Be with you folks, and I'm glad that we have visitors from my own church, Bible Friday Baptist Church in Kalamazoo, New Jersey, Al and Jill Severance. They heard me twice already today, now they want another one, see? So that's something. That says something, doesn't it? Came all the way this distance, 44 miles. They're surprising me here. We're going to talk about defending the King James Bible tonight. And there are four divisions we want to mention. Just four things we want to say. That will take about ten minutes each division. Forty minutes. And if there are questions and answers afterward, then we'll go ahead with questions and answers. The first division, superior King James Bible because of superior texts. That's the Hebrew text and the Greek text. The second division, superiority because of its superior translators. The third superiority of our King James Bible, superior technique of translation. And the fourth superiority, the superior theology. Those four T's. It's text, translators, technique, and theology. So these are some of the things we want to talk about. First the text, superior text. These other versions have perversions because they don't have the right Hebrew text, such as the one that underlies our King James Bible, and they don't have the Greek text that underlies our King James Bible, and so the texts are different, the texts are wrong. Now, the Hebrew text is a different text. The Greek text that they use is the Nessel-Alan Greek text, which is a bad one. And the text our King James Bible is based upon is a text known as the Received Text, or the Textus Receptus, or the Traditional Text. And that's the one we use. Now, as far as the Hebrew is concerned, there are two different kinds of Hebrew texts. One is the one that underlies our King James Bible, and the other is the text that is used by these other versions. And those texts, the Hebrew texts that they use, has footnotes in it. It's called the Biblia Hebraica, or the Hebrew Bible. Either the Hebrew Bible of the man whose name, let's see, I can't think of the name of the one, but the other one is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis, the modern one, 1967-1977. The other one is Rudolf Kittel. That's the one I couldn't think of. That's the one I used at Dallas Theological Seminary. It's a false Hebrew text. Rudolf Kittel was an apostate. He believed in the J-E-P-D documentary hypothesis. He didn't believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, and so on. And that was the Hebrew text that on the footnotes, in the same way with this Stuttgartensia Hebrew text that came out in 1967-77, it has footnotes on the bottom of the page, some 20 or so footnotes on each page. on the footnote, and that means on the total, if you add up all the pages, they have about 20,000 to 30,000 changes, they suggest, in the Hebrew Old Testament text. We use the text that underlies the King James Bible, which is the text of, it's the Ben-Kaim text, not the Ben-Asher text, but Ben-Kaim. That's the Rabbinic Bible of back in 1950, or rather 1525, 1526, along in there, and it's Daniel Bomberg's Hebrew Bible that is used. That's what the King James Bible Translator used. They didn't change it. And, in fact, Rudolf Kittel, in his Bibliobreka, used the same text that underlies our King James Bible for the first two editions, 1906-1912. All of a sudden, in 1937, Rudolf Kittel, this German apostate, changed his Hebrew text, and he limited it not to the whole Hebrew manuscript tradition, but he limited it to just one manuscript, that is, manuscript L, or the Leningrad manuscript, Because it's the oldest. Well, just because it's the oldest, it's not necessarily the best. It's just the oldest paper on which it's written. And he threw out all the different Masoretic traditional texts. And so there's differences in these other versions because of the Hebrew text. And we believe that the King James Bible's Hebrew text is superior. And that's the way they did it. See, that's a text. Now, if you don't have the proper text as a foundation, how are you going to get a proper translation? See, that's a very serious situation. Now, the same thing is true in the Greek text. Our King James Bible is based on what we call the Texas Receptus. This is this blue book over here. And the other Bibles, the New Bibles, New Versions, I don't call them Bibles, the New Versions, are based on this false text. This is Nestle-Allen text. It's sometimes called the Westcott and Hort text. Sometimes the United Bible Society text. But Bishop Westcott was a bishop of the Anglican Church of England in the 1980s. And Professor Hort, with his cohort, you might say, both of them worked together and changed this text of Receptors on which Archangel's Bible is based. They cooked up a new one, a different one, and from 1881 until the present time, this Greek text, false Greek text, has been superior in most theological seminaries, Bible colleges, Bible institutes, and churches. except some of us who stand for a different text, the text that underlies our King James Bible. Now, this text is different from this text. This is shorter. This false text is shorter than our text receptus that underlies our King James Bible in 2,886 words. This is 2,886 words short of our text that underlies our King James Bible. You know if something is that short, it's going to be different. And it sure is different. And not only is it different, but it's different in doctrine as well. We'll see later on that the doctrines involve 356 doctrinal differences between the two texts. Well, you can't have 356 doctrinal differences and not have some serious trouble. And those doctrinal differences, by the way, are all in errors. This is the error text, and the text that underlies our King James Bible is proper true doctrine, and so that's what we'll see. But the texts are important. Now, the reason that they say that they only use this text here, the Nessel Island and Westcott and Hort text, is it's based on basically two Greek manuscripts called B and Aleph, the Vatican and the Sinai manuscripts. The Vatican and the Sinai manuscripts are 4th century manuscripts, 4th century A.D. roughly. They're not dated, but that's what they assume. 4th century A.D. is the oldest paper or whatever manuscript on which it's written. But what about the words? You see, they're written on, not paper, but they're written on either vellum or some other material, but the writing materials on which they're written are the oldest materials. But what about the words of the materials? That's the most important thing. Our text of Receptus, though the manuscripts from which this comes presently are newer, not as old as these, but the words of these manuscripts go all the way back to the Apostle Paul and Peter and James and John, and they are the true words. That's the difference. It's the words. Two reasons why these manuscripts have been preserved as old, B and A, the Vatican signed just two manuscripts. One, they're Egyptian, and Egyptian climate was conducive to preservation of manuscripts. Number two, the second reason, is that they were never used. And that reason was never used. Well, you know, something never used is going to be preserved. If you use a Bible, you tear it to shreds, you rip it up, you tear the pages, you wrinkle it and so on. You tear it and use new Bibles all the time. So these two reasons, this is why they're preserved. Now, why weren't they used? Why were the churches not using the Westcott and Harvey and Alabama Vatican Sinai manuscripts on which all