I believe the devil wants to take over the church.
I believe the devil wants to take over this church...
...one person at a time.
-We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for
future generations a new world order.
-Close your window.
Go back inside your house.
-Go back inside right now! -I am inside.
-We have a real chance at this new world order,...
...an order in which a credible United Nations...
-...rubber bullets, tasers...
-...can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision...
...of the U.N.'s founders.
-After 1989 President Bush said - and it's a phrase that I often used
myself - that we needed a new world order.
And instead it looks like we got a lot of disorder.
-It's been a long time coming.
Because of what we did on this day at this defining moment
change has come to America.
-President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon today
calling for a new world order to tackle our global
economic crisis.
-The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a
new world order.
-Its task will be to develop an overall strategy for America
in this period when, really, a new world order can be created.
It's a great opportunity.
-You talked about the New World Order defined as you have
as being luciferian. -Yes.
-How do you know that?
-My investigations led me to look at the back of the American dollar.
And I found these strange seals on the dollar here. They're Illuminati
seals which was a secret society set up in 1776
by a man called Adam Weisshaupt.
And on the back of the dollar here you see the seal on the
left-hand side and there's an eye in the triangle. It's the eye of Horus
in Egyptian mythology, now called the eye of Lucifer or Satan.
The two words at the top, "ANNUIT COEPTIS", stand for
"Announcing the birth of",
and down at the bottom, "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM".
-And that great seal of the United States has on it
"NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM": A New Order.
-And people should be asking the question, "What is an Egyptian
pyramid doing on the back of an American dollar?
What link-up is there between America and Egypt?"
The answer is: none at all except in the field of the occult.
And thus we see we're dealing with a luciferian plan and people
need to recognize the god of Freemasonry will lead the world
into this peculiar and particular purpose for which America
was set up, which is to lead the whole world system into a
one world government, a one world religion,
a one world law system, and a one world money system
that the Bible calls the mark of the beast.
-...and basically what we know for a fact,
that there's going to be a changeover from the old order
to a new order, a rule by Satan himself.
That's what that symbol refers to
and that's what the New World Order refers to.
In the King James, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore if any man be
in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold
all things are become new." Notice how the New English Bible
renders this verse. It says, "The old order is gone and
a new order has begun." They're using the same language.
The King James says, "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and
divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time
of reformation", talking about Christ's coming. But notice
the NIV calls it, "until the time of the new order." They're preparing
people. Now I want you to notice this. In Isaiah 28:16 in the
King James the Bible says, "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold I lay
in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone,
a sure foundation". This is referring to Jesus, right? And I want you
to notice that in the King James they're telling you that Jesus
is the corner stone of the foundation. Now where's the foundation in relation
to a building, on the top or the bottom?
It's on the bottom, isn't it? OK?
So when they say that Jesus is the corner stone of the foundation,
that's down here, right?
"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious:" - this is the King James -
"but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner," again on the foundation.
Notice that the NIV calls him the capstone.
They're saying that that symbol that you see represents Christ.
It doesn't; it represents who? Antichrist.
-I pray that you will stay, however, my friends, with this great book,
the Word of God. This, truly, is what we need to turn to.
The time is short. A great falling away from the truth:
It's happening; it's right here now.
-My name's Steven Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church
in Tempe, Arizona. Our church is King James only; a lot of
people don't understand why. But the purpose of this film is to
show the dramatic difference between the King James Bible
and all the other versions.
-My name is Roger Jimenez. I'm the pastor of Verity Baptist Church
in Sacramento, California, and the reason I'm excited to be a part
of this film is because the Word of God is under attack today
and we need to take a stand for the Bible so that we can engage
him in spiritual warfare.
-My name is Dennis McCain. I'm the pastor at Northside Baptist Church
in Modesto, California. I've been pastoring here for sixteen years
and I've been in the ministry as a missionary church planter for
almost forty years.
-Now, there's an agenda today and it's a satanic agenda to change
the Bible. A lot of people just think, "Well, the King James Bible is
a great translation; it's very poetic. And these other versions are
inferior. Maybe they're not as well translated." But I'm here to
tell you it goes much deeper than that. These new versions are actually
Satan's attempt at corrupting the Word of God. I'm going to show you
that these changes are not just accidental. They're not just
minor, inconsequential changes. I mean these changes are strategic changes.
They are calculated to attack specific doctrines that the Bible teaches.
The Bible tells us in Ephesians 6:12, "For we wrestle not against
flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places." There are people who have many
millions and even billions of dollars who have an agenda to put out
corrupted Bibles and then promote them through advertizing,
promote them through retail stores that will put them front and center
and that will show people, "This is the Bible you ought to be reading. Get rid
of the King James Bible. Get the newer, better, improved version."
Now, I did some research on what the most popular versions are today.
This is the most current list. I checked this with a bunch of different
sources and they all came up with the same five Bibles. The number one
Bible today is not the King James Bible. It's the New International
Version: the NIV. Number two is the King James Bible. Number three,
the New Living Translation. Number four, the New King James, and number five,
the English Standard Version or the ESV. Different lists I looked
at had those in a slightly different order, but they all had those five.
-Most people don't realize that there are hundreds of translations, and
obviously we don't have the time to go through each and every one of them.
-It would make a lot more sense to just focus on the four corruptions
that are the most popular. The NIV is missing sixteen entire verses
from the new testament. I mean just right out of the gate, before we
talk about all the thousands of changes, just sixteen verses are completely
missing. Matthew 17:21 - gone. Matthew 18:11 - gone. Acts 8:37 - that verse is
gone from the NIV, gone from the ESV, gone from the New Living Translation...
-Completely gone!
Acts 8:36, King James Bible: "And as they went on their way,
they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water;
what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip" - that's the soul winner -
"said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."
So, the eunich - that's the sinner - says, "What's hindering me,
what's stopping me from getting baptized?" Philip, the soul winner,
says, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he" - the eunich - "answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God." What just happened to the eunich? He got saved.
Why? If we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our
heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
He believed in his heart. He confessed with his mouth. He got saved.
So what'd they do? Verse 38:
"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into
the water, both Philip and the eunich; and he baptized him."
So verse 36: What's stopping me from getting baptized?
Verse 37: As long as you believe you can get baptized.
He confessed with his mouth, believes in his heart;
verse 38: they baptize him. Amen.
What does the New International Version say?
"As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunich said,
'Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?'
And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunich went
down into the water and Philip baptized him." Now did you just catch
what happened? What was missing?
I don't know if you noticed. The entire verse 37 was missing.
So according to the New International Version, they're going down the road.
He says, "What's stopping me from getting baptized?"
According to the NIV, nothing! Let's just baptize you.
What's missing? Believe on Jesus Christ!
What's missing? The gospel.
What's missing? Why are these Bibles attacking Jesus Christ?
It doesn't make any sense to me.
But it would make sense if you realize that Satan's behind it.
-But not only have they removed sixteen entire verses from the NIV,
they also put notes on 27 other verses, saying these verses were probably
not in the original, again causing you to doubt God's Word.
Verses like Mark 16:15. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature." Verses like "Father, forgive them; for they know not
what they do." They havn't removed these verses, but they've put a note next to
it that renders it in the reader's mind null and void, saying, "Well,
these probably weren't in the original anyway. This doesn't really have any
authority anyway." We believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh.
This is something that these modern versions constantly change and attack.
Let me give you some examples. 1 John 5:7; "For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one." That's where we get the word "trinity".
Three in one.
"These three are one."
The NIV, on the other hand, just says, "For there are three that testify".
Doesn't mention the Father, doesn't mention the Word, doesn't mention
the Holy Ghost, and does not mention that the three are one.
Look what they've done with 1 Timothy 3:16. The Bible reads, "And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness:" - watch this - "God was
manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
It was God that was believed on in the world, it was God that was received
up into glory, it was God who was made flesh and dwelt among us, and the
Bible is crystal clear in 1 Timothy 3:16 that Jesus Christ is God.
-In 1 Timothy 3:16, it's an important passage because I would often read
the footnotes in the New American Standard that I had in seminary
and later on in the NIV, and other passages, and they would say in
the footnotes, or they would say in their commentaries, or those teaching
from the NIV or the New American Standard, they'd say that there
isn't any difference in theology. It doesn't affect any doctrinal
perspectives. But obviously there's a difference between "hos" and "Theós".
If you take as "he who was, 'hos' ", instead of "Theós", instead of it
being God, it obviously weakens the text because you have to assume
that Christ is God, or made manifest. But in "Theós", there's no wondering
about what the text says. It's God who was manifest in the flesh, and
that's got to be the person of Christ, and that certainly influences people's
thinking on the deity of the Lord Jesus. -Right.
-Another great proof of the fact that Jesus Christ is God is Hebrews 1:8.
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever".
So what is the Bible calling the Son there?
It's calling him God. It says, "unto the Son...Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever". Listen to the NIV.
"But about the Son he says"...
-Recently I was talking to a Jehovah's Witness in the train station - I went
to pick my wife up. And the Jehovah's Witness started to read to me out
of a devotional book she had but I saw her New World Translation.
So I said, "Well, is the New World Translation from the Greek?"
She said, "It's from the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament."
I said, "Is it accurate?"
She said, "Of course."
I said, "Have you had Greek?" She said, "No."
I said, "What would you do if Jehovah himself spoke to Jesus and called
him God?" "That never happened."
So I quoted for her Hebrews 1:8. "Unto the Son he saith,
Thy trone, O God, is for ever and ever".
She became so excited and so upset she took her bags and rolled out the door
and I followed her out the door talking to her. But when I read it from
the New World Translation later, it completely has been changed:
-Whereas in the King James, you can't misunderstand it. But not only that,
but they attack Christ's virgin birth. Go to Luke 2:33.
