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

By the way, you know what the NIV does to that story? In the NIV, Mark chapter 1 verse 41, instead of looking upon him with compassion and saying, I will, be thou clean, the Bible says he looked on him with anger, with indignation. He looked, so this guy comes to him, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. I will, be thou clean. That's how it is in the NIV. I'm telling you, these people are complete idiots, they're idiotic. Like who in their right mind would say, oh, that's what it's supposed to say? But this is why there's so much weird stuff like that in these new versions. One of the rules of their textual criticism is that if they have two manuscripts, two Greek manuscripts, and one of them sounds weird, and one of them sounds right, they always go with the one that sounds weird. You say, well, why is that? Well here's what they say. They say, well, if there's one that sounds weird and one that sounds right, the one that sounds right, somebody probably changed it to make it sound right. I'm not kidding. Read any book on textual criticism. Any book on textual criticism, read James White's materials, and that's what he tells you. I'm going with the weird one because the one that sounds a little too good, sounds a little too right, sounds too perfect, that's obviously some zealous scribe was fixing the error. But I want to know what Mark wrote. I don't want to know what some scribe changed it to. You know, Mark wrote, it makes more sense that Mark wrote he was mad at the guy, and then some scribe said, well, this can't be right. Why would he get mad? So I'll change it, he had compassion. No fool, obviously it said he had compassion because God didn't write a book that doesn't make sense. And by the way, 99% of the manuscripts are usually on board with the King James. The majority text is usually, the vast majority of the time, on board with the King James, not the modern versions. The modern versions are usually based on very few manuscripts that have it wrong. You know, what actually happened is that some careless scribe messed up and left out a letter or added a letter, and sometimes just changing one letter in a word can make it into a totally different word, right? And it could even just completely dramatically change the meaning. So what it is is that there are some corrupted manuscripts out there. And these modern versions, they love to go with the corruption. That's why in John chapter 1 when it says the begotten son, in John 1.18, the begotten son, there are a few, a very small minority of manuscripts that say the begotten God. Well they're like, that sounds weird, begotten God? That must be right, because that sounds weird. Who would change it to that? You know, they think that the zealous scribe, oh, it must have meant son. No, no, no, it's the begotten son. Begotten God was the mess up, okay? That's why there's so few of them, and that's why it sounds weird and doesn't make any sense. Okay. So anyway, I don't want to go on and on about that, although I do want to go on about that. I'm not going to.