(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

and that God has preserved the original Hebrew Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament in all ages. Isn't that what it said in this statement of faith? It said that they were immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages. So let me ask you this. How can anyone claim to be following this 1689 Baptist confession and not be reading from a King James Bible in English? Can you explain that to me? Can you explain to me how anybody, and by the way, most of the people who believe in this are not King James. They got the ESV, the New American Standard, or whatever the modern perversion of scripture. How can they claim to be a confessional Baptist following the 1689 Baptist confession and not be on a King James? Makes no sense. Why? Because this right here, they're claiming to believe that the Hebrew Bible has been kept pure in all ages. So then explain to me how they can get away with using an ESV Old Testament, which is not translated 100% from the Hebrew, but rather takes portions from the Greek Septuagint, which is a translation of the Hebrew, and it's a corrupt translation of the Hebrew. So the Septuagint is a corrupt translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and the NIV, the ESV, etc., they go with it in places, whereas the King James Bible is translated 100% from the traditional Hebrew text. Who's ever heard the term the Masoretic Hebrew text? Masoretic just means traditional. So the traditional Hebrew text underlies the King James Version. All these new versions, you know what they do? Sometimes they'll say something dramatically different than the King James, and you're like, what? How can this be so different? It'll say in the footnote, oh, well, the Hebrew says X, Y, and Z, and it'll be what the King James says. Are we translating from the Hebrew? See, the King James translates 100% from the Hebrew, whereas the new versions, not only are they tainted by the Septuagint, quote, unquote, so-called Septuagint, they're also tainted by junk found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which wasn't discovered until 1947. So how is it kept pure in all ages if we have to get some new finding in 1947 to bring it back into purity? It was already pure. We don't need somebody to dig up something in 1947 to show us what the Old Testament really said. We don't need the Greek Septuagint to tell us what it said. Hey, the Hebrew Bible has been kept pure in all ages. Jesus said one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Every jot and every tittle of that Hebrew Bible has been preserved. Oh, by the way, if you go to the store and buy the Septuagint, you want to know what three manuscripts they're basing that Septuagint on that you're buying? They're basing it on three manuscripts. Tell me if these sound familiar. Sinai Atticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus. Three unclean spirits like frogs out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the false prophet, right? Hey, Alexandrinus, which parts of it are like they were written by someone who's drunk or didn't speak Greek? Literally, even people who believe in this stuff will admit that. Okay, Sinai Atticus and Vaticanus, which contradict each other in more places than you can count, okay? And look, if these are all three manuscripts that are super corrupt in the New Testament, why would we trust them in the Old Testament? No, let's trust the preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament, amen, that underlines the King James Bible. Okay, underlies, I should say, excuse me. But also, it's hypocritical for someone to claim to believe this statement of faith and then not have a King James Bible in regard to the New Testament. Because the modern versions are based upon, again, Sinai Atticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, these other bad manuscripts that they say, oh, well, you know, the King James translators just didn't have these available to them. You know, Tischendorf had to dig it up from some monastery trash can, the Sinai Atticus, and Vaticanus had to be taken from some dark cellar of evil witchcraft of the Roman Catholic, Vatican, whatever they have down there. It had to be dug out of there, right? So, you know, folks, I thought it was kept pure in all ages. So wouldn't that mean that the Greek text of the 1600s, 1700s, wouldn't that have been kept pure like the Textus Receptus, like the Greek text underlying the King James Bible? So you can't sit there and have an ESV, a New American Standard in your hand and claim to believe this. Now look, I'm not claiming to subscribe to this whole thing because, like I said, it teaches false doctrine in later chapters. But I do agree with this first chapter on the Word of God. I mean, it's all true. Everything we've heard so far is checked out with Scripture. But how can you sit there and say, oh, yeah, I believe that the Greek and Hebrew has been kept pure in all ages and then have anything other than a King James in front of you? You're a hypocrite because the ESV and the NASB are not based on scholarship that says that it was kept pure in all ages. They think it had to be fixed. It was broken and we had to fix it with Sinaiticus. We had to fix it with Vaticanus. Wrong.