The Bible says, "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things
which were spoken of him."
The NIV, on the other hand, and the ESV, and the New Living Translation
say, "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
So right there we see that the NIV and these other modern versions are calling
Joseph the father of Jesus Christ, something that the King James Bible
is careful to never do.
-Was Joseph the father of Jesus Christ? No he was not.
He was the stepfather of Jesus Christ. I'll give you that.
But he was not the father of Jesus Christ.
-In fact, later in this same chapter, Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus' father
and he corrects her immediatly. It says, "when they saw him they were amazed:
and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?
behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."
So didn't she just refer to Joseph as Jesus' father? Watch how he
immediatly corrects her. "And he said unto them,
How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must
be about my Father's business?" He's saying, "Look, I'm about my
Father's business when I'm preaching the Word of God because Joseph
is not my father. God the Father is my Father."
People who believe the NIV, they're so blinded, I've actually had them
show me this and say, "See? This is the Bible calling
Joseph Jesus' father." No, that's Mary calling Joseph
Jesus' father and she's immediatly rebuked and somebody needs
to rebuke the NIV. Somebody needs to correct the New Living Translation.
Somebody needs to rebuke the ESV and say, "Wait a minute. You're wrong.
That is not Jesus' father. Jesus' Father is God the Father."
You say, "Well, they're just a little easier to understand. Well, the
changes don't really affect doctrine."
These are some pretty important doctrines, aren't they?
The deity of Christ, the virgin birth.
Not only that; they attack his eternal pre-existance. See, Jesus Christ did not
come into being in Bethlehem's manger. Jesus Christ did not come into being
in the womb of Mary. But rather, Jesus Christ has always existed and always
will exist. He is the first and the last, he is the Alpha and Omega,
he is the beginning and the ending, and that's crucial to his deity.
If he's a created being, he can't be God.
The Bible says in Micah 5:2, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings
forth have been from of old," - watch this - "from everlasting."
So here in Micah 5:2, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is "from everlasting."
Those are two very powerful words because they speak to the eternal
pre-existance of Jesus Christ. He had no beginning. He is not a created being.
He was God in the flesh. He was in the beginning with God and he was God. [John 1:1]
Now, "everlasting" means it goes on forever; it lasts forever.
So "from everlasting" would be something that comes from the eternal past
or something that comes from the infinite past, something that has
always existed. Listen to the NIV:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are
from of old, from ancient times."
Now, what's an origin?
That's when something starts to exist, isn't it?
When something originates, that's when it starts to exist.
Look, did Jesus start to exist at some point?
No, he's from everlasting in the King James Bible.
But according to the NIV, he had an origin.
If Jesus Christ had an origin, then he's not God, because God
was and is and is to come. [Revelation 4:8]
God has always existed.
God is not a created being.
But this is where the NIV really just delivers the coup de grâce:
-Isaiah 14:12 says this: "How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer"...
-Only one place in the entire Bible do you find the word "Lucifer". Once.
Here we actually put a name on Satan, calling him Lucifer,
and if we were to walk down the street and just ask people, "Who is Lucifer?
What is Lucifer?" they'd all say, "It's Satan; it's the devil."
Do you know who Lucifer is?
-An angel that was cast down from heaven, Satan.
-Satan.
-That's Satan.
-That's the devil.
-The devil.
-He's Satan.
-Satan.
-The devil.
-Alright, who's Lucifer?
-The devil.
-It's an easy question; I know. That's perfect.
-Satan. Yeah.
-The only way you and I know that Satan's name is Lucifer
is because of Isaiah 14:12.
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer," - now I want you to notice
it gives us his name and it gives us his title - "O Lucifer, son of the morning!"
So what's the title of Lucifer? "Son of the morning", right?
Revelation chapter 22, verse 16; the King James Version says this:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.
I am" - this is Jesus speaking - "I am the root and the offspring of David,"
- this is Jesus speaking - "and the bright and morning star."
Do you see that?
What did Jesus call himself? The morning star.
That's his title.
-So both the King James and the NIV in Revelation 22:16 state that
Jesus Christ is the morning star.
-What does the NIV call Lucifer falling down from heaven?
-"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!"
So instead of Lucifer being cast out of heaven in Isaiah 14:12, in the NIV
you have Jesus being cast out of heaven.
Now look, the Bible has told us that Lucifer or Satan was cast out of
heaven for wanting to be like the most high, wanting to be like God.
Look, the NIV, after attacking Christ's deity, after attacking his
pre-existance, after attacking the fact that he was born of a virgin, that
he had no beginning, that he had no ending, that he was God in the flesh,
it's now accusing him of wanting to be like the most high. He is the most high!
-According to your NIV, Jesus fell from heaven and not Lucifer!
-The people who are behind these versions are of Satan. Satan wanted
to corrupt the Word in the garden of Eden
and we are not ignorant of his devices. [2 Corinthians 2:11]
See, the Word of God has great power.
The Bible reads in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick,
and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The devil knows that if he can disarm us as Christians, he can defeat us.
-The goal is and always has been to disarm us of our weapon.
Look at history. When evil men want to conquer a group of people, you know
what precedes the conquering? They disarm those people of their weapons.
See, the government tries to tell you, "We want to remove your weapons
because we're going to protect you."
You know, if someone wants to take your weapon away, they're not trying to
protect you; they're trying to make sure that when they come after you,
you can't fight back.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. Between 1929 and 1953
20 million political dissidents were killed.
In 1935 Germany established gun control, began to disarm its people.
Between 1933 and 1945, 13 million Jews and others were killed.
In 1935 China established gun control and began to disarm its people.
Between 1948 and 1952,
20 million political dissidents in China were killed.
In 1970 Uganda established gun control, began to disarm its people.
Between 1971 and 1979 - catch this - 300,000 Christians were killed.
In 1956 Cambodia established gun control and began to disarm its people.
Between 1975 and 1977, 1 million Cambodians were killed.
You've got to understand this: the enemy is constantly trying to take your weapon
away, not to defend you, but so that you cannot defend yourself.
-Evil dictators have always disarmed the population to make them defensless,
to make them slaves. Governments know that if they can disarm the people,
they'll be defenseless against their tyranny.
-Say what? Is there an attack on the Word of God today?
Of course there is. Because if Satan can disarm you from the one thing you've
got to hurt him, from the one thing you've got to engage him in battle,
if he can disarm you then it's easy pickings.
-The devil would love nothing more than to take the twoedged sword of the
King James Bible out of our hand and replace it with a butter knife
called the NIV,
replace it a butter knife called the ESV,
replace it with a butter knife called the New King James.
He doesn't want us to be armed. He doesn't want us to be able to do battle
with the rulers of the darkness of this world.
2 Thessalonians 2 reads in verse 3, "Let no man deceive you by any
means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first,
and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition".
So the Bible tells us that...
-Before the antichrist can come, before the one world government can come,
before the New World Order can come, there has to come a falling away first.
What is falling away? Apostasy.
-And I believe that these modern Bible versions are key to the devil's plan
for a one world religion, a one world government, a New World Order.
The Bible tells us that before Christ's second coming there will be a great
falling away, the "apostasía". The great falling away before Christ's
second coming will be as a result of these false, lying, modern Bible
versions that are twisting and changing God's Word
and changing the doctrines of Christ.
-I mean they're putting mistakes in our Bible, and then people are doubting
the Bible, they're doubting God, they're believing in evolution,
they're believing all these things. All it's doing, it's promoting a one world
government. Why? Because it's promoting a falling away.
-And what's interesting is that people often, when they refer to the one world
government, or the one world religion that's coming, they often refer to it as
the New World Order. Right? Who's heard that term before:
the "New World Order"?
-It is a big idea, a new world order.
-They would rush into the home in an armored line, guns at the ready.
-It is a new world order...
-We've got to give them a stake in creating the kind of world order
that I think all of us would like to see.
-Are you optimistic a global system can happen, from what we've heard so far?
-If it could happen, and in fact, it's in the works...
-The people that are behind this treaty want that world government
and in their minds this is a step toward it.
-You mean controlling ammo, controlling the amount that's available, eventually
controlling the market?
-Eventually controlling all of us.
-Here's what's interesting. Did you know that the NIV uses the term "new order"
about the coming of Christ?
In the King James Bible, Hebrews 9:10 says, "Which stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until
the time of reformation."
Now that's talking about something that already happened in the past, right?
-The time of reformation is a reference to the coming of Jesus Christ.
Now you've got to understand this. That is a reference to the first coming of
Jesus Christ. We no longer do the meats, the drinks, the divers washings, the
carnal ordinances. We no longer do any of that. Why? Because the time of
reformation came. The Lord Jesus Christ came.
-Listen to the NIV: "external regulations applying until the time
of the new order." And then if you read verse 11 in the NIV, it makes it sound
as if that's something that's still coming in the future.
The new order was not just the first coming of Christ, but that the second
coming of Christ is what's refered to by the new order.
The Good News Translation comes right out and says it:
"These are all outward rules, which apply only until the time when God
will establish the new order."
The New English Translation also calls it the new order.
The Common English Bible also calls it the new order.
The best-selling Bible in America today
calls the coming of Christ the new order.
-Guess what. There is coming an antichrist and when he comes it will be
the time of the new order.
But that's not what Hebrews is talking about.
-There's a lot in these new Bibles that tamper with end times Bible prophecy
in order to prepare people to accept the antichrist, in order to prepare people
to be sucked into this New World Order, in order to prepare people to be
deceived by this global government, one world religion, one world system
of the antichrist, and to receive the mark of the beast.
