amazing grace movie

i believe the devil wantsto take over the church. i believe the devil wants totake over this church... ...one person at a time. -we have before us the opportunityto forge for ourselves and for future generations anew world order. -close your window. go back inside your house. -go back inside right now!-i am inside. -we have a real chance atthis new world order,...

...an order in which a credibleunited nations... -...rubber bullets, tasers... -...can use its peacekeeping roleto fulfill the promise and vision... ...of the u.n.'s founders. -after 1989 president bush said - andit's a phrase that i often used myself - that we needed anew world order. and instead it looks like wegot a lot of disorder. -it's been a long time coming. because of what we did on this dayat this defining moment

change has come to america. -president obama and britishprime minister gordon today calling for a new world orderto tackle our global economic crisis. -the affirmative task we have nowis to actually create a new world order. -its task will be to develop anoverall strategy for america in this period when, really, anew world order can be created. it's a great opportunity.

-you talked about the new worldorder defined as you have as being luciferian.-yes. -how do you know that? -my investigations led me to look atthe back of the american dollar. and i found these strange seals onthe dollar here. they're illuminati seals which was a secretsociety set up in 1776 by a man called adam weisshaupt. and on the back of the dollarhere you see the seal on the left-hand side and there's an eyein the triangle. it's the eye of horus

in egyptian mythology, now calledthe 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 theunited states has on it "novus ordo seclorum": a new order. -and people should be asking thequestion, "what is an egyptian pyramid doing on the backof an american dollar? what link-up is there betweenamerica and egypt?"

the answer is: none at all exceptin the field of the occult. and thus we see we're dealingwith a luciferian plan and people need to recognize the god offreemasonry will lead the world into this peculiar and particularpurpose for which america was set up, which is to lead thewhole world system into a one world government,a one world religion, a one world law system, anda one world money system that the bible calls themark of the beast. -...and basically what we know for a fact,

that there's going to be achangeover from the old order to a new order, a ruleby satan himself. that's what that symbol refers to and that's what thenew world order refers to. in the king james, 2 corinthians 5:17says, "therefore if any man be in christ, he is a new creature: oldthings are passed away; behold all things are become new." noticehow the new english bible renders this verse. it says,"the old order is gone and a new order has begun." they'reusing the same language.

the king james says, "which stoodonly in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,imposed on them until the time of reformation", talking aboutchrist's coming. but notice the niv calls it, "until the time ofthe new order." they're preparing people. now i want you to noticethis. in isaiah 28:16 in the king james the bible says, "thereforethus saith the lord god, behold i lay in zion for a foundation a stone, atried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation". this is referringto jesus, right? and i want you to notice that in the king jamesthey'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 thecorner stone of the foundation, that's down here, right? "unto you therefore which believe he isprecious:" - this is the king james - "but unto them which be disobedient,the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head ofthe corner," again on the foundation. notice that the nivcalls him the capstone.

they're saying that that symbolthat 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, iswhat we need to turn to. the time is short. a great fallingaway 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 churchis king james only; a lot of people don't understand why. butthe purpose of this film is to

show the dramatic differencebetween 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 thereason i'm excited to be a part of this film is because the wordof god is under attack today and we need to take a stand forthe bible so that we can engage him in spiritual warfare. -my name is dennis mccain. i'm thepastor at northside baptist church in modesto, california. i've beenpastoring here for sixteen years

and i've been in the ministry as amissionary church planter for almost forty years. -now, there's an agenda today andit'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 welltranslated." but i'm here to tell you it goes much deeper than that.these new versions are actually satan's attempt at corrupting the wordof god. i'm going to show you that these changes are not justaccidental. they're not just

minor, inconsequential changes. i meanthese changes are strategic changes. they are calculated to attack specificdoctrines that the bible teaches. the bible tells us in ephesians 6:12,"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but againstprincipalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darknessof this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." thereare people who have many millions and even billions of dollarswho have an agenda to put out corrupted bibles and then promotethem through advertizing, promote them through retail storesthat will put them front and center

and that will show people, "this is thebible 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 themost popular versions are today. this is the most current list. ichecked this with a bunch of different sources and they all came up with thesame five bibles. the number one bible today is not the king jamesbible. it's the new international version: the niv. number two is theking james bible. number three, the new living translation. number four,the new king james, and number five, the english standard version orthe esv. different lists i looked

at had those in a slightly differentorder, but they all had those five. -most people don't realize that thereare hundreds of translations, and obviously we don't have the time togo through each and every one of them. -it would make a lot more sense tojust focus on the four corruptions that are the most popular. the niv ismissing sixteen entire verses from the new testament. i mean justright out of the gate, before we talk about all the thousands of changes,just sixteen verses are completely missing. matthew 17:21 - gone. matthew18:11 - 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 theeunuch said, see, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?and philip" - that's the soul winner - "said, if thou believest with allthine heart, thou mayest." so, the eunich - that's the sinner -says, "what's hindering me, what's stopping me from gettingbaptized?" philip, the soul winner, says, "if thou believest with all thineheart, thou mayest. and he" - the eunich - "answered andsaid, i believe that jesus christ

is the son of god." what just happenedto the eunich? he got saved. why? if we confess with our mouththe lord jesus and believe in our heart that god has raised him fromthe dead, thou shalt be saved. he believed in his heart. he confessedwith his mouth. he got saved. so what'd they do?verse 38: "and he commanded the chariot to standstill: and they went down both into the water, both philip and the eunich;and he baptized him." so verse 36: what's stoppingme from getting baptized? verse 37: as long as you believe youcan get baptized.

he confessed with his mouth,believes in his heart; verse 38: they baptize him.amen. what does the new internationalversion say? "as they traveled along the road, theycame to some water and the eunich said, 'look, here is water. what can stand inthe 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 baptizedhim." now did you just catch what happened? what was missing? i don't know if you noticed. theentire verse 37 was missing.

so according to the new internationalversion, they're going down the road. he says, "what's stoppingme 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 thesebibles attacking jesus christ? it doesn't make any sense to me. but it would make sense if yourealize that satan's behind it. -but not only have they removed sixteenentire verses from the niv,

they also put notes on 27 other verses,saying these verses were probably not in the original, again causingyou to doubt god's word. verses like mark 16:15. "go ye into allthe world, and preach the gospel to every creature." verses like "father,forgive them; for they know not what they do." they havn't removed theseverses, but they've put a note next to it that renders it in the reader'smind null and void, saying, "well, these probably weren't in the originalanyway. this doesn't really have any authority anyway." we believe thatjesus christ was god in the flesh. this is something that these modernversions 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 wherewe 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'tmention the word, doesn't mention the holy ghost, and does not mentionthat the three are one. look what they've done with 1 timothy3:16. the bible reads, "and without

controversy great is the mystery ofgodliness:" - watch this - "god was manifest in the flesh, justified in thespirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world,received up into glory." it was god that was believed on in theworld, it was god that was received up into glory, it was god who was madeflesh and dwelt among us, and the bible is crystal clear in 1 timothy3:16 that jesus christ is god. -in 1 timothy 3:16, it's an importantpassage because i would often read the footnotes in the new americanstandard that i had in seminary and later on in the niv, and otherpassages, and they would say in

the footnotes, or they would say intheir commentaries, or those teaching from the niv or the new americanstandard, they'd say that there isn't any difference in theology.it doesn't affect any doctrinal perspectives. but obviously there's adifference between "hos" and "theã³s". if you take as "he who was, 'hos' ",instead of "theã³s", instead of it being god, it obviously weakens thetext because you have to assume that christ is god, or made manifest.but in "theã³s", there's no wondering about what the text says. it's godwho 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 thatjesus 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 biblecalling the son there? it's calling him god. it says, "unto theson...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'switness in the train station - i went to pick my wife up. and the jehovah'switness started to read to me out

