In this sermon, the preacher discusses the warnings given by Paul the Apostle in Romans chapter 1. He emphasizes the danger of people who claim to be wise but instead worship their own intellect rather than the incorruptible God. The preacher also criticizes modern translations of the Bible, claiming that they have been influenced by the Westcott and Hort committee, resulting in the deletion of important scriptures. He highlights specific examples of deletions, such as the removal of references to Jesus' mission to save the lost and the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

Ever since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been attacking the Word of God, sometimes directly, sometimes very subtly. In the Garden of Eden, it was a rather subtle attack. All he did was misquoted God, leaving out a few words. He's always been taking away or adding to the revelation in order to slightly change its meaning. In Genesis, Satan came unto Eve and said, Have God said that you can eat of all the trees that are in the garden? Yes, God said that. But he deleted part of what God said, and thus he changed the entire meaning of what God said. What he deleted is that God said, You can eat of all the trees that are in the garden, except the tree that is in the midst of the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Now you see, the portion that he deleted changed the meaning entirely, and it really turned things around. Thou mayest eat of all the trees in the garden. Oh, he said that, yes, but he said much more than that. And so we find that such has been the method of Satan's attack of the Word of God. So oftentimes, deleting important passages of the Scripture, that by their deletion, you can actually change the entire meaning of the Scripture. Sometimes deleting just a word. Sometimes deleting a whole verse. Sometimes deleting a whole paragraph. Now Satan began his attack against the Word of God in the garden by deletion from the full truth of God. And Satan has continued his attack until the present day. So that our Bible, that God has given to us, has been under a continued attack in the name of scholarship as to what portions of the Bible are really from the original text, what have been added to the original text, or what have perhaps been deleted from the original text. And much doubt has been cast upon the King James Version because of so-called manuscripts of older origin that have been discovered in which certain passages translated in the King James Version did not appear, or certain verses, words of them, were deleted from these ancient manuscripts. Now these same textual critics and scholars that are telling us that we can't accept all of what is in the King James as truly divinely inspired of God are the same school of scholarship that tell us that really we can't accept all of the stories in the Bible as being genuine because we know that a lot of the Old Testament stories are just nothing more than Hebrew mythology. In fact, these same scholars tell us that we need to really doubt the authorship of the Bible in many cases that we really are... Men wrote as they were inspired by God, but it isn't necessarily God's Word. It was put within the framework of their own understanding and limited knowledge of the sciences of their day and is colored by their own personality. These same scholars tell us that Jesus wasn't really born of a virgin, that only two Gospels make mention of the virgin birth, and thus we don't need to accept that as fact. Well, how many times does God have to say something before we believe it? And so I point out the fact that the scholarship that has attacked many of the Scriptures is the same scholarship that has attacked much more than just the Scriptures themselves. They attacked the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They attacked the deity of Jesus Christ in the name of scholarship. And they even attacked the existence of God for they were so brazen a few years ago in the theological circles, that is the real intelligent theologians, to tell us that God was actually dead. Sort of like Mark Twain said, the accounts of my death were highly exaggerated. Now Peter warns us in 2 Peter 2, but there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who will privately bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord. So Peter points out that the damnable heresies would be those that would be denying Jesus Christ, that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not and their damnation slumbereth not. Then over in the third chapter of 2 Peter, in verse 15, beginning in the middle of the verse, even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, so that at this time they had already begun a collection of Paul's epistles while Peter was still alive. And this is in 66 A.D. that Peter was writing this second epistle. So already there was a collection of Paul's epistles in the beginning then of the collecting of the books for the New Testament. And Peter said, as also in all of his epistles, speaking in them of these things, which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable rest or twist, as they do also other Scriptures. So Peter refers in his time the fact that men were already beginning to twist the Scriptures. And such has been the case. Now, there are two texts from the ancient manuscripts from which translations are made. The one is called the Textus Receptus, which means the received or accepted text. The other is the text that was developed by Westcott and Hort, two scholarly men, though their true spirituality and true Christian experience can certainly be challenged by many of the statements that they made. And we will get into that in the second part of this study. The characters and the witnesses, or the witness themselves, of themselves and of their beliefs, Westcott and Hort. Now, Westcott and Hort were in the committee