-Say, "Pastor Jimenez, you're going on these conspiracies.
You believe in the New World Order?"
-You think it's crazy to think that there are bankers and people out there
trying to bring in a one world government?
I don't know if you've ever read the book of Revelation, but the Bible tells
us that the antichrist is going to bring in a one world government.
The Bible tells us that the antichrist is going to bring a one world religion.
I don't think it's that far fetched that people are saying,
"Oh, the bankers are bringing in a new world order
with a one world government."
Now they may think - you know these conspiracy theory guys - they may think,
"Oh, it's just the bankers; it's just this."
But we know in the Bible that the antichrist
is bringing in that same thing.
That's what the Bible says.
From the garden of Eden there's been an attack on the Word of God.
Even before the Bible was completely written down, there was an
attack on the Word of God, and you think it's different today?
It's not.
You've got to understand this. Today the Word of God is under attack.
The modern Bible versions are clearly different than the King James Bible
and you've got to ask yourself this question: why?
In order to understand the difference you need to understand the history
of the English Bible.
Turns out there's a Bible museum right here in Phoenix that has one of the
largest collections of rare English Bibles in the world, and the museum
director Joel Lampe is going to let us actually look into these rare first
editions of the Bibles leading up to the King James and the King James itself.
He's going to explain to us the history of our King James Bible.
He's going to take us all the way from Erasmus' Greek New Testament,
the original Textus Receptus,
and he's going to take us through the history of all these English Bibles
all the way up to the King James Version.
So let's start with Erasmus.
-What you see here on the table, pastor, is, in a nutshell, the history of the
King James Bible.
Now remember this King James Bible was printed in 1611 and there's a common
misconception out there that it was the first English.
Well, it wasn't. There were numerous other English examples before the 1611
and what you see here starts with the original Greek, as you just said,
Textus Receptus, done by Erasmus of Rotterdam.
This literally changed everything from what we know today in church history
as well as in just secular history.
It's called the 1516 Erasmus of Rotterdam's Greek/Latin New Testament.
Well, let's just call Erasmus what he is:
the smartest man that ever lived, non-deity factor. Jesus of course
was the smartest man that ever lived. Solomon's up there as well, but even
today we consider Erasmus the smartest. Whether it's in sciences, theology,
philosophy, he was just that smart.
-And this is the original Textus Receptus right here?
-The original Textus Receptus.
-Wow.
-Please take a look at it.
Generally considered the most important book that was ever printed.
And this is the book that launches the reformation.
Even as an atheist, you acknowledge this is the most important book ever printed.
The Renaissance was launced from this. The truth comes from this book.
And so we see just how imperative this book is, but what it also did was
cause an enormity of problems. And what do I mean by that?
Well, the money stopped flowing to Rome. There's a building under construction.
There's a very famous interior designer down there that was hired to
decorate it. Of course I'm talking about the Vatican, Michaelangelo,
the Sistine Chapel. That money stopped flowing. The church started putting
bounties on people's heads, saying, "You can't teach this. This isn't what we
consider accurate", even though Erasmus said, "We've kind of got a problem here.
It does say 'metánoia', not 'pay a fine', so we're going to have to address
this theological issue." But the protestant movement was birthed
from this book. And what does the protestant movement actually mean?
To protest.
-In this edition that you're showing me, Erasmus has put the original Greek
next to the church's Latin, and it makes it very easy to see the contradiction
between the two. -Of course.
-Is that right? -That's why it changed everything.
Because it showed what we were doing wrong, and showed what it should be.
But he didn't translate it to show what it should be until later.
That wouldn't be until 1519.
-So these are two contradictory things side by side.
-And all he is doing is just showing the evidence.
-The church's Latin corrupted version and then the original Greek Textus
Receptus, he just put it side by side and just basically let the reader
be the judge.
-But this is the bullet that basically, effectively, killed the church.
-Right.
-What you see here is what we know today as the first edition Coverdale Bible.
What, really, it is though is the work of William Tyndale. Now as we know
Tyndale is the inventor of the English we speak today. He's also the inventor
of our very first English Bible translated from the original languages.
Tyndale in England wanted to do the same thing Luther was doing in Germany.
And he went underground and with the aid of Luther's library, books like this
here, and later editions of Erasmus' work, Tyndale would produce the very
first New Testament. It becomes the most hunted book in the history of England.
And so the king wants this thing burned.
-So England was still totally under the control of the Catholic Church at the time
that Tyndale's producing his New Testament in 1526?
-And it is a book that's basically an assault on the established or Catholic
Church of London at that time.
This became a monumental achievement because Tyndale, in the last years of
his life, spent most of his time translating from the Hebrew and the
Greek to produce this book.
-The rest of the Old Testament, some of it they weren't able to get done from
the original Hebrew by the time this book came out?
Well, no, because Tyndale was arrested in 1534.
-Right.
-He's held under house arrest for 500 days. And then on the morning of
October 6, 1536, he's taken out and burned. But in that incarceration
period, Myles Coverdale finished that which Tyndale had started.
Now what I love more than anything that we have in this room is this text here.
This is the 1537 what we call the Matthews Bible. Now what is this?
It's nothing more than a completed this.
-Right.
-Now remember when Tyndale dies his last words, as you spoke so eloquently
earlier were, "Lord, open the eyes of the king of England."
Now what happened in that prayer?
Tyndale could have said a million things.
Why waste your last breath saying, "Lord, open the eyes of the king of
England"? Tyndale knew that no matter how crazy Henry VIII was, that if he
could get Henry VIII to break with the established Church of Rome, England
would be won and protected. It's one thing to have a personal relationship
with Jesus. It's another thing to have a personal relationship with Jesus with
somebody wanting to wake up and kill you every morning. That was their mission.
But finally Henry VIII permitted the Bible to go free based on one thing:
a divorce.
These two texts obviously change England.
You could truly have a personal relationship with Jesus from
these two books.
-You had that mediator of the church instead of just
Jesus Christ being the mediator.
-What we call today the confession booth.
"Forgive me, father, for I have sinned. It's been two weeks
since my last confession."
-So this defeated the confessional booth.
-It got rid of it completely. There was no need anymore. You didn't have to have
a man tell you what your penalty was
for this crime that you commited against God.
Then what we have today is called the Great Bible or the Bible that was
actually authorized and permitted by Henry VIII, king of England.
That would become fun, to remember a couple of things.
A later edition of Erasmus' work was done by a guy named Beza.
And another work that we're most familiar with though, is this one here
done by Stephanus. Now Stephanus is important because he gives us the Greek
that our Geneva Bible or the Bible done by the reformers of John Calvin,
William Wittingham, those guys, they used this Greek text to translate what
their English Bible is known as today is the Geneva Bible.
Now, it's famous because it's the first one with verses. OK, that's why the
Geneva Bible's so familiar to many of us. It's like, where did John 3:16 come
from? Well, it came from...
-They divided it into chapters and verses?
-The chapters were already there.
-They divided in into verses. Got you.
-After Henry VIII his son takes the throne. And we know him today as
Edward VI. He died very young. He was only on the throne for four or five
years. But in that time he permitted the scriptures to go free as well. But he
too had no spouse and no kids and so when he doesn't have an heir, who ends
up taking the throne? His sister who we know today as Bloody Mary. And we don't
call her that because she liked vodka and tomato juice with a splash of
Tabasco. We call her Bloody Mary because she was responsible for literally over
7,000 of her own people's death. And here's a perfect example. Here's a
family, pastor, in Bloody Mary's reign. Here's five mothers and five fathers all
being burned at the stake. And for what reason?
They taught their children the Lord's prayer in English.
-Wow.
-And she had them burned at the stake.
-So in her zeal for the Catholic Church, she's killing these people.
-The parents were teaching their kids.
-OK. And they only wanted the church to teach them?
-We weren't qualified, pastor, to teach our children.
-So basically they're being burned at the stake for homeschooling.
-That's basically what it came down to. In a sense, it was.
They wanted complete rule.
-Wow.
Well, during that uprising, men of courage decided that we're going to
rebel. And what were their names? John Knox, John Foxe, William Wittingmam.
They fled England and they go to work on a brand new text. And what do we call
that text today? We call that the Geneva Bible.
-Well it says right on there, someone has written here, "Family Bible".
-That's right. That's what it truly was: the very first family Bible.
-Right.
-What we know today as the Textus Receptus, it will go to produce what we
know as the very first "homeschool" Bible: the Geneva Bible.
-Right.
-And so this is the book that sails over on the Mayflower.
-Got you.
-That's the Bible that settles Jamestown.
After Bloody Mary's terror, she had a sister. We of course know her name as
Queen Elizabeth. To win the hearts of the people, she gave us the Bishops'
Bible. This was done by "bishops",
done by pastors.
-But they're building upon the work of the Geneva Bible.
-They just wanted something that was a little bit more authoritative.
-Right.
-This comes from people you can trust. -Experts.
-Hebrew, Greek experts but truthfully, it never settles with the people.
It was a glorious work.
-Somehow it just didn't catch on.
-It just never caught on.
-Maybe God just knew that something better was coming down the pike.
-And then of course she didn't have a spouse; no kids. So who would take the
throne? Her cousin from Scotland. Of course we know him as King James.
And that big, tall Bible that you see down there closest to you, that's the
first edition of the King James Bible. And then a year later, he allowed the
folks to buy one in a book store and you're holding
the very first King James New Testament.
-Wow.
Then when we get to 1603, we have King James becoming king. King James VI of
Scotland. He became the king and it was said unto him that a new translation
should be brought forth of the scriptures. And the reason why is that
you've got a lot of people using the Geneva Bible, but then they'd go to
church and it's the Bishops' Bible, so there were two main versions and both
of them had issues.