these new versions are based? They weren't used because the churches knew them to be fakes. If they had been used, that would prove the churches accepted them. But these came from Egypt. Now, there's no church in Egypt. There's never Paul, the Apostle Paul, to the church of Thessalonica. Yes. Colossae, yes. Ephesus, yes. But not Egypt. And so these scoundrels could change the Word of God at will, and nobody would be the wiser. They had no authentic, original manuscript to which to compare them. And as far as the heresies in Egypt, they were bounded. They are bounded with heresy. In fact, Bruce Metzger of Princeton Seminary here in New Jersey, not New Jersey, Princeton, says as far as the orthodox teaching, now he's a modernist apostate, Bruce Metzger, but he even admits that in Egypt, he doesn't even know whether there's even any orthodox theology in these early centuries where these B and Aleph manuscripts arose. But the heresies about these two manuscripts, B and Aleph, on which these Greek texts are founded, were made up changes made up from the real manuscript. They took the real McCoy, as we call it, the real McCoy, the real text, and altered it to fit their theology. You know, they say that the New York Times is all the news that's fit to print. But if anybody knows the leftist slant and the pro-communist slant of the New York Times, it's a different situation. It's all the news that's print to fit. So they took their Gnostic theology, that they had in Egypt, and they altered God's words to fit their falsities, wherever they had the manuscripts. They didn't have all the manuscripts, but wherever they had them, they altered it to fit their Gnostic theology. Very serious. And that's why it's so filled with theological error. Because the Gnostics didn't believe in the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, the coming again, and all that, that he was the creator of the world. And so we have lots of errors. Now, as far as the manuscripts, these manuscripts of the King James Bible are based on the text of Receptors, received Greek text. These manuscripts were accepted by the churches. They printed and reprinted and copied and recopied down through the centuries. All the churches from the first century right on to the present. There's a continuity of acceptance of these, this is called the traditional text, the received text. That's not the case with the Westcott and Horton, Nessel-Allen text, United Bible Society text. They had acceptance in the first 100, 200, 300, 400 years because the churches didn't know any better. And finally when they found out that these were fraudulent, that these were fake and phonies, they stopped copying these. And they just went right out of existence. So that right now, the only manuscripts that go along with the false Greek text are B and Aleph and about 43 others. B and Aleph and 43 others. In other words, 45 manuscripts that are now in existence that follow the false Greek text. What about the King James Bible text, the text that accepts the traditional text? Over 5,210 Greek manuscripts God has preserved for us that go along with the text that underlies our King James Bible. That's less than 1% for the fakes and over 99% for the true Greek text that underlies our King James Bible. So don't you think it's sort of foolish for the so-called scholars and all the fundamentalists even that are accepting this less than 1% of the evidence, the thing that the churches refuse to publish and reprint and reprint and recopy? Isn't it foolish to accept that less than 1% of the evidence and throw out? the over 99% of the evidence that we have, 5,255 total in this 5,210. So that's more or less the background of manuscripts. The King James Bible is superior because it's based upon superior Hebrew texts and Greek texts. The texts are superior. What about the translators? The translators we believe also are superior. The translators of the King James Bible, there were probably 46 or 50. Some of them died before it was finished. But these were men of the Church of England, the Anglican Church, as we say. And the history of the translators is found in two books, basically. Two books. One is called The Men Behind the King James Version by Payne. The other is Translators Revived by Alexander McClure. And these two books are the basis of many things that we know about these King James translators. And now, we had in the translators superior as far as their translation abilities. They were spiritually able, they were spiritually competent, but also they had linguistic superiority to our men today. Now let me just give you some examples of the men who translated our King James Bible. Here is, for instance, the superiority of Dr. Lancelot Andrews. Dr. Andrews was one of the chairman of the Westminster Group. Now they had, we'll see a little bit later, the different types of techniques that they used. They had six different companies. They had two in Westminster, and two in Oxford, and two in Cambridge. Six different companies, they called them. And Dr. Andrews was head of the Westminster Group, translated 12 books from Genesis to Second Kings. This was company number one. What about Dr. Andrews? First of all, he was familiar with most of the modern languages of Europe. Secondly, Lancelot Andrews had a manual for private devotions. I don't know about the people in the New American Standard Version, whether they had a manual for devotions, or the New International Version, or the New King James, or some of these other modern versions and perversions, but this man had a manual for devotions. But it's different from the manuals that these fellows would have today, because his manual for private devotions was wholly in the Greek language. I majored in classical Greek and Latin at the University of Michigan. I majored in the New Testament Greek in Dallas Theological Seminary. I would not pretend to write a manual of devotions in the Greek language. Even though the hours and hours I've had, I just don't do it. Why? Do these men know how to do it? Because in 1604 to 1611, those seven years when the Bible was being written and translated from Hebrew, proper Hebrew text, proper Greek text, these men were superior in their knowledge. They didn't have football games to draw them away. They didn't have hockey and basketball and all this other stuff. They didn't have the television sets and all the games and silly things that we look at all the time and waste our time with. These men were students. And to have our present translators look down the end of their big long noses, as it were, at the translations of the King James Bible, it's pathetic. It's absolutely pathetic. say that our translators didn't know what they're talking about. Now we had a recent man who wrote me a letter or wrote some emails and he was downing these King James translators. He said they don't know anything. We know everything today. Listen, we don't know half. Why do you think the scores are going down in our SAT scores in the country all over the world? It's because we're becoming more stupid and more stupid and more stupid. You see, I was a teacher at the Philadelphia School District for 19 years in conjunction with a ministry, the Bible Friday ministry. But to put food on the table, I worked as a teacher. And believe you me, I know the brainlessness of the students of Philadelphia. And I did my best to bring them up. And they were mean, they were ugly, they were off the wall, there was no discipline, and the principal didn't help at all. I did my best to bring that up. If