of a devotional book she had but i sawher new world translation. so i said, "well, is the new worldtranslation from the greek?" she said, "it's from the westcott andhort 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 jehovahhimself 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 shetook her bags and rolled out the door and i followed her out the door talkingto her. but when i read it from the new world translation later, itcompletely has been changed: -whereas in the king james, you can'tmisunderstand it. but not only that, but they attack christ's virgin birth.go to luke 2:33. the bible says, "and joseph and hismother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." the niv, on the other hand, and theesv, and the new living translation

say, "the child's father and mothermarveled at what was said about him." so right there we see that the niv andthese 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 thefather 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, whyhast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and ihave sought thee sorrowing." so didn't she just refer to joseph asjesus' 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 preachingthe word of god because joseph is not my father.god the father is my father." people who believe the niv, they'reso 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 immediatlyrebuked and somebody needs to rebuke the niv. somebody needs tocorrect the new living translation. somebody needs to rebuke the esv andsay, "wait a minute. you're wrong. that is not jesus' father.jesus' father is god the father." you say, "well, they're just a littleeasier to understand. well, the changes don't really affect doctrine." these are some pretty importantdoctrines, aren't they?

the deity of christ, the virgin birth. not only that; they attack his eternalpre-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, jesuschrist has always existed and always will exist. he is the first and thelast, 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 thethousands of judah, yet out

of thee shall he come forth unto me thatis 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 usthat jesus christ is "from everlasting." those are two very powerful wordsbecause they speak to the eternal pre-existance of jesus christ. he hadno beginning. he is not a created being. he was god in the flesh. he was in thebeginning with god and he was god.[john 1:1] now, "everlasting" means it goes onforever; it lasts forever. so "from everlasting" would be somethingthat comes from the eternal past or something that comes from theinfinite past, something that has

always existed. listen to the niv: "but you, bethlehem ephrathah, thoughyou are small among the clans of judah, out of you will come for me one who willbe ruler over israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." now, what's an origin? that's when somethingstarts to exist, isn't it? when something originates, that'swhen it starts to exist. look, did jesus startto exist at some point? no, he's from everlastingin the king james bible.

but according to theniv, he had an origin. if jesus christ had an origin, thenhe'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 justdelivers the coup de grã¢ce: -isaiah 14:12 says this:"how art thou fallen from heaven, o lucifer"... -only one place in the entire bible doyou find the word "lucifer". once.

here we actually put a name on satan,calling him lucifer, and if we were to walk down the streetand 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 castdown from heaven, satan. -satan. -that's satan. -that's the devil. -the devil.

-he's satan. -alright, who's lucifer? -it's an easy question; i know.that's perfect. -satan. yeah. -the only way you and i knowthat satan's name is lucifer is because of isaiah 14:12. "how art thou fallen from heaven, olucifer," - now i want you to notice it gives us his name and it gives us histitle - "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 testifyunto you these things in the churches. i am" - this is jesus speaking - "i amthe root and the offspring of david," - this is jesus speaking - "and thebright 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 theniv in revelation 22:16 state that jesus christ is the morning star.

-what does the niv call lucifer fallingdown from heaven? -"how you have fallen from heaven,morning star, son of the dawn!" so instead of lucifer being cast out ofheaven in isaiah 14:12, in the niv you have jesus being cast out of heaven. now look, the bible has told us thatlucifer or satan was cast out of heaven for wanting to be like the mosthigh, wanting to be like god. look, the niv, after attacking christ'sdeity, after attacking his pre-existance, after attacking the factthat he was born of a virgin, that he had no beginning, that he had noending, that he was god in the flesh,

it's now accusing him of wanting to belike the most high. he is the most high! -according to your niv, jesusfell from heaven and not lucifer! -the people who are behind theseversions are of satan. satan wanted to corrupt the wordin 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 anytwoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,and of the joints and marrow,

and is a discerner of the thoughtsand intents of the heart." the devil knows that if he can disarmus as christians, he can defeat us. -the goal is and always has been todisarm us of our weapon. look at history. when evil men want toconquer a group of people, you know what precedes the conquering? theydisarm 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 yourweapon away, they're not trying to protect you; they're trying to make surethat when they come after you,

you can't fight back. in 1929 the soviet union establishedgun control. between 1929 and 1953 20 million politicaldissidents were killed. in 1935 germany established gun control,began to disarm its people. between 1933 and 1945, 13 millionjews and others were killed. in 1935 china established gun controland began to disarm its people. between 1948 and 1952, 20 million political dissidentsin 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 controland began to disarm its people. between 1975 and 1977,1 million cambodians were killed. you've got to understand this: the enemyis constantly trying to take your weapon away, not to defend you, butso that you cannot defend yourself. -evil dictators have always disarmed thepopulation to make them defensless, to make them slaves. governments knowthat if they can disarm the people, they'll be defenselessagainst their tyranny. -say what? is there an attack on theword of god today?

of course there is. because if satancan disarm you from the one thing you've got to hurt him, from the one thingyou've got to engage him in battle, if he can disarm youthen it's easy pickings. -the devil would love nothing more thanto take the twoedged sword of the king james bible out of our handand replace it with a butter knife called the niv, replace it a butter knifecalled the esv, replace it with a butter knifecalled the new king james. he doesn't want us to be armed. hedoesn't want us to be able to do battle

with the rulers of thedarkness 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, beforethe 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 bibleversions are key to the devil's plan

for a one world religion, a one worldgovernment, a new world order. the bible tells us that before christ'ssecond coming there will be a great falling away, the "apostasã­a". thegreat falling away before christ's second coming will be as a result ofthese false, lying, modern bible versions that are twistingand changing god's word and changing the doctrines of christ. -i mean they're putting mistakes in ourbible, and then people are doubting the bible, they're doubting god,they're believing in evolution, they're believing all these things. allit's doing, it's promoting a one world

government. why? becauseit's promoting a falling away. -and what's interesting is that peopleoften, when they refer to the one world government, or the one world religionthat'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 homein an armored line, guns at the ready. -it is a new world order... -we've got to give them a stake increating the kind of world order

that i think all of uswould like to see. -are you optimistic a global system canhappen, from what we've heard so far? -if it could happen, and in fact, it'sin the works... -the people that are behind this treatywant that world government and in their mindsthis is a step toward it. -you mean controlling ammo, controllingthe amount that's available, eventually controlling the market? -eventually controlling all of us. -here's what's interesting. did you knowthat the niv uses the term "new order"

about the coming of christ? in the king james bible, hebrews 9:10says, "which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnalordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." now that's talking about something thatalready happened in the past, right? -the time of reformation is a referenceto the coming of jesus christ. now you've got to understand this. thatis 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 anyof that. why? because the time of

reformation came.the lord jesus christ came. -listen to the niv: "externalregulations applying until the time of the new order." and then if you readverse 11 in the niv, it makes it sound as if that's something that's stillcoming in the future. the new order was not just the firstcoming of christ, but that the second coming of christ is what'srefered to by the new order. the good news translationcomes right out and says it: "these are all outward rules, whichapply only until the time when god will establish the new order."

the new english translation also callsit the new order. the common english bible also calls itthe new order. the best-selling bible in america today calls the coming of christthe new order. -guess what. there is coming anantichrist and when he comes it will be the time of the new order. but that's not whathebrews is talking about. -there's a lot in these new bibles thattamper with end times bible prophecy in order to prepare people to accept theantichrist, 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, oneworld religion, one world system of the antichrist, and to receive themark of the beast. -say, "pastor jimenez, you're goingon these conspiracies. you believe in the new world order?" -you think it's crazy to think thatthere are bankers and people out there trying to bring in aone world government? i don't know if you've ever read thebook of revelation, but the bible tells us that the antichrist is going to bringin a one world government.