The Geneva Bible had some issues; the Bishops' Bible had some issues.
And so they said let's just take the time to do it right.
They got the best scholars in the land together and they said we're not trying
to replace a bad version.
We're going from good to better to best here. I mean these are good
translations. The Geneva Bible's good; the Bishops' Bible is good.
We're just going to perfect it and get it just dialed in.
So from 1604 to 1610 the KJV was translated by 54 of the greatest
scholars that existed at that time. Just to give you one example: one guy,
Lancelot Andrews, was an expert in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac,
Arabic, and he also spoke fifteen modern languages. That's one guy out of the 54
people that translated the King James Bible over the course of seven years.
-So there were those who were Arabic scholars. There were those who were
Greek and Hebrew scholars. There were Aramaic scholars. They were men of great
intellect, all of them. And their knowledge of the scripture was varied.
They may have held some different beliefs or different areas of theology
might be slightly different from one of the other translators.
What they did was they divided themselves up into six groups.
These six men translated these six books of the Bible and so forth. And when they
did this then they compared them all together, and each of the six groups did
this. And then they chose one leader out of each group to evaluate all six groups
so what happened was every passage of scripture was evaluated fifteen times.
And then the end of it all: all of them came into agreement with what was
translated based upon the correct verbal dynamic that they used, that is for what
it says, that's what it means,
even if it was in slight contradiction to what they might think.
-The king in 1603 said, "OK, I'm going to organize a commitee and no matter how
long it takes, you're going to go to work using two rules:
Old Testament must be translated from the Hebrew, New Testament must be
translated from the Greek, and I'm going to give you all the resources humanly
possible to make this happen." So the best Hebrew of that day,
the best scholarly Greek of that day, and in 1603, 53 guys were hired. They
go off and for seven years they work on what we know today as the most important
book in the history of man: the first edition, first issue, first printing of
the King James text. And it took them seven years.
And they did a phenominal job. And the King James that you and I read today
of course comes from that 1769 revision, but this was the anchor of the text. And
this is the product of it. And in 1612 he gives us what we know today as the
very first hand-held King James New Testament.
-This is what caught on.
-That's what caught on.
-The hand-held New Testament.
-The King says if you can afford it, you can own it. Every book store in London
sold it, and it would take off.
And then it would become and always has been the #1 selling book in the history
of man. No book has ever outsold this text, or ever will.
-When we look at the Bible versions that led up to the King James: Tyndale,
Matthew, Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, they all
line up with the King James. They all basically say the same thing as the
King James. The King James Bible is the culmination of the Bibles that preceded
it. So if the King James Bible is consistent with all the other English
Bibles that led up to it, why are these modern Bibles so different?
Dr. James White is a guy who has debated against people that are King James only.
He's written a book against those that are King James only.
He's considered to be the expert of why King James onlyism is wrong, so we're
going to go talk to him and figure out what his arguments are.
-James? We have guests.
-Alright. How you doing?
Dr. James White, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
-Good to be with you.
-Can you just give me Codex Sinaiticus in a nutshell,
and Codex B in a nutshell?
-Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the primary objects of the vitriol of the
King James only movement because of the fact that they were so central in the
development of a New Testament text other than the Textus Receptus.
-Two men by the names of Westcott and Hort put together a critical text mainly
based on two manuscripts known as Sanaiticus or "Codex Aleph" and
Vaticanus or "Codex B". And these two manuscripts were thought by Westcott and
Hort to be older and therefore more reliable than the other Greek texts that
had been used in the Textus Receptus.
The modern Bibles are supposedly the result of modern archaeology and modern
scholarship and modern discovery. I mean even the people who promote these modern
Bibles will tell you, "Well, the modern publishers just have more resources
available to them today. They just have manuscripts that just weren't available
to the King James translators. That's why the modern Bibles are better",
they'll say. And the reason they say that is because the manuscripts that the
modern Bibles are translated from, the NIV, etc., are newer discoveries meaning
that they were buried for centuries. Now let me ask you something. Do you believe
that the true Bible was buried for centuries?
[Congregation] No.
-I mean do you really think that God would allow his people to be using the
wrong Bible for hundreds and hundreds of years, and then all of the sudden in the
1800's we're going to find the right manuscripts?
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean God promised to preserve his Word to all generations, but they're
basically believing that God's Word in its true form was buried somewhere and
that for all these centuries everybody is reading and preaching and believing
something that's wrong and then thank God for the archaeology of the 1800's
to dig up these new manuscripts, the true Word of God that's been buried for
all these years. Look, if God took so much time and effort to bring us the
Word of God through all the prophets and holy men of God who spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost over the course of hundreds, yea, thousands of years,
and then he just lets it get buried?
No, these ones that have been dug up of late, these newer, better manuscripts
are fraudulent. They have names like Codex Vaticanus. Now, hmm, what does
that call to mind? "Codex Vaticanus".
-Because it was found in the Vatican or it's Vatican related,
to me makes it immediately suspect.
-Right.
-There are more than 5,200 Greek fragments and portions of the New
Testament that are available for study.
-Wow.
-And 45 of those are the predominant texts that are used by translators for
any outside the King James Bible.
That's 1% of the manuscripts available,
while the King James Bible uses 99.06% of those 5,255 texts to translate from.
And this is why it's popularly called the majority text. You have to also
note - and I don't think this is mentioned that often - in the gospels
themselves, between Sinaiticus and also the Vaticanus, there are over 3,000
differences. So how do we know which one is the correct difference or the correct
passage that should be used unless it's validated by the other 43 sources that
they use? But if I have two manuscripts, A and B, that are in conflict just in
the gospels in 3,000 places, how do I know which one is reliable? So I'd
rather trust in the predominance of manuscripts
that gave us the Textus Receptus.
-If we find something that's been buried and it says something different than
what's been received, the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, you know, the
Bible that people have used for centuries, then that must be fraudulent.
It must not be the Word of God if God didn't preserve it. They're basically
rejecting thousands of Bibles in all different languages that are all saying
the same thing. Instead, they're going to go with Codex Vaticanus, Codex
Sinaiticus, just because they're supposedly older. OK, but just because
they're older doesn't mean that they're right. It doesn't mean that they're not
fraudulent. Look, Paul told us in 2 Corinthians 2 that people were
corrupting the Word of God even in his day. In 2 Thessalonians they were
already writing a false scripture pretending to be from the apostle Paul.
In Revelation 22, God was already warning people who would try to take
away from or add to God's Word. So that's already been taking place. So
just because you've got a manuscript that's from 200 years after Christ, oh,
there's no way it could be tampered with, right? Of course it could.
And there are many, the Bible tells us, that corrupt the Word of God.
Not a few, but many.
-These two manuscripts do not stand alone.
-Right.
-And today the Nestle Allen 28th edition, UBS 4th corrected, there are a
number of places where, not only does Sinaiticus disagree with Vaticanus,
though they frequently are together, they don't stand alone in light of the
papyri. Imbalanced prejudice on the part of Westcott and Hort for Aleph and B.
But they were working before the papyri too.
Anything before the papyri is today primarily irrelevant.
-It's become outdated because of newer discoveries of manuscripts?
-The discovery of the papyri, which of course came from Egypt
and various and sundry places...
-Alexandria is a city in Egypt. Egypt is a nation in the Bible that's always
associated with that which is ungodly or sinful or wrong. For example, in
Revelation 11:8, the Bible reads, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the
street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,
where also our Lord was crucified." So when God wants to use a place in the
Bible to represent wickedness, to represent that which is ungodly and
satanic, he uses Egypt to represent that. Egypt in the Bible is a symbol of
wickedness, of ungodliness.
-The readings of those early manuscripts, P66, P75, P72, have
verified and demonstrated that the textual tradition found in Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus was not unique to them. I mean there's theories running around now
that these were Roman Catholic forgeries and all the rest of this kind of
silliness like that.
-You might not think that the NIV's a Catholic Bible, and they'll tell you,
"Oh, it's evangelical; it's for Baptists." But you know what? I'm going
to show you all the Catholic doctrines that it props up because it's from these
Catholic manuscripts. Acts 8:37 has been removed from the modern Bible versions
because it condemns infant baptism.
-This is why we don't do infant baptism. You know why? Because according to the
Bible, what's hindering me from being baptized? You've got to believe, and
then be baptized. An infant can't believe. An infant's not even condemned.
If an infant dies, they go to heaven. But a Catholic could read that and say,
"Well, infant baptism, go ahead. What's stopping me from getting baptized?"
"Nothing. Let's just baptize him." No, something is stopping you from getting
baptized. It's believing. It's just missing in your Bible.
-The Catholics teach a doctrine that Mary was still a virgin all the way
throughout her life. Now we know that of course, Mary was a virgin when she gave
birth to Jesus Christ, but the Bible is clear that after that, she had other
children. In fact, it lists four of Jesus' half-brothers: James, Joses,
Judas, and Simon. He gives the names of the brothers, and then it says, "his
sisters, are they not all with us?" So Jesus had at least seven half-siblings,
maybe even more. Now here's a great proof of that in Matthew 1:25. "Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,
and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." So it doesn't say that he never
knew her. It just says that he knew her not until she had brought forth her
firstborn son. It says in verse 25 in the NIV, "But he did not consummate
their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
What's missing? "Firstborn".
If Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary, that tells me there's a second-born.
But the NIV removes that so you can say, well you know, that was the only son
that she had. Another doctrine of the Catholic Church that is supported by the
NIV is the doctrine of beating yourself. And yes, you heard me correctly.
Self-flagellation or beating yourself.
