Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Bible preaching from the pulpit of Choice Hills Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina
So last week, we were trying to finish up this sub-study on our church,
specifically about our church's position and view on the King James Bible.
And we've looked at, so far we've looked at the text,
and then we've looked at the translation,
and we've tried to look at practical things.
Not, we have not, it has not been our purpose, and this would not be, I don't think, the right
format to try to do anything exhaustive on the subject. That's not the purpose at all.
Because at the end of the day, there is a certain level of a judgment in this question.
When you weigh the evidence and you come to a conclusion that you believe is right and consistent with Scripture.
And so the purpose is not to answer every question because it's not possible to do that.
But it is to kind of demonstrate where our church is and why our church is there and that it's not simply a matter of just tradition or just a simple preference.
That there are times especially that it makes a difference.
It can make a difference in the Scripture. So, last week I said I was going to try to finish up our study on this particular subject,
and then hopefully this week move on to a new subject, but we just didn't get far enough.
So, I'm hoping that today will be our last time in this particular subject,
and we're going to look today at the practical reasons.
So, again, we looked at the text, we looked at the translation, and now we're going
to address some practical matters that on the subject of the Bible version question that, in my
opinion, are really, maybe should not be put at the top of the list, but should be moved up,
that are a lot more significant because they deal with practical matters
that really do affect people.
And I think it's my belief that some practical questions on this subject
are often neglected.
Everyone wants to talk about the text we use and the translation,
and that's not only people who believe similar to us,
but also people who disagree with us.
The practical questions are almost never addressed.
And we'll touch on that today if the Lord will help us.
So let's pray together.
Our Lord in heaven, we thank you for the opportunity to study your word, to be together in our class here.
And we thank you for the kids' class downstairs
where the kids are being taught your word
and being taught about who you are.
And we pray for your blessing to be upon that class
as they learn the word of God also.
Lord, we pray for our class here.
We ask your blessing and grace upon it.
Lord, give us the right heart and the right motive
and the right attitude as we address these issues
and help all things here to be clear.
Because that's, Lord, we just want it to be clear.
We want the truth before God to have a clear conscience
and to do our best to do your will on subjects that sometimes can be difficult.
But, Lord, help our class to be a blessing and to help to your people
to strengthen their faith especially.
And so guide me, Lord, and help me.
Lord, you know I need your help
and that this class might be a blessing to your people.
In Jesus' name we ask. Amen.
Okay, so as we look at the practical reasons
for our position on the King James Version
and why we exclusively use it, As I said, the practical questions are
sometimes neglected, but really are very, very important. A lot of times this issue, as you've
probably noticed, if you've done any study on it at all, it very quickly devolves into questions of
it very quickly devolves into questions of scholarship and questions really that gets into the weeds of details very, very quickly.
And whether this manuscript or that manuscript or this minuscule or that unseal has this word or that word,
and then you're talking about a Greek and Hebrew. In other words, for a regular person, a person who has a life and can't give their whole life to learning all of those fields, because it is a lifelong study, those kinds of
things, they're not something you learn taking a five-month Bible college course. And so, if you're
not going to give your life to those things, it's my view, and this is true in many, many other aspects of our lives,
is that there are often more pertinent and practical questions that, if we can answer those that deal with practical matters,
will guide us into some of the questions that we can't really like go neck deep into, if that
makes sense. So again, everything in the Christian life, everything in the Christian life has
a practical side to it, has a practical element to it. It's not just we're arguing for argument's
sake. By looking at the practical, it can guide us into some things that maybe we don't have the chance to go
to deep dive into it, you know, in every case. So the first thing, I have four points I want you to
note, if you take notes, four points I'd like you to note down. The first one is this,
on the practical question of the Bible version issue and why we hold our position, the first point is this. There is a force at work to corrupt God's Word. There is a force at work
to corrupt God's Word. And this force is not new. It did not start in 1881 with the publication
of the Westcott and Hort critical Greek text.
It definitely did not start there.
It's been going on a lot longer than that.
Look, if you would, at Genesis chapter 3.
Genesis chapter 3, verse number 1.
The introduction to the devil in the form of a serpent. This is the very first
introduction of evil that we find in the Bible. There's a lot of beginnings here, but this is
one of the main beginnings. And we can't just simply cast aside what this verse says,
you know, like it is often cast aside.