the bible tells us that the antichristis going to bring a one world religion. i don't think it's that far fetchedthat people are saying, "oh, the bankers arebringing in a new world order with a one world government." now they may think - you know theseconspiracy theory guys - they may think, "oh, it's just the bankers;it's just this." but we know in the biblethat the antichrist is bringing in that same thing. that's what the bible says.

from the garden of eden there's beenan attack on the word of god. even before the bible was completelywritten down, there was an attack on the word of god, andyou think it's different today? it's not. you've got to understand this. todaythe word of god is under attack. the modern bible versions are clearlydifferent than the king james bible and you've got to ask yourselfthis question: why? in order to understand the differenceyou need to understand the history of the english bible.

turns out there's a bible museum righthere in phoenix that has one of the largest collections of rare englishbibles in the world, and the museum director joel lampe is going to let usactually look into these rare first editions of the bibles leading up to theking james and the king james itself. he's going to explain to us the historyof our king james bible. he's going to take us all the way fromerasmus' greek new testament, the original textus receptus, and he's going to take us through thehistory 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 wasprinted in 1611 and there's a common misconception out therethat it was the first english. well, it wasn't. there were numerousother english examples before the 1611 and what you see here starts with theoriginal greek, as you just said, textus receptus, done byerasmus of rotterdam. this literally changed everything fromwhat we know today in church history

as well as in just secular history. it's called the 1516 erasmus ofrotterdam's greek/latin new testament. well, let's just callerasmus 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 textusreceptus right here? -the original textus receptus.

-wow. -please take a look at it. generally considered the most importantbook that was ever printed. and this is the book thatlaunches the reformation. even as an atheist, you acknowledge thisis 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 thisbook 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 designerdown there that was hired to decorate it. of course i'm talking aboutthe vatican, michaelangelo, the sistine chapel. that money stoppedflowing. the church started putting bounties on people's heads, saying, "youcan't teach this. this isn't what we consider accurate", even though erasmussaid, "we've kind of got a problem here. it does say 'metã¡noia', not 'pay afine', so we're going to have to address this theological issue." but theprotestant movement was birthed from this book. and what does theprotestant 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 makesit 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 doingwrong, and showed what it should be. but he didn't translate it toshow what it should be until later. that wouldn't be until 1519. -so these are two contradictorythings side by side. -and all he is doing isjust showing the evidence.

-the church's latin corrupted versionand then the original greek textus receptus, he just put it side by sideand 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 todayas the first edition coverdale bible. what, really, it is though is the workof william tyndale. now as we know tyndale is the inventor of the englishwe speak today. he's also the inventor of our very first english bibletranslated from the original languages.

tyndale in england wanted to do the samething luther was doing in germany. and he went underground and with the aidof luther's library, books like this here, and later editions of erasmus'work, tyndale would produce the very first new testament. it becomes the mosthunted book in the history of england. and so the king wants this thing burned. -so england was still totally under thecontrol of the catholic church at the time that tyndale's producinghis new testament in 1526? -and it is a book that's basically anassault on the established or catholic church of london at that time.

this became a monumental achievementbecause tyndale, in the last years of his life, spent most of his timetranslating from the hebrew and the greek to produce this book. -the rest of the old testament, some ofit they weren't able to get done from the original hebrew by thetime this book came out? well, no, because tyndalewas arrested in 1534. -he's held under house arrest for 500days. and then on the morning of october 6, 1536, he's taken out andburned. but in that incarceration period, myles coverdale finished thatwhich tyndale had started.

now what i love more than anything thatwe have in this room is this text here. this is the 1537 what we call thematthews bible. now what is this? it's nothing more than a completed this. -now remember when tyndale dies his lastwords, as you spoke so eloquently earlier were, "lord, open theeyes 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 matterhow crazy henry viii was, that if he

could get henry viii to break with theestablished church of rome, england would be won and protected. it's onething to have a personal relationship with jesus. it's another thing to have apersonal relationship with jesus with somebody wanting to wake up and kill youevery morning. that was their mission. but finally henry viii permitted thebible to go free based on one thing: a divorce. these two textsobviously change england. you could truly have a personalrelationship with jesus from these two books.

-you had that mediatorof the church instead of just jesus christ being the mediator. -what we call todaythe confession booth. "forgive me, father, for i have sinned.it's been two weeks since my last confession." -so this defeatedthe confessional booth. -it got rid of it completely. there wasno need anymore. you didn't have to have a man tell you what your penalty was for this crime that youcommited against god.

then what we have today is called thegreat bible or the bible that was actually authorized and permitted byhenry viii, king of england. that would become fun,to remember a couple of things. a later edition of erasmus' workwas done by a guy named beza. and another work that we're mostfamiliar with though, is this one here done by stephanus. now stephanus isimportant because he gives us the greek that our geneva bible or the bible doneby the reformers of john calvin, william wittingham, those guys, theyused this greek text to translate what their english bible is known astoday is the geneva bible.

now, it's famous because it's the firstone with verses. ok, that's why the geneva bible's so familiar to many ofus. it's like, where did john 3:16 come from? well, it came from... -they divided it intochapters and verses? -the chapters were already there. -they divided in into verses.got you. -after henry viii his son takes thethrone. and we know him today as edward vi. he died very young. he wasonly on the throne for four or five years. but in that time he permitted thescriptures to go free as well. but he

too had no spouse and no kids and sowhen he doesn't have an heir, who ends up taking the throne? his sister who weknow today as bloody mary. and we don't call her that because she liked vodkaand tomato juice with a splash of tabasco. we call her bloody mary becauseshe was responsible for literally over 7,000 of her own people's death. andhere'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 childrenthe lord's prayer in english. -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 wantedthe church to teach them? -we weren't qualified, pastor,to teach our children. -so basically they're being burned atthe stake for homeschooling. -that's basically what it came down to.in a sense, it was. they wanted complete rule. well, during that uprising, men ofcourage decided that we're going to rebel. and what were their names? johnknox, john foxe, william wittingmam.

they fled england and they go to work ona brand new text. and what do we call that text today?we call that the geneva bible. -well it says right on there, someonehas written here, "family bible". -that's right. that's what it truly was:the very first family bible. -what we know today as the textusreceptus, it will go to produce what we know as the very first "homeschool"bible: the geneva bible. -and so this is the book thatsails over on the mayflower. -got you. -that's the biblethat settles jamestown.

after bloody mary's terror, she had asister. we of course know her name as queen elizabeth. to win the hearts ofthe people, she gave us the bishops' bible. this was done by "bishops", done by pastors. -but they're building uponthe work of the geneva bible. -they just wanted something thatwas a little bit more authoritative. -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 somethingbetter was coming down the pike. -and then of course she didn't have aspouse; no kids. so who would take the throne? her cousin from scotland. ofcourse we know him as king james. and that big, tall bible that you seedown 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 abook store and you're holding the very first king james new testament.

then when we get to 1603, we have kingjames becoming king. king james vi of scotland. he became the king and it wassaid unto him that a new translation should be brought forth of thescriptures. and the reason why is that you've got a lot of people using thegeneva bible, but then they'd go to church and it's the bishops' bible, sothere 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 justtake the time to do it right. they got the best scholars in the landtogether and they said we're not trying

to replace a bad version. we're going from good to betterto best here. i mean these are good translations. the geneva bible's good;the bishops' bible is good. we're just going to perfectit and get it just dialed in. so from 1604 to 1610 the kjv wastranslated by 54 of the greatest scholars that existed at that time. justto give you one example: one guy, lancelot andrews, was an expert inlatin, greek, hebrew, chaldean, syriac, arabic, and he also spoke fifteen modernlanguages. that's one guy out of the 54 people that translated the king jamesbible over the course of seven years.