that were chosen to bring a new updated version of the King James Bible back in about 1881. And these two men highly influenced the rest of the committee to turn from the Textus Receptus and to develop a new text using basically two ancient manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. And Westcott and Hort follow these two manuscripts 99% of the time. In fact, the Westcott and Hort text is just practically taken directly from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Now, of course, the Codex Vaticanus came from the same source as did the Codex Sinaiticus, and we'll get into that. First of all, it's important for us to realize that in the early church there came false teachers very early into the church. As Peter said, even denying the Lord that bought them. Paul the Apostle was constantly being troubled by these false teachers that were following him around introducing to the new Christian fellowships weird outlandish concepts of Jesus Christ. Very early in the church there developed what was called Gnosticism. Coming from the word in the Greek gnosko, which means to know, these men pawned themselves off as of superior intelligence and of having greater knowledge than other people. And they began to speak disparagingly of the disciples and of their writings, of Paul and of his writings, because after all, the disciples for the most part were simple fishermen. These men mixed the Greek philosophy with the Christian truth, the Greek concepts of God with the biblical revelation of God. And the Gnostics basically taught that all material was evil. Therefore, God could not have created the material world. But way, way back in the beginning God existed. And there went out from God certain emanations. And from these emanations there went out other emanations. A word that is very popular among the Gnostics was the word aeons. And so there was the aeons and from the aeons came new emanations, new universes, new developments. And finally there were after aeons of aeons emanations that were so far from God they didn't even know God. And these were the emanations that created the physical material universe because everything that is physical and material is evil. And thus God could not have created the material universe because the material universe is evil. Thus, God could not have taken upon Himself a material form. Thus Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh. Because it would be impossible for God, who is totally pure, to take on a material form which all material is evil. Now one form of Gnosticism known as Docetism taught that Jesus was actually a phantom. That He had the appearance of a man. But actually He had to be very careful because if people weren't careful they would walk right through Him because He wasn't really there. He just had the appearance of being there. And they have interesting stories of how when He walked along in the sand He would leave no footprints. That He was actually a phantom. An apparition of sorts. But that He did not dwell in a real body of flesh. Now this particular concept was already gaining momentum before John died. And that is why John writes in his first and second epistles concerning if any man declares that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. This man is the Antichrist. And he makes such an important point of the emphasizing of the fact that Jesus came in the flesh because this idea was already gaining in acceptance before John ever died. So John says that which we have seen, that which we have heard, that which we have touched, handled, grasped, have gazed upon, for the Word was made flesh and He dwelt among us. And he emphasizes the fact that Jesus did indeed have a body of flesh because of docetism, this concept growing out of Gnosticism, that Jesus wasn't really in a body of flesh as such. Gnosticism took many forms and many ideas came out of it, but it was, as I say, sort of a development of the Greek concepts of God mixed with Greek philosophy. But it began to have a very powerful impact on the early church and began to gain many adherents because these men were indeed brilliant men who were propagating these concepts and ideas. And thus the early church had to deal with these forms of false doctrines. Now the Gnostics were known to deliberately alter the Scriptures to meet their own views. In fact, one of the early church fathers, Irenaeus, said of the Gnostic Markoian, Wherefore also Markoian and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures which they themselves have shortened. Now this was written by Irenaeus in about 156. Complaining of the fact that these Gnostic teachers were actually cutting out Scripture passages. Mutilating the Scriptures by cutting out passages. Now, this is being done today and in the church still. We have what we call modernism within the church. Men who say that you can't accept all of the Scriptures as divinely inspired. That part of them are inspired, part of them are not inspired. Now by telling you that you cannot accept all of the Scriptures, that part are not really inspired, then it becomes their burden to tell you which ones are inspired and which ones are not inspired. But unfortunately, they don't even agree among themselves. Which ones are truly inspired and which ones are not inspired. And thus we have great confusion because soon we don't know which ones to believe. Now if I should stand here before you tonight and say, now folks, you can't really accept all of the Bible. Because some of these Scriptures have been added by writers through the years. And not all of these Scriptures are really inspired of God. So I'll tell you. Let's go through and I'll tell you and I'll mark for you the Scriptures that you can't believe because they're not really inspired. Now what does that make me besides a fool? It makes me a self-proclaimed authority. Now this Word of God no longer becomes