Now, your Catholic friends that you know in the United States probably do
not beat themselves. But throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has
taught and encouraged the practice of beating yourself, OK? In fact, when
Henry VIII made Catholicism illegal in England and kicked the Roman Catholic
Church out of England, he also at the same time passed a law against beating
yourself. And even today in the Philippines, the devout Catholics will
beat themselves today in 2013. In the Philippines they crucify themselves;
they beat themselves; they crawl on their knees till they're bleeding.
I mean they do these type of acts to themself. Look what the Bible says in
1 Corinthians 9:27. "But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest
that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway." The NIV says, "I beat my body". And most of the modern versions
say something along the lines of, "I beat my body..."
-Subdue.
-No, they don't say "subdue". They say "I beat".
-No, that's what the NET says.
-Oh, OK. But I'm telling you the NIV says, "I beat my body". The 2010 edition
of the NIV says, "I strike a blow to my body".
"I buffet my body".
-Don't think I'm going to be defending the NIV.
-OK. It's the best-selling translation in America in 2013.
-I doubt that.
-I looked it up in many sources. -I think the ESV...
-It is #1.
-We'll, OK, if you include...
-The ESV is #5. And I did a lot of research on this.
-If you include liberal denominations, maybe.
-So 1 Corinthians 9:27, you're not going to defend the NIV's "beating yourself"?
-No.
-Because it's Catholic. I mean the Catholic Church, good night!
-Oh, don't...That's not where it came from.
-Hold on a second. Are you going to say
that Catholics don't beat themselves to this day?
They don't practice self-flagellation? Are you going to say that Henry VIII...
-Some few do; the vast majority don't even show up at mass.
They're not going to be whipping themselves.
-How about throughout history? What about in England when Henry VIII kicked
out the Catholics and he made beating yourself illegal the same year?
-But Steven, what does that have to do with the NIV translators?
You see, just because Rome has done it in the past
doesn't mean that that's what they intended by it.
-What I'm saying is that Satan is Satan, OK? And the same Satan that got people
to beat themselves in the Middle Ages is the same Satan that put a passage in the
NIV telling you to beat yourself. That's where I'm drawing the connection.
-You know, even with the rendering of the NIV, it's obvious what it's talking
about, and it's obviously metaphorical.
-OK, the Amplified Version. I don't know about you, but the Amplified
Version was always too loud for me. I never even got it. But anyway, listen
to the Amplified Version: "But [like a boxer] I buffet my body". Now let me ask
you this: Have you ever known a boxer who beats himself up? Because I haven't.
The Common English Bible really makes it easy to understand for you, because
isn't that why you like these new versions, because they're easy to
understand? "Rather I'm landing punches on my own body and subduing it like a
slave." Look, beating yourself is not a biblical doctrine. And you say, well,
he's just meaning it figuratively.
Well, what about all these people who actually beat themselves?
It's a strange doctrine, my friend. I don't believe in it.
The Bible says in Matthew 6:7, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as
the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
So the Bible's teaching us here not to just vainly repeat things over and over
again, thinking that if we say something over and over again, God's going to hear
us, more than if we just said it once.
What's a repetition? Saying the same thing twice, or three times, or five
times. He's saying look, don't use vain repetitions as the heathen do. OK, the
NIV on the other hand - and all the modern versions pretty much change
this - "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think
they will be heard because of their many words."
"Babble" is when you're just talking about meaningless things and going on
and on and on, just blathering. It's not the same as vain repetitions.
If I said to a Roman Catholic, "You know, you're repeating the same prayer
of the 'our Father' over and over and over and over. You're not going to be
heard for your much speaking. That's a vain repetition. You need to say that
one time and be done with it and not just keep repeating the same thing over
and over again." You know, that's supported by Matthew 6:7, but if I say
to them, "Hey, stop babbling like a pagan," they're going to say, "Well
this isn't babble." They're going to say, "The Lord's prayer is God's Word."
Because it is God's Word, right? But I'm not going to chant that or repeat that
in a vain way to God, but the Catholic Church teaches vain repetitions,
so that alteration has been made.
Not only that, but the Catholics have a very strong doctrine of confessing your
sins to the priest. And they'll take you to James 5:15, and in the Catholic Bible
there's a note in the column that says hey, this verse is telling you to
confess your sins to the priest. It says that, for example, in the Doway Rheimes
Catholic Bible in the notes. That's what it says. James 5:16; "Confess your
faults one to another, and pray one for another, they ye may be healed.
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Now listen
to what the NIV and the modern versions change this to: "Therefore confess your
sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The
prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." That's the NIV.
Now you say, "Well that's the same thing." But it's not the same thing.
First of all, if you go back to the original language, if you go back to
what it actually says in the Greek, the word is "fault"; it's not "sin".
-In the Textus Receptus, it uses the word for faults, "paraptómata", which
comes from "paráptoma," which means "faults". And I think sometimes people,
when they read the wrong thing there, that they're too busy confessing their
sins to men, rather than their sins to God, because "If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness", whereas I confess my faults to you when I might say, "I'm
weak in this one area of my life. I need to be strengthened. Will you pray for
me?" So when I confess my fault to you, I'm not going to confession, nor am I
confessing my sin to you, but I'm confessing the faults and weaknesses
that I have personally, so there is a difference in the understanding of the
words between "sin" and "faults" themselves.
-Evangelical Christianity historically has not accepted Catholicism as being
true Christianity. It used to be when I was a child that the Christian bookstore
would have books and literature exposing the Catholic Church, warning you about
the Catholic Church. Now you go to a Christian bookstore, and they have
rosery beads; they sell Catholic Bibles; they sell Catholic paraphernalia.
What we're seeing is a blurring of the lines between evangelical Christianity
and Roman Catholicism. People are being prepared for a one world religion that
unites Catholicism, all denominations of Christianity,
in fact all religions of the world.
-Those who push for a global religious organization believe that all religions,
while different on the surface, are each valid pathways to God.
-Instead of all these different gods, maybe there's one God who manifests
himself and revealed himself in different ways to different people.
You know, what about that, huh?
-Do we all worship the same God, Christian and Muslim?
-I think we do. We have different routes of getting to the Almighty.
-Do Christians and non-Christians, do Muslims go to heaven, in your mind?
-Yes they do. We have different routes of getting there.
-I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're
conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ, and that's what
God is doing today: he's calling people out of the world for his name, whether
they come from the Muslim world or the Buddist world or the Christian world or
the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because
they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they
know in their heart that they need something that they don't have, and they
turn to the only light that they have
and I think that they are saved
and that they're going to be with us in heaven.
-Till I die, I'll proclaim nothing but love for all my brothers and sisters in
Christ: my Catholic brothers and sisters, Protestant brothers and
sisters, Christian Reformers, Lutherans. I don't care what label you are.
-And you know Jack, there are so many other Protestant ministers
who are doing the same thing as you. -Yes.
-You're comfortable with the Vatican?
-Oh, I'm very comfortable with the Vatican. I've been to see the pope
several times. They believe in Christ. They believe in the death of Christ on
the cross and his resurrection. I feel that I belong to all the churches. I'm
equal at home in an Anglican or Baptist church or a Brethren Assembly or a
Roman Catholic church.
-You know what, we don't all have the same views and I realize Mormonism, it's
not traditional Christianity, but I'm probably a little broader and more open
in the fact that when somebody loves Jesus and believes
they're the son of God, that's good for me.
-Robert McGuinness with the Family Research Council says it appears the
hidden agenda is to unite people under one religious organization so they will
peacefully accept U.N. goals such as population control, abortion rights,
and one world government.
-They are all coming together as one under the authority of Lucifer.
-The devil knows that in order to get people to accept the New World Order, to
accept false religion, he has to make changes very slowly. He's not going to
jerk the steering wheel. The devil is slowly chipping away at the foundations
of our religion. The devil is slowly chipping away at the foundation of the
Word of God. He's slowly chipping away at true biblical Christianity so that he
can replace it with a new global religion where the antichrist will
be worshipped as the Lord Jesus Christ.
-Do you believe that modern Bible versions
are going to play a role in that New World Order?
-Well, I think it's very possible, because the more translations that come
out, the more liberal they seem to become and more acceptable to the
general population. But there's over 200 now. 200+.
And in these translations now we have people throwing in translations for
those who are gay and lesbian, we have people throwing in translations that are
removing "he" or "she", making it "it",
so I think in the modern translations and the ones that are coming out that
are becoming more and more liberal allow all faiths of all different types
of people and beliefs to come together and not be offended by any particular
thing. That's ecumenical in nature. -Right.
-So ecumenism is part and parcel with the end times.
-The King James Bible uses the word "hell" 54 times.
I mean, when you read the Old Testament in the NIV, there's not even one mention
of the word "hell". You don't even read the word "hell" in the NIV until you get
to the book of Matthew. Now supposedly, these new versions are being written so
that they'll be easier to understand. And yet, if we were to ask anybody on
the street what hell is, they would be able to tell us that hell is a place of
fire and torment. It's a place where people go after they die to be punished
and to suffer. If we asked them what "sheol" means,
most people aren't going to know.
What does the word "sheol" mean?
-Shield? Shield means a protective cover.
-Say it again. -Sheol.
-What? Spell it out.
- S-H-E-O...I'm not sure on that. No.
-No.
-No I do not.
-No.
-Uh, no.
-I don't know.
- S what? - S-H-E-O-L: sheol.
-No. Oh, sheol? No.
-Can't remember off the top of my head.
- S-H-E-O-L? I'm not sure. I've never seen that word.
-No, I'm not too familiar with that.
-OK, yeah. Most people aren't familiar with that word.
Do you think that those words are easier than the word "hell"?