I want to be honest with you.
What I'm about to say to you in this first point is mocked.
Okay, it's just openly mocked.
It's rejected out of hand as some sort of conspiracy.
But what I want you to see is that it is not a conspiracy.
It is actually a scriptural truth, right? And that is that there is absolutely a conspiracy. It is actually a scriptural truth, right?
And that is that there is absolutely a movement afoot
that has existed a long time
that seeks to undermine and alter God's Word.
Okay, this is a truth.
It first occurs in Genesis 3. 1, where the Bible says,
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
And he said unto the woman,
Now this is the first recorded statement of the devil in Scripture.
There is no other statement prior to this of Satan's words.
Now, if the principle of first mention,
which you guys are probably familiar with,
if the principle of first mention has any significance at all,
it definitely has significance in Genesis 3.1
with the very first statement of a figure of such importance as the devil.
Not that he is important, but definitely
what he does has import. And if this principle has meaning, it has meaning to this. The first
recorded statement of the devil was, yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the
garden? The very first statement of the devil sought to undermine the veracity of God's Word. It sought to alter
God's Word. And this sets a precedent. This tells us that one of his strategies, several of them are
used in this passage. And it kind of sets the tone and what you expect to see of the devil's activity
into the future. And we see that up to our very day, right?
But the first mention of it is here.
So are we just going to cast aside the first principle that we see out of the first words out of his mouth
because it's inconvenient for our particular position on the Bible?
No. It actually should inform our position.
So here's the principle.
inform our position. So here's the principle. The devil has been seeking to alter and undermine the veracity of the Bible to human beings from the beginning. Okay? That's the principle.
The devil has sought to inject questions concerning what God has spoken
from the beginning
as one of his major tools.
And I want to tell you something.
This has very practical importance
to regular people in 2025
that sit in church pews
and people who don't sit in church pews.
Look if you would at 2 Corinthians 2.
2 Corinthians 2.
2 Corinthians 2.
Verse 17.
2 Corinthians 2, verse 17.
The Bible says this,
For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God,
but as of sincerity, but as of God,
in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.
Notice it says,
Now what you might not know is that modern Bible versions change the word corrupt in English to the word pedal.
Pedal or to be a peddler of the word of God.
And the idea of peddling is that you're selling it.
The idea is you're selling it, right?
The idea is you're selling, and it usually kind of has the implication of you're selling wares
that are really not very good quality or something like that.
They're deficient in some way, so you're peddling this thing.
Now, what's interesting is this is one of the verses in the Bible that among
those who advocate for modern Bible versions, they think the word corrupt, we are not as
many as corrupt the Word of God, should not be corrupt, but it should be something similar
to petal. And it's based upon the Greek word, and that's all finding good. But the point
I'm making is that they advocate for changing it to corrupt a petal.
Now, I don't know that there's a big conspiracy going on behind that,
but what I want you to see is just because people in modern versions
almost universally choose the word petal instead of the word corrupt,
it does show that there's this kind of groupthink that goes with it,
that it should be peddle.
But when you put peddle, you take away from the principle which we just saw,
which principle is that there is a force afoot that is seeking to corrupt God's word.
Do you see that?
Not sell God's word, corrupt God's word, alter it.
Now what's interesting is this.
The versions of Scripture,
English versions of Scripture prior to the King James,
the Tyndale, the bishops, the Geneva,
do you know what they put in the word,
in place of the word corruption?
Get this.
I just thought this was good.
They put this.
They followed Tyndale's example because of course many early English versions followed Tyndale's example
because, of course, many early English versions
followed Tyndale's example.
He put chop and change.
Chop and change.
In other words, chop it out and alter it.
Well, that's a lot like corrupt, wouldn't you say?
Chop and change.
That's what Tyndale said.
Okay.
What's interesting, though, is for all the modern versions that put Petal in this place, the American
Standard Version of 1901, which is in the modern version category, kept corrupt. It kept
the word corrupt. So in other words, even people in that orbit early on understood that the word corrupt is a perfectly fine way to put it.
And that the idea behind it is you're altering it. Which is what Tyndale picked up on.
So you see in this verse, you see this principle that
there is an effort to corrupt the word of God. And it's not just there.
And there's also a little bit of God. And it's not just there.
And there's also a little bit of irony.