authority because it's challenged and we have to question it. Once we challenge it and question it, we take away its authority. And in turn now, I set myself up as the authority. Because I will tell you what to believe and what not to believe. What you can believe, what you can't believe. And this no longer is authoritative. I become the authority. I don't want that position of being an authority to tell you what you can believe and can't believe except that I can tell you this. You can believe the Word of God in its entirety and you'll never go wrong. And you can believe the King James Version and we'll get into why you can believe the King James Version in its entirety and never go wrong. For the Word of God is our final authority for all of our faith and all of our practice. Now, in the early church, there began to creep in these doctrinal systems that were denying the Lord, that were saying that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, that He wasn't really God manifested in the flesh. And from the Gnostics, there arose this fellow by the name of Arius, who began to teach that Jesus was actually a created being, that God created Him for the special purposes of redemption, but that He was not God and denied the deity of Jesus Christ. And Arius, a brilliant man, began to gain many followers. Now, this whole system of Gnosticism and Arianism had as its headquarters the city of Alexandria in Egypt. At the time of the death of John, the beloved disciple, in the same year that he died, Justin Martyr was born. Justin Martyr was one of the early Gnostics. His disciple was Tatian. And Tatian expanded the works of Justin Martyr and was a prolific writer in the doctrine of Gnosticism. Clement of Alexandria became a disciple of Tatian and carried it even further. And the pupil of Clement was none other than Origen, whom you read as one of the early church fathers. But you rarely read of the fact that Origen was a Gnostic. And in his writings, Gnosticism is constantly being promulgated in his teachings and in his writing. Eusebius was greatly influenced by Origen, and they came out with a copy of the Scriptures which they had doctored. And from it came the Codex Alexandrius, or the Alexandrian Manuscript, from which the Codex Sinaiticus is a copy. And when Constantine wanted the Scriptures in the Latin language to counteract the strong influence of the Scriptures that were coming out of Antioch, the Textus Receptus, which also was translated into Latin earlier than the Vulgate, and had a very powerful influence in the Roman world. But Constantine was trying to marry the church and the state and the church with pagan religious systems, and so he hired Jerome, or he had the church hire Jerome, to bring forth the Latin Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Scriptures from the Alexandrian Manuscripts which had been doctored for the mind of the philosopher, Greek philosophy and Gnosticism. And thus you have a series of manuscripts, and confess they are old. Some of the oldest manuscripts we have are the Alexandrian, the Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus Manuscript, but they all come from the Alexandrian school, which was heavily steeped in Gnosticism. Then from Antioch, the church that Paul the Apostle considered his home church, where he spent so much of his life ministering and teaching, from the church in Antioch there came also many copies of the Scriptures. In fact, more out of Antioch than came out of Alexandria. But the copies that came out of Antioch were known as Textus Receptus, or as the early church said, the accepted text, the received text, the text that they actually received in its entirety, not the mutilated, deleted text that was created by the Alexandrian philosophers. The Textus Receptus was always accepted by the Greek Eastern Church. There were Latin translations that were called before the Latin Vulgate, which means the approved text, were known as the Vulgate, but then after Jerome came out with his, using the Sinaiticus as his basis, or the Alexandrian text as his basis, then the church accepted it and called it the Vulgate, or the approved by the church. This is the church established by Constantine. But high in the Alps, the wildernesses, there in northern Italy, had the true copies of the Scriptures and kept them faithfully. Into Scotland went the true copies of the Textus Receptus, where they also were kept faithfully and brought a great revival. St. Augustine did much damage, actually, to the church in England by trying to force upon it these other texts from Alexandria. And God saw to it, though, that the Textus Receptus was preserved though every endeavor was made to destroy it. And the reason why we don't have the ancient copies of Textus Receptus, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, is because the church made a deliberate attempt to destroy all of the copies of Textus Receptus. They were trying to wipe it out in order that we'd only have their altered text. That is the church of Rome. And a great library with some of the ancient Textus Receptus manuscripts was ordered burned by Pope Gregory. And these priceless manuscripts were destroyed. And yet, God preserved it. And it was the Textus Receptus that gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. It was the Textus Receptus that really inspired Luther. And when he made his translation into German, he made it out of the Textus Receptus. And it is exactly as our King James Bible. Luther's translation, every verse, is included in our King James. Not one change. And so, Satan was still attempting to alter the Word of God. To change, to delete, in order to hide the truth of God from men. Now, the Textus Receptus, as I said, came out of Antioch. A church more or less founded by Paul and pastored by Paul in Barnabas. And in 165, and let me point out this, Codex Sinaiticus is probably around 420 