouldn't shock us that we never find that written in the book of Jeremiah it isn't written in
Jeremiah because the Bible never said it was written by Jeremiah the Bible says it was spoken
by Jeremiah whereas in Mark 1 verse 2 the NIV says it is written in Isaiah the Prophet that
means it has to be actually written in that book it isn't there the NIV is a lie whereas he tries
to say oh well we have at least two examples of this his example in Matthew 27 9 is not an
example because it says that that was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet and then his example in Mark
1 verse 2 that's just the NIV being wrong folks there is no example of this common citation
practice of claiming that oh well they would quote a minor prophet and just name it after a major
prophet there's no example of that it's ridiculous okay this quote yes is and it's written in
Zechariah but it's it was spoken by Jeremy so Jeremiah preached it but it didn't actually get
written until the days of Zechariah but here's what's funny how he's deceptive he says first in
Matthew 27 9 Matthew attributes to Jeremiah a quotation drawn primarily from Zechariah so he
tries to imply that part of the quote is from Jeremiah when it's not it's just he's quoting
he's quoting Zechariah but but guess what he never claimed it was written in Jeremiah it says
it was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet super deceptive that whole page 215 just blew my
mind at how deceptive he is and trying to beef up evidence and again talking down to King James
only it's like the problem here with the KJV only argument is simply one of ignorance you poor
stupid fools you don't know about this tradition of quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah because
there was no such stupid tradition show me one shred of evidence for that bizarre citation
practice it didn't exist folks and he doesn't present any evidence except to just try to snow
you with well Matthew 27 9 at least two and then he only gives two one of which doesn't count and
the other one is not an example so anyway that kind of blew my mind I gotta hurry up this is this
is a long chapter long video mark 1024 King James but Jesus answered again and sayeth unto them
children how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God the NIV
says but Jesus said again children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God and again this
affects doctrine the NIV is saying it's hard to enter the kingdom of God the King James is saying
it's hard for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God folks it's only hard to enter
the kingdom of God if you believe in work salvation it's not hard it's easy to be saved all you have to
do is believe it's like drinking water eating a piece of bread walking through a door Jesus did
the hard part the modern versions consistently make salvation hard like for example in Matthew
7 14 where it says you know straight is the gate and narrow is the way the new King James and a lot
of the modern versions will say difficult is the way that leads to life whereas the King James just
says it's straight meaning it's narrow it's a few there be that find it so in multiple places the
modern versions say that salvation is difficult okay that's teaching work salvation whereas the
King James just says well it's hard for them that trust in riches why because to be saved you have
to fully trust Christ so that's gonna be hard if you're trusting something else if you're trusting
in riches it's gonna be hard to trust Christ because you're a prideful rich person it's gonna
be easier for camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved right
because of the pride and arrogance of those who trust in riches they can't humble themselves and
put all their faith in Christ so we already talked about that in a previous video we already talked
about Luke 2 14 in a previous video John 6 47 King James verily verily I say unto you he that
believeth on me hath everlasting life New American Standard truly truly I say to you he who believes
has eternal life so the King James says he that believeth on me the New American Standard says he
that believes has eternal life and he uses the same argument again well yeah but if you back
up to verse 35 it says he who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall never
thirst so again this is the argument that he uses over and over and over again in this chapter well
yeah but it says it somewhere else it has the blood somewhere else it has hell somewhere else
or well somewhere else it says you have to believe on him but still by removing on me and just saying
he who believes has eternal life you're just giving more verses to liberals to use to twist
and do whatever they want with and it's just frankly wrong and then he says well the King
James does the same thing in Romans 1 16 for I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the
power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth to the Jew first and also to the Greek
and then he says well everyone that believeth what everyone that believeth what okay let's
read again for I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ for it is the power of God unto
salvation to everyone that believeth to the Jew first and also to the Greek James White says
everyone that believe what the gospel of Jesus Christ glad I could help you with that okay and
then John 7 verse 8 King James go ye up unto this feast I go not up yet unto this feast for my time
has not yet come the New American Standard says go up to the feast yourselves I do not go up to
this feast because my time has not yet come and the King James is more accurate by saying he's
not going yet okay but again that one's not really a big doctrinal difference because even
in the New American Standard he says my time has not yet come so that kind of implies that
he could come later so anyway that one doesn't really make a big difference acts 22 but it's
still wrong folks you can't just change God's even if the changes quote-unquote aren't a big
deal or don't matter anytime you change God's Word it's wicked it's evil okay acts 22 16 says
arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord New American
Standard arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name instead of the name of
the Lord Romans 1 16 I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ and IV just says I'm not ashamed of the
gospel leaves out of Christ now here's a really important one that affects doctrine okay Romans
11 6 this is a great verse King James and if by grace then is it no more of works otherwise grace
is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work now
when you read this verse it's really easy to understand in the King James it's a powerful
verse saying that if salvation is by grace it can't be by works and if it's by works then it
can't be by grace it's either one or the other folks it cannot be works if it's grace so he says