I could bring him a little bit up, I was happy. But you couldn't do too much, because of the terrible... These men were giants in what they did. In fact, it says of Dr. Lancelot Andrews, such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues of the Tower of Babel, he might have served as interpreter general. All the languages. In fact, he knew and was conversant with 15 languages. Put that down to the present man. And these men today, You remember the Gulliver's Travels? Some of you perhaps have read that. Gulliver was traveling in the aisle in the area in the country of Lilliput. And these Lilliput people were called Lilliputians. They were little pygmy, tiny little things, and they got them with cords and wrapped them around and made them a prisoner. Well, I liken the King James Translators to the giant Gulliver. And all these other little things as the Lilliputians, little tiny little elves walking around trying to translate the words of God when they didn't know how to do it properly. And that's what they've come up with in the New International Version, New American Standard Version, New King James Version, and the other versions of our day. What about the spear, Dr. William Bedwell? He had fame in Arabic learning. And one of the scholars that knew all the Arabic, see Arabic was a cognate or sister language to the Hebrew Old Testament. And a cognate language helps because when you have what we call a hapax legomenon, which is a word that's used only once in Hebrew, just one used word, these sister languages show what that word means. A cognate sister language, oh it means this and this other language, and so that's the meaning of Hebrew. And so it's important to know these sister languages. He had Arabic learning. He had an Arabic lexicon of three volumes. Dr. William Bedwell also had a Persian dictionary. Now, I would venture to say that there are zero of our present modern translations and versions of today that know anything about the Persian, especially having a dictionary that is so skilled. It's in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, England, even to this day. They may have heard of Persian cats, Persian rugs, the Persian language. See, these men cannot hold a candle, as we say, to our men who gave us our King James Bible. Never look down your nose at our King James Translator. Then Dr. Miles Smith, he was in Company 3, the Oxford Group. He had 12 translators. Dr. Smith went through the Latin and Greek Fathers, Church Fathers, making annotations on all of them. And he was acquainted with the rabbinical glosses. Hebrew he had at his fingers ends. He was certainly a skilled man. Dr. Miles Smith. And then Dr. Henry Seville, Sir Henry Seville was another man. He was a tutor in Greek and mathematics to Queen Elizabeth. I meant to say the Queen would not have a dunce for a tutor. Would you agree with that? All the money that she had and all the gold and the silver and everything else and all the crowns, he was a tutor. He translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus, published the same with notes. He translated many things, Brad Warding against Pelagius, the writers of English history subsequent to Bede and so on, prelections and elements of Hebrew, excuse me, of Euclid I should say, from the Greek language. And he was a tremendous scholar. He translated the complete work of John Christensen. Let's go to another. These are just five men. I could give you others. But five men. Here's the superiority of John Boyce. B-O-I-S. Now, he was a giant of an intellect. You know, his father taught him at home. That's good to have homeschooling. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, when he was at the age of five. Talk about a child prodigy. At the age of five, he'd read the entire Bible. In Hebrew. In Hebrew. Old Testament Hebrew. Now, five years old, most of our young ones can't even read in English. Let's face it. I've got a granddaughter that tried to pray early, and she was about five when she began to read, but very few. But in Hebrew, by the age of six, he could write Hebrew in a very elegant character and style. If you know anything about the Hebrew alphabet, it's difficult to get those Hebrew letters and exactly get them right. And he used to study many, many hours. He had a teacher named Dr. Downs, chief university lecturer in Greek language. He read with 12 Greek authors and prose, the hardest it could be found. And he used to study. He was a young man that studied in the university library from 4 a.m. without intermission till 8 in the evening, 16 hours straight. Tremendous scholar. And he was one of the men... In fact, he was a writer also. John Boyce, at the end of his life, had as many pages of documents in his writings as he had days of his living. And he lived 83 years and 11 days. That totals 30,306 days. That's how many pages he'd written. A tremendous writer. Voluminous writer. And he was a tremendous giant in the Greek New Testament. So much for the translators. Our King James Bible is superior as far as its text, Hebrew and Greek. Superior as far as its translators. Then it's superior as far as the translation technique. Technique is how you go about something. It's important. You could have all the best manuscripts available, but if you don't have the proper method and technique of translating, it's all for none effect. So no effect, whatever. But they had a good time. They had, first of all, a proper and superior team technique. The teams that they use have never been repeated. That particular way of doing it. They have six different teams, six different companies, as we said, two in Cambridge, two in Oxford and two in The other place, Cambridge, Oxford and well, whatever, Cambridge, Oxford. And I know there's another one. I get to it. And those teams doing each of the of the places there in England, they met and they had an average about seven translators per team or per company, seven translators per company. And the King James was the one who told them to do this, and the one who commissioned it. He didn't do any translating. And people say, well, King James was this, and King James was that, and King James was something else. Westminster, I forgot that. Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge. Those are the three places. King James simply laid down rules. He wasn't a translator, but he laid down rules for this translation. One of the Puritans of the Church of England came to King James and said, Your Majesty, if you'd be pleased, that we have a translation, the present version's extent, that is, the ones that existed at that time, he's talking about the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and so on, the present version's extent, not answering to the originals. Not answering to the originals. In other words, the Greek originals and the Hebrew originals. Not answering to the originals. In other words, not close enough. They were alright as far as they went, John Reynolds, this Puritan, who was on this team of translators, wanted it closer than any of the others before him. That's exactly what they produced. And so the king made about 12 or 15 rules. But one of the rules, as far as this team technique, was that whenever these seven men got together, now there are seven men on each team, six teams roughly, six times seven, 42 translators. This is an average. And what he said was that every man on that team, all seven of them, had to translate themselves those Hebrew books or those Greek books. Now the present way of doing it these days, they have one