Examples of Changes in Scripture (03/25/2001)

Boy, I wish we preached before Sunday school instead of after.

I guess it would be worse after though, I couldn't change my sermon that way. We have to go again to Psalm 12, 6 and 7.

I think by the time this series is over we'll have this one memorized. Psalm 12, verses 6 and 7, and we're continuing our series on Bibliology, the study of what the

Bible says about the Bible, and we have discussed inspiration, revelation, and now we're discussing preservation and have been on this topic for quite a few lessons.

We continue with it today and probably complete it next Sunday, the Lord willing.

So follow along with me and let's read this Psalm together, Psalm 12, 6 and 7.

The words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation and forever.

And so God has promised us that he is going to preserve his word and has preserved his word for each generation of his people.

We've seen that his word is secure eternally, his word is settled, his word established, his word is sure, his word is pure, his word is protected, and we have that promise.

And based upon that promise, we've embarked upon this study. According to Amos 8, 12, there is a day when they will look for the word of God and will not be able to find it.

And it could be that we're in that day, actually, because there are many, very many people confused about which version of the

Bible is the best one. In fact, when we went to California to Dr.

MacArthur's church, one of the lessons that was taught to the pastors was how to select a good version to preach from.

And it was interesting because the man who taught the session was one of the editors of the

New American Standard Bible. And so it was real interesting to get his viewpoint and hear him speak. So today, last time, we talked about the different evidences that we have of the

New Testament manuscripts and the different types of manuscripts that we have, over 5 ,000 some odd either whole or fragments, parts of the

New Testament or all of the New Testament, many, many, many of them. And we talked about the different types and which ones are very, very important and so forth last time.

This time, what I'd like to do is take some time to actually look through some specific scriptures where some changes have been made because we've spent quite a bit of time talking about these changes.

We've talked about how going all the way back to origin, that men began to say they were quote, correcting the

Bible. And sometimes they would use that as excuses to change it, to fit their doctrinal beliefs.

And we saw in Sunday school this morning that this has been going on, one of the verses in 2 Corinthians chapter 2,

I don't remember which verse said that these corruptions have been, I believe it's the last couple of verses in the chapter, that these corruptions have been taking place since the time of Paul.

When Paul was writing that epistle, it was already taking place. Most of the worst corruptions of the scriptures probably occurred within the first hundred years after Christ died.

And so it's a very interesting study to do. And of course, the question is, God promised us that he would preserve his word to each generation.

The question is, how did he do it? But isn't it wonderful that he did? And we have the promise that he has done so.

So this morning I want to spend some time, and actually this may be all the time that we have, but I think you'll find it interesting to go through and ask the question, one of the questions we'll ask is, older always better?

When you see in your margin in your Bible where it says the older manuscripts don't have this verse, or the word is changed to this in the older manuscripts, does that prove anything?

Well, let me give you a couple of examples that show that it doesn't always prove a thing, because what's more important than the age of the document is the source of it.

In other words, if you had a person who was a proven Arian, who claimed to be an Arian, who did not believe

Jesus was God, he did not believe he was the son of God in the truest sense, such as origin, he was an

Arian. Would we then think that a copy that we would find that would date back to his day would be accurate simply because it's old?

Or would we maybe think that he had put some of his Arian philosophies into the

Bible by some subtle changes? In fact, we know that those things took place. So the age is not the most important thing.

And yet most of the theories of modern biblical criticism believe that oldest is better.

Let me just give you a very interesting example that's come to light in recent years that was probably we didn't even know about back in the early 80s when

I was studying this topic the first time through. If you look at Acts chapter eight and verse 37, this particular verse has been omitted by most modern versions of the

Bible. Now, I'd be interested, Brother Bill, to see if you could find it in that revised standard version that I handed you in Acts chapter eight, verse 37.

I didn't check beforehand, so it may or may not be in there. I don't know. If he's not reading it, it's a pretty good indication it's not there.

No. Do you see? There may be a verse 37, but it may be a different... Okay. Okay.

What about in yours, John? This one? Yes, of course.

