The whole issue, especially when it comes to like the King James and the modern version
spills over even to the Spanish versions of the Bible and you see a lot of the same mistakes
being made in the 1960s. I mean the 1960s is basically your equivalent to a new King James
and somewhat even of an ESV and you'll see the same exact wording that they use,
like with 1 Peter 2 and different portions like that. I've even seen like Jude 22,
you know, the way it's worded in the 1960, it's worded the same way in the modern versions of
the Bible. So they'll say like, you know, those who doubt convince them and I think it's the ESV
who like renders it that way. Don't quote me on that, but they have some like weird translation
like that as well. It's because of these, the underlying Greek text that they're using for that.
Yeah, so it's kind of amazing to me when people claim to be King James, but then they choose the
1960 in Spanish. Yep. And it's literally worse than the new King James because the new King James
is pretty much from the Texas Receptus in the New Testament, like 99.999%. There's a couple places
where it's hard to believe that they're translating the TR, but it's supposedly from the TR in the New
Testament, but yet, you know, the 1960s even, it's, and the new King James, a horrible
translation that I wouldn't, I would never even begin to recommend, but yet the 1960s even worse
because it's even deviating openly from the Texas Receptus and going with the critical text, the
type stuff. And so it's just, you know, anybody who actually knows Spanish and says that the 1960s,
the King James equivalent is just, they're just lying. I mean, there's, there's, it takes like
five minutes to figure out that that's not true. I mean, it's, it's almost like the chapter has
a difference. Right. Whereas you get an old Spanish Bible and it's tracking with the King James.
And it's no coincidence that like the 1960 also like removes hell in the New Testament,
just like the modern versions of the Bible do too, because obviously they have the same agenda,
they're translating from the same Greek text there and, you know, and they have that
and obviously, you know, it's, it's, it's the appropriate Greek word, but not, not for Spanish
and not for English. And, you know, we don't like, I'm a fluent Spanish speaker, but we don't say,
we don't call hell. We don't call hell sale, you know, and your average Spanish speaker
doesn't even know what that is. Just like your average English speaker wouldn't know what that
is in English as well. So you have like, I mean, my text verse that I always go to, to debunk that
is first Peter two, two it was newborn babies desire the sincere make of the word that you
may grow there by. And then in 1916, a lot of these English modern versions, it'll say,
grow into salvation, which you won't find that in the Texas Receptus. I can't think of the word
that you have for grow in the Texas Receptus, but in the, in the corrupt text, it says like
something like Sotirios, which obviously Sotirios is referring to salvation. Right. They add that to
that idea of growing into salvation, which is ridiculous because if you're a babe in Christ,
you're already saved. Right. You're growing as a Christian, but you're not growing into being
saved because that would be works-based salvation. Yeah. You, you read the Bible to grow in grace and
then the knowledge of Jesus Christ. You don't read the Bible so you can be saved in a sense of like,
you're being constantly saved. You're just kind of working on your salvation kind of thing,
which is the insinuation there. So.