or two Hebrew men, one or two Greek men. Then they have a bunch of people that say big names. They say this is the best, the closest translation in all the world. But they didn't do any of the work. They didn't know how to do any of the work. And they weren't translators, but they're just people that are PR men, public relations men. Not so with our King James Bible. Their team technique made it essential that every man on that team went to his study, translated from Hebrew to English or Greek to English, whatever book he was reading, in himself. Now, the whole thing, every word of our King James Bible, because of the excellent team technique, was gone over 14 times. You say, how do I get that? Well, there are 7 men on the average each team. Each man came to it with 7 men. That's 7 times. Then they looked it all over and criticized each other's work. That's the 8th time. And then the King of England said, I want you to send your work to the other five companies. Seven plus one is eight, plus five companies, thirteen. Then at the end of the work, pick two men from each of these companies, you go over it another time, fourteen times. Now that method, that team technique has never been done before, nor since. The NIV didn't do it. New American Standard didn't do it. New King James didn't do it that way. The team technique was excellent. But there's also, not only the team technique superiority, but the translation technique. The technique of translation is vital. Our King James Bible translators used what we call the verbal equivalence technique. Verbal meaning words. From the Hebrew words to the English. Words, words. The second part of that technique was a formal equivalence. The forms of the words. If the Hebrew word had a noun, bring it over in English as a noun, wherever possible. If it was a verb, bring it over as a verb. It's an adjective, it's an adjective, and so on. That's called formal or the form equivalence. And that's what they practiced. Not so with these new versions. Not so with the NIV, the New American Standard, New King James. They used what they called dynamic equivalence as a world of difference. between verbal or word equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Now that's a big word. Sounds great, doesn't it? Nobody knows what it means if you just say it. I believe in dynamic equivalence. You don't know what I'm talking about unless I define a term, see? But dynamic is something that moves. Equivalence is something that stays the same. Try it sometime. Try to move and stay the same at the same time. Try to sit down and stand up. It's like graping nuts, neither grape nor nuts. Like Christian science, neither Christian nor science. This is the way it goes. This is dynamic equivalence. Now their method of translation, in these versions and perversions, contrary to our King James Bible method of technique of translation, does three things. Anytime it wants, it adds to the words of God. That's sin, outright sin. I wouldn't want to be in the place, if these fellows are Christians, at the judgment seat of Christ, facing the Savior, and that's sin of adding to the Word of God. The second thing that dynamic equivalency does, it subtracts from the Word of God. That's sin. The third thing it does, it changes the Word of God any time it wants. Well, if that's the technique that they use, let me tell you, who needs the translators? And who needs the text? If the fellows that are doing the job, that are really, they're paraphrasers, If they can do anything they want at any time that they want. Now in my book out there, I guess I didn't even bring one along here, the Defending the King James Bible. I should have brought one just to hold up, but I say that there are probably 75 adjectives that I use to describe the dynamic equivalency. 75 adjectives, all beginning with D. Hold that up there. That's a book. That's Defending the King James Bible. All 75 beginning with D. My wife said that's too many. I put them in anyhow. But she says cut it down, so I cut it down to seven. You know, just to talk about it. All 75 are in there, but number one, dynamical equivalency is diabolical. It's diabolical because it was used by the devil in the Garden of Eden. He added to God's Word, he subtracted and he changed. It's deceptive because it pretends to be a translation when it's not. It's determined because it wants to run out of business the King James Bible. The NIV is trying to throw out this book. All the bookstores in our land, most of them, are trying to throw out the King James Bible. Every time somebody comes to the bookstore, oh, you don't want that old Bible. Here's an NIV. Here's a New American Standard. Here's something else. They're coming out of dime a dozen, these new versions and perversions. In the fourth place, it's dishonest because it claims to be what it's not. Fifth, it's deifying of man because it puts man in the saddle. He is God. These perverters that are massacring God's words are God themselves. They're saying what they can put in. If they want to drop out a word, they drop it out. That's blasphemy. If they want to add, they add. If they want to change, they change. Deification of man. Number six, it's disobedience. Because God says don't do it. And seven, it's disapproved by God. Now, I made a study of these versions that Bible-believing Christians are using. The New American Standard, New King James, New International. I found in the New King James Version over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency. Adding, subtracting, or changing God's Word. 2,000. Someone asked me that this morning after the service. What do I think of the New King James? I told them I got a documentation. It's available. You can have it, and use it, and see it. The New American Standard Version, I did a study of that. Genesis to Revelation. Compared it not only with the King James, but with the Hebrew and Greek underneath the King James Bible. I found over 4,000 examples of dynamic equivalency. Adding, subtracting, or changing. And people say, well, it's the closest thing in the world to all the things. It's just not the closest. It's adding. So if I can take four thousand, two thousand, if you can take four thousand plus, the new Americans have NIV. I spent two years and eight months on that one. Six thousand six hundred fifty three examples. Then I stopped counting. My computer was filling up. I had an old TRS-80 and my time was filling up. So I quit. But this is dynamic equivalency in these versions and perversions. And our King James Bible is true. And if you don't know Hebrew, if you don't know Greek, as most of us do not as our native language, and you want something so you know what God said in His Word, the King James Bible is it. And if it makes up some words that are difficult to understand, so on, get yourself a defined King James Bible, as the pastors have done, and many of you in the church have, and you have the footnotes, and if there's words you don't understand, just look down at the Bible, and there it is, see? Rather than to get one of these new verses of perversion, just because you can understand this word and that word, that you can't trust them. You cannot trust these new versions. I trust the King James Bible accuracy amongst any of the others that are either in the past that have come out or will come out in the future. And that's why we've come out with our defined King James Bible. Uncommon words accurately defined in the footnotes. So much for the technique. Very, very important. Verbal equivalents, our King