-No. -OK.
I believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God. I believe that it's
without error and I believe that the other versions that are coming out - you
know, the NIV, the New American Standard - that they're bad, that
they're of the devil. In your book, it seems that you don't see at all that
there could be anything nefarious behind any of these changes. You seem to not
believe that the devil would ever tamper with his Word or that any of these
changes were nefarious, that any of the textual variances have to do with a guy
who says, "I'm going to change this because I'm evil,
because I want to change God's Word."
-I actually believe God has protected his word.
-But you don't believe that there's - and for example, you use the term
"conspiracy theorist" probably twenty times in your book - do you believe
that there's no conspiracy to change God's Word?
-No, I think entire Bible translations exist to change God's Word.
But they're obvious; they're clear.
-But could they have existed back then also? If there are people today who are
putting out something like the New World Translation, which is clearly a
perversion of God's Word - do you agree?
-Yep.
-OK. So if people are perverting God's Word today with the New World
Translation, for example, they were perverting God's Word in Paul's day - he
warned about it - why do you not believe that people were perverting God's Word
in the third, fourth century, eight century, ninth century?
-We know that the New World Translation is a perversion of God's Word. It is
easy to detect. The reason I used "conspiracy theory" is that you have to
have evidence to back these things up, not just, "Well, it looks like that to
me." You know, the only places where the New World Translation mistranslates
stuff is at the very issues Watchtower Bible and Tract Society happens to
disagree with biblical Christianity.
-You must not have read Job 6:6 in the New World Translation.
-Why?
-Because in Job 6:6, in the King James Bible it says, "Can that which is
unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of on egg?"
And in the New World Translation it says, "Is there any taste
in the slimy juice of the marshmallow?"
So that's something that they changed that has nothing to do with the
Watchtower! Alright? So what I'm saying there is that...
-You memorized that?
Could there be... Yes I did.
-You memorized that?
I didn't even know marshmallow had slimy juice.
-I mean if you have a New World Translation...
-I do.
-...I'd be glad to show you. But you believe me?
-But did you know something? There's a new edition that just came out last week.
-I bet it still says marshmallow but I'll check.
-I will have to look.
-But here's my point with that though: what about all the people out there -
and you've heard this a million times; I've heard it a million times - that
tell you, "Oh, the Bible's filled with contradictions"?
-I hear it all the time.
-Couldn't there be an agenda to create contradictions, just to make...
-They dont...
-...or just to put stupid things in the Bible,...
-No, no, no, no.
-...just to put things in the Bible that sound stupid like, "Saul was one year old
when he began to reign"?
-1 Samuel 13:1 in the King James version says, "Saul reigned one year; and when
he had reigned two years over Israel..." In the English Standard Version, that's
changed to, "Saul lived for one year and then became king".
-1 Sameul 13:1 in the Duway Rhemes version, which is the Catholic Bible:
"Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign,
and he reigned two years over Israel."
-You know what that verse just told us? That Saul was a one-year-old when he
became a king. Here's the problem: 1 Samuel 9:2 says, "From his shoulders
and upward he was higher than any of the people." Well according to the English
Standard Version, he was one year old when he was head and shoulders above all
the men. That was one big baby.
I'm just trying to tell you these Bibles are dumb.
Sometimes I'm out soul-winning and people will say to me, "I don't believe
the Bible because there's mistakes in the Bible."
And I'll say, "Show me one."
And they'll pull out an NIV. I'll say, "Don't show me - I could show you
mistakes in that thing. I could show you contradictions in that thing. Show me
one in the King James Bible. You won't find one."
-Here's another change that the modern versions make, Galations chapter five:
"I would they were even cut off which trouble you."
The NIV says, "As for those agitators, I wish they would go
the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
Now does that sound like something that the Bible would teach that the apostle
Paul would say? And you say, "Well, I don't think that's what they meant
in the NIV." Well, is that why the Common English Bible translated it,
"I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!"
Or how about the Contemporary English Version, the CEV? I've seen this one on
sale at the Christian bookstore. "I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would
not only get circumcised, but would cut off much more!"
I mean are you listening to this? Because this term "cut off" has nothing
to do with being emasculated or castrated or mulilating yourself.
Paul is referring back to these Old Testament scriptures about people who
disobeyed God's Word, that they would be cut off. Look, I don't have time to show
you all the hundred-and-some examples of this. All he's saying there is that they
need to be kicked out, he wishes that they would be cut off, he wishes that
they would be destroyed by God. That's what "cut off" means. They're going to
be either destroyed by God or "cut off" could mean that they need to be kicked
out of the congregation, kicked out of the assembly, kicked out of the nation
of Israel. That's the term "cut off", but these weirdos with their modern
versions are having the apostle Paul saying, "Man I wish those guys would
just emasculate themselves. I wish they'd all castrate themselves. I wish
they'd all mutilate themselves." I mean that is not what he was teaching at all.
Very strange indeed.
But not only do these new versions contain a lot of crazy things that make
the Bible look foolish, they also have a very specific agenda to prepare people
for the New World Order. And part of that preparation is to convince
Christians to obey the government no matter what. The key passage that
they've tampered with is Romans 13.
-I'm free to make myself a slave. I'm free to give up some of my freedom. I'm
free but I'm free to submit to the authority of my government. Even bad
governments do God's work by keeping even a semblance of order in the streets.
Even the government of the Soviet Union under Stalin was doing work for God.
Even China under Mao Ze Dong was doing work for God. Honor the king. Do it
anyway whether the king deserves it or not. Honor your governor; honor your
mayor, whether or not they deserve it. Honor the king.
-No one will be able to be armed. We're going to take all the weapons.
[Loud knocking]
-Today in New Orleans they got a lot tougher on the hold-outs.
-Police department! Are you home?
-Not only the flooded areas, but New Orleans'
dryest and wealthiest neighborhoods, too.
-But gun confiscation is exactly what happened during the state of emergency
following Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. U.S. troops also arrived.
Easing public fears and quelling dissent would be critical, and that's exactly
what the Clergy Response Team as it's called
helped accomplish in New Orleans.
-The primary thing that we say to anybody is, "Let's cooperate and get
this thing over with, and then we'll settle the differences
once the crisis is over."
-Such Clergy Response Teams would walk a tight-rope between the needs of the
government versus the wishes of the public.
For the clergy, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the
public down or obey the law is the Bible itself, specifically Romans 13.
-Because the government is established by the Lord. And that's what we believe
in the Christian faith; it's what's stated in the scripture.
-But wait a minute. What if a police officer just comes to my house and says,
"Wash my car, slave"? Does the Bible require me to obey that?
OK, what if a police officer asks me to do something illegal? I mean what if a
policeman came to me and said, "You know what? I want you to climb over the
fence into your neighbor's yard and I want you to look through the window and
see what your neighbor's doing. I want you to spy on yor neighbor for me"?
I mean do I have to obey that? You say, "You're picking stupid examples."
Right. Because there's never been a government anywhere that commanded
people to spy on their neighbors or else. That's never happened. Right?
There's no such thing as Nazi Germany; there's no such thing as the Soviet
Union; just shut up and obey what you're told. Romans 13 is a passage that
explains to us the purpose of government is to punish evildoers, not to regulate
every aspect of our lives and tell us what to do and control us. But also a
key thing that is taught in Romans 13 is that we are to obey the higher powers.
So for example, in the United States we have various levels of government, don't
we? Now what is the supreme law of our land? Well, first of all it's God's law.
First we obey God. After that is the constitution of the United States
because the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
You say, "Well, the Bible says to honor the king, therefore we need to obey
Obama." But hold on a second. Is Obama the king? Is our government run as a
monarchy? And I thought that we have elected officials that answer to the
people and that they are not above the law and that the supreme law of the land
is the U.S. constitution. So if we're going to obey the government that has
been set up over us, if we're to obey the law of the land, that means we're
supposed to obey the constitution. The NIV just completely eliminates that
teaching. It doesn't teach you to go with the higher power; it just says this:
So instead of saying, you know, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God", just referring to the fact that no one on this earth has any legitimate
authority except coming from God. Why do children have to obey their parents?
Because God said so. Why do we obey human government at all? Why do we even
have any respect for human government? Because God told us that human
government is something that we need to punish evildoers, to protect the
innocent from those that would harm them. Here's the Nev Living Translation
in Romans 13:1. "Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority
comes from God," - watch this - "and those in positions of authority have
been placed there by God." Now that is not true. The New Living Translation is
saying that everyone in any position of authority has been placed there by God.
That is not true, because one day the antichrist is going to be placed in
authority by Satan. "The dragon gave him his...authority", it says in
Revelation 13. And not only that, but in Hosea [8:4], it says, "They have set up
kings, but not by me". There are times when human authority has been placed
there by man against the will of God. And so therefore the New Living
Translation is saying in verse 6, "Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons.
For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do.
Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those
who collect them". Good night! Now it's not just the taxes; it's also the fees,
and those are the worst. The King James is telling you to obey government within
a certain scope, within certain perameters of what their job is, what
they're supposed to be doing, and also, the whole concept of higher powers is
there as a check and balance.
-Why isn't the New King James inspired? Because it uses the same manuscripts.
-Well, it doesn't. And there are many places where the New King James departs
from the Textus Receptus and departs from what the King James is saying.
-Not in the New Testament.
-It does, actually.
There are actually a lot of places where it departs from the TR.
-The New King James is probably one of the most dangerous versions out there
because it leads you to think, "Oh, it's the same as the King James; it's just
more modern, updated words." If that's all it was, I wouldn't even bring it up.