-so there were those who were arabicscholars. there were those who were greek and hebrew scholars. there werearamaic scholars. they were men of great intellect, all of them. and theirknowledge of the scripture was varied. they may have held some differentbeliefs or different areas of theology might be slightly differentfrom one of the other translators. what they did was they dividedthemselves up into six groups. these six men translated these six booksof the bible and so forth. and when they did this then they compared them alltogether, and each of the six groups did this. and then they chose one leader outof each group to evaluate all six groups

so what happened was every passage ofscripture was evaluated fifteen times. and then the end of it all: all of themcame into agreement with what was translated based upon the correct verbaldynamic that they used, that is for what it says, that's what it means, even if it was in slight contradictionto what they might think. -the king in 1603 said, "ok, i'm going toorganize a commitee and no matter how long it takes, you're goingto go to work using two rules: old testament must be translated fromthe hebrew, new testament must be translated from the greek, and i'm goingto give you all the resources humanly

possible to make this happen." so thebest 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 onwhat we know today as the most important book in the history of man: the firstedition, first issue, first printing of the king james text. and ittook them seven years. and they did a phenominal job. and theking 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 1612he gives us what we know today as the very first hand-heldking 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, youcan own it. every book store in london sold it, and it would take off. and then it would become and always hasbeen the #1 selling book in the history of man. no book has everoutsold this text, or ever will. -when we look at the bible versions thatled up to the king james: tyndale, matthew, coverdale, great bible,bishops' bible, geneva bible, they all

line up with the king james. they allbasically say the same thing as the king james. the king james bible is theculmination of the bibles that preceded it. so if the king james bible isconsistent with all the other english bibles that led up to it, why arethese modern bibles so different? dr. james white is a guy who has debatedagainst people that are king james only. he's written a book againstthose that are king james only. he's considered to be the expert of whyking james onlyism is wrong, so we're going to go talk to him andfigure out what his arguments are. -james? we have guests.

-alright. how you doing? dr. james white, thank you somuch for speaking with us today. -good to be with you. -can you just give me codexsinaiticus in a nutshell, and codex b in a nutshell? -both sinaiticus and vaticanus are theprimary objects of the vitriol of the king james only movement because of thefact that they were so central in the development of a new testament textother than the textus receptus. -two men by the names of westcott andhort put together a critical text mainly

based on two manuscripts known assanaiticus or "codex aleph" and vaticanus or "codex b". and these twomanuscripts were thought by westcott and hort to be older and therefore morereliable than the other greek texts that had been used in the textus receptus. the modern bibles are supposedly theresult of modern archaeology and modern scholarship and modern discovery. i meaneven the people who promote these modern bibles will tell you, "well, the modernpublishers just have more resources available to them today. they just havemanuscripts that just weren't available to the king james translators. that'swhy the modern bibles are better",

they'll say. and the reason they saythat is because the manuscripts that the modern bibles are translated from, theniv, etc., are newer discoveries meaning that they were buried for centuries. nowlet me ask you something. do you believe that the true biblewas buried for centuries? [congregation]no. -i mean do you really think that godwould allow his people to be using the wrong bible for hundreds and hundreds ofyears, and then all of the sudden in the 1800's we're going tofind the right manuscripts? it doesn't make any sense.

i mean god promised to preserve hisword to all generations, but they're basically believing that god's word inits true form was buried somewhere and that for all these centuries everybodyis reading and preaching and believing something that's wrong and then thankgod for the archaeology of the 1800's to dig up these new manuscripts, thetrue word of god that's been buried for all these years. look, if god took somuch time and effort to bring us the word of god through all the prophets andholy men of god who spake as they were moved by the holy ghost over the courseof hundreds, yea, thousands of years, and then he just lets it get buried?

no, these ones that have been dug up oflate, these newer, better manuscripts are fraudulent. they have names likecodex vaticanus. now, hmm, what does that call to mind? "codex vaticanus". -because it was found in thevatican or it's vatican related, to me makes it immediately suspect. -there are more than 5,200 greekfragments and portions of the new testament that are available for study. -and 45 of those are the predominanttexts 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 calledthe majority text. you have to also note - and i don't think this ismentioned that often - in the gospels themselves, between sinaiticus and alsothe vaticanus, there are over 3,000 differences. so how do we know which oneis the correct difference or the correct passage that should be used unless it'svalidated 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 iknow which one is reliable? so i'd

rather trust in thepredominance of manuscripts that gave us the textus receptus. -if we find something that's been buriedand it says something different than what's been received, the received text,the textus receptus, you know, the bible that people have used forcenturies, then that must be fraudulent. it must not be the word of god if goddidn't preserve it. they're basically rejecting thousands of bibles in alldifferent languages that are all saying the same thing. instead, they're goingto go with codex vaticanus, codex sinaiticus, just because they'resupposedly older. ok, but just because

they're older doesn't mean that they'reright. it doesn't mean that they're not fraudulent. look, paul told us in2 corinthians 2 that people were corrupting the word of god even in hisday. in 2 thessalonians they were already writing a false scripturepretending to be from the apostle paul. in revelation 22, god was alreadywarning people who would try to take away from or add to god's word. sothat's already been taking place. so just because you've got a manuscriptthat's from 200 years after christ, oh, there's no way it could be tamperedwith, 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 manuscriptsdo not stand alone. -and today the nestle allen 28thedition, ubs 4th corrected, there are a number of places where, not only doessinaiticus disagree with vaticanus, though they frequently are together,they don't stand alone in light of the papyri. imbalanced prejudice on the partof westcott and hort for aleph and b. but they were workingbefore the papyri too. anything before the papyriis today primarily irrelevant. -it's become outdated because of newerdiscoveries 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 isa nation in the bible that's always associated with that which is ungodlyor sinful or wrong. for example, in revelation 11:8, the bible reads, "andtheir dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, whichspiritually is called sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified." sowhen god wants to use a place in the bible to represent wickedness, torepresent that which is ungodly and satanic, he uses egypt to representthat. egypt in the bible is a symbol of

wickedness, of ungodliness. -the readings of those earlymanuscripts, p66, p75, p72, have verified and demonstrated that thetextual tradition found in sinaiticus and vaticanus was not unique to them. imean there's theories running around now that these were roman catholic forgeriesand all the rest of this kind of silliness like that. -you might not think that the niv's acatholic bible, and they'll tell you, "oh, it's evangelical; it's forbaptists." but you know what? i'm going to show you all the catholic doctrinesthat it props up because it's from these

catholic manuscripts. acts 8:37 has beenremoved 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 beingbaptized? you've got to believe, and then be baptized. an infant can'tbelieve. 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'sstopping me from getting baptized?" "nothing. let's just baptize him." no,something is stopping you from getting baptized. it's believing. it's justmissing in your bible.