Well, I have... Is yours New American Standard? No, I have an Amplified. Well, try the

New American Standard, because a lot of folks use that one. In fact, the gentleman that taught us down there in California was one of the editors of this book,

Acts 8, verse 37. I'll read the verse while he's looking to see if it's in that one. It says...

Is it there? Yes. I believe it is. I believe it is, because this is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, God shall...

That's not what the verse says, is it? No, no. I'm sorry. All right. What's that? Chapter 8, verse 37.

It says see marginal note. See marginal note. That gives me a lot of security when it says, you might better check the margin on this one.

It may not be here. But the verse says, and Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus is the son of God. Would you consider that an important verse? The story of Philip and the

Ethiopian eunuch is missing from the modern versions.

And the claim in the... Read your margin to us. It says, see margin. What does he say in the margin? And Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, and he said,

I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. But does it give indication why they took it out of this passage and put it in the margin?

Does he say anything about oldest manuscripts or... No. Does yours...

Late MSS. Late manuscripts. Now, what that means is, when they say late

MSS, that means they believe that only... They believe that none of the oldest manuscripts have this verse, only late manuscripts.

Like a Greek manuscript that was found, say, to date back to, say, 1500.

Only the late manuscripts, that's what that means. So it leads you to believe that the oldest manuscripts don't have the verse.

And yet, let me tell you some facts about this verse. It is true that most modern versions omit the verse, yet it is...

Now, do you remember in our studies earlier, we talked about the fathers, how you can go back and find sermons that they wrote, and they had verses quoted in their sermons?

And we have lectionaries where they had little orders of service with stuff the people would quote in the service, and they have

Bible verses in them. These date back much older than these, quote, oldest manuscripts that they're discussing in these margins.

They date back to as late as 150 AD, almost back to the time of the apostles.

And while this verse is omitted from modern versions, this verse is mentioned by both

Irenaeus and Cyprian in their teachings in the second and third centuries.

That means 150 AD to 250 AD, which predates these, quote, ancient manuscripts by a hundred or two years.

And they quoted this verse. Now, my question is, how did they quote a verse that didn't exist?

Prophetic, but they didn't claim to be prophets. So this proves that the verse must have been in the codices of both the

Greek and Latin churches, because that's where those two men were from, long before the

Sonatic and Vaticanus manuscripts were brought into existence, which, of course, are the two manuscripts that they make the modern versions out of, which disagree with the received text in thousands of places and disagree with each other in literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of places.

So this proof that I just read you comes from Cyprian testimonies, book three, and Irenaeus against heresies, book three.

So you can look those up in the library if you want to. Now, let me give you another example of how, when they say, now, you notice how in the margin of that Bible, it says the old manuscripts don't have this.

They neglected to tell you that Irenaeus and Cyprian quoted it in 150 AD, which is older than any manuscripts on the face of the earth.

How did they get the verse if it weren't in the original Bible is the question. Now, let me give you another example.

Dr. Frederick Nolan, in his integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pages 17 through 18, proved after 28 years of tracing the received text back to its apostolic origin, that the

Bible of the Waldenses, who were lenial descendants of the Italic church, we've discussed all this already, was in line with the received text and existed before Jerome's revised

Latin Vulgate. This places the received text in line with manuscripts which dated back to the second century, well before the existence of the

Vatican and synodic manuscripts. Here's an example, and I briefly mentioned this in a previous sermon, but I'll mention it again because it's such an interesting example.

John chapter five, verse two, look that one up if you would. Now, I want to make note that the verse that we studied previously in Acts 8 .37

is found in the King James version because it is in the received Greek text, the

Greek manuscript line that is called the received text or the Textus Receptus.

Now in John 5 .2, if you'll look at the one word Bethesda in your

King James version, which comes from the received Greek text, it's spelled B -E -T -H -E -S -D -A.

How is it spelled in yours, Brother Bill? Uh -huh. Okay, and how is it spelled in yours,

John? B -E -T -H -E -S -D -A. B -E -T -H -E -S -D -A.