James Bible use, that's the words. Hebrew words into English, Greek words into English. The formal equivalence, the forms of the words. Verbs for verbs. Adjective for adjective. Pronouns for pronouns. Nouns for nouns. Don't switch a noun into a pronoun as they do. That's one of their tricks. Don't change these things. The forms of the words God meant and intended to remain the same wherever possible. I realize when you come from one language to another, occasionally you have to switch here and there, but basically keep it in the same form. Then take away and do away with dynamic equivalency. Adding the God's Word, subtracting and changing. Well, let's take a look at the fourth superiority. The King James Bible is superior in four areas. It's superior because of superior texts of Hebrew and Greek, superior translators, superior technique of translation, and superior theology. Doctrine is very important. And as I said before, I held it up earlier, Dr. Jack Moorman has found in this 100-page study 356 doctrinal passages in the New Testament. where the false Westcott and Hort text is off base and in doctrinal perversity, doctrinal errors. 356 of them. And you'll find these in the New International Version, because they follow the same Greek New Testament text. You'll find it in the New International Version, the American Standard Version, and you'll find it in the footnotes, if you have a footnote edition, of the New King James Version. The footnotes, down below. If you don't have a footnote edition, then it's different. But if you have a footnote edition, all the other versions. This is a serious situation. Now isn't it funny, isn't it humorous, isn't it strange, isn't it, I think it's pathetic, but just isn't it interesting that in every one, every single one of the 356 doctrinal errors in the false Westcott and Hort Greek text, Nessel-Almon Greek text, United Bible Society Greek text on which these versions of perversions are based, every one of these doctrinal passages are in error theologically. And the King James Textual Receptus is proper theology. The theology is very important. In my book there, The Defendant of the King James Bible, I don't list all 356 of these doctrinal passages. I list 158. I list 158 doctrinal passages in that book, Chapter 5, where the doctrinal superiority of our King James Bible is found. What I do, I give you the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, the false Greek text, and then I put on their thing the three or four versions that Bible-believing Christians are using. And I see whether they accept the false reading or whether they reject it. The New King James footnotes, not the top of the page, but the footnotes, the New American Standard, the New International, and the New Berkeley. Those are the four versions that I compare in that 158. I don't want to give you 158, but I'll see if I can do my best to give you 23 examples, if you have your Bibles or want to look at them. One example for example is in 1st Thessalonians 1st Corinthians chapter 15 in verse 47 For the Bible the King James Bible says the first man is of the earth earthy. That's Adam see the second man is the Lord from heaven That's the Lord Jesus Christ and the Westcott and Harvey and Isle of Texas false Greek text Takes away the word Lord And therefore the NIV takes away the word Lord in that verse, so does the New American Standard, so does the New King James in the footnotes, so does the New Berkeley. And so it simply reads that the first man is of the earth, the second man is from heaven. But he is not the Lord from heaven. He is not God the Son, the Son of God, the Deity of Christ is questioned. A second example is in 1 Timothy 3.16. 1 Timothy 3.16, our Bible reads very clearly in the Greek text that underlies it, the text receptus. Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh. That's the incarnation of the Savior. God was manifest in the flesh. And these new versions do not have God in there. Aleph, there's no B or Vatican in there, but they take away God and change it to something else. The NIV follows. The New American Standard, who came changing the footnotes, New Berkley. They just have great is the mystery of godliness. manifest in the flesh, or He appeared in the body, but no God. God is not there. What mystery is that? To say He appeared in the flesh, all of us have appeared in the flesh, but we're not God. The doctrine of the deity of Christ is in 1 Timothy 3.16. It was God. Perfect God from all eternity was made flesh and dwelt among us and was justified in the spirit. That's a doctrinal error in these versions. And then, let's go on to Matthew 1.25, where the Bible, our Bible, clearly says, "...and knew her not," Joseph knew Mary not, "...until she had brought forth her firstborn son, and called his name Jesus." Matthew 1.25. That's the Christmas story, we call it. But the Biennale of text, the false Greek text, the Biennale of Vatican, Sinai, and Westcott and Hort, remove one word from there, and that's firstborn. Brought forth a son, that's all. And the NIV? removes it, the New American Standard, and the footnotes in the New King James? They just said, but forth is not. It could be the second born, third born, fourth born, fifth born, because Mary had many children. What does that do to Isaiah 7.14? Behold, a virgin shall conceive and be with child. It's the firstborn that these Gnostics of Egypt did not believe. So they removed just a little word. Isn't that miraculous how that word got out, just accidental? No, it wasn't accidental. These are doctrinal errors. They're not accidental, see? If it's accidental, you'll find that words and sentences are not making sense. It would just be nonsense. But every one of these doctrinal errors that the Gnostics put in this false Greek text, they're right there. They make sense, but they're in doctrinal error, but they still make sense if you read them the way they are. They're purposeful. What about Matthew 18.11? I referred to that in my message this morning. The Lord Jesus said, For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. That's his mission, that's his goal, that's doctrine, isn't it? And these men, many of the people say, well, there's no doctrinal differences, all these versions are all the same. B. N. Aleph removed the entire verse. You won't find it in Matthew 18.11. It's not in the NIV, it's put in brackets in the New American Standard. They don't really want to put it in, but they bracketed it. In the New King James footnotes, it's taken out. But that's why he came. The mission of Christ, that's doctrine. And Luke 9.56, there's another one, the first part of that verse is also removed by being out of this Vatican Sinai false Greek text. And that first part of Luke 9.56 says, For the Son of Man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. That's doctrine. And that's gone from being out. Because the Gnostics who doctored the Greek text didn't believe that the Lord Jesus came to save men's lives. They didn't believe it. They thought He was just a man. There is another one, Luke 2.22, Doctrinal Heirs, Doctrinal Superiority of the Archangel's Bible. Luke 2.22 talks about Mary and the days of her purification. It says, And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. The Lord Jesus was brought by Joseph and Mary. And B. and Aleph just changed one word, the pronoun her. Instead of her, and the NIV changes it, the New American Standard, New Berkeley, and all these other modern versions I'm not even mentioning, like the Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New English Version, all the others that the modernists use, but the ones the fundamentalists are using, they change it, instead of the days of her purification, to the days of their purification. Now there are two errors in this. Doctrinal errors. In this red book here, and in the versions that I've talked about. And the purity of the King James Bible is there. One area is the law of Moses didn't say nothing about purifying the father and the baby. The only purification is the mother had to be purified. That's the first thing. The second doctrinal area is they say the Lord Jesus Christ had to be purified, therefore he was a sinner. That's Christology. That's false Christology, the doctrine of Christ. That's serious heresy. That's another one. Let's look at John 7, verse 8. Another doctrinal error of these versions because of the false Greek text. I've come up to 40 minutes. I'll take a few extra minutes on this, Pastor, and then we'll turn it over for questions. John 7, verse 8, where the Lord Jesus is speaking to his half-brothers. He says, Go ye up unto this feast. I go not up yet unto this feast, for my time is not yet full come. The manuscript Adolf, the Sinai, removes one word, and so does the New American Standard. It removes just one word. You see, the next verse or two, the Lord Jesus did go up to the feast. And the word that they remove is the word, yet. Simple little word, you know, it accidentally fell out between the cracks, but it wasn't accidentally. He says in the NASV, the New American Testament, Go ye up to the feast. I go not up unto this feast. I go not up. They forgot the yet. I go not up to this feast. A verse or two later, he went up. What does that make the Lord Jesus Christ? It makes Him a liar, doesn't it? If that isn't doctrine. horrible heresy against the Savior of the world. Then another one, Ephesians chapter 3, verse 9. Ephesians chapter 3, verse 9, where God says, And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things. And our King James Bible says, Who created all things by Jesus Christ. But those three little words are contrary to Gnostic doctrine, and therefore they are wiped out of their Greek text. Therefore, they are wiped out of the New International Version, and the New American Standard Version, and the footnotes of the New King James, and the New Berkeley, and the other versions of our day. Is that not doctrine? They didn't believe that Jesus was the Creator, but God the Father created all things through the incidentality by Jesus Christ. Very important thing indeed. There is another one, 2 Corinthians 4, verse 14. 2 Corinthians 4, verse 14. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also, by Jesus and to present us with you. He who raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus. That little preposition, by, is changed in Manuscripts B and L. It's changed in the New International. It's changed in the New American Standard. It's changed in the Footnotes, New Berkeley and other versions. You know what it's changed to? Not raised up by Jesus, because the Lord Jesus does have the power to raise us up. But simply raised up with Jesus. Not by, but with. Now that little bit of a change, see that little nuance? See that little tiny little fleck of difference? There's two theological errors in that. Number one, if he's raised up with Jesus, Jesus has not yet been raised. Am I right? Just raised up with him, he's dead yet, he's still in the grave, see? Doctrine and error number one. Doctrine and error number two, raised up with Jesus but not by Jesus, that means the Lord Jesus has no power to raise anybody up. Listen, you and I may be raised up with each other if we're saved and born again in the rapture when it takes place, But you're not going to be raised up by me, and I'm not going to raise me up by you either, but by Jesus. There's two doctrinal areas in this with simple little things that maybe don't catch your eye until you look at it and study it and see the differences in doctrine. Well, let's move on to one or two more, and then we'll turn it over to questions. In John 3.15, by the way, they've come out with a new, new American Standard Version. It's new. It's brand new. I don't know what you call it. New, new. In 1995, one of the ladies that was in my service this morning, I quoted Matthew 18 and 11. I said, that's left out of the New American Standard, New International Standard, the old New American Standard. She had a new New American Standard. She said, here, Pastor, what is that verse again? Matthew 18 and 11. They restored it. I said, they must have been reading some of our materials. Well, we told them they'd left it out. And they brought it back to the fundamentalists. In the second verse, she brought out, I talked about Luke 9.56. The Son of Man has not come to destroy man's life, but to save them. They restored that. See? But then I got some of these others. They didn't restore that. They didn't restore this. They didn't restore this. And you know what that young lady said? I'm going to throw this Bible away. That's horrible. That's serious error. She's got to go to use that. She's back to changing the Bible. See, they may have restored a little bit. See, they have to have some protective coloration. These new Americans have this new... They've got to restore a few things so that the fundamentalists and the Bible believers are not going to be too mad at them. And so, they restored that. But they didn't restore this one, John 3.15. She said, what should it be? Well, it should be, according to the King James Bible, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As Moses lifted up the serpent and the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. But be and I'll take away three words. So does the NIV. So does the New International. So does the New Canaanite in the footnotes. The three words are should not perish. I said, what does it say in there, in yours? And she said, well, it says, whosoever believes in him has eternal life. No perishing. We don't have to worry about hell. because these Gnostics didn't believe in it. Now, it's in 3.16, should not perish, but it should be everywhere it's supposed to be, see? And it's taken out of here, and hell is gone in John 3.15. Well, let's see, there's one other, John 6.47. John 647. I asked her to look that one up. See? When she said they had this new... This is Tony Antoinette. That's the one. See, our people know who that is. And she had this new international. Because she was going for some time over to the 10th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, which uses the NIV. See? And so she bought herself a new NIV. It's a little pocket size. Just fits nice in her pocket. And I said, alright Tony, look up at John 647. And she said, what should it be? Well, I said, you read me what you got. She read verily, I said, he that believes has everlasting life. What did I leave out? He that believes has everlasting life. What did I leave out? Believe on me. Is it important to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to have everlasting life? Or do you simply believe in anything? Tooth Fairy? Bugs Bunny? Rudolph? The Red Nosed Reindeer? Santa Claus? Just believe? No. In on me. It's a serious doctrinal heresy. Well, one more and then we turn it over to questions, Pastor. Philippians chapter 4, verse 13. We all know that, I hope, by memory. Philippians 4, verse 13. I can do all things, but through Christ which strengthens me. The bee and aleph, they did a little bit of hatchet work on