-the catholics teach a doctrine thatmary was still a virgin all the way throughout her life. now we know that ofcourse, mary was a virgin when she gave birth to jesus christ, but the bible isclear that after that, she had other children. in fact, it lists four ofjesus' half-brothers: james, joses, judas, and simon. he gives the names ofthe brothers, and then it says, "his sisters, are they not all with us?" sojesus had at least seven half-siblings, maybe even more. now here's a greatproof of that in matthew 1:25. "then joseph being raised from sleep did asthe angel of the lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew hernot till she had brought forth her

firstborn son: and he called his namejesus." so it doesn't say that he never knew her. it just says that he knew hernot until she had brought forth her firstborn son. it says in verse 25 inthe niv, "but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to ason. 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 thecatholic 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 youknow in the united states probably do not beat themselves. but throughouthistory the roman catholic church has taught and encouraged the practice ofbeating yourself, ok? in fact, when henry viii made catholicism illegal inengland and kicked the roman catholic church out of england, he also at thesame time passed a law against beating yourself. and even today in thephilippines, the devout catholics will beat themselves today in 2013. in thephilippines they crucify themselves; they beat themselves; they crawl ontheir knees till they're bleeding.

i mean they do these type of acts tothemself. look what the bible says in 1 corinthians 9:27. "but i keep under mybody, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when i have preachedto others, i myself should be a castaway." the niv says, "i beat mybody". and most of the modern versions say something along thelines 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 nivsays, "i beat my body". the 2010 edition

of the niv says, "i strikea blow to my body". "i buffet my body". -don't think i'm going tobe defending the niv. -ok. it's the best-sellingtranslation 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 alot of research on this.

-if you include liberaldenominations, maybe. -so 1 corinthians 9:27, you're not goingto defend the niv's "beating yourself"? -no. -because it's catholic. i mean thecatholic church, good night! -oh, don't...that's notwhere it came from. -hold on a second.are you going to say that catholics don't beatthemselves to this day? they don't practice self-flagellation?are you going to say that henry viii... -some few do; the vast majoritydon't even show up at mass.

they're not going tobe whipping themselves. -how about throughout history? whatabout in england when henry viii kicked out the catholics and he made beatingyourself illegal the same year? -but steven, what does that have to dowith the niv translators? you see, just because romehas done it in the past doesn't mean that that'swhat 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 isthe 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 ofthe niv, it's obvious what it's talking about, and it's obviously metaphorical. -ok, the amplified version. i don'tknow about you, but the amplified version was always too loud for me. inever even got it. but anyway, listen to the amplified version: "but [like aboxer] i buffet my body". now let me ask you this: have you ever known a boxerwho beats himself up? because i haven't. the common english bible really makes iteasy to understand for you, because isn't that why you like these newversions, because they're easy to understand? "rather i'm landing puncheson my own body and subduing it like a

slave." look, beating yourself is not abiblical doctrine. and you say, well, he's just meaning it figuratively. well, what about all these peoplewho actually beat themselves? it's a strange doctrine, my friend.i don't believe in it. the bible says in matthew 6:7, "but whenye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that theyshall be heard for their much speaking." so the bible's teaching us here not tojust vainly repeat things over and over again, thinking that if we say somethingover and over again, god's going to hear us, more than if we just said it once.

what's a repetition? saying the samething twice, or three times, or five times. he's saying look, don't use vainrepetitions as the heathen do. ok, the niv on the other hand - and all themodern versions pretty much change this - "and when you pray, do not keepon babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard becauseof their many words." "babble" is when you're just talkingabout meaningless things and going on and on and on, just blathering. it's notthe same as vain repetitions. if i said to a roman catholic, "youknow, you're repeating the same prayer of the 'our father' over and over andover and over. you're not going to be

heard for your much speaking. that's avain repetition. you need to say that one time and be done with it and notjust keep repeating the same thing over and over again." you know, that'ssupported by matthew 6:7, but if i say to them, "hey, stop babbling like apagan," they're going to say, "well this isn't babble." they're going tosay, "the lord's prayer is god's word." because it is god's word, right? but i'mnot going to chant that or repeat that in a vain way to god, but the catholicchurch teaches vain repetitions, so that alteration has been made. not only that, but the catholics have avery strong doctrine of confessing your

sins to the priest. and they'll take youto james 5:15, and in the catholic bible there's a note in the column that sayshey, this verse is telling you to confess your sins to the priest. it saysthat, for example, in the doway rheimes catholic bible in the notes. that's whatit says. james 5:16; "confess your faults one to another, and pray one foranother, they ye may be healed. the effectual fervent prayer of arighteous man availeth much." now listen to what the niv and the modern versionschange this to: "therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for eachother so that you may be healed. the prayer of a righteous person ispowerful and effective." that's the niv.

now you say, "well that's the samething." but it's not the same thing. first of all, if you go back to theoriginal language, if you go back to what it actually says in the greek, theword is "fault"; it's not "sin". -in the textus receptus, it uses theword for faults, "paraptã³mata", which comes from "parã¡ptoma," 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 togod, because "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us oursins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness", whereas i confess myfaults to you when i might say, "i'm

weak in this one area of my life. i needto 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'mconfessing the faults and weaknesses that i have personally, so there is adifference in the understanding of the words between "sin" and "faults" themselves. -evangelical christianity historicallyhas not accepted catholicism as being true christianity. it used to be when iwas a child that the christian bookstore would have books and literature exposingthe catholic church, warning you about the catholic church. now you go to achristian bookstore, and they have

rosery beads; they sell catholic bibles;they sell catholic paraphernalia. what we're seeing is a blurring of thelines between evangelical christianity and roman catholicism. people are beingprepared for a one world religion that unites catholicism, alldenominations of christianity, in fact all religions of the world. -those who push for a global religiousorganization 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 indifferent 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 routesof getting to the almighty. -do christians and non-christians, domuslims go to heaven, in your mind? -yes they do. we have differentroutes of getting there. -i think everybody that loves christ,or knows christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're membersof the body of christ, and that's what god is doing today: he's calling peopleout of the world for his name, whether they come from the muslim world or thebuddist world or the christian world or

the non-believing world, they aremembers of the body of christ because they've been called by god. they may noteven know the name of jesus, but they know in their heart that they needsomething 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 goingto be with us in heaven. -till i die, i'll proclaim nothing butlove for all my brothers and sisters in christ: my catholic brothers andsisters, protestant brothers and sisters, christian reformers, lutherans.i don't care what label you are.

-and you know jack, there are somany other protestant ministers who are doing the same thing as you.-yes. -you're comfortable with the vatican? -oh, i'm very comfortable with thevatican. 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 feelthat i belong to all the churches. i'm equal at home in an anglican or baptistchurch or a brethren assembly or a roman catholic church. -you know what, we don't all have thesame views and i realize mormonism, it's

not traditional christianity, but i'mprobably a little broader and more open in the fact that when somebodyloves jesus and believes they're the son of god,that's good for me. -robert mcguinness with the familyresearch council says it appears the hidden agenda is to unite people underone religious organization so they will peacefully accept u.n. goals such aspopulation control, abortion rights, and one world government. -they are all coming together as oneunder the authority of lucifer. -the devil knows that in order to getpeople to accept the new world order, to

accept false religion, he has to makechanges very slowly. he's not going to jerk the steering wheel. the devil isslowly chipping away at the foundations of our religion. the devil is slowlychipping away at the foundation of the word of god. he's slowly chipping awayat true biblical christianity so that he can replace it with a new globalreligion where the antichrist will be worshipped as the lord jesus christ. -do you believe thatmodern bible versions are going to play a rolein that new world order? -well, i think it's very possible,because the more translations that come

out, the more liberal they seem tobecome and more acceptable to the general population. butthere's over 200 now. 200+. and in these translations now we havepeople throwing in translations for those who are gay and lesbian, we havepeople throwing in translations that are removing "he" or "she", making it "it", so i think in the modern translationsand the ones that are coming out that are becoming more and more liberalallow all faiths of all different types of people and beliefs to come togetherand not be offended by any particular thing. that's ecumenical in nature.-right.