So it's the same. And Brother Bill's is different. Okay. Well, in the

Vaticanus and the Synodicus, it was spelled this way, and it is spelled this way in some modern versions.

Some of you, if you have one, you may see this, B -E -T -H, either Z, as Brother Bill's has, or S -A -I -D -A, rather than B -E -T -H -E -S -D -A.

The point is that in both the Vaticanus and the Synodicus, it's spelled B -E -T -H -S -A -I -D -A.

Well, since those were the oldest, supposedly, were the oldest Greek manuscripts, most of the modern

Bibles have carried this spelling into this verse. What's interesting about it, and it's under the theory that oldest is always better, what's interesting about it is there was a

German scholar named Joachim Jeremias, who has proven in his book called

The Rediscovery of Bethesda, he wrote a whole book about this one word, this one name or town, that Bethesda is the proper reading.

In other words, B -E -T -H -E -S -D -A, as it is in the King James, is the proper reading.

The way he proved it was he produced this reading from the copper scroll from cave three at Qumran, dated

A .D. 35 to 36, even before the

Apostle John passed away. So this has been carbon dated, this is part of the

Dead Sea Scrolls, it's been carbon dated back to 35 to 65 A .D.,

and it is spelled Bethesda, which means that the received Greek text carried the proper spelling, even though the quote, most ancient manuscripts don't.

Well, how do you answer that? And then they argued about it for years until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, which goes back even far more ancient, back to the time of Christ, actually, and the

Apostles, and even before John passed away, and it is spelled the same way as it is in the received text.

Thus, the reading of the majority text, or the received text, which is not found in any extant

Greek manuscript before the fifth century, and that's what they mean by late manuscripts, has a superior claim to originality than the older Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

So, that is some very interesting proof that we have that proves that, quote, the oldest does not always mean the most accurate.

And if you remember, Dean Burgin made the statement that it is incorrect to use the same critical analysis on the

Bible as one would use on profane literature, such as Shakespeare, or something like that.

Why is it not appropriate? Because no one ever changed Shakespeare for doctrinal reasons.

So you can pretty well assume that if you found an older copy of a

Shakespeare work, it might be more accurate than a more modern one. However, with the Bible, you can't make that assumption because whichever one you find, no matter what the day of the manuscript, it might have been perverted to fit someone's false doctrine.

So it blows the whole theory of using that theory that has been used on all the modern versions.

So this is an interesting example disproven by this German scholar, Joachim Jeremias.

Now in the same chapter, John 5, 44, it says, how can you believe which receive honor one of another and seek not the honor that cometh from God, only the word

God is omitted from P66, P75, B, and W, which are some of the, what they might call some of the older manuscripts, but all the other manuscripts have them.

And so it is not always true that oldest is better when you're studying manuscript evidence. You consider all other things being equal, you would consider older better, but you can't always make that assumption.

There are other tests that have to be undertaken before you can say that. All right.

Let me get you men to help a little bit and all the rest of you help me as well. I want to look at a series of verses now at this time, actual verses in your

Bibles. And there are several different topics that I believe have been attacked by these corruptors of the scriptures.

And I want you to try to answer with me which Bible upholds these doctrines the strongest.

We're going to discuss the doctrine of the deity of Christ. We're going to discuss the doctrine of salvation itself, of the

Lordship of Jesus Christ and several other doctrines like that.

We won't have time for all that today. So let's just take a look at some salvation verses, just verses that have to do with salvation.

And we know what the scriptures teach about salvation. And so let's look at these changes that have been made to the received text by the modern translators or correctors as they call themselves.

Look at Matthew chapter nine, verse 13. And I'd like for someone to read that in the

King James version first, whoever gets there first can, as long as we keep order in the church, not more than two or three at a time.

You have it brother Russell. Go ahead and read Matthew nine, 13 and okay.

I am come to call sinners to repentance is the gist of the verse.

Now, brother Bill, would you read Matthew nine, 13? What word is conspicuously missing?

The word repentance is not there. Read yours, John. Go and learn what this means.

