 how false Bible translations distorts repentance. I have alluded to this in the series before, and I kept saying that I would do a video dedicated to this topic eventually. You may have heard it said that certain translation decisions of modern Bibles butcher and twist the definition of repentance to promote a workspace salvation. While this is true, whether you think this goes back much earlier than modern Bibles is an interesting topic of conversation. For the sake of time and keeping on topic, I'll have to skim through the history of this quite quickly, and there won't be a lot of detail because it is quite a messy complex topic. I will post some helpful links in the video description, so do check those out if you want a little bit more information. Most of you already know that the Bible was originally written in Colliné Greek, so to some extent we have relied on the Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek speaking world to preserve those original Greek manuscripts for as even when the language in those manuscripts has become more archaic as the Greek language has evolved. And so we've relied on them to keep the words faithful and not add or change the Greek text. So in the Greek speaking world, even hundreds of years later, you would still have Greek manuscripts of the Bible saying repent or you know metaneo, not repent of your sins or whatever the case may be. Even though most of Greek speaking Christianity would be sucked into the false repent of sins work salvation model. But after the Bible was completed, Latin would become the dominant lingua franca. And most of Christianity, and I use that term very loosely, became under the Latin speaking umbrella, not the Greek speaking umbrella. Now prior to the printing price, the Bible had to be copied by hand. And that meant that a lot of the Bible had to be copied by hand, often on loose bits of paper, rather than what you and I have, which is a bounded book from Genesis to Revelation, all tied together. And so not every manuscript was the same. You would get discrepancies, you would get mistakes, you would get slight differences in how a particular verse was translated or copied. But broadly speaking, the Latin translation that would be widely used and copied and distributed was based on Jerome's work in the Fourth Century, and it's called the Latin Vulgate. By this time, the Catholic Church had evolved as a large, centrally controlled denomination. So to some extent, they could dictate and control how the Bible was translated and copied, rather than leaving it to just be copied independently and spontaneously and sporadically, you know, dispersed across different areas of geography. And that's not to say that no other translations or non-influenced manuscripts existed. But again, no printing press, handwritten copies, a lot of manuscripts are simply lost to the dustbin of time. Jerome's rendering of the verses about repentance were translated using a questionable choice of Latin words that would become the de facto translation from then up until the approaching era of the Reformation. So for example, in Matthew 3, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. The Latin Bible would render the Greek word for repentance as poinitentium agite, pardon my pronunciation. So in English, this translates as Dupennens for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. And I'm using the Douay-Reem's translation, which as far as I understand is the first Catholic-approved and authorised English full Bible version. And some of its translation decisions actually kept more Latiny words rather than English words for those really poncy Catholic pet words in religious terminology. And so as you can imagine, they do the same thing in multiple places. For example, Luke 3.3 instead of baptism of repentance, it's baptism of penance. And same again, when Peter preaches repentance, instead it's translated as Dupennens. Now, if you were a native vulgar Latin speaker or a diehard Catholic apologist, you could argue maybe that the Latin translation isn't entirely wrong, because our general objection to Catholic doctrines has more to do with our interpretation of what we think penance means as opposed to their interpretation of what they think penance means. So perhaps it has more to do with our interpretation of the Latin rather than what the words literally say, because by the same token, let's compare confession. You know, the Bible uses the words like confess, but we still know that the Catholic doctrine of confession is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the Bible's wrong to use the word confess though. So you could kind of make that argument with penance perhaps. And so because a diehard Catholic apologist could make the case for defending the Latin, if you pick a verse like Mark 115, even though it's the same base word in the Latin behind penance, in the English translation they rendered repent instead of Dupennens, but the underlying Latin is another variance of the same word. So I assume that Catholic scholars don't have a problem with the word repent. Let's suppose that the Latin and English translated repent as be penitent instead of Dupennens. This could arguably be an acceptable translation of the Greek, because some contexts of repentance do suggest a penitent attitude and remorseful change of mind. The statement be penitent does not in of itself substantiate an entire Catholic dogma about what they call penance, nor does it necessarily substantiate the repentance of Sin's gospel generally. Even in the Old Testament where God repented, the Latin translation would use similar variations of the same word underpinning penance, and rendered those verses as repent in the English duet reams, for example Genesis 6-6 when it repented the Lord, that he made man. So in another timeline where our English KJV said be penitent, I would probably still be able to substantiate and validate this repentance series