-so ecumenism is part andparcel with the end times. -the king james bible usesthe word "hell" 54 times. i mean, when you read the old testamentin the niv, there's not even one mention of the word "hell". you don't even readthe 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 beable to tell us that hell is a place of fire and torment. it's a place wherepeople go after they die to be punished and to suffer. if we askedthem 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 i do not. -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 familiarwith that word. do you think that those wordsare easier than the word "hell"? -no.-ok. i believe that the king james bible isthe word of god. i believe that it's

without error and i believe that theother versions that are coming out - you know, the niv, the new americanstandard - that they're bad, that they're of the devil. in your book, itseems that you don't see at all that there could be anything nefarious behindany of these changes. you seem to not believe that the devil would ever tamperwith his word or that any of these changes were nefarious, that any of thetextual variances have to do with a guy who says, "i'm going tochange this because i'm evil, because i want to change god's word." -i actually believe godhas protected his word.

-but you don't believe that there's -and for example, you use the term "conspiracy theorist" probably twentytimes in your book - do you believe that there's no conspiracyto change god's word? -no, i think entire bible translationsexist to change god's word. but they're obvious; they're clear. -but could they have existed back thenalso? if there are people today who are putting out something like the new worldtranslation, which is clearly a perversion of god'sword - do you agree? -yep.

-ok. so if people are perverting god'sword today with the new world translation, for example, they wereperverting god's word in paul's day - he warned about it - why do you not believethat people were perverting god's word in the third, fourth century, eightcentury, ninth century? -we know that the new world translationis 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 thenew world translation mistranslates stuff is at the very issues watchtowerbible and tract society happens to

disagree with biblical christianity. -you must not have read job 6:6in the new world translation. -why? -because in job 6:6, in the king jamesbible it says, "can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or isthere any taste in the white of on egg?" and in the new world translation itsays, "is there any taste in the slimy juice of the marshmallow?" so that's something that they changedthat has nothing to do with the watchtower! alright? so what i'm sayingthere is that...

-you memorized that? could there be... yes i did. i didn't even knowmarshmallow had slimy juice. -i mean if you have anew world translation... -i do. -...i'd be glad to show you.but you believe me? -but did you know something? there's anew edition that just came out last week. -i bet it still saysmarshmallow 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 filledwith contradictions"? -i hear it all the time. -couldn't there be an agenda tocreate contradictions, just to make... -they dont... -...or just to put stupidthings in the bible,... -no, no, no, no. -...just to put things in the bible thatsound stupid like, "saul was one year old

when he began to reign"? -1 samuel 13:1 in the king james versionsays, "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 oneyear and then became king". -1 sameul 13:1 in the duway rhemesversion, which is the catholic bible: "saul was a child of oneyear 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 thepeople." well according to the english standard version, he was one year oldwhen he was head and shoulders above all the men. that was one big baby. i'm just trying to tell youthese bibles are dumb. sometimes i'm out soul-winning andpeople will say to me, "i don't believe the bible because there'smistakes 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 youcontradictions in that thing. show me

one in the king james bible.you won't find one." -here's another change that the modernversions make, galations chapter five: "i would they were evencut off which trouble you." the niv says, "as for thoseagitators, i wish they would go the whole way andemasculate themselves!" now does that sound like something thatthe bible would teach that the apostle paul would say? and you say, "well, idon't think that's what they meant in the niv." well, is that why thecommon english bible translated it, "i wish that the ones who are upsettingyou would castrate themselves!"

or how about the contemporary englishversion, the cev? i've seen this one on sale at the christian bookstore. "i wishthat everyone who is upsetting you would not only get circumcised, butwould cut off much more!" i mean are you listening to this?because this term "cut off" has nothing to do with being emasculated orcastrated or mulilating yourself. paul is referring back to these oldtestament scriptures about people who disobeyed god's word, that they would becut off. look, i don't have time to show you all the hundred-and-some examples ofthis. all he's saying there is that they need to be kicked out, he wishes thatthey would be cut off, he wishes that

they would be destroyed by god. that'swhat "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 ofthe 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 paulsaying, "man i wish those guys would just emasculate themselves. i wishthey'd all castrate themselves. i wish they'd all mutilate themselves." i meanthat is not what he was teaching at all. very strange indeed. but not only do these new versionscontain a lot of crazy things that make

the bible look foolish, they also have avery specific agenda to prepare people for the new world order. and part ofthat preparation is to convince christians to obey the government nomatter what. the key passage that they've tampered with is romans 13. -i'm free to make myself a slave. i'mfree to give up some of my freedom. i'm free but i'm free to submit to theauthority of my government. even bad governments do god's work by keepingeven a semblance of order in the streets. even the government of the soviet unionunder stalin was doing work for god. even china under mao ze dong was doingwork for god. honor the king. do it

anyway whether the king deserves it ornot. honor your governor; honor your mayor, whether or not theydeserve it. honor the king. -no one will be able to be armed. we'regoing to take all the weapons. [loud knocking] -today in new orleans they got a lottougher on the hold-outs. -police department! are you home? -not only the floodedareas, but new orleans' dryest and wealthiestneighborhoods, too. -but gun confiscation is exactly whathappened during the state of emergency

following hurricane katrina in neworleans. u.s. troops also arrived. easing public fears and quelling dissentwould be critical, and that's exactly what the clergy responseteam as it's called helped accomplish in new orleans. -the primary thing that we say toanybody is, "let's cooperate and get this thing over with, and thenwe'll settle the differences once the crisis is over." -such clergy response teams would walka tight-rope between the needs of the government versus thewishes of the public.

for the clergy, one of the biggest toolsthat they will have in helping calm the public down or obey the law is the bibleitself, specifically romans 13. -because the government is establishedby the lord. and that's what we believe in the christian faith; it's what'sstated in the scripture. -but wait a minute. what if a policeofficer just comes to my house and says, "wash my car, slave"? does the biblerequire me to obey that? ok, what if a police officer asks me todo something illegal? i mean what if a policeman came to me and said, "youknow what? i want you to climb over the fence into your neighbor's yard and iwant you to look through the window and

see what your neighbor's doing. i wantyou 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 agovernment anywhere that commanded people to spy on their neighbors orelse. 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'retold. romans 13 is a passage that explains to us the purpose of governmentis to punish evildoers, not to regulate every aspect of our lives and tell uswhat to do and control us. but also a key thing that is taught in romans 13 isthat we are to obey the higher powers.

so for example, in the united states wehave various levels of government, don't we? now what is the supreme law of ourland? well, first of all it's god's law. first we obey god. after that is theconstitution of the united states because the constitution of the unitedstates is the supreme law of the land. you say, "well, the bible says to honorthe king, therefore we need to obey obama." but hold on a second. is obamathe king? is our government run as a monarchy? and i thought that we haveelected officials that answer to the people and that they are not above thelaw and that the supreme law of the land is the u.s. constitution. so if we'regoing to obey the government that has

been set up over us, if we're to obeythe law of the land, that means we're supposed to obey the constitution. theniv just completely eliminates that teaching. it doesn't teach you to gowith the higher power; it just says this: so instead of saying, you know, "letevery soul be subject unto the higher powers. for there is no power but ofgod: the powers that be are ordained of god", just referring to the fact thatno one on this earth has any legitimate authority except coming from god. why dochildren have to obey their parents? because god said so. why do we obeyhuman 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 topunish evildoers, to protect the innocent from those that would harmthem. here's the nev living translation in romans 13:1. "everyone must submit togoverning authorities. for all authority comes from god," - watch this - "andthose in positions of authority have been placed there by god." now that isnot true. the new living translation is saying that everyone in any position ofauthority has been placed there by god. that is not true, because one day theantichrist is going to be placed in authority by satan. "the dragongave him his...authority", it says in revelation 13. and not only that, but inhosea [8:4], it says, "they have set up