that verse. What do you think they took out? Through Christ. They took out Christ. Without him, the whole thing falls in like a house of cards. I can do all things through either he who strengthens or the one who strengthens, but they don't define who the one is. It could be the devil who strengthens them. This false Gnostic text has insinuated itself into these new versions of perversions. And by the way, these new versions and these new Greek texts, the Greek texts of Westcott and Hort, false Greek texts, are not only accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, not only accepted by the new evangelical compromisers, not only by the apostate liberals, But altogether too many fundamentalists accept the false Greek text. I mean Bob Jones University teaches this text in their school. I mean Central Baptist Seminary teaches this text. I mean Lansdale Calvary Baptist Center teaches this text. I mean these are fundamentalist schools. Detroit Baptist Center teaches this text. We've got serious problems. Not only in all these other modernists and groups which you'd expect, but others. Pastor, we'll turn it back over to you for questions and answers on any of these things that come to mind. And if anybody has a question, they're glad to do any questions. I have about a thousand. Yes, sir. Just recently, a couple of months ago, I ran into an NLP, I believe, New Living Translation. That's basically the New Living Bible, the living version, you know, living version is recooked and rehab. It's the same basic false doctrinal textual basis. Yeah. And the same technique. It's very loose. Not accurate. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes The Masoretic text, if it's the proper Masoretic text, Masoretic means traditional. Masar is a Hebrew for traditional, passed down from place to place. If it's the text of Masoretic text, that's the Ben-Kaim edition, Daniel Bobrick edition, 1425. That's the proper Masoretic text. If it's the Biblia Hebraica of either Rudolf Kittel or of the Stuttgart, Stuttgart Germanic, that's a wrong Hebrew text. But it's still called Masoretic. So you have to really define which Masoretic text you're using. The other question was John's literal translation. Mm hmm. But I'm not 100 percent certain. I had somebody asked me, oh, yeah, I'm not really certain either. I thought he used the text. I said, I really don't know. I have it in my library, but I've never really opened it up to see what it is. I'm not either. I have to check on that. No, no. The young's literal translation. He has a little time. I thought it was Texas. I'm not. I'm not positive. We'll have to check into that and see what it is. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I saying that there's no other Bible out there that's right, but the King James Bible? That's exactly what I'm trying to say in the best way I know how. Who says, okay? Alright, who says that? I could say that I say so, but listen, I've given you four reasons why it's the only one that we should look at. Number one, it's based upon the proper Hebrew and Greek texts. Secondly, it's got superior translators. Superior to all these other modern ones. And third, it's got the superior translation technique. Fourth, it's got superior theology. You can't beat those four superiorities, see. And all these other modern versions have inferior Hebrew and Greek texts, inferior translators, inferior translation technique, and inferior theology. So we can't trust them, man. I wish we could trust them, but if it isn't broken, don't fix it. This is not broken. The only thing we've done in our defined King James Bible is give some definition, accurate definition by my son, D.A. Wade, Jr. of uncommon words that are used that people can understand what is in us. By the way, to have this position that I've just mentioned is to be the recipient of all sorts of hatred from these other fundamentalists that want to have all these other versions. There's lots of hatred involved in this. And so if you take a stand for our King James Bible, as we have through our Bible for Today ministry through the years since 1971, you will receive lots of heat Be prepared for that. Smile when you receive the heat, but you'll get it. It doesn't help to smile, but I guess it does help us. It doesn't help them, but it helps us. Any other question? Yes, sir. OK, some of the letters now are fairly early. Yeah. Are those changes? That's why we have used in our Defined St. James Bible what we call the Cambridge edition. The Oxford edition, like the old school field reference Bible uses, they've got some changes in there, even the Oxford one. And some of these newer ones that are published by Moody Press and Tyndale Press and various other presses, See, they have no copyright on the King James Bible in this country. They do in England. You can't change it in England, but here they don't have any. You can change anything you want. So, a lot of them change the spellings. For instance, Noe, N-O-E, meaning Noah of the Old Testament. Our King James Bible says Noe, because that's the Greek spelling. They changed it to Noah, see? Well, it's obviously Noah, but you see, You don't have to make those changes. They're all right. Just as is. But there are some that do take delivery thoroughly, throughly and so on and so forth. But the Cambridge University Press has got the closest, the most accurate replica of our proper King James text that we have. So that's why we use it in our defiant thinking about. Yes, sir. Pardon me? Do I agree that the Scorpio notes are correct? What I suggest in that, as far as the notes that have the dispensations, the covenants and so on, they may be fine. I don't agree with this gap theory, but we're in the Old Testament, I don't agree with certain things. But the center references in the Old Scorpio reference Bible, now the New Scorpio is not the King James, I don't go along with that at all. But in the center references of the Old King James Bible, never accept them. In fact, in the very preface, I think it's Roman numeral 8 in the preface, and I've used the Schofield Reference Bible for years, you see. In the preface it says that there have been some difficulties in the textual, Greek textual apprehension. But Griesbach and Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregellus and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the whole thing up. In other words, he bought the false heresy Schofield did, that the Westcott and Hort text is the proper text, and it's the improper text. Therefore, whenever he can, he says, change this, change that. Never accept the center reference of the old Schofield reference. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11, the communion service, where it says, this is my body which is broken for you. This student remembers to me. The old school beer reference in the footnote says, take away broken. This is my body which is for you, see. I tell you, when I was at Dallas Seminary for 21 years, I didn't know any different. I was brought up and reared and raised in the actual Westcott and Horton Greek text in my Greek department at Dallas Seminary. They never told us there was another text in Greek. They never told us. That's not education. That's indoctrination. They never told us if a text was accepted. So I didn't learn it, even though I majored in the subject. I had the old school reference Bible, and in my first old school field, I just crossed the word broken right out. And all the other words they told me weren't in there. It's a terrible thing, because I believed the guy was right. He's wrong, dead wrong. Never cross the old school field center references on text. He's always wrong. He's always Westcott and Horton. There are other things there you may, you know, helpful and so forth. I'm a dispensationalist and premillennial and pre-circulation rapture and et cetera. There's lots of things that are helpful in the old school field, but certainly not his textual apparatus. Yes, ma'am. We have reprinted, our Dean Burgon Society has reprinted Scribner's annotated Greek New Testament. That's the exact text that underlies the King James Bible. And Dr. Scribner was on the English Revised Version Committee of 1881. He was commissioned by the University of Cambridge to print a text exactly that underlies the King James Bible, but put in bold black letters, changes made by Westcott and Horse. And he did. You know, we've reprinted it, you can buy it, it's available. I counted the bold places. You know how many places I found that they changed? 5,604 places. And then I counted the footnotes, how they changed it. I counted the words that they either added, subtracted, or changed. You know how many words I counted up on the footnotes? 9,970 Greek words in the footnotes. They added, subtracted, or changed in these 5,604 places. And so here's the inconsistency. Here they preach at the King James, at the Bob Jones Chapel. They say, oh, we'll use the King James for these old fuddy-duddy fundamentalists who will give money if they use the King James, but they won't give money if they use the NIV, see? But in the Greek department, they said, this is the way to go. Out with the text receptus, in with the false Greek text that changes the New Testament that they're preaching in the chapel in 5,604 places. Now, if that is an inconsistency, I don't know what is. I've written to Bob Jones III, the president, and told him so. I've got those available, too, in print. Now, go ahead. In other words, I don't know where they are, but they're here. So this is the letter, open letter to Bob Jones, the third. I called it Bob's University inconsistent position on the text receptors in the King James Bible. Open letter. I don't know that. Yes, Patrick. I don't want to take too much time. I'll make you shut me off when you're finished. I could stay here all night. You mentioned to be in the out of the club. And then you mentioned that in Sinai, along with with that, I'm used to the term Sinaiticus. Am I getting that mixed up? Sinaiticus. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Sinaiticus and Aleph. They're all the same. We're all out of the sign. That's a sign. I manuscript. That's exactly right. And B is the Vatican. B is a Vatican manuscript. Yeah, I mean, no, no, B, no, B, B as in boy. You know, B is a sign as a as a Vatican manuscript. Now, if there's a sign, which is known as Vaticanus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I just don't like to use those big words. I use Sinai and that and I and yeah, that's right up here. Secondly, is there such thing as the set to it? That's a good question. There is such a thing as a Septuagint. There is such a thing, but the question is, when did it originate? All the fundamentalists that I know anything about, and all the liberals, and the modernists, and the apostates, and the Roman Catholic Church says that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was B.C. I differ with that. I believe it's A.D. There's not a single scrap of evidence that really proves the whole Old Testament was in Greek before Christ. Now there are some portions of the Old Testament in Greek language, but not the whole amount. So the Septuagint, I believe it's the fifth column of Origin. Origin had a hexapla, six different translations, side by side, column by column. And the fifth column was a Greek Old Testament. I believe that's the Septuagint. And origin was A.D. It wasn't B.C. It was in 2300 A.D., not way back in 300 B.C. So there is such a thing. By the way, the quality of that, number one, the Septuagint, the quality, There are very few manuscripts that are in there. Very, very sparse. Few manuscripts of the Septuagint in the Greek Old Testament. Secondly, the manuscripts that they have are in very bad condition. Thirdly, the technique that they used to translate was very, very poor. It was a paraphrase technique. Some of the books are accurate. Some are close to the Hebrew. But many of them are just like the paraphrase perversion we call the living Bible, the living verses. They're very, very loose. So Arjun was the origin of a lot of corruption. I believe he was. And the difference is, do we want origin, which is here or the originals origin or the original? That's it. Play on words. All right. Yes, sir. We hear a lot of stuff that the Dead Sea Scroll, the Dead Sea Scroll is the second edition of this analysis. All right. The second edition. All right, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not synonymous with the Septuagint. Septuagint is a Greek Old Testament translation, I think by origin, 300 or whatever the years were, AD, from Hebrew into Greek. The Dead Sea Scrolls are in the Hebrew language and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in one of the caves And Qumran caves. My wife and I went over to Jerusalem. My mom sent us over there in the 1980s, 81, 82. We went to the Qumran caves. We saw the different things. But what they are, they have a whole manuscript of Isaiah. That's the only thing that's complete. The rest of them are just scattered pieces that they found in these caves. of the Old Testament. But 98-99% of even the Dead Sea Scrolls is identical to the Hebrew text on the lives of kings and their daughters. So that's the first thing. But where it's not identical, We should throw it out. Why do we throw it out? Why do we throw these? See, the reason that they want to use the Dead Sea Scrolls to offset and to change the Hebrew text is because they're older than the present manuscript that we have, see? Not the older words, but the older paper on which it's written. They say anything oldest is better. That's why they say the oldest is the best here. Well, it's oldest is best. But what about the heretics that actually changed it? That's the thing. It would be best if the heretics hadn't seen it. So the Dead Sea Scrolls, since it's older, I have two problems with it. They were probably used by the Essenes. They left and fled from the temple, whatever AD it was, before they came over, I don't know if it was 100 or 200, whatever AD they came over and fled from the temple, and they took with them some of the Hebrew Scriptures. Number one, were they accurate Hebrew Scriptures that they took with them? That's the first thing. They had an accurate copy in the temple at Jerusalem. Secondly, what were the technique and methods of copying these scriptures? Even if it was accurate, did they do it accurately in the proper technique? So I don't know. So you can't trust them. And just one manuscript that they took, and then they copied and copied, is against the whole Masoretic traditional Hebrew text. It's a very poor way of doing it. So that's why I'm against any change. And that's one of the changes the NIV makes any time they want to. They say, well, the Septuagint says this, therefore change the Hebrew. I'm against it. Or the Dead Sea Scrolls says change Hebrew. I'm against that also, see, any of these things. Yeah. So this is basically dead. Basically, they've been reprinted and revived, you know, recently, but they're dead as far as we're concerned.