and refute the repentance of Sin's false gospel. Unfortunately though, I would have to use a lot of if you go back to the original Latin tricks, because we wouldn't be able to fully depend on our English Bible alone. And of course, many of you are sick of these if you go back to the Greek pastors in the real timeline. The problem with the word penance or penitent is that penitent is an adjective, whereas repent is a verb. That being said, penance is arguably acceptable for repentance in that they are both nouns. Be penitent or do penance combine the adjective or noun with other verbs, but repent is a standalone verb in its own right as in the Greek, which is why for example we might argue that do repentance is a bad translation, because this could substantiate false dogma that repentance is some sort of ritual or performance like the Catholic penance ritual or the fall on your knees in sorrow lordship rhetoric. You also lose the linguistic connection between verses. For example, there is no discernible linguistic connection in English between God repenting and John the Baptist preaching do penance, whereas there is a connection if the word repent is used instead. Although some Bible translations were based on the Greek, you will find it very difficult to research and gather a lot of online material for these writings, much less so with an English interlinear because there's so little manuscriptural evidence or the evidence is too fragmented, so they can't be completed into a full Bible. And again, most of it was written by hand, so you wouldn't necessarily have the entire Bible translated, you'd just have fragments here and there. So we can't really compile those into a full Bible and just look online and see what those Bibles said. And if you're not a student of textual criticism, you probably don't know where to look, or you would have to pay a lot of money that you don't have for the study materials. So most of the pre-Reformation era Bibles that we can easily find online for free with English available was based on the Latin translation, not the Hebrew and Greek. So even where pre-Reformation Christians recognized that much of the Catholic doctrines were false, including their so-called gospel, their translations of the Scriptures were in some ways often tainted by the Latin reading of the text rather than the original text. All the translators had to come up with some alternative renderings to try and be faithful to those verses even when they didn't have access to the Hebrew and Greek. And the translation that springs to mind here is the Wycliffe Bible. John Wycliffe was very much anti-Catholic and wrote his Bible translation to give English readers access to the Bible in their own tongue without the Roman Catholic Yoke. But only having the Latin Vulgate to work from and not the original Greek or Hebrew, he still rendered, through no fault of his own, Dupennance, the Catholic-friendly translation of repentance. And he did the same thing in Mark 115 as well. And as you can expect, the passages about the Sinners to Repentance were tainted by this translation, such as Luke 15.7, a sinful man doing penance. But it wasn't as if repent was alien to Wycliffe's terminology, because he did use repent in places where the duey reams also uses repent. So certain particular variations of the Latin he would render as repent, particularly in the Old Testament, like here in Exodus 13.17. Now what's interesting as an anomaly is that in Matthew 21.32 he didn't even use the word repent or penance. He used a different word altogether for thinking after. So given John Wycliffe's circumstances, I think he did the best he could with the information that he had available. And I think that his intentions were noble. Unfortunately, given that his translation was based on the Latin and not the Hebrew and the Greek, it was still tainted by Catholic renderings and readings. And so his translation was subject to a few inconsistencies which were not wrong necessarily as isolated translations of those particular passages, but you do lose some of the consistency across the entire Bible when you consider the underlying Greek and Hebrew. And it makes it easier for Catholics to stick their own added narrative in a passage that when John the Baptist was preaching about repentance or penance, as they say, that it somehow had to do with the confessional booth, even though there's no evidence for that whatsoever from the context. And Christians adding their own conjecture and narrative is already a problem with the word repent, let alone the word penance. Fast forward a few more years, some critical events happened prior to the Reformation period and the advent of the printing press. Muslim conquests overcame the important Greek-speaking city of Constantinople. As a result of this conquest, many Greek scholars fled, bringing their knowledge and writings, including Greek manuscripts of the Bible. Europeans suddenly found themselves with an abundance of knowledgeable native Greek-speaking intellectuals and manuscripts to consult. And a scholar named Erasmus conducted a critical recompilation of a definitive Matthew to Revelation edition of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus, which is used as the basis for our King James Bible translation. To be compiled directly from Greek instead of from Latin translations, although as a side note Erasmus still consulted Latin translations for reference, as did also the King James translators. As well as the Greek New Testament, Erasmus also compiled a re-translation of the Latin Bible to correct what he perceived to be translator's clumsiness or inattention to the Greek and corruption by ignorant scribes who were half-taught and half-asleep. And as far as I understand, those were his words, not mine. And so in a lot of these verses using poinitentium agite, or something like that, Erasmus would replace this term with a word like Recipesite, as we would see