There's also a little bit of irony.
I don't know if anybody noticed it and read between the lines.
All right, see if you can read my mind.
Well, that's true, but that's not what I was thinking.
They're altering the Word of God.
Now, in their view, they don't believe they're doing that.
Okay, you have to understand that.
We don't want to be honest about it.
In their view, at least ostensibly,
they don't say they're corrupting the Word of God.
All right, but yeah. Yeah.
Pedal, that's the irony I was going to say,
is the word they change it to is pedal,
and the irony is the multiplication of Bible versions is actually part of the commercial Bible selling industry,
which is actually kind of like pedaling.
But, yeah.
You don't need to get contentious now.
All right. Start talking about carpetbaggers. We're going to have a debate.
No, go ahead.
All right.
Start talking about carpetbaggers.
We're going to have a debate.
No, go ahead. They're bringing something funny, telling you it's something good.
Yeah.
And they're lying to you the whole time.
There is definitely a relationship between the word peddle and corrupt.
We're not denying that.
But that's just an interesting, yeah, interesting fact.
Well, I think it should be corrupt.
interesting fact well I think it should be corrupt
well see this is
it does have to do
with the meaning of the Greek word
I don't have it off the top of my head
I don't know it off the top of my head
but the point I'm trying to make with it
is
and we'll see this here again in a minute
there's this kind of consensus where all the scholars all the Greek scholars say The point I'm trying to make with it is, and we'll see this here again in a minute.
There's this kind of consensus where all the scholars, all the Greek scholars say,
oh, the King James put corrupt.
It obviously should be pedal.
Obviously.
And yet Tyndale and Coverdale and Geneva and bishops and all the versions prior to the King James
had something like corrupt, not pedal.
The King James put corrupt.
And then the American Standard Version 300 years later
also put corrupt.
So if you're going to criticize them
because they're obviously too stupid
to know what it really should be,
then you also have to criticize them because they're obviously too stupid to know what it really should be, then you also have to criticize the modern versions like the American Standard that kept corrupt,
thereby acknowledging that the translation is perfectly accurate.
You see what I'm saying?
That's the point I'm making.
Again, it's not a debate.
We accept as a premise that the translators of our Bible translated the Bible accurately.
We accept that as a premise.
And debate or no debate, it's really kind of a non-starter and kind of a silly argument
to act like the translators in 1611 were just too stupid to know what the words meant.
I mean, we're not even going to entertain such silliness.
And the truth is, for the modern Bible scholars that translate the Bible, I don't deny that they
know what they're translating, right? I mean, they obviously have studied and things like that.
So, I mean, I'm not making that argument. Now, I don't agree with them. Usually, the issues are
not really translation, but text. But anyway, I don't want to get too bogged down.
Now, also, I want to be careful because I don't want to sound too much, like too conspiratorial in this.
But this verse and Genesis and other places that you could find
point to a scriptural truth
that describes a principle of corruption of God's Word.
And not only that, the proof of this is found in history
and in the present.
You know, think about the present.
Cults are known for taking parts of the Bible
and changing what they don't like, right?
Cults have done that.
It's been done in Roman Catholicism with the addition of the Apocrypha
or the retention of the Apocrypha
and putting it on par with Scripture instead of just merely historical writing.
And it's been done over and over and over in some way or another.
In Mormonism, no, they do not change the Bible.
They use the King James.
In fact, I saw a Facebook ad where somebody said,
it was a Mormon missionaries, and they said,
we want to give you a free book, the Book of Mormon,
which they claim to be the Word of God,
which is the same as corrupting the Word of God.
By claiming something that is not the Word of God to be the Word of God,
you're corrupting it.
But by doing that, but anyway, going back to this statement,
he said,
the Book of Mormon has done the most in my life
to get me close to Jesus Christ.
And I thought to myself, what?
The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with Jesus.
It is a fake historical record
of pre-settlement America.
It don't have anything to do with Jesus.
It's like reading the book of 1 Chronicles,
but the wrong, but not.
Anyway.
But not only this, historically, listen to this.
The church fathers, early Christianity, right?
The church fathers, here's what two of them,
I'll quote two of them.
This is Tertullian.
He was from, he lived 155 to 240 AD.
He said this,
One man perverts the scriptures with his hand,
another their meaning by his exposition.