kings, but not by me". there are timeswhen 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, "payyour 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: payyour taxes and government fees to those who collect them". good night! now it'snot just the taxes; it's also the fees, and those are the worst. the king jamesis telling you to obey government within a certain scope, within certainperameters 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 manyplaces where the new king james departs from the textus receptus and departsfrom what the king james is saying. -not in the new testament. -it does, actually. there are actually a lot of placeswhere it departs from the tr. -the new king james is probably one ofthe most dangerous versions out there because it leads you to think, "oh, it'sthe same as the king james; it's just

more modern, updated words." if that'sall it was, i wouldn't even bring it up. -because a lot of people who wouldn'ttouch the niv with a ten-foot pole - they wouldn't touch the esv or the newliving 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 getsrid of the 'thees' and the 'thous'. it's just like the king james excepta little easier to understand." ok. well, let me give you some stats onthe new king james. the new king james omits the word "lord" 66 times. itremoves 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 "newtestament", completely removes the word "devils". the bible's not obsolete; youjust need to get some smarts. you need to do some studying. you need to learnthe language. and it's funny how my little children can understand it, andyou're an adult and you can't understand it? and isn't it funny how the samepeople that say the king james is too hard to understand tell you you need tolearn greek if you really want to know what the bible says? yeah, that's reallygoing 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 seewhich one's easier to understand. the king james used a really hard wordabout 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 "terebinthtree". that's a little easier to understand, right? now judges 8:13contains a really tough phrase in the king james, "the sun was up". ok? i mean that almostcould be in "hop on pop".

"the sun was up". they changethat to, "the ascent of heres." "the ascent of heres." 1 samuel 13:21. the king james uses areally 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'venever heard of that word. ok? 1 samuel 22:6 uses this really hardword, "tree". so the new king james decided to update that to "tamarisktree" 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 usean easier word, "sistrums". "sistrums". because everybodyknows 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 jamesin 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 toohard. let's change it to "regiment". ok, and nobody's going to understandwhat "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 kingjames. much easier to understand. is the new king james really that mucheasier to understand than the king james? i mean that was a lot of examples wherethe king james is a lot easier. and that

wasn't a complete list. that was just abunch of examples. so, it really has nothing to do with making it easier tounderstand; 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 thisis 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 onesthat start with a th are singular; the ones that start with a y are plural. itaffects the meaning because you often would have no way of knowing whetherhe's talking to one person or the whole

group unless you had the "thees" andthe "thous" there to tell you that. it's important. it's all important. butlet me just show you some doctrinal changes that the new kingjames makes that pervert doctrine. go to 1 corinthians 1:18. -"for the preaching of the cross is tothem that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved itis the power of god." -brother garrett, read that for me niceand loud in the new king james. -"for the message of the cross isfoolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are beingsaved it is the power of god."

-so notice, in the king james it saidthat we are saved. in the new king james it said we're being saved. bigdifference because salvation is not a process. salvation happens in a momentof time, in the twinkling of an eye, we believe on christ, and we are passedfrom 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 weare 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 ofchrist among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing." -again, not that aresaved, but those who are being saved, as if it's a process. matthew 7:14 for example, in the newking james says, "difficult is the way which leadeth unto life and few there bethat find it". the king james says "narrow" referring to how many peopleare going, referring to the fact that there are few that be saved. the newking james says it's difficult. now, if it were by worksit would be difficult.

-new living translation says, "but thegateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult and only a few everfind it". the english standard version says, "for the gate is narrow and theway 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 bigdeal: is it hard to get saved? -hey, jesus did the hard part. how hardis it to accept a gift? how hard is it to take a drink of water? how hard is itto walk through a door? how hard is it to eat a piece of bread? these are thethings that jesus compared salvation to

because it's easy to be saved becauseyou don't have to work your way to heaven. you know what salvation isreferred to in the bible as, in the book of hebrews? rest. look, is rest hard? don't be deceived by these modernversions. you might be tempted one day: "oh, you know, this church usesthe new king james, but so what?" it's a big deal. do you think that we need500 different english bibles? -no. in fact, i mentioned we have aglut. we don't have any need for any

more. i don't think there's a goodreason for why we've had the explosion of them over the past number ofdecades. i know what the reason is. -it's real simple. it's the fact that ifyou have a publishing house and you want to do a study bible or something - whichi'm not a study bible fan - -me neither. -what they did is if you were a majorpublishing house, you didn't want to have to pay royalties to somebody else,so they all made their own translations. -right. there is a financialmotivation to come out with all these different versions.

-there is. no question about it. -does god expect the average christianto learn the original greek? -god expects the average christian toutilize the information that is provided to him and we live in a day where wehave more information available to us than any other generation ever has andwe need it right now because the attacks have never been more luciferous. -do you see a danger, ok - because here'smy belief about it. i think if someone learned koine greek and became fluent init 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 insomeone who learns two semesters of bible college greek and now, they'regoing to get up and say - like, even a king james only guy will get up - he'shad two semesters of bible college greek - and he's going to get up andsay, "oh, the king james translators, they translated this wrong." and justwith the brush of his hand, you know, seven years of fifty brilliant scholarsgoes 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 basedupon really bad exegesis, ok? but let me

just mention that years ago i had aminister 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'tpan out. it was just one of those, the commentator sort of went off on atangent. you know what he did once i told him? he preached it anyways. -just because it soundedgood 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 thatthe 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 havetoday is inspired because they don't believe in the preservation of thebible, but you know, the bible says in psalms 12:6, "the words of the lord arepure words: as silver tried in a furnace

of earth, purified seven times. thoushalt keep them, o lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever." and you know, the same god that brought us the inspired word is the samegod that's going to preserve the inspired word. and i think it's silly tothink that god is powerful enough to use sinful men and make sure he gives us aperfect original and then that same god can't use sinful men and make sure it'spreserved from this generation forever? i believe god is powerful enough to giveus an inspired word and i believe god is powerful enough to preservethose same inspired words from this generation forever.

now let me ask you this: do you believethat 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 alllanguages. this is why we support translation ministries like biblesinternational. the textus receptus is used and the hebrew bible is also usedobviously, to translate into other languages, which wouldbe the word of god. we believe that every people should havethe bible in their language, and in english, it's the king james bible. -let me just close by saying this: god'sword has been preserved unto us in this

generation. listen to isaiah 59:21. "asfor me, this is my covenant with them, saith the lord; my spirit that is uponthee, and my words which i have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thymouth, 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. theword that you're preaching, your descendants will preach it. yourchildren and their children and their children from henceforth and foreverwill have these words" and i believe that those are the words that are in myhand right now. and look, the modern versions, whether it be the niv, theesv, the new living translation, or the

new king james, that philosophy is aphilosophy that says god's word is not preserved. we had to go dig up a newone. we had to go dig up an older manuscript to fix all the problems init. no, i believe that it's been preserved from the time of christ untilnow. it's been passed down and what we have today is a copy of a copy ofa copy that has been passed down. a lot of people wrongly believe that theking james bible has changed over the years, that the 1769 edition that we usetoday is completely different from the 1611, but in reality the only thing thatchanged in 1769 were spellings, capitalizations, punctuation, some typosthat were corrected; the words did not

change. the words that we have today inour king james bible are the exact same words that were given us by thetranslators in 1611. the words haven't changed. the words have been preserved, and that's what god promisedthat he would preserve. he says, look, "heaven and earth shallpass away, but my words shall not pass away." he didn't say the thoughts; hedidn't say the ideas; he didn't say the doctrine; he said, "my words shall notpass away." these new versions are from a corrupt source and they have corruptfruit. look at the fruit of these new versions. look at the way churches havebecome: fun centers. look at the way

churches have become as a result ofthese new modern versions: filled with unsaved people. filled with people whodon't know doctrine, don't care about doctrine, because when you're reading abook that's filled with contradictions, it's hard to care about doctrine. butwhen you're reading a book that is perfect and pure and preserved, youknow, you look at every word and you care about doctrine and you care aboutwhat it says and you care about what it means, not just, "well, yeah, i kind ofgot the gist of it. jesus died on the cross. i get it." no, i want to knowspecifically every doctrine that god has for me from the word of god.

