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

How's it going, everyone? In this video, I want to point out that there are two competing philosophies when it comes to the Bible. One side would argue that the text of Scripture is stable and settled and unchanging, whereas the opposition would argue that, in fact, the text of Scripture is subject to change based on new archaeological discoveries and also based on a newer method of textual criticism, which I'll get to in a moment. And my question is, which philosophy do you think makes more sense? Well, I think the answer is obvious. Now, first of all, I just want to point out that when it comes to modern Bible versions, they will continue to change and continue to evolve not only based on new discoveries, but also based on a newer method of text criticism that is known as the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, CBGM, which has already been applied in the 28th edition of Nestle Allen's Greek New Testament, particularly in James through Jude. Well, what do you think is going to happen when they apply this new digital method of text criticism to the Gospels? There will be more changes, and those changes, I would argue, will probably be significant. Now, what is CBGM? They use a computer program to compare manuscripts with each other, look at their ancestry, if you will, and then the so-called scholars interpret that data to come up with the reading they believe to be the most reliable. And like I said, this new method of text criticism will lead to more changes. It already has led to change in James through Jude in the NA28. And those who study this topic closely have argued that it's actually already led to a significant change, in particular in 2 Peter 3.10. But I do believe that there's a question that has to be asked here, which is, you know, which philosophy, which doctrine on the Bible makes more sense? And like I said, the answer is obvious, folks. Now, I would posit there's an additional application to be made to this famous passage here in Matthew chapter 7 that I'm about to read, and you'll see what I mean in a moment. Matthew 7 verse 24, Jesus Christ said, Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. So what Jesus is saying here is that if you actually do what he says, that you're liken unto a man that built his house upon a rock, which is capable of withstanding the rain, the winds, and the floods. He continues in verse 26, And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. Conversely, those who don't do what Jesus Christ said, well, they're likened unto an individual who built his house upon a much weaker foundation, incapable of withstanding rain, winds, and floods. And so it falls, and he concludes by saying great was the fall of it. Now, I do believe there's an additional application, like I said, that can be made to this passage, which is this. The rock can symbolize or represent the received text of Scripture. It could be applied to the received text of Scripture and, by extension, the King James Bible, whereas the sand can apply to the modern critical text and all the modern Bible translations that have stemmed from that. Why would I argue this? Well, like I've already established in this video, the modern Bible, the modern critical text, will continue to evolve and will continue to change. Now that they have a new method of text criticism, there will be more changes made, and so it is truly sand. Sand is weak. It is easy to move. Obviously, rain, winds, floods can move it very easily, whereas a rock is stable. It is unchanging. It's settled. That kind of sounds like the received text to me. Obviously, the main lesson that you can derive from this passage is that your life will be much more stable if you build it on the words of Jesus Christ. You actually follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Your life will be much more stable, and you'll be able to withstand the inevitable adversities that come, whereas the opposite could be expected by those who don't follow the words of Christ. But I still think my comparison between the received text and critical text makes sense here in this passage because those who actually follow Christ's words are likened unto a man who built his house upon a rock. Some might ask, well, are you saying that people who actually follow Christ have built their life on the King James Bible? The answer is yes. Those who do what Christ said have, in fact, built their house on the King James Bible. They've built their life on the King James Bible. And that's because the fruit of this text is undeniable. The preaching of God's word, the churches, the evangelism, the soul winning, the sanctified lives that stem from this. It's undeniable, folks. And so, yeah, I think that those who actually do what Christ said have built their foundation. They've built their house on a firm foundation, I should say. They built their life on this, whereas those who don't follow what Christ said in general, I do understand there are exceptions. I understand that. But in general, I'm speaking generalities here, those who don't follow Christ, they've built their house on the sand. They built their house on the critical text. And I think this also was undeniable when you look at evangelical churches today and the liberalism they espouse. When you look at the heresy that they espouse, they've eschewed soul winning, they've eschewed sound doctrine. To me, it's clear and it fits with this passage perfectly. And so, again, I have to ask the question, what makes more sense to you? Building your life on a foundation that is firm and settled or building it on a foundation that is susceptible to change and is much weaker. That's exactly what the modern Bibles are. Weaker, susceptible to change. And beyond that, I also think that when you look at those who have tried to build their life on those modern versions and compare them to those who built their life on the King James Bible, there's a big difference there. There is a big difference there. So what's my point? Modern Bibles will continue to change. They will continue to evolve. As we go into the future, you'll notice larger portions of the scripture will be called into question by these so-called scholars out there who study this issue and who are trying to come up with. You know, older, more reliable readings, according to them. Do you really think it makes sense to build your house on a foundation that is unstable and on a foundation that you really can't be sure of? Do you think it really makes sense to not even know with any certainty what God said because it could change in the future? Don't you think it makes a lot more sense rather to know with absolute certainty what God said and as a result be capable of building your life on that? Like I keep saying in this video, I think the answer is obvious. And so I just I want to put that out there. If you're someone who is just not sure what to believe on this issue, carefully consider the questions I've asked in this video. And consider, do you really want to be uncertain about the very words of God? I wouldn't think so.