if it's by grace then it's no more of works but then in the second half he says if it's of works
then is it no more of grace so it the obvious meaning there is that it's one or the other well
if you read this in the new versions it completely changes the doctrine it says in the New American
Standard but if it is by grace it is no longer on the basis of works otherwise grace is no
longer grace now when you read that in the New American Standard you could you could easily
interpret that that it used to be by works but it's no longer by works now it's by grace so this
teaches your dispensational salvation of well salvation used to be by works but now it's by
grace whereas obviously salvation has always been by grace okay no one has ever been able to work
their way in heaven the Bible says even as David also described it the blessedness of the man unto
him God and puteth righteousness without works saying blessed are they who sins are for whose
iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not
impute sin so even David was saved by grace through faith he was not saved by works Abraham
believed God and it was counted on him for righteousness so by omitting the entire second
half of the verse here okay it completely changes the meaning to where it's like well it's no longer
of works that makes it sounds like it used to be of works whereas if you read it in the King James
because he says the reverse if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no
more work it becomes obvious what he means here that it's just it's one or the other so that's a
really bad change Romans 14 6 and the King James he that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the
Lord and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he did not regarded he that eateth eateth
to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth
God thanks now listen in the New American Center he who observes the day observes it for the Lord
and he who eats does so for the Lord for he gives thanks to God and he who eats not for the Lord he
does not eat and gives thanks to God so the part that's left out in the New American Standard is
and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord he does not regarded and so Romans 14 6 and the King
James is basically giving you permission and saying you know you don't need to regard a certain
day you don't need to observe the Sabbath day you don't need to observe these holidays it's okay to
just observe everyday life and obviously there are other passages in the New Testament that teach
that or you could get that from Romans 14 5 but again it's weakened the text is weakened by
removing that phrase and this is a key verse because you know there are always those people
come along trying to get us to observe the Sabbath and bringing us back under the law of the
Judaizers and so that's a key verse that's been severely weakened in the modern versions Ephesians
3 9 King James to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery the New American Standard
says to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery the King James says which from the
beginning of the world hath been hidden God in the NASB which for ages has been hidden in God
and then in the NASB it says who created all things the King James says who created all
things by Jesus Christ so by Jesus Christ is removed from Ephesians 3 9 in the new versions
this is important when it says God created all things by Jesus Christ this is an important
teaching for the Trinity understanding that Jesus Christ is the Creator and that he created this
world basically on behalf of God the Father God the Father created all things by Jesus Christ you
know Jesus Christ was his instrument in creating this world okay and so that that's important when
you're talking about the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and the different roles that they
play and so forth and understanding the fact that you know it's three persons one God you know God
the Father is not Jesus Jesus is not God the Father right God eternally exists as the Father
the Son and the Holy Ghost and so you know a lot of the oneness crowd the modalist crowd will
basically try to say well the Bible says they you know God the Father created the world and then
over here it says that Jesus created the world and then they'll come to the conclusion that Jesus is
God the Father which is false what they need to understand is that it's God the Father creating
the world by Jesus Christ so you could say that Jesus created the world or you could say that the
Father created the world because the Father did it by having Jesus do it okay and then there are a
lot of I don't want to go into a big Trinity thing but that's a good verse for the Trinity it's
destroyed in the modern versions James 5 16 tells us to confess our faults one to another the new
versions say confess your sins one to another this is great for the Catholics you can see the
Catholic agenda here of the confessional booth you know confessing your faults would be more
like me just telling somebody hey this is a weakness I have in my life would you pray for
me I'm struggling in this area I'm struggling in that area whereas confessing your sins to one
another would be like hey last night I did this or hey yesterday I did this or whatever you know
just specifically you know forgive me father it's been so long since my last confession and you know
I walked into this place and said this to this person and you know just specifically confessing
your sins to someone that's a Catholic doctrine confessing your faults is more just being humble
and just asking for prayer about certain weaknesses in your life there's a big difference between
faults and sins he talks about people erroneously thinking that this is a translation difference
when it's actually a textual difference I personally I thought it was a translation
difference as well but it turns out it is a textual variant so that makes it even worse okay
so first Peter chapter 2 verse 2 this is another one that tampers with salvation as newborn babes
desire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby as newborn babes so we're already
saved we're already born again we're babes in Christ and we should desire the sincere milk of
the word that we may grow thereby okay the New American Standard says like newborn babes long
for the pure milk of the word that by it you may grow in respect to salvation okay so you see the
part that's been added there here's first Peter 2 2 in the ESV like newborn infants long for the
pure spiritual milk that by it you may grow up into salvation so they're already newborn babes
he's telling they need to grow up into salvation whereas the King James just said grow thereby the
ESV saying grow up into salvation that's making salvation a process combine that with the fact
that it says salvation is hard in multiple places that it corrupts verses that have to do with not