-you know, to touch this book and tostudy it is one thing. to appreciate it from a distance about what men andwomen, children, had to go through so that you and i could read a book todaycalled a bible without fear of persecution. it's easy to say thisnumber: 10,000 people were burned, stoned, deboweled, for reading this book. -i study really early in the morning, orsometimes late into the evening, so i might wake up at 3:00 with an idea, andi go and i study that in the scripture. and you realize the beauty of it andwhat it's conveying, and you just sit there with tears running down your cheekbecause you recognize the greatness of

what you've been given. and so when istudy with the king james bible i'm completely confident that what i have inmy hand is the word of god from cover to cover and that it's the same now as itwill be an hour from now because it's preserved and it's the same. so i haveconfidence when i open it up and preach from it on sunday and teach from it insunday school or witness to people on the street, i know that this is the wordof god and we look forward to meeting the very word himselfin glory to testify to what we've been studying our whole life. -god is not pleased with these menremoving verses, adding verses, adding

things, removing things.go to revelation. revelation 22:18; "for i testify untoevery man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shalladd unto these things, god shall add unto him the plagues that are written inthis book". have you ever read the book of revelation? there's a lot of nastyplagues in that book. he said i'm going to give you those plagues if you add tomy word. revelation 22:19; "and if any man shall take away from the words ofthe book of this prophecy, god shall take away his part out of the book oflife, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in thisbook." but these men that have changed

the word of god, the bible says theylost their opportunity to be saved. he said, "i will take away". he said, "inthe same way you took away from my word, i will take away his part out of thebook of life." he said, "i will make sure you are not saved because you havemessed 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 kingjames 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 wordin your hand, not the thoughts of god,

not what he might have said, not whatwe think he said, but the actual words of god, and not just that, but when youhave 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 readthe bible. that should drive us to live by this bible. this book has everyanswer for every question in life. you say, "pastor jimenez, i came toverity baptist church; i didn't really come here to learn about the king jamesbible. i came here to learn about salvation." we learn aboutsalvation in the king james bible. "i didn't really come here to learnabout 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 learnabout 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 willbring you salvation. it will do everything you need it to do. why?because it's the word of god... ...without error, perfect, exactly likegod gave it to you. it gives me confidence to realize thatthe word of god is perfect. you know why so many people are not believing in godtoday, not coming to church, generations of young people are just leavingchurches by the droves and never coming

back? because these modern bibleversions have been corrupted, there's mistakes in them, and it's caused themto doubt their faith in god. but not this one. this one's perfect. the kingjames 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 ofprayer. dear heavenly father, lord, we love you. thank you for yourword. lord, thank you that you have not made us responsible to preserve yourword, but that is a responsibility that you've given to yourself. you inspiredit, 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 outthe other. help us to realize, "i have the word of god; maybe i should readit. maybe i should study it. maybe i should live it." we love you, lord. inyour 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 sureif i'm going to heaven." maybe you've never even thought of it. but the bible says you can be 100% sureyou are on your way to heaven. now, according to the bible, you need tounderstand a few things in order to be able to receive salvation.the first thing is this: the bible says in romans 3:23, "for allhave sinned, and come short of the glory of god". the bible tells us that "sin isthe transgression of the law." when we break god's law, we sin. and accordingto that verse, we've all sinned.

i'm a sinner; you're a sinner. and unfortunately there are wages forour 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 memoney. those are my wages. but because of my sin, the wages is death. what iearn is death. "for the wages of sin is death". now, when we think of deathmost people think of a physical death, but revelation 20:14-15 says, "and deathand 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 inthe 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. "thisis the second death." what we earn because of our sin is death: a physicaldeath, a second death, which is being cast into the lake of fire. revelation21:8 says, "but the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, andmurderers, 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, andmurderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters..."and at the end of that list he says this: "and all liars, shall have theirpart in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the seconddeath." and the reason that god adds that sin of lying at the end of thatlist, 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 asinner; you're a sinner, and we're all initially condemned to hell, but thegospel is the good tidings or the good

news. romans 6:23 says, "for the wagesof sin is death". we understand what that means now. but the second part ofthat verse says, "but the gift of god is eternal life through jesus christ ourlord." the bible says that god has a gift he wants to give you and that giftis eternal life. now in ephesians 2:8-9 the bible says, "for by grace are yesaved through faith". the word "grace" means to get something you don'tdeserve. you didn't earn it; you didn't pay for it. "are ye saved" is areference to being saved from hell, because i don't want to go there. i'msure you don't want to go there. the word "faith" means to believe. itsays, "for by grace are ye saved through

faith; and that not of yourselves". ithas 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 issomething that's given to you. someone else pays for it, but you don't pay forit. if i gave you a gift and i asked you to give me money for it, that wouldn'tbe a gift. if i gave you a gift, but i asked you to do something for it, thatwouldn't be a gift. now, the gift doesn't cost you anything, but it costs theperson giving it to you something. and the gift of god is the exact sameway. jesus had to pay for that gift. romans 5:8 says, "but god commendeth hislove toward us, in that, while we were

yet sinners, christ died for us." john3:16, 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 notperish, but have everlasting life." the gospel is this: jesus christ wasborn of a virgin. he lived a sinless life; he never sinned, never didanythitg wrong. he died on the cross, was buried. the bible tells us his soulwent down to hell for three days and three nights, and he rose from thegrave, not to pay for his own sin, because he had no sin. he died to payfor our sins. and see, it's already been payed for. the gift has already beenpaid 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 toend. john 3:15 says "eternal life". "eternal" means it will never end. john3:36 says "everlasting life". romans 6:23 says "eternal life". all throughoutthe bible you find this concept: eternal life, everlasting life, life that willlast forever, life that will never end. according to john 3:36, you get it themoment 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 dosomething 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 notsomething that we earn, and once we have it, it's not something that we keep. thebible says in titus 1:2, "in hope of eternal life, which god, that cannotlie, 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'seternal 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'sthe only thing you need to do: just like any other gift, you get achoice whether you'd like to accept it or reject it. you may ask, "well, how doi 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 confesswith thy mouth the lord jesus..." the word "confess" means to admit. yousay, "what an i admitting?" well, you're admitting you're a sinner. you'readmitting 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 morethan just saying words. he also says,

"...and shalt believe in thine heartthat god hath raised him from the dead..." you're believing that jesuschrist died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the grave as a paymentfor 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," thebible says, "thou shalt be saved." it doesn't say you might be saved. itdoesn't say you hopefully will be saved. god says, "i will save you if youconfess with your mouth and believe in your heart." notice you don't have to goto church. it doesn't say you have to get baptized. it doesn't say you have torepent of your sins. it doesn't say you

have to do anything; simply believe andask him to save you. if you believe that in your heart, if you believe that jesuschrist died on the cross for your sins, was buried, rose from the grave, hewants to give you a gift, it's eternal life, then why don't you just confesswith your mouth right now? i'd like to help you form a prayer. ifyou believe that, why don't you just pray with me right now: if you prayed that prayer and youbelieved in your heart, according to the bible, you're now saved. you haveeternal life. congratulations. subtitles by the amara.org community