I desire compassion and not sacrifice for I do not come to call the righteous sinners.

So the word repentance is missing. All right. John has the new American standard and Bill has a revised standard version.

Now let's look at some others. Look at Matthew 12, 35. This verse is going to deal with the key doctrine that's necessary for anyone to ever understand salvation.

And that is the depravity of man. If we can't understand the depravity of man, that man desperately requires and needs salvation, then we can't understand salvation.

So someone read Matthew 12, 35, a good man out of the good treasure of the heart.

Okay. Now, John, read yours. A good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good.

And the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. What word is missing?

The word heart. They remove the heart. And Bill, I'm sure it's the same and yours,

I'll spare you on that one, but I'm sure it's the same. So the word, the phrase of the heart is missing.

So it does not emphasize that evil, that evil comes from the heart of man. I'm not sure.

You probably, you may have a new American standard or you probably have a King James. Okay. Uh, anyway, in the

King James version, it says of the heart out of the good treasures of the heart. And I think pop, I think pop has said that one.

Now let's go to Matthew 18, 11. John, I want

Deborah to read this one. Okay.

That's kind of a soul winning verse, isn't it? Now, John or Bill, if you have

Matthew 18, 11, would you read it? Oh, you don't have verse 11.

My, my. What about yours, John? What was that?

Okay. John, what about yours? Uh, Matthew 18, 11.

It does have it. That surprises me. But it's out of yours.

It's not in, it's lacking from yours. Okay. All right.

Well, that surprised me. I thought it was missing from both. But, uh, let's go to John. So we have half, half of them have it and half don't apparently, but it removes one of the stronger verses on witnessing and, and, uh, the purpose that Jesus came to the world for.

Okay. Which, which verse now, uh, Matthew 18, 11, let's see what mine says.

No, mine doesn't. Does anybody? Does yours? Brother Otis?

No. Well, there may be another verse that says that. I think there is another verse that says, uh, that, uh,

I think there's another verse similar to this. The son of man has come to seek and save that which is lost.

That's in a different gospel. You're right. That's probably the one brother

Otis is referring to. Yes. Okay. Uh, look at, uh,

Mark 2, 17. Well, mine read was,

I don't remember it.

Mike, I don't remember. We can look it up after a while.

Okay. Uh, Paul, do you have Mark 2, 17? Read it.

I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Uh, Bill, do you have yours?

You just tell what word's missing. Doesn't have leaves. It does.

It leaves the word to repentance off like the other. And John, what about yours?

So it leaves off to repentance.

So that's twice. Now we've seen the omittance of the word to repentance. So obviously we're not wanting to emphasize to repent.

We want to emphasize just believe, believe, which is the modern gospel today, by the way.

And Dr. MacArthur talked about that an awful lot last week or a week before last when we're out there, how it's, everybody just says, you know, just believe and they want to leave repentance out.

Well, you know why they're doing it? Their version, their modern version of the Bible leaves repentance out. Okay.

Now look at, uh, Mark 9, 42. These are all verses.

Anytime you pick up a Bible, uh, you can use these verses to check to see if the

Bible is from a corrupt, uh, Greek manuscript or a good Greek manuscript. These are all little checks you can use.

Mark, uh, 9, 42, who has that one? All right, Dennis.

Okay. If you offend one of these little ones that believeth in me, uh, it's better that you're cast into the sea.

Bill, what does yours say? Okay.

Yours is in line. Now what about yours, John? What words did it leave out of yours,

John? Very important words. In me. You surprised me on yours,

Bill. It's in line with the received text on that verse. The reason sometimes that happens, by the way, is because the

Sinaticus and the Vaticanus disagree with each other in hundreds of places. And, and your version comes from a different set of scholars than John's and they chose, they either lean more towards the

Sinaticus, which sometimes the Sinaticus will favor the deity of Christ more than the

Vaticanus. And then in other places it agrees with the Vaticanus against the deity of Christ and some of these things.