-Because a lot of people who wouldn't touch the NIV with a ten-foot pole -
they wouldn't touch the ESV or the New Living Translation with a ten-foot pole,
but they say, "Come on, Pastor Anderson, the New King James? It's pretty much the
same as the King James. It just gets rid of the 'thees' and the 'thous'.
It's just like the King James except a little easier to understand."
OK. Well, let me give you some stats on the New King James. The New King James
omits the word "Lord" 66 times. It removes the word "God" 51 times.
It removes the word "heaven" 50 times. It removes the word "repent" 44 times.
The blood is removed 23 times. The word "hell" is removed 22 times. And he
completely removes the word "Jehovah", completely removes the word "damnation",
completely removes the term "New Testament", completely removes the word
"devils". The Bible's not obsolete; you just need to get some smarts. You need
to do some studying. You need to learn the language. And it's funny how my
little children can understand it, and you're an adult and you can't understand
it? And isn't it funny how the same people that say the King James is too
hard to understand tell you you need to learn Greek if you really want to know
what the Bible says? Yeah, that's really going to be easy to understand.
"The King James is too hard for you. Here's a Greek New Testament."
These people are nuts.
So let's check out some verses and see which one's easier to understand.
The King James used a really hard word about a kind of tree, an "oak".
So the New King James thought, "Wow, that's way too hard. 'Oak'? Are you
serious?" They changed it to "terebinth tree". That's a little easier to
understand, right? Now Judges 8:13 contains a really tough phrase in the
King James, "the sun was up".
OK? I mean that almost could be in "Hop on Pop".
"The sun was up". They change that to, "the Ascent of Heres."
"The Ascent of Heres."
1 Samuel 13:21. The King James uses a really tough word "file". So the New
King James changed that to "pim". P-I-M. "Pim". I mean, that's probably good to
know for Scrabble, but I've never heard of that word. OK?
1 Samuel 22:6 uses this really hard word, "tree". So the New King James
decided to update that to "tamarisk tree" to make it a little bit easier to
understand. 2 Samuel 6:5; the King James says "cornet".
Who knows what a cornet is?
It's a type of horn, right? It's a type of trumpet.
So they decided to use an easier word, "sistrums".
"Sistrums". Because everybody knows what "sistrums" means.
Who knows what "sistrums" means?
Who knows what "cornet" means?
There you go.
Isaiah 13:12 used the difficult word "man" in your King James Bible.
I mean, good night! Put the King James in a museum where it belongs. "Man"?
Give me something I can understand. "Mortal" is way better, right?
Daniel 6:2 used a really tough word "princes", so they used the easy word in
the New King James, "satraps".
"Band"?
"Band" in the King James; that's way too hard. Let's change it to "regiment".
OK, and nobody's going to understand what "quicksand" means. That's so
obsolete. "Quick sands" in Acts 27:17? "Syrtis Sands" is a lot easier to
understand. You'd better get a New King James. Much easier to understand.
Is the New King James really that much easier to understand than the King James?
I mean that was a lot of examples where the King James is a lot easier. And that
wasn't a complete list. That was just a bunch of examples. So, it really has
nothing to do with making it easier to understand; it just has to do with
changing it, corrupting it, twisting it, perverting it. The only thing that they
can really point to and say, "Well this is where we made it a lot easier", is
getting rid of the "thees" and the "thous", but you've got to have the
"thees" and the "thous" because the "thees" and the "thous" are singular and
the "you, yee, your" is plural. The ones that start with a TH are singular; the
ones that start with a Y are plural. It affects the meaning because you often
would have no way of knowing whether he's talking to one person or the whole
group unless you had the "thees" and the "thous" there to tell you that.
It's important. It's all important. But let me just show you some doctrinal
changes that the New King James makes that pervert doctrine.
Go to 1 Corinthians 1:18.
-"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto
us which are saved it is the power of God."
-Brother Garrett, read that for me nice and loud in the New King James.
-"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
-So notice, in the King James it said that we are saved. In the New King James
it said we're being saved. Big difference because salvation is not a
process. Salvation happens in a moment of time, in the twinkling of an eye, we
believe on Christ, and we are passed from death to life. It's not a process.
I'm not being saved; I done been saved!
-Amen!
-2 Corinthians 2:15 says this: "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ,
in them that are saved, and in them that perish".
Read it for me from the New King James.
-"For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved
and among those who are perishing."
-Again, not that are saved, but those who are
being saved, as if it's a process.
Matthew 7:14 for example, in the New King James says, "difficult is the way
which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it". The King James says
"narrow" referring to how many people are going, referring to the fact that
there are few that be saved. The New King James says it's difficult.
Now, if it were by works it would be difficult.
-New Living Translation says, "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the
road is difficult and only a few ever find it". The English Standard Version
says, "For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life and those
who find it are few". Now you say, "Well, Pastor Jimenez, what's the big
deal? Straight, narrow? Narrow, difficult? Difficult, hard?
What's the big deal?" Here's the big deal: is it hard to get saved?
-Hey, Jesus did the hard part. How hard is it to accept a gift? How hard is it
to take a drink of water? How hard is it to walk through a door? How hard is it
to eat a piece of bread? These are the things that Jesus compared salvation to
because it's easy to be saved because you don't have to work your way to
heaven. You know what salvation is referred to in the Bible as, in the book
of Hebrews? Rest.
Look, is rest hard?
Don't be deceived by these modern versions. You might be tempted one day:
"Oh, you know, this church uses the New King James, but so what?"
It's a big deal.
Do you think that we need 500 different English Bibles?
-No. In fact, I mentioned we have a glut. We don't have any need for any
more. I don't think there's a good reason for why we've had the explosion
of them over the past number of decades. I know what the reason is.
-Right.
-It's real simple. It's the fact that if you have a publishing house and you want
to do a study Bible or something - which I'm not a study Bible fan -
-Me neither.
-what they did is if you were a major publishing house, you didn't want to
have to pay royalties to somebody else, so they all made their own translations.
-Right. There is a financial motivation to come out
with all these different versions.
-There is. No question about it.
-Does God expect the average Christian to learn the original Greek?
-God expects the average Christian to utilize the information that is provided
to him and we live in a day where we have more information available to us
than any other generation ever has and we need it right now because the
attacks have never been more luciferous.
-Do you see a danger, OK - because here's my belief about it. I think if someone
learned Koine Greek and became fluent in it and could pick it up and read it
fluently, that would be fantastic, but...
-A little Greek is a dangereus thing.
-Exactly. Don't you see a danger in someone who learns two semesters of
Bible college Greek and now, they're going to get up and say - like, even
a King James only guy will get up - he's had two semesters of Bible college
Greek - and he's going to get up and say, "Oh, the King James translators,
they translated this wrong." And just with the brush of his hand, you know,
seven years of fifty brilliant scholars goes out the window for his...
-Steven, any good thing can be abused. And a little Greek can be a dangerous
thing. I've heard entire sermons based upon really bad exegesis, OK? But let me
just mention that years ago I had a minister come to me and he said, "Hey,
I saw this thing in a commentary. Man, this preaches, but I've never heard
anybody say it before. You know Greek. Could you check it out for me?"
So I checked it out for him. It didn't pan out. It was just one of those,
the commentator sort of went off on a tangent. You know what he did once I
told him? He preached it anyways.
-Just because it sounded good and he liked it.
-Because it just preached so good.
-It's just such a great point.
-Oh, it was so great.
-That doesn't surprise me.
-Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me.
-No one disagrees that the originals were inspired.
[2 Peter 1:21] The Bible says, "Holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
But they don't believe what we have today is inspired because they don't
believe in the preservation of the Bible, but you know, the Bible says in
Psalms 12:6, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace
of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever." And you know, the same God that
brought us the inspired Word is the same God that's going to preserve the
inspired Word. And I think it's silly to think that God is powerful enough to use
sinful men and make sure he gives us a perfect original and then that same God
can't use sinful men and make sure it's preserved from this generation forever?
I believe God is powerful enough to give us an inspired Word and I believe God is
powerful enough to preserve those same inspired Words
from this generation forever.
Now let me ask you this: Do you believe that people need to learn the Hebrew or
Greek or even English, or should they, can they have the Bible in all languages?
-They should have the Bible in all languages. This is why we support
translation ministries like Bibles International. The Textus Receptus is
used and the Hebrew Bible is also used obviously, to translate into other
languages, which would be the Word of God.
We believe that every people should have the Bible in their Language,
and in English, it's the King James Bible.
-Let me just close by saying this: God's Word has been preserved unto us in this
generation. Listen to Isaiah 59:21. "As for me, this is my covenant with them,
saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in
thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and
forever." He said, "Look, Isaiah. The Word that you're preaching, your
descendants will preach it. Your children and their children and their
children from henceforth and forever will have these words" and I believe
that those are the words that are in my hand right now. And look, the modern
versions, whether it be the NIV, the ESV, the New Living Translation, or the
New King James, that philosophy is a philosophy that says God's Word is not
preserved. We had to go dig up a new one. We had to go dig up an older
manuscript to fix all the problems in it. No, I believe that it's been
preserved from the time of Christ until now. It's been passed down and what we
have today is a copy of a copy of a copy that has been passed down.
A lot of people wrongly believe that the King James Bible has changed over the
years, that the 1769 edition that we use today is completely different from the
1611, but in reality the only thing that changed in 1769 were spellings,
capitalizations, punctuation, some typos that were corrected; the words did not
change. The words that we have today in our King James Bible are the exact same
words that were given us by the translators in 1611. The words haven't
changed. The words have been preserved,
and that's what God promised that he would preserve.