here in Matthew 3, again part of my pronunciation, and he does the same thing essentially in Mark 115 and a bunch of other places. Now I don't speak Latin, so I'm not really qualified to go into a big breakdown or discourse about the differences between Recipesite and poinitentium agite, or how much the Latin language has evolved between Jerome's time and Erasmus' time. But according to Wiktionary, the root word for Recipesite comes from classical Latin, so I assume Jerome must have had this word in his vocabulary. I'm not sure if he ever did use it in the Latin Vulgate, I couldn't find any sources for you, so I have no idea. So this is a tricky one, because it could be that from Jerome's point of view, he didn't deliberately or necessarily mistranslate the word for repentance, but then it raises the question, did Erasmus actually correct a mistake here, or is it that years and years and years of bad Catholic dogma have changed what penance means to the Latin mindset over the years, such that by the time it got to Erasmus' time, it would be perceived as a bad translation. And so Erasmus just decided that it was unsuitable and used a different word instead. While I'm sure some experts out there know these things, I will put a link in the video description to an article that you can read for yourself that goes into a bit more detail about why Erasmus used this other word instead. And the article in the link suggests that Erasmus caused some controversy by doing this, because in doing so, he was seriously undermining the Catholic teaching of penance as a sacrament, and was encouraging the enemies of the Church. Most notably Protestants like Martin Luther, who recognised that Erasmus' translation of choice dismantled this false Catholic teaching, and removed one of their greatest obstacles to his challenges of Catholic penance. Did Jerome deliberately mistranslate repentance in the Latin Bible back in the fourth century, or was it just that years and years of bad Catholic teaching and dogma changed what penance meant over the years? Just like Christians today have a false view of what repentance means, because dogma has changed the way that we use the word repent. Well, unfortunately, we can't ask Jerome until we reach Judgement Day, but he wasn't acting independently. He was subject to the yoke of the Catholic Church, and by this time, a lot of what we regard as false Catholic teachings that are completely alien to the Bible had become mainstream by his time. His translation decision certainly has led to a false definition of repentance by substituting a more appropriate like-for-like word with a slightly alternative reading. Thanks to Erasmus' efforts and the efforts of other scholars after this time, most Reformation-era Bibles, or at least Protestant ones such as our Trusted King James Version, have the correct and most appropriate word in English to represent the Greek, repent or repentance instead of penance. And just like the underlying Greek and Hebrew Bibles, the same word that describes man repenting also describes God repenting and secular contexts of repentance that have nothing to do with sin. We now see the linguistic connection from our English Bible. Even the Catholic Bibles felt a need to make this correction, because if you read a more modern Catholic translation than the Dewey Reem, such as the New Jerusalem Bible, they have now replaced the word penance with repent. So it might seem as if their willful mistranslation of the Greek caught up with them, and they were compelled to give a correct reading, because even they supposed that penance was perhaps a bad translation. Most of my regular viewers probably use the King James Bible as their Reformation-era Textus Receptus-based Bible. The King James Version was not the first translation attempt from the Textus Receptus, though. While the Catholics were translating penance, other English Bibles were correctly translating repentance. However, there were certain problematic translations of some key repentance passages. So you may remember previously in the series, when we looked at Works Meet for Repentance, I brought up briefly the issue about how many Bible translations take complete liberties with this verse in particular Acts 26-20. In our King James Bible, we see that works here are something befitting or appropriate for repentance, i.e. something to do if you have repented, but they're only relevant for people who have repented. They don't precede repentance, and there is a distinction between the repentance itself and the works that are made for it. So before we get into the modern Bibles, let's take a brief look at the Reformation-era Bibles that preceded the King James, but were still based on the Textus Receptus. So the Tyndale Bible was the first English Bible to reference the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, although it did heavily rely on the Latin Vulgate to inform some of its translation decisions. So in Acts 26-20, it says, do the right works of repentance. Now in my opinion, I don't think Tyndale set out to deliberately mistranslate this verse. But unfortunately, he didn't provide an equivalent word for worthy of or meet. Therefore, the danger of this translation is that it makes the works, the repentance itself, rather than something that is worthy of or meet for repentance. And this is something that's going to become very apparently to when we get to the modern translations. Tyndale's Bible wasn't a complete translation. He was executed before he could finish most of the Old Testament, but then Miles Covedale picked up his work to produce a complete Bible. And although the Church of England was gradually separating from the Papacy, during Covedale's time, Tyndale's Bible was leading to more Protestant ideas. But it was still very much a Catholic time, a Catholic era of Catholic teachings, Catholic dogmas and Catholic mindset. Covedale didn't leave Tyndale's translation of Acts 