For although Valentius seems to use the entire volume,
he has nonetheless laid violent hands on the truth,
only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion.
Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen,
since he made such an excision, cutting out, of the scriptures
as suited his own subject matter.
Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision because he did not invent scriptures to square with his own subject matter. Valentinius, however, abstained from such excision
because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject matter
but adapted his matter to the Scriptures.
And yet he took away more and added more
by removing the proper meaning of every particular word
and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.
He's saying plainly, people corrupt the Bible in two ways.
By what they teach, the Bible says, and by altering
the text. And this is from around 200 AD.
This is
Eusebius of Caesarea. He lived 260 to 339.
It says this, but those who use the arts of
unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the It says this, that I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn.
For if one will collect their respective copies
and compare them with one another,
he will find that they differ greatly.
You know what that tells you?
At a minimum, it tells you that historically,
Christian people recognized that the Bible was being changed.
Christian people recognized that the Bible was being changed.
So it is not a stretch to say there is a real conspiracy,
a satanic conspiracy to alter the Bible.
Okay?
Now, let me say this hastily.
That doesn't mean that fact, which is a scriptural truth and historical truth, doesn't mean we're right.
It does not follow that
we are automatically right.
It does mean, however,
that we must be aware
that Satan
is trying to alter God's word.
And that
sets a backdrop
for this particular question
of which Bible is right.
When they disagree, which one's right? They can't
both be right if they say different things right.
So this is a scriptural truth.
Number two. I've got to hurry now.
Second truth is undermining the faith of the people of God.
Undermining the faith of the people of God.
This is a practical reason for our stance.
It is hazardous and it is reckless to go about to change something,
talking about our Bible,
that is accurate already, number one,
and that people have accepted and trusted to be God's Word.
Just put aside the rightness or the wrongness of the text for a minute.
Just set that aside for a minute.
If you had a copy of the Bible and you believed it and trusted it as God's word,
would it be wise for me to come along and say,
oh, well, that's not right, that's not accurate, there's something better, recklessly.
See, there's a certain danger in that because their faith is resting on the word of God.
And I'll give you an example where this is very
practical in a minute, but you just don't go like a bull
into a china shop when dealing with somebody's faith. Generally, people do not
respond well to that. I'm not going to respond
well when you come and try to tell me my Bible's wrong in all these places.
Just as a practical matter, right?
Because to me, if you know your Bible, you know that
that as a scriptural principle is not, is a satanic thing.
I mean, again, setting aside the rightness or wrongness
of the question, right? How are you going to respond?
So the claim is this.
Another question that has to be asked is this.
Why are we going to disturb a person's faith in the Bible
that they hold in their lap
when it is already accurate?
Why do that?
Why do that?
So the claim is this. Well, we want the unchurched to understand God's Word. Well, you have to remember, assuming by unchurched we mean
unconverted, people who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ have an additional layer of a problem
that hinders them.
And that problem is that they do not receive spiritual things.
So you can make the Bible as plain,
you can put it in bebop street lingo,
you can make it sound just exactly like they expect to hear it or whatever.
They might understand the grammar,
but that doesn't take away the spiritual block
that comes from being dead in trespasses and sins and having that veil over your understanding
because you are not converted. But the second thing is this. The claim is we want the unchurched
to understand God's Word. And okay, I can get that. I can sympathize
with that desire, okay? And so the goal is, what we're going to do is we're going to alter
the Bible so it makes it so they can understand it easier. And sometimes, I mean, when you
start talking about things like the NIV or the message, you remember we went over the
message, right? It's not just changing this word and that word. I mean, they're changing it substantially, right? They're trying to give you the sense of it,
kind of the interpretation of it, rather than actually translating the text. But the idea
is we want the masses to understand the Bible, but the question that you have ignored when
you ask that or desire that is this. What about the faith of the people of God
who already believe it?
That's the question nobody addresses.
We want to make the Bible accessible.
This is the terminology.
Accessible to the masses.
I actually heard somebody say this recently in a video.
We want to make the Bible accessible to the masses,
but you're forgetting the effect of that change
upon those who already believe the Bible.
Yeah. It's a bait and switch. That just makes them more responsible. That's all it does. It would only condemn them further because without the law,
the burden might have a lot of similar to sin,
but anything further than that, it doesn't help.