He says, look, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away." He didn't say the thoughts; he didn't say the ideas; he didn't say the
doctrine; he said, "my words shall not pass away." These new versions are from
a corrupt source and they have corrupt fruit. Look at the fruit of these new
versions. Look at the way churches have become: fun centers. Look at the way
churches have become as a result of these new modern versions: filled with
unsaved people. Filled with people who don't know doctrine, don't care about
doctrine, because when you're reading a book that's filled with contradictions,
it's hard to care about doctrine. But when you're reading a book that is
perfect and pure and preserved, you know, you look at every word and you
care about doctrine and you care about what it says and you care about what it
means, not just, "Well, yeah, I kind of got the gist of it. Jesus died on the
cross. I get it." No, I want to know specifically every doctrine that God has
for me from the Word of God.
-You know, to touch this book and to study it is one thing. To appreciate it
from a distance about what men and women, children, had to go through so
that you and I could read a book today called a Bible without fear of
persecution. It's easy to say this number: 10,000 people were burned,
stoned, deboweled, for reading this book.
-I study really early in the morning, or sometimes late into the evening, so I
might wake up at 3:00 with an idea, and I go and I study that in the scripture.
And you realize the beauty of it and what it's conveying, and you just sit
there with tears running down your cheek because you recognize the greatness of
what you've been given. And so when I study with the King James Bible I'm
completely confident that what I have in my hand is the Word of God from cover to
cover and that it's the same now as it will be an hour from now because it's
preserved and it's the same. So I have confidence when I open it up and preach
from it on Sunday and teach from it in Sunday school or witness to people on
the street, I know that this is the Word of God and we look forward to meeting
the very Word himself in glory to testify to
what we've been studying our whole life.
-God is not pleased with these men removing verses, adding verses, adding
things, removing things. Go to Revelation.
Revelation 22:18; "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book". Have you ever read the book
of Revelation? There's a lot of nasty plagues in that book. He said I'm going
to give you those plagues if you add to my Word. Revelation 22:19; "And if any
man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book." But these men that have changed
the Word of God, the Bible says they lost their opportunity to be saved.
He said, "I will take away". He said, "In the same way you took away from my Word,
I will take away his part out of the book of life." He said, "I will make
sure you are not saved because you have messed with my Bible." That sounds to me
like God is pretty serious about this.
It's like, "OK, Pastor Jimenez, I agree. I understand. These Bibles are corrupt.
They're corrupting doctrine. The King James Bible is pure. The King James
Bible is the word of God. I understand. What do I do with it?"
If you realize that you have God's Word in your hand, not the thoughts of God,
not what he might have said, not what we think he said, but the actual words
of God, and not just that, but when you have the words of God you actually have
God, not this book, but these words, when you realize that you have God's
words, man, that should drive us to read the Bible. That should drive us to live
by this Bible. This book has every answer for every question in life.
You say, "Pastor Jimenez, I came to Verity Baptist Church; I didn't really
come here to learn about the King James Bible. I came here to learn about
salvation." We learn about salvation in the King James Bible.
"I didn't really come here to learn about this issue. I came here so that I
can get help with my marriage." This book will help your marriage.
"I didn't really come here to learn about the King James Bible. I came here
to learn about how to raise my kids." This book will help you raise your kids.
It will solve all your problems. It will bring you salvation. It will do
everything you need it to do. Why? Because it's the Word of God...
...without error, perfect, exactly like God gave it to you.
It gives me confidence to realize that the Word of God is perfect. You know why
so many people are not believing in God today, not coming to church, generations
of young people are just leaving churches by the droves and never coming
back? Because these modern Bible versions have been corrupted, there's
mistakes in them, and it's caused them to doubt their faith in God. But not
this one. This one's perfect. The King James version is the Word of God.
Read it.
Learn it.
Study it.
Memorize it.
Live by it.
Preach it to others.
Let's bow our heads and have a word of prayer. Dear heavenly Father,
Lord, we love you. Thank you for your Word. Lord, thank you that you have not
made us responsible to preserve your Word, but that is a responsibility that
you've given to yourself. You inspired it, you preserved it, and you have given
it to us today. Father, we love you. Help us not to leave here today and just
let this message go in one ear and out the other. Help us to realize, "I have
the Word of God; maybe I should read it. Maybe I should study it. Maybe I
should live it." We love you, Lord. In your precious name I pray. Amen.
I'd like to ask you a question.
Do you know for sure, if you died today, would you go to heaven?
You may say, "I'm not sure if I'm going to heaven."
Maybe you've never even thought of it.
But the Bible says you can be 100% sure you are on your way to heaven.
Now, according to the Bible, you need to understand a few things in order to be
able to receive salvation. The first thing is this:
The Bible says in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory
of God". The Bible tells us that "sin is the transgression of the law." When we
break God's law, we sin. And according to that verse, we've all sinned.
I'm a sinner; you're a sinner.
And unfortunately there are wages for our sin. Romans 6:23 says, "For the
wages of sin is death". Now, the word "wages" means payment. It's what you
earn. When I go to work, they give me money. Those are my wages. But because
of my sin, the wages is death. What I earn is death. "For the wages of sin
is death". Now, when we think of death most people think of a physical death,
but Revelation 20:14-15 says, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of
fire." (A reference to hell.) It says, "This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake
of fire." So, according to the Bible, our wages for our sin is not just a
physical death, but the second death. You say, "What is the second death?"
Being cast into the lake of fire. "This is the second death." What we earn
because of our sin is death: a physical death, a second death, which is being
cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 21:8 says, "But the fearful, and
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters..." Now that's a pretty bad list, right?
Murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers. Most people would agree, a murderer,
"Oh yeah. They're going to go to hell." But notice he says, "But the fearful,
and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters..." And at the end of that list he says
this: "and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death." And the reason that God adds
that sin of lying at the end of that list, he's trying to make a point, and
the point is this: we're all sinners. Every human being has lied. And he's
trying to say there is none righteous; we've all sinned; we all deserve to go
to hell. Now that's the bad news. I'm a sinner; you're a sinner, and we're all
initially condemned to hell, but the gospel is the good tidings or the good
news. Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death". We understand what
that means now. But the second part of that verse says, "but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The Bible says that God has a
gift he wants to give you and that gift is eternal life. Now in Ephesians 2:8-9
the Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith". The word "grace"
means to get something you don't deserve. You didn't earn it; you didn't
pay for it. "Are ye saved" is a reference to being saved from hell,
because I don't want to go there. I'm sure you don't want to go there.
The word "faith" means to believe. It says, "For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves". It has nothing to do with you. Here's why:
"it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." A gift is
not something you work for. A gift is something that's given to you. Someone
else pays for it, but you don't pay for it. If I gave you a gift and I asked you
to give me money for it, that wouldn't be a gift. If I gave you a gift, but
I asked you to do something for it, that wouldn't be a gift. Now, the gift doesn't
cost you anything, but it costs the person giving it to you something.
And the gift of God is the exact same way. Jesus had to pay for that gift.
Romans 5:8 says, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us." John 3:16, the most famous verse in the
Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The gospel is this: Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. He lived a sinless
life; he never sinned, never did anythitg wrong. He died on the cross,
was buried. The Bible tells us his soul went down to hell for three days and
three nights, and he rose from the grave, not to pay for his own sin,
because he had no sin. He died to pay for our sins. And see, it's already been
payed for. The gift has already been paid for. Now you've got to understand
this about the gift: John 3:16 says "everlasting life". The gift is
everlasting life. The word "everlasting" means it will last forever. Life that
will last forever. It's never going to end. John 3:15 says "eternal life".
"Eternal" means it will never end. John 3:36 says "everlasting life". Romans
6:23 says "eternal life". All throughout the Bible you find this concept: eternal
life, everlasting life, life that will last forever, life that will never end.
According to John 3:36, you get it the moment you believe. "He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life". Now, some people think, "Well, I can receive
salvation, but once I have it, if I do something really bad, like commit
adultery, like murder, commit suicide, then God is going to take away my
salvation." But if he takes it away, then it didn't last forever. See, we've
got to understand that salvation is not something that we earn, and once we have
it, it's not something that we keep. The Bible says in Titus 1:2, "In hope of
eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began".
See, our hope for eternal life is this: God can't lie. If God promised me
eternal life, then guess what. It's eternal life. He promised me everlasting
life, then it's going to last forever. You say, "Well, what if I do something
really bad?" Well it's not of ourselves. It has nothing to do with me. It's a
gift that will last forever. Now here's the only thing you need to do:
Just like any other gift, you get a choice whether you'd like to accept it
or reject it. You may ask, "Well, how do I accept the gift of God?" Romans 10:9
says this: "That if..." Now, it says "if" because you get a
choice. He says, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus..."
The word "confess" means to admit. You say, "What an I admitting?" Well, you're
admitting you're a sinner. You're admitting that you deserve to go to
hell. But you're asking for forgivness. He says, "If thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus..." But it's more than just saying words. He also says,
"...and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
dead..." You're believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried,
and rose from the grave as a payment for your sins. He says, "if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that
God hath raised him from the dead," the Bible says, "thou shalt be saved."
It doesn't say you might be saved. It doesn't say you hopefully will be saved.
God says, "I will save you if you confess with your mouth and believe in
your heart." Notice you don't have to go to church. It doesn't say you have to
get baptized. It doesn't say you have to repent of your sins. It doesn't say you
have to do anything; simply believe and ask him to save you. If you believe that
in your heart, if you believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins,
was buried, rose from the grave, he wants to give you a gift, it's eternal
life, then why don't you just confess with your mouth right now?
I'd like to help you form a prayer. If you believe that, why don't you just
pray with me right now:
If you prayed that prayer and you believed in your heart, according to the
Bible, you're now saved. You have eternal life. Congratulations.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community