26-20 as it was. He retranslated it. And in doing so, he used that rather troubling Catholic word, penance. But he also did not provide an equivalent word for worthy of or meet. So not only does it make the works, the repentance itself, it also makes the works of repentance more friendly to Catholic dogma. So again, forcing Catholicism into the text when it's otherwise wouldn't be evident from an accurate reading. Now, to be fair to Covedale, let's cut him some slack. Not everything was necessarily his fault. His gonads were trapped in the king's vice. King Henry VIII exercised a lot of political power over religion, and English monarchs after him were always trying to force their political will into the church and into authorised translations of the Bible and force official approved church doctrine into the text, like the Catholics before them. Afterwards though, Covedale would kind of do an Erasmus and start to make his own corrections to these verses against the king's will. So he would go on to produce the Matthews Bible, and he did bring it back in line with Tyndale's original translation of the verse. So we're still missing the word worthy of, but at least we've got rid of penance for the time being. Now, what's interesting is that Covedale would go on to produce the great Bible, and this has quite an interesting reading, and also the Bishops Bible that came after it also agrees with this reading. It says, Do such works as become them that repent. Now, some viewers might have a problem with this reading in that it could support the Lordship view that if you have truly repented, you will do works. But in my opinion, this reading is ambiguous enough that it doesn't force that definition or interpretation onto the reader. I am not particularly alarmed by this reading, but that's just my opinion. You may disagree. I do find the ending of this first quite helpful in that repentance, the noun, simply refers to them that repent or those that repent because it's the noun of the verb. And because we're often told by these Lordships today that repentance is a lifestyle change in a transformation of character and all of this nonsense, as if repentance is some sort of really complicated theological fancy word. But really, the Bible uses it as a simple word. And if you watched my study on Acts 2620, Works Meet for Repentance, that's how I defined repentance. It's the works that I'll meet for or appropriate for the people who have repented. If you repent, then do the works be fitting repentance. If you don't repent, don't bother. So I do quite like the Greek Bible's reading. It's very helpful for giving a simple definition of the noun. I agree with its definition in this verse, but technically it's still forcing that definition onto the reader. And the King James Bible is simply more accurate because the underlying Greek uses the noun, even if the more accurate reading is also more difficult to understand. It's better to have a translation rather than an interpretation, because now I will show you the danger of interpretation rather than translation. Due to Catholic and Protestant politics that were going on in the Church of England, Covedale had to flee England and collaborated to make the Geneva translation, which, although it was an English translation, it was being worked on in Switzerland in the city of its namesake. But this time he wasn't the translation lead, somebody else led the translation, he just collaborated with it. The Geneva translation would go on to become very popular in the English speaking world, and just as we have King James Onlyism today, there was sort of a Geneva only movement of that time, particularly among Puritans who thought that anything remotely enjoyable or pleasant was pagan, music in church pagan, sitting on chairs in church pagan, everything was pagan. Unfortunately, the Geneva Bible is a precursor and a forewarning of many of the errors and mistranslations of the text that would be very prevalent in our modern Bibles today. So in Acts 2620, the Geneva Bible, instead of saying works worthy of repentance, says works worthy amendment of life. And this is a huge red flag. Now a very interesting coincidence for you. Greg Jackson actually posted about the Geneva Bible at the same time as I was working on the slides for this video and a mutual subscriber raised this very issue. Is it an incredible coincidence or a move of the spirit perhaps? Now besides the fact that this reading is grammatically incorrect even in its time, this reading is worse than even the Catholic translation of penance. It is literally forcing a lordship interpretation of repentance onto the reader. It is not giving a faithful translation of the underlying text. Even if they wanted to just say amendment, there is no of life in the Greek. And Acts 2620 is not the only place where the Geneva Bible translators did this. They did it in Matthew 417, for example, amend your lives for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Or Acts 238, Peter preached amend your lives instead of repent. So you see how this is not just a modern Bible issue or a textual criticism issue. This has been going on before, men interpreting the Bible for you and putting their false interpretation into the print instead of just rendering the words and letting you interpret it for yourself. Fortunately, the King James Bible would give a correct reading in these verses and displace the Geneva Bible as one of the most popular translations in the English language. So now it's great. We've got our trusted King James Bible that translates repentance correctly. We can see that God repented. We can see that sometimes repentance was a bad thing. We can see that sometimes repentance is for very mundane, non-syn issues. The translators translated instead of interpreted, so that we can discern as the readers what repentance means from the context. We've got Genesis to Revelation in a book-binded format. The King James