But in John's, the New American Standard, it does not speak of believing in Jesus at all. It just says if you make one of these stumbles that believes, uh, you'll go into the sea.

Well now that fits the modern gospel that's coming about where, uh, I was, any of y 'all have the books for your little children about the, what's it called?

The blue, that blue dog, the blue, is it a dog, blue, blue's clues.

You know what I'm talking about. Oh, is that Ben that reads those? I thought it was you. That's Ben that reads.

I'm teasing. Obviously it's not Paul, it's Ben and his dad that read it.

I was reading it last night, but in that interesting little book for children, it was talking about at Christmas time and they were going to go in and visit homes and give gifts to their friends.

So they went into one home that was supposed to be a Christian home and, uh, uh, it worded it this way.

These are believe people, uh, who believe in the religion and emphasize life.

Didn't say anything about salvation or Jesus Christ just said, we believe in the miracle of life. When it went into the

Jewish home, they believed in the miracle of light and then went into the, what's the one, the black people are doing now, the black holiday

Kwanzaa. They believed in getting together community, getting together.

And so it just, it didn't matter what you believe, it's just everybody believed, well, that's how this verse reads in the new American standard.

Uh, it just says, if you make anyone who believes stumble, well, that means that you cannot give the gospel to an

Islamic person because you're going to make him stumble if you give him the gospel because he doesn't believe in it, but he does believe and it does.

That's not what God was saying. The key words there are, if you believe in me, Jesus said, um, now this is interesting.

Mark chapter nine, verse 44 and verse 46.

One of the key parts of the gospel is that there is a literal hell. Wouldn't you agree? Do you remember the verse that says, save some with fear?

Uh, so someone read verses nine, 44 and 46 from the King James for me.

Okay. All right.

What about reading chapter nine, verse 44 and verse 46 for me, brother Bill, probably going to be a problem for you to do that.

So that entire concept of a literal hell is missing. What about yours in the new

American standard, John? Oh, 44. It's in the margin. Oh, is there a reason? Okay.

Okay. The bet, not just the most ancient, but the best ancient manuscripts, 46 is not there.

No, no reason for it. So mission. Okay. Well, okay.

So we remove hell. Now you say, well, there are other places in these versions where it teaches the doctor of hell.

That's true. There are. What does that prove? You know, they like it.

If they didn't have 90 % of the Bible in them, you couldn't even call them a Bible. So they all have the doctrines in them.

What we're discussing is if someone would corrupt manuscripts, who would do it and why?

And if so, how could we tell the difference? I mean, that's, what's important. John, what did you have?

I was just going to say that in my exercise, it doesn't have 44, 46, but in the margin, it says that they are identical to verse 48.

Okay. Are they? Read verse 48. Okay.

So it is the same. And so God would not want to use repetition, would he, when he's talking about hell?

Those three verses are there. And they're all there. Right.

You knock two out of three out, it's not hard to get the other one. That's a good point. Well I've often, you've heard me, if you've been around here very long,

I've often said that Jesus talked about hell more than he talked about heaven.

You've heard me say that because he doesn't want you to go there. He wants you to know about the place. Well, if you start removing the places where he talks about hell, then my statement won't be true anymore will it you just now it's equal

I don't know I have a problem with removing verses like that what about mark 1021 yes all right take up the cross and follow me is how it ends

John how does yours read all right

Bill would you read yours for me John mark 1021 okay so it leaves out take up thy cross and follow me all right so that removes the idea of the fact that we're crucified in Christ what about Luke 24 40

I think you'll find this a fascinating omission

Luke 24 in verse 40 all right

John would you read Luke 24 40 and the reason oh so it's not in the originals has been added later okay all right

Bill same thing so it omits it so here where we're dealing with historical evidence and proof of the resurrection the entire verse has been omitted and the quote scholars who have made these corrections say that it's because the older manuscripts oh no it says the later manuscripts added it so the theory is that this was not in the original and someone added it later oh it said some ancient have it oh that's does it say the word ancient okay let's see that's that's very that's very revealing because the