The problem is a spiritual matter,
but the claim, the red herring,
is that it's actually because the Bible is so hard to understand.
When actually that's not really the reason.
So anyway.
Okay, so again, the claim is we want the unchurched to understand God's word.
We want to alter it in some way.
But for what reason?
What is the basis for us wanting to alter the Bible?
Well, the claim is, again,
well, we're just making minor changes to language
to help people understand.
Well, if they're minor, why do it?
I mean, is that not a valid...
I mean, if your car has a minor issue,
are you going to like overhaul the engine over it?
If it's minor, why are we going to run the risk
of undermining the faith of God's people
by altering the text of Scripture that they believe and use?
If it's minor, after all, the claim is it's just a minor update of the language. Well,
we know that that's not really exactly true. It might be true in some verses, but
it's not true in all the verses. And so another argument is this.
Well, we have better texts now.
But when you talk about text, all right, so now you want to make it better. You want to make the Bible
better. Okay, well, that's fine. Well, you got these better texts, but when you talk about text, all right, so now you want to make the Bible better. Okay, well, that's fine.
Well, you got these better texts, but when you start talking about better texts,
what are you talking about?
You're talking about removing words and phrases.
You ever notice that modern versions almost always remove things?
It's very rare that things are added, things are removed.
And that's part of the process.
That's part of the rules by which they've come to these conclusions.
But removing words and phrases and whole verses
upon the basis of, well, we have better text now.
But the question again I ask is,
what effect does that have upon a Christian?
When you are reading the Bible
and you're reading John 7, 51 through 8, 11,
which is the story of the woman caught in adultery.
When you read that
and then you finish reading it,
at the very end there's a footnote that says,
the best manuscripts do not include John 7, 51 through 8, 11.
What does that do to the faith of the common Christian?
You know what it does?
It undermines it.
And it raises questions.
Now, it might not even be conscious, but it raises questions.
Well, if this is not supposed to be there,
are we at 100% on everything else?
Or is it 95 or 99 or 80 or 50?
And that's just the footnoted parts.
Forget the parts that have been entirely removed.
Again, nobody's asking the question,
what effect does this have on the believer?
Because really the Bible, at its core,
is for the believer,
who already believes it.
Right?
It has a direct effect.
So there is a bait and switch.
We're claiming to just update the language,
but we're actually changing
the very basis of the translation.
And that does have an effect upon the common Christian's faith
and their practical understanding of the reliability of the Bible.
It does.
I'll give you an example.
The Cambodian Bible is an example of this.
The Cambodian Bible is the translation, if you compared it,
is a mix between the American Standard Version
and the King James Version.
So sometimes it follows one, sometimes the other.
Okay?
So it has issues.
Okay?
On the big verses, the top ticket items,
it's right.
And on the other verses,
the less significant verses,
it follows the American Standard.
Okay?
What am I going to do?
That's the standard Bible used.
That's the most common Bible.
Am I just going to go into, like a bull into a China shop and say,
ah, rip it apart, you know, use it as toilet paper, whatever?
No.
Why?
The practical question.
Am I going to undermine their faith?
Now, does it have issues?
Yes.
Did I address some of those issues when I was a missionary there
with people when the time was right?
Yes.
But I'm not just going to,
I'm not going to try and do things
that undermine someone's faith
in the text of Scripture that they believe.
And see, these days,
we're having a generation that has now come up,
not only King James,
but on things like the NIV
and the New American Standard and the ESV. And so now, in some ways,
in some instances, this whole question is reversed.
So, it's a little more
complex than it's been presented to us. Number three.
I've got to hurry. Retaining a final
authority. Retaining a final authority.
Retaining a final authority.
You know, we believe in inspiration,
that God gave the Scripture by inspiration,
but is it just something that's theoretical or doctrinal, or is it practical?
In other words, we believe in inspiration,
but if the Bible has not then also been preserved to us,
then inspiration doesn't matter.
Well, good. God gave the scripture of inspiration, but it has not been preserved to us,
and so inspiration loses its significance now.
Now, I want to say this on the question of final authority.
Can we answer every question on this subject?
No.
But neither can the other side.
Listen now.
That's the secret.