believing being what damns you and saying disobedience damns you and you got to grow up
into salvation that means Christian growth leads to salvation that you have to basically be saved
through a process that is a false doctrine so this is one of many verses in the new versions
that corrupt salvation ESV is saying grow up into salvation the King James just says desire
the milk that you get may grow there by because the fact that you're a babe in Christ means they
are already saved okay first John 4 3 the King James says every spirit that confesses that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh excuse me first John 4 3 and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh is not of God and this is that spirit of Antichrist wherever you
have heard that it should come and even now already is it in the world the NIV says but
every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God this is the spirit of the Antichrist
which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world so the King James says the
spirit of Antichrist is the one that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
if you don't confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh you're not of God the NIV just says
every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God so the bad guy in the NIV is just
somebody who just doesn't acknowledge Jesus at all whereas the King James is saying it's bad if you
don't believe and confess that he came in the flesh and again I had a whole sermon called
Antichrist Bible versions where I went more on to these type of changes so I recommend you listen to
that sermon Antichrist Bible versions and then of course he uses the same argument that he uses
everywhere else oh but if you look at verse two it talks about how you need to know that he came
from in the flesh same argument of well it says it somewhere else yeah but if it says it once
instead of twice you just made it half as powerful okay revelation 111 listen to revelation 111 in
the King James saying I'm Alpha and Omega the first and the last and what thou seest write in
a book and send it under the seven churches which are in Asia New American Standard ESV whatever type
Bible saying write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches so what's missing
what's missing is I am Alpha and Omega the first and the last okay so that's taking away you know
powerful truths about Christ deity and then okay so he closes out the chapter I know it's been a
long video but we're finally to the end of the chapter he closes out the chapter with his grand
finale and you can tell he's really pleased with himself as you read this he's got the grand
finale here and it takes up several pages because he shows all these pictures for his big grand
finale and he calls it a fully documented challenge okay a fully documented challenge
and his big grand finale you're never gonna believe what key critical verse this is the big
grand finale of why the King James is just so wrong and it's just documented to prove that
there's an error in the King James it's revelation 16 5 which we already talked about I'm not gonna
rehash revelation 16 5 because we already talked about it back in the video on chapter 4 so if you
want to refer back to chapter 4 his video I already talked about revelation 16 5 but it's
so funny how this is his grand finale for several pages he shows a picture of the the Geneva Bible
the covered a Bible and he shows a picture of Stefanus and Erasmus his Greek texts and he's
just showing how they don't have it the way the King James has it in these books so this is his
grand finale a fully documented challenge he makes a huge deal about this this is just you
know after just page after page after page after page of textual variants this is his big ace up
the sleeve okay what's the difference well the in the King James it says and I heard the angel
of the waters say thou art righteous Oh Lord which art and was and shalt be because thou is judged
thus the New American Standard says and I heard the angel of the waters say righteous are you who
are and who were Oh Holy One because you judge these things so the difference is between which
art and Weston shall be King James and the New American Standard who are and were Oh Holy One Oh
Holy One okay which is awkward strange but he claims that that's the correct reading but here's
the funny thing about that even though obviously any change in the Bible matters this does not
affect doctrine so basically he's straining it an ad and swallowing a camel so you know forget
the fact that the NIV is attacking the virgin birth over here attacking Christ's deity over
here watering down the doctrine on hell over here changing salvation doctrine just dramatic changes
that regard salvation heaven hell the Trinity Christ deity the virgin birth forget all that
let's spend several pages arguing about whether it should say you shall be our Oh Holy One which
obviously God is both of those things I'm not I'm not I'm not saying it's okay for one of these to
be wrong because it's not it's not okay to change anything but it just goes to show how he wants to
make some huge deal about Revelation 16 five when there are a lot bigger fish to fry that's his big
ace up the sleeve I'm not gonna lose any sleep tonight about Revelation 16 five and I believe
that the King James has it right on the money and I already talked about that back in chapter four
and that's that's how he ends the chapter here with that big challenge and then at the end he
says modern texts are found innocent because remember he started out the chapter saying hey
there's no conspiracy here there's nobody's evil or wicked or malevolent you know it's just some
honest mistakes that have been made and you know we're all just doing our best to try to reconstruct
the original Greek text and you know we're just operating on the information we have right now and
you know if tomorrow we dig up some cave in Egypt and find bottles that say something different well
then hey we'll change our Bible folks I believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God
without error I'm gonna stick with the traditional text millions and millions and millions and
millions of Bibles in the King James Version and tons of other languages of those Reformation era
Bibles God has used them they've borne fruit they've been used in a powerful way I'm not
gonna join the Bible of the Month Club I'm sticking with the King James and you know this
book is deceptive like I showed you in Mark chapter 1 verse 2 and when he shows you all
these comparisons it's obvious every time that the King James is right on I don't care what some
scrap found in Egypt says I'm gonna go with the traditional text that's been passed down and I
don't care how old that scrap in Egypt is I don't care if it's from the first century AD you know
the bottom line is the text that's been passed down is the text that God preserved God bless
you have a great day