Revised Standard people were a bit more honest than the New American Standard they led you to believe it was the more modern ones that added it yours actually says some of the ancient ones added it now my question is if there ain't why don't they use the same theory consistently if older is always better and the ancient one had it why is it that the ancient one added it how do we know that the ancient one didn't always have it and the later one subtracted it because to me if you think about it when when we're dealing with scripture if I am a person who does not believe in the bodily resurrection which by the way is one of the most ancient heresies that they did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ then

I would tend to omit verses that talk about it I certainly wouldn't add verses it wouldn't be a thing to add

I mean I'd have to be cutting with scissors I couldn't be adding verses that teach that there is no bodily resurrection so my tendency would be to cut the verse out not to add the verse later unless what

I was trying to prove is that there is a bodily resurrection well why would a heretic want to prove that you know because it's the truth okay so it's omitted from the modern versions some add and some omit and subtracting so in that case just because they're ancient they don't buy them do you see the problem do you see the inconsistency and this has been brought if you want to read a great book read read

Dean Burgin's books he wrote back when this controversy first arose when that one that Bill is holding came out the

Revised Standard Version he was in the thick of the battle to fight it at that time and I believe he won the fight but they've buried his his works and none of the modern scholars want you to even read them but he is a powerful man at arguing against these modern translations that come from the other quote most ancient manuscripts they don't even follow their own tactics consistently because if they're an

Aryan and they don't want the deity of Christ there they remove it even if the ancient one has it we've already shown examples where the

Dead Sea Scrolls have certain words that that they've removed it really should be there now what about let's go into John chapter 3 this is kind of an important part of our

Bibles when you say John chapter 3 15 and 16 18 and even on down to John 3 36 you're going to find some interesting dealing with our most popular and famous verses on salvation

John 3 15 would you read that for me brother Russell all right brother

Bill read yours what did leave out that you should not perish so you say the positive but you'll admit the negative whereas God gives you the positive and the negative he says not only are you saved forever but it's impossible for you to lose your salvation so eternal security is attacked in that verse by admitting should not perish now

I find this very interesting as well read verse 16 Russell all right for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son read yours brother

Bill his only son so he's not begotten anymore is that a fact well read verse 18

Bill all right read yours

Russell seem to be an entire phrase missing from your okay so the phrase is there some of the phrases it's hard to read because it's in paragraph form so the phrase is there but the word begotten is missing again so it's missing from verse 16 and verse 18 so that's not just an oversight they're they're both removed now this is very fascinating to me look at John 3 36 this is one that's not even in any of the books

I've studied I just happened upon this one myself one day you're back in the early 80s when

I was studying this topic I guess by accident I found this you believe that but anyway read your read

John 3 36 Russell you see how it has both the positive and the negative and both are conditioned upon the one condition of salvation which is belief now

John read yours now

I don't want to embarrass brother John but did you notice how he said it's the same all right because because if we're not careful we'll think that read yours again listen very carefully read yours again

Russell what's the condition for having life all right now read the second part so what's the condition for going to hell not believing what's the condition in yours for going to hell obeying not obeying is there is that a significant difference so if now our salvation depends on not obeying do we not have a works salvation and yet if you're not very very careful it sounded the same didn't it

John I'm at just it's just one word changed only one word but it changed it from belief to obeying that is a great verse to use to check your modern version out as John 3 36 right there leader have worked salvation or it'll have grace and the

King James and the received text has grace throughout all right what about John 6 47 647

John 647 now we've seen this little problem in an earlier verse who would read that in the in the received text for me is that verse 4 is that verse 47 yes 647

I don't think that's it Papa read it

Russell I think you may be in the wrong chapter you see that one

Papa thank you were one chapter over chapter 6 chapter 6 verse 47 the

Lord Jesus said he that believeth on me hath everlasting life

John what does yours say okay so does it matter who you believe in not in that Bible it doesn't it can be

Kwanzaa is that it or it can be I need to get with Ben more often

I'm forgetting my doctrine from his little child's book remember what we said about books in Sunday school you gotta watch those children's books too makes good firewood though all right how about this this one will astound you look at Acts 8 37