Those who, especially those who push modern versions,
have asserted that they have the position of scholarship. And when questions
are asked of them, they often use language that reveals that ultimately their basis is an appeal
to authority. They'll say things like, well, the scholars agree. Or they'll say, well, the majority
of scholars think when you're pressed on a particular verse, a particular question,
well, the majority of scholars think that this verse should not be included in Scripture.
Things like that.
But of course, the scholars that agree with them are only the scholars that they're referring to.
And so there's two fallacies here.
There's the appeal to authority fallacy, for those of you who are into that kind of thing,
and there's also the bandwagon fallacy.
The majority of scholars agree, I mean, obviously.
And by doing so, ignoring any contrary scholarship
that might not support their position.
Furthermore, the scholarly position, as I'm terming it,
has been demonstrated as always changing.
And you know what? We understand that's how it must be if we're operating on the assumption
that the latest and greatest textual discovery will reveal the true text of the New Testament.
You see, our position is fundamentally different.
Our position is based upon the testimony of the abundance of the New Testament. You see, our position is fundamentally different. Our position is based upon the testimony
of the abundance of the witnesses,
not upon the latest and greatest
in textual discoveries.
And the testimony of the abundance of witnesses,
that will not change,
even when a new manuscript
that's supposed to
be better than all the rest is discovered.
Any new
discovery will still be compared with
the combined witnesses of the abundance
of manuscripts which we have, which is
the basis of the King James Bible,
and will not totally overthrow it.
And so we have a basic difference.
If you're hanging your hat on the latest and greatest
revelation of the text,
well,
it's going to change over time.
And you might
think, well, those who hold the scholarly position,
they have a 100%
faith in the Bible that they
hold that it's accurate in every way, but they don't.
They don't.
They don't. They don't.
Many of them don't even claim it.
You can't reject scholarly opinions that disagree with you.
And you can't call people who disagree with you part of a conspiracy.
And you can't also, you're not allowed to question the motives
or the methods of these scholars.
You're not allowed to ask
whether the scholars themselves believe
the Bible is inspired to begin with.
The multiplication of Bible versions,
despite the commercial claims,
has done nothing to increase faith in God's Word. It has only eroded it. Alright, last thing. the multiplication of Bible versions, despite the commercial claims, has done nothing to increase faith in God's Word.
It has only eroded it.
In fact, the multiplication of Bible versions
is something that critics of the Bible use against the Bible.
All right, lastly, I've got to hurry.
Number four, uniformity in the church.
You see, here's what I want you to understand.
Until basically the 1950s,
the question of the Bible in English
was mostly a settled question.
Everybody didn't agree necessarily
in the crosses of the T's and the dots of the I's,
but what Bible to use and whether it was reliable
was mostly a settled question.
You go back even further prior to 1881
with Westcott and Hort,
it was totally settled.
At least as far as the text is concerned.
Did we pick this fight?
Modern versions were multiplied and then foisted upon us,
which has caused us to have to respond.
Prior to that, it was mostly a settled question. So this issue,
the multiplication of the Bible versions, has forced us to look at the issue and set a policy
in the church. We can't just have a free-for-all. You have just a free-for-all of any version,
and I know that sounds good. It sounds very American, right? Just whatever. We believe in
freedom. Well, hold on.
Is that supposed to be in the Bible or not?
You're going to read a verse that's going to say something different than my verse?
So there is a practical question as far as the uniformity in the church.
The uniformity of our faith.
The uniformity of the basis of our faith is such that as a Baptist,
the basis of our faith and practice is always and only the Scripture,
then what is and is not Scripture is an important question,
again, that has been forced upon us.
I know it's always been described as the other way,
all those King James cultists trying to cause so division in churches. And it does happen. It does happen.
But the issue was forced upon us by people coming to say, come
we can use this one. This one's easier to understand and it's just a little revision.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We've seen that's not the truth.
And why change was already accurate.
I mean we can go on and on and on,
but again, that was not a debate that long ago.
Is it okay in the church if some people don't believe
that the ending of Mark shouldn't be there?
Is it okay in the church if some people don't believe
that there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one, is not really in the Bible?
Is it okay if there are people that think that
God was manifest in the flesh actually is not really God, it's actually just He?
I mean, there is a principle
of uniformity where we should have the same basis for our faith within our church,
our local church.
And that's where this decision must be made. And that's why we've made it.
It's just that simple. I wish we had time for questions, but we don't. I'm too long again already. Let's pray.