A.D. So, 165 A.D., some 260 years earlier than the Codex Sinaiticus, over which so much emphasis is placed as being the oldest text and thus evidently the most accurate. Not so. In 165, the Syriac translation was made from the Textus Receptus, known as the Peshitta, which is exactly as our King James is today as far as the Scriptures that are accepted as legitimately belonging in the true original text. We still have the copies of the Peshitta, which was made, first of all, in 165, which goes along with the Textus Receptus, which shows that those Scriptures existed in the text that early in history. The Textus Receptus is still accepted and has been accepted from the beginning by the Eastern Greek Church in the common Latin text. And when Erasmus put together the text for the translations for the Reformers, again, it was the Textus Receptus that was used. Now, we have over 5,255 ancient manuscripts. And of those 5,255, 80-90% of them are in perfect agreement with the Textus Receptus. Or the vast majority come from Textus Receptus. Only a few coming all and traceable all to Alexandria come from the Sinaiticus or Alexandrian Vaticanus manuscripts. Now you say, well, what difference does it make? Well, let's look and see at the difference that it makes. And if you have a Bible other than the King James, you might find it very interesting as you look in your Bible and see whether or not it carries through some of these deletions that were made when these other manuscripts were made and then accepted as genuine. First of all, let's start in the Gospel of Matthew. And I'm only bringing out a few. I could go into the 5,000, but it would only be a matter of boring you with redundancy. In Matthew's Gospel, the 6th chapter and the 13th verse, where Jesus is giving to us the Lord's Prayer, and He declares, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Now, the Sinaiticus deletes the rest for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. That's deleted in the Sinaiticus, and so because of its deletion in the Sinaiticus, the scholars say, well, that must have been added later on. However, it existed very early in the text. Back in 165, we know. Matthew's Gospel, the 18th chapter and the 11th verse. For the Son of Man has come to save that which is lost, that is deleted. That's a pretty important Scripture to delete. Talking about the mission of Jesus Christ. The Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. No wonder those who didn't believe in His deity or in His Lordship would delete that Scripture from their text. Maybe you were surprised to find it missing in some of your modern translations. Matthew 23, 14. The word scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites is deleted from some of the ancient texts. Jesus is just saying, woe unto you for you devour widows' houses. These guys didn't want to be nailed, and so they deleted it. 25, 13. Well, they were making these long prayers and so forth and devouring widows' houses. That's still going on today. In Matthew 25, 13. Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. The rest of it is deleted in many of the texts. Wherein the Son of Man is coming. You see, you're taking away the second coming of Jesus Christ. It's just a little deletion, but it's an important deletion. The idea of the return of Jesus Christ. So Jesus is just saying, watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor hour. In Mark 1, verse 1. In the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the words, the Son of God, are deleted from the Alexandrian text. That's pretty important too. Just the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they delete the Son of God, because that was opposed to Gnosticism. Mark 2, 17. When Jesus heard it, He said unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. And they delete to repentance. I just came to call sinners. Hiya, sinners. A small deletion, just two words. But it can change the whole meaning of the text. Mark 9, 44. This verse is deleted completely, because they did not teach in eternal punishment. Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. They left that one out entirely. Mark 9, 44. Now in Mark 11, 26. This verse is entirely deleted. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. That verse deleted entirely. And then, Mark's gospel. And if you're talking, you're going to have a hard time listening. Mark's gospel, the 16th chapter. They have deleted from verse 9 on. And so they have Mark's gospel ending. And they went out quickly and fled from the sepulcher, for they trembled and were amazed. Neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid. And so they ran off afraid. And that's how Mark's gospel is ended in the Alexandrian text. And the whole appearance of Jesus. Actually the grave was empty, but that's all they knew. The whole appearance of Jesus is deleted. After his resurrection in Mark's gospel. And his commission to go into all of the world. Now in Luke's gospel, chapter 2, verse 33. Instead of and Joseph, it says, and his father and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. Instead of Joseph and his mother. They actually make Joseph his father by declaring and his father and his mother. Because they did not believe that he was the son of God. Luke 4, 4. The words, every word are left out. And Jesus answered him saying, it is written that man shall not live by bread alone, but by God. Instead of by every word of God. Because they have been cutting out a lot of words. Because that one would really condemn them. And so naturally they would cut that one out too. Luke 24, 40. This one is deleted completely. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. They just left that one out entirely. John 3, 15. In their text reads, that whosoever believeth in him should have eternal life. They leave out should not perish. Because they didn't believe in the punishment of the unrighteous death. Acts 2, 30. The words, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, or delete it. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, Christ would sit on his throne. Rather than he would raise up Christ, who would sit upon his throne. Denying of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Acts 8, 37. They leave out where the fellow said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. In the Alexandrian text it reads, or the Sinaiticus, And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe. He didn't say what he believed. In the Alexandrian text. Acts 9, 5 and 6. These are left out completely. And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest. It's hard for thee to kick against the bricks. They've just left that out completely. Because it makes the Lord ascended in heaven in talking to Paul. Romans 14, verse 9. And this shows you where just a little word can make a big difference. Romans 14, 9. The word and rose is out of their text. For to this end Christ died. And revived. That he might be Lord both of the dead and the living. Died and revived. But not both died and rose. Is left out. The words both and rose are left out. Ephesians 3, 9. Again, just a little deletion. But it's important. The words by Jesus Christ are left out at the end of that verse. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery from the beginnings of the world which hath been hid in God who created all things. Left out by Jesus Christ. Which is very important. Ephesians 3, 14. The Sinaiticus text reads, For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father. They leave out the rest. Now in 1 Peter 1, 22. Just a small deletion. But if you leave it out, you're in trouble. Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren. See that you love one another with a pure heart fervently. Now did you notice what I left out? The Spirit. You betcha. Now if you don't have the help of the Spirit in the purifying of your souls in the obeying of truth, if you don't have the Spirit in helping you, you're never going to make it. And so they delete the very source of power by which you can obey the truth. Small deletion. But so important. 1 Peter 4, verse 1. For as much then as Christ hath suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise. He didn't suffer for you, He just suffered. The atonement is denied. The fact that He suffered for us in the flesh. They leave out the for us. So they're just small little deletions. There's 5,000 of them, but I'll tell you, they can change the whole gospel of Jesus Christ. 1 John 5, 7, and 8. Now remember these Mennonostics and remember that Arius who has denied the oneness of Jesus with the Father is one of the great voices in Alexandria. And this verse is left out. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. There are three that bear witness in the earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these agree in one. Those verses are left out in the... The verse 7 is left out in the ancient text. Now even Schofield's notes has a little thing there and it says it is generally agreed that verse 7 has no real authority and has been inserted. Now you read that in your little columns and you think, oh my, well I can't accept that verse. It was left out of the Sinaiticus and for a reason because they were Gnostics. And Arius didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. And Jehovah's Witnesses will point out to you today and say, but in the original Greek it wasn't there. I beg to differ. I believe in the original Greek it was there, but it was deleted when they massacred the text in Alexandria in order to adapt it to the philosophy and Gnosticism of the Grecian culture that was so prevalent there in Alexandria at the time. And the early church father, Origen, who had this kind of a background, massacred and dealt in the massacre of the text in order to fit it to their doctrines and make it read what they wanted it to read. Again, the coming again of the Lord is denied in Revelation 11, verse 17. Just a small little deletion, but it is again one of those that deals with the very coming of Jesus Christ. Saying, we give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art and wast they leave out, and art to come. You were, you are and were, but you're not going to come. And they leave out art to come. So, again, as I point out, they didn't always delete whole sentences or whole scriptures. Sometimes it was just a word here or there, but as you look at it, they are important words that have to do with the basic doctrines that are taught in the majority of the scriptures. Now you say, how is it then that so many Bible scholars today accept the Westcott and Hort text? If I were to make a new translation of the Bible, it would be my desire, because of pride, to have these intellectual Bible scholars hail my translation as being one of the most accurate and correct according to the Greek. And because in the liberal theological circles, the arguments of Westcott and Hort have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker, and Westcott and Hort is considered a more scholarly text, because of the discovery by Tischendorf of the Codex Sinaiticus, I would want my work to be acclaimed scholarly, so I would go to the Westcott and Hort text, because I want to be known as an intelligent person. It's just like if you were getting your doctorate in biology. If you want to be considered really a smart biologist, you'd have to ascribe to all of the stupidity of evolution, because it's the accepted theory in the schools of biology today. If you would challenge the theory of evolution in a biology department, you'd be looked upon as some kind of an income poop. And though in reality, when you really try to prove the evolutionary theories, it indeed becomes an extremely difficult task, if not an impossible task. And yet, I want to appear