Acts 8 37 and you realize

I'm just picking a few out of hundreds literally there are 5 ,000 changes over 5 to 5 ,700 some odd changes in the

New Testament alone between that version John has and the one that the received text has so keep that in mind we're just studying five or six or ten and they're over 5 ,000 of these changes all the doctrines are there yeah but do you think 5 ,000 changes could make a difference to an antichrist who wanted to read from a

Bible I think it could look at acts 837

Russell read that one for me now we already had one change in that little same passage but this time he says

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and what about acts 837 in yours brother

Bill so it's me it's omitted okay so it takes it out of the

Bible and puts it as a footnote and says other ancient manuscripts add this verse so the fact that Jesus Christ is the

Son of God is removed is it removed from yours John a footnote do they say why late manuscripts insert it and Bill says ancient manuscripts inserted it somebody is not doing their scholarly work right okay

I'll show you show you devastating when in Acts chapter 9 verse 5 and 6 for those of you who believe in the sovereignty of God and election and that God of where Jesus Christ said that no man comes to me unless the father draws him and you believe that he meant that when he said it acts 9 5 through 6 that's the end of the verse that's it just say anything about anything missing from that one no footnote or anything he just removes it build is yours have a footnote on that or marginal reference to why that's parts missing so it does not mention

Jesus does not say to Paul it's hard that you kick against the bricks and Paul does not say to Jesus Lord what wilt thou have me to do which is our only indication that he got saved at that moment it's gone so so he may or may not be saved at that moment

I don't you mean in verse 5

I don't even have the verse I'm reading from this little okay so it's

Paul saying oh that's interesting in there all right well now let's look at another interesting thing look at Acts 17 26 how many of you would agree that the blood is important to our salvation

Acts 17 26 Russell do you have it how many of you think the sovereignty of God's important how many of you think the fact of the first chapters of Genesis are important they go back to the creation of everything including man and where all the races came from and read read verse

Acts 17 26 John okay so he put he made from one instead of one blood so that's that's pretty similar actually

I don't know I mean I don't like the fact that in build is yours is similar to that at least okay well look at let's see let's look at Colossians 114

Colossians 114

Russell's ready read that one for us for whom we have redemption through his blood and Bill no blood and John Colossians 114 so there's no redemption through his blood mentioned there all right well let's try first Peter 4 1 then and see if we can find any help with salvation first Peter 4 1 brother

Russell okay so he suffered for whom for us now go up to the first verse of that chapter and I'm I don't have in front of me but read the first verse of chapter first Peter chapter 1

I'm sorry where was I oh okay I'm in there

I'm in the wrong verse you did read it all right well I need John to read it okay so he suffered in the flesh but not for us same with yours bill now the interesting thing is if you read first Peter you'll find throughout that entire book that is written to the

Christian it's written to God's people and when you leave the phrase for us out you don't know who he suffered for you say well

I do too well that's because you've been in the word but if it's missing and you can't read that then you you have a problem look at Colossians 114 did we do that one already

I think we did let me see which one I was looking for here did we do first Corinthians 5 7 let's do first Corinthians 5 7 it's amazing how small seemingly insignificant words if they are omitted can make a huge difference in the doctrinal understanding first Corinthians 5 7

Russell okay read just the last part of that John in first Corinthians 5 7 so it leaves out for us again you see how this would lead one to believe in unlimited atonement rather than limited atonement so that's an

Armenian omission all right let's see 136 let's go back to another hit at the concept of hell look at 2nd

Peter 2 17 2nd Peter 2 17

Russell okay so there are apparently people who are false prophets who

God has reserved hell for them forever now that teaches election it teaches negative election doesn't it it just teaches

God's in control I mean God was in control of Pharaoh even though Pharaoh was a lost evil person

God used him for his purposes and for his glory but look at it in the

New American Standard Version John 2nd Peter 2 17 so the black darkness is reserved but not forever now you can't prove that that's an illusion to hell or an illusion to hell

