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

And so that's what's referred to there by the gospel, and it says the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And then, of course, it identifies who that voice crying in the wilderness is. It's John in verse 4 there, John the Baptist. Now let me point out the fact that there's a big reason in this church why we use the King James Bible only. I mean, it says it right on the window. It says it in the Yellow Pages ad. It's on our website. You know, we talk a lot about being King James only, and most churches these days are not King James only. Today, if you go to the Christian bookstore, they're going to try to get you on the NIV or the ESV or one of these other modern versions of the Bible. Why is it so important that we stick with the old King James Bible? You know, why are we using a Bible translation that's over 400 years old? It's not just a matter of preference. It's not just that we think it sounds cool using a more archaic language. You know, these new versions are very different, and they make dramatic changes to the Bible that affect doctrine. But when you look at just this first part of Mark, here's what I want to point out, okay, is that it says in verse 2, as it is written in the prophets, and then it quotes two different prophets. First it quotes Malachi in verse 2, and then it quotes Isaiah in verse 3. Well, if you're reading the NIV or the ESV, it says in verse 2, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, and then it quotes Malachi, which is incorrect because obviously Malachi and Isaiah are two different prophets that preached at two different times, and they have two different messages, and it's just totally wrong, okay? But here's what's funny, too. Even verse 1 is corrupt in the Westcott and Hort Greek text from which the modern versions come. Now, I don't want to go too deep on this right now, but let me just give you the basics of this because there's a really important point that I want to get across here about this, okay? The modern versions, their corruption comes from the Alexandrian text of Scripture, the Egyptian text of Scripture, and the two most notable manuscripts in that tradition are called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And again, I'm not going to go too deep on this, so don't tune out or anything, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two bad guys, okay? These are two corrupt Greek manuscripts that have done more to corrupt these modern versions than anything else. So we've got the traditional text that's been passed down and received by everyone. That's what we have in the King James, the traditional text. In the 1800s, you start having all these German scholars and people second-guessing the Word of God and saying, it's been corrupted, we've got to find something more accurate, and you have them digging up these old manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and making changes. But here's what's funny, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out the phrase the Son of God there. They just say the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and then that's it. It just stops there, whereas we have the Son of God in our King James Bible. Now if you open the Jehovah's Witness Bible, it leaves out the Son of God here because it's based 100% on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, based on the Westcott and Hort manuscript. But what's funny is that the NIV and the ESV will include the Son of God here, but then a whole bunch of other places, they're just constantly following Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So here's my thing. Make up your mind. You know, if Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are so great, if Westcott and Hort is so great, why don't you go with it all the time? But I'll tell you this right now, the people who are promoting these modern versions and the people that are working on these modern versions, none of them believes that the Son of God should be there in verse 1. And by the way, they all believe that the last 12 verses of the Book of Mark should be left off. That's what James White and those type people believe. They want to ditch 12 verses from the end of Mark. They want to ditch the story of the woman taken in adultery. They want to ditch all kind of stuff. But isn't it funny how the NIV and the ESV, they still print those stories in the Bible, and I'll tell you why. It's because they don't want to freak you out too much by changing too many things at once. And so they're a work in progress, slowly getting worse and making more and more changes. You see, in the early days of the Jehovah's Witness Bible, it still contained the ending of Mark. But just in 2013, they ditched the ending of Mark, and now it just ends at verse 8. That's where the modern Bibles are going, my friend. There will come a day, mark my words, there will come a day when the ESV and the NIV just stop at Mark 16.8, and they stop right there. Just a few years ago, in 2011, the NIV was revised to become gender neutral and to take out too many references to he and him and his. And I'm telling you, these Bibles keep on changing. How far are you going to go down that road? Even if you say, well, I don't think the NIV is that bad, OK, what's it going to be like 10 years from now? What's it going to be like 20 years from now? They keep changing it. They keep updating it. And you can't even get the old one. The King James Bible has stood the test of time for over 400 years. We have an accurate Bible in English. It is the preserved, inspired Word of God in our English language. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And so I just wanted to take a moment to warn you about these modern versions. Just in Mark chapter 1 alone, we could point out a whole bunch of examples. Like I said, the text that they're constantly using removes the Son of God from verse 1. They left it in because they're schizophrenic. They go back and forth between following the Texas Receptus and the Westcott and Hort because they don't want to jerk the steering wheel too much and freak you out too much. So they're slowly making more and more changes with each edition to get it on that corrupt text. But even in verse 41, jump down to verse 41 of Mark chapter 1. It says, And Jesus moved with compassion, put forth his hand and touched him, and said unto him, I will be thou clean. This is a man with leprosy comes to Jesus and says, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. If you want to, you can make me clean. And he says, I will be thou clean. And he's moved with what? Compassion. That makes sense. Read the NIV and the ESV, here's what it says, that he was moved with indignation. Indignation means anger. So a man comes up in faith asking to be healed. Why would Jesus give, I will be thou clean, fine, be clean, fine, I guess I'll heal you. It's nonsense. It's ridiculous. So just in this one chapter alone, they're quoting Malachi saying it's Isaiah. Jesus is angrily healing people. I guess I'll do it. Get out of here. Get away from me, son. You bother me. It makes no sense. This is one chapter. I'm taking away this important note in verse 1, chapter 1, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The one thing that you have to believe to be saved. You've got to believe on the Son in order to be saved. Anyway, that's not what I'm preaching about here, but I wanted to just do a little commercial break there for the King James Bible so that you'll understand that that's not just a preference that we have. There's a reason why we only use the King James Bible, and there are some dark forces behind these new versions, and they're corrupt, and they're not of God, and so we are King James only.