intellectual. And the same thing has pervaded the church and the Christian system, so that we are allowing these men who are so-called intellectuals, but who Paul said, and he warned us, beware of the vain philosophies of men. For he could see that the Grecian philosophy was having an effect upon the early church. And he saw the pride trip that was going on with this vain philosophy and speculations of philosophy. And he could see that it was a whole intellectual pride trip, and Paul warned against it, because it was perverting the truth. And it is a sad and tragic thing that those things which were guarded so preciously, that which was actually guarded and cost the life of thousands upon thousands of people to give you this Bible in the pure form, rather than holding fast to it and thanking God for it, we're allowing these stupid intellectuals to tell us, oh, well, that wasn't in the original text, or that wasn't in, you know, the Sinaiticus or whatever, as though they were the correct text. Now, the theory that was propounded is that the original text was shorter and that men added to the original text. The copyists and all along the way added their own little ideas. That the original text was shorter. I feel that that theory is all wrong. I feel that the original text was longer and those in Alexandria took it upon themselves to shorten the text, deleting key words here and there in order to cause their doctrines from Gnosticism and Arianism to be more in line with what they called the scriptures. In other words, the altering of the scriptures to fit their doctrinal concepts. And rather than additions being made to the original text, there are deletions from the original text. And I believe that I can prove that argument as we get into this subject next week and we consider Westcott and Hort and their argument that the oldest text have to be the more correct text. The Gospel of Mark, which they point out, is deleted in Codex Sinaiticus from verse 9 to the end of the chapter. Codex Sinaiticus being 400 years old, so that must be the correct text, you see. It's the oldest one we have. Not 400 years old, it goes back to 400 AD. So it's the oldest text we've found, therefore it must be the most correct text. And the fact that they've left off the last part of Mark must indeed be true because after all, we don't have any texts that go back earlier than 400. That is, we don't have any whole text, but we have many fragments of text that go back, and they don't tell you that, into the first century, the second century. Fragments of text we have, but no whole manuscripts. And what they don't also tell you is that Irenaeus, one of the early church fathers in 150, quoted the final portion of Mark in his commentary and writes about it. And he was writing in 150, 250 years before Codex Sinaiticus was ever written. Now isn't it funny that he was able to quote from some guy who was going to add on to the text maybe 100 years after Codex Sinaiticus? What clairvoyancy. And Hippolytus had the same kind of clairvoyancy because in the second century, he quoted from Mark the latter portion of chapter 9. Paul the Apostle warns us in Romans chapter 1 concerning those men who profess themselves to be wise and yet are fools when they seek to change the glory of an incorruptible God and begin to worship and serve the creature, man's intellect, more than the Creator who is blessed forevermore. I will be giving you next week also a list of references if you'd like to make further research. There's a lot of good material been written on this subject rather than just the critical kind, the supportive kind of your King James Bible. Now, unfortunately, every new translation has come from Westcott and Horne since the King James translation. They were so able to influence that committee and so able to impress the intelligentsia of the Christian faith that every translation has come from Westcott and Horne. And thus, you'll find many of these scriptures in your translations that I pointed out to you and many others, as I said, there's about 5,000. You'll find them deleted or you'll find them with an asterisk and a footnote not in the ancient manuscripts at all. I encourage you, just disregard those little things. When they refer to the ancient manuscripts, they're referring only to Codex Sinaiticus and Bene Canis, which Westcott and Horne took 99% of the text directly from those two manuscripts, which I feel are altered, doctored manuscripts in Alexandria, where the center of the Gnosticism and the heresies of Arius found their roots and their promulgation. We'll go into it further next week as we continue a look at the Bible that God has given us, the King James Bible. Thank God there's a new translation of King James that has come out. The New Testament is out. They're working on the old. You can now get a modern version of the King James. That is, the these and the thousand and so forth are taken out of it. It's easy reading in modern English, but yet they went back to Textus Receptus for their translation, and you've got the whole thing. The whole truth, the nothing but the truth, so help us God. So Nelson Publishers is putting it out. Shall we pray? Jesus, we realize that you've placed great importance upon your word. For you have said that you honor your word above your name, and we know how honored is the name of God. You said heaven and earth will pass away, but your word will never pass away. And Lord, we so appreciate your preserving through the blood of martyrs thy truth for us. Thank you, Father, for those men who died. For Tyndale, who dared to bring forth the truth, but was burned at the stake for doing so. Oh God, thank you for such men who were willing to pay the supreme price in order to bring us the true, full word of God. Father, we pray that we might grow thereby and be strong in the things of your spirit, in your truth. In Jesus' name, amen.