I should say I'm sorry illusion to hell if you don't have the word forever and I'm sure bills probably reads similar it leaves off the word forever so it's darkness well we know that false prophets are in darkness but we don't know from that verse that that hell is reserved forever for them and and so that one word forever is very important but it's omitted by these manuscripts now as far as dealing with the salvation doctrine of salvation that's all that we have that I wanted to point out next time we'll go into some more of our study we won't do only this like we did this time but we'll we'll put a few more of these because I want you to see some of the attacks on the deity of Jesus Christ some of the many many times that it omits the word begotten we already looked at one of those that today admits that he's the begotten

Son of God it the modern versions say quite often that Joseph is his father whereas the received text always says that he'll just say marry his mother and we'll never say

Joseph is his father because if Joseph is his father then then

God is not his father and so we'll take a few verses next time take a little bit of time out of next time sermon to look at some attacks on the deity of Christ and the

Lordship of Christ where many times they will if you have the word Lord Jesus Christ the phrase

Lord Jesus Christ you'll either remove the word Lord or the word Jesus Christ so that you don't have

Jesus and the word Lord together in the same verse very often and that of course is a modern doctrine and we they discussed that up here at our conference we went to how people today don't want to think of Jesus as Lord he's the

Savior but he's not your Lord in fact later on you can make him your Lord that's false because that's another

Jesus that's not even the Jesus of the Bible the Jesus of the Bible is Lord you cannot remove his

Lordship from him it's part of his being so when you receive him you receive the Lord Jesus Christ and yet in the modern versions normally you only receive the

Lord or you receive Jesus Christ but not both because they were they separate the

Lordship and the salvation part as often as possible and it's so interesting to look at the very things that these great students of modern society such as dr.

John MacArthur who studies our society against the Bible and he'll point out the falseness in the gospel the presentation of the gospel is is watered down and he points all that out and yet if you go to the modern versions that most of the preachers are preaching from that's where they're getting it because they're not even reading it it's not in their heart and mind so it's very easy to forget it and Paul was continually reminding us let your let me bring you to remembrance of these things and yet these versions would have us forget some very important things so it will stop now for today next time we'll conclude this study the best we can there's no way to totally conclude it because it's so immense but we'll conclude it for purposes of our theological studies and we will talk about a few verses that destroy the deity of Christ let me say this

I am NOT one of the proponents of the King James only movement which is a very divisive group of people they won't even fellowship with you if you use a different version that's not where this study is coming from this study is simply looking really at the

Greek manuscripts not even the English translation we're looking at the Greek manuscripts behind the

English Bibles and even Dean Burgin himself the most eloquent defender of the received text said

I'm not really defending the received text what I am saying is it's far superior to any

Greek text anyone's ever come up with and I can prove it and that was his whole thesis and he says as far as them proving that the received text is wrong they failed in their proof they haven't given us any proof and you see the the conflict

Dean Burgin brings us up many times that we saw between those two versions one of them would say the later manuscripts omit these or add these the very scholars that did the same changes from the same version said the more ancient ones added or omitted these and he points out they don't even agree in their own philosophy of how to approach this and they're not consistent where they can remove something that they want to remove even if the ancient one has it they remove it where they want to remove something that's not in the ancient one but it's in a later one they'll say well it's because it's a later manuscript so they're not consistent which tends to prove they're trying to make it read like they want it to read that's not a

Bible I want to me that's a paraphrase I want to get something that's what

God preserved to my generation and every generation between mine and the first one he promised he'd save it to every generation and that's the one that we want so we'll conclude this next

Sunday let's stand and have prayer together hope the chicken ain't cold father we thank you for your word and what it speaks of itself and the great encouragement that you give us when you say you preserve your words to each generation we know that you have and in our hearts we know that we have it and we thank you for it for we would truly be in utter darkness without your word and thank you for the

Lord Jesus Christ who came and was the revealer of the father and thank you that in these last days you have revealed yourself unto us by the

Lord Jesus Christ we ask you to go with us into our time of fellowship and bless our meal and we ask it in Jesus name