Bible becomes the unrivalled, universal translation in the English-speaking world. Almost every single Bible is the same, problem solved. Unfortunately, every tool that can be used for good can also be used for evil. Just as the printing press and the Internet makes it very easy to spread information, as I use it for my videos, likewise every heretic carry can easily spread misinformation and make his own Bible version which can be distributed to the masses either by print or on the Internet. And the Catholic Church can't just simply burn all of the manuscripts and burn a few heretics at the stake anymore. Now, some modern, albeit reasonably accurate Bibles may translate it similar to the English standard version, where instead of and do works, it instead says performing deeds. So some King James-onlyists might attack this translation because the present active tense makes it look like the works are now a continuation of a repentance message. But according to the people who claim to know these things, this is considered to be more faithful to the Greek. And if that's true, we can't really attack this translation. It still has the in keeping with, which is similar to the King James saying meet for. So it doesn't undermine what I said in that video that repent, that is turn to God. As you turn to God or while you're turning to God or as you have turned to God, start performing deeds or works that are suitable befitting in keeping with that repentance. I, if you have repented, do these works. If you didn't repent, don't waste your time with these works. The works are only applicable and appropriate if you have repented. While translations such as the ESV aim or claim to be more accurate and faithful to the Greek, other translations take a more liberal approach to make it, quote, easy for the audience, unquote. While this might sound like a good idea in principle, the problem is that you are no longer getting a translation of the verse. You are now getting an interpretation of the verse, one that is subject to the doctrinal biases of the translators, who statistically are highly likely to be unsaved, work salvation legalists or Libertad Christians or fake apostolics who believe in a false gospel. As Jesus said, woe unto you scribes. Unfortunately, while false Bibles certainly help and enable the spread of false doctrine, this doesn't mean that correct Bibles prevent anyone from being false. There are still heretics and legalists falling under Galatian error even with the King James Bible. Inevitably, even if the Bible translates repentance correctly, they will still redefine repentance, following in the footsteps of Catholicism by embellishing it, sensationalizing it and ritualizing it. So naturally those condemned to produce their own Bible versions will add their deliberate, crafted mistranslations to promote their narrative, especially some of the worst. So the new international version, for instance, will replace the word meaning do or perform or action with the word demonstrate. So now the works are not something that you do to accompany your repentance because they are befitting for you. Now you actually have to demonstrate or prove your repentance by your works. And this is the spirit behind the adverb ad nauseam that false prophets constantly bombard us with. If you have truly repented, if you have real repentance or genuine repentance, if your repentance is an active and true living faithful repentance, it will result in works because it is a divine God breathed repentance. But it doesn't end there. The NIV is already pushing boundaries by making the works the proof of repentance. But as we saw previously in the series, we don't know exactly what these works were. The contemporary English version doesn't even use the word works or repent. It instead says stop sinning and then prove what you have done by the way you live. So whoever translated this Bible, they replaced a like for like word with their interpretation of what they think repent means. And they've changed the definition of works as the way you live your lifestyle. Now a defender of the contemporary English version might say that, well, the King James Bible leaves it too open to interpretation what Paul meant. It's too vague. It's too ambiguous. How was Paul telling them to repent exactly what works was he talking about? And even you, no nonsense Christianity, openly admitted in your video on this verse that Paul doesn't explicitly specify what these works are. So how is average Joe supposed to know what Paul means? But here's the problem with that. That argument only carries weight if the translators personally know what Paul meant by that statement. And if they're wrong, well now they've just misled thousands if not millions of Christians with a false reading of this verse. The reason why works meet for repentance is unclear in the King James Bible is because it's unclear in the original Greek language. And it was unclear to a gripper when Paul said it because Paul was not giving a gripper a detailed discourse on true repentance. He was defending himself from the Jews that were persecuting him and trying to get him in trouble with the authorities. Now to anybody who watched my video, we already examined what Paul meant by repent because we simply referred back to earlier chapters in Acts when Paul preached at Damascus and at Jerusalem. And we saw that he preached Christ crucified. We saw no evidence that Paul was challenging their sinful lifestyle. So when they replaced the word repent with stop sinning, this is a false translation. This is a lie. It's not true. This is not what Paul said. Paul preached Christ in the earlier chapters and in this verse he said repent. Furthermore, what sort of clairvoyance did the translators have that they knew personally that Paul's works meet for repentance were referring to a lifestyle change? They don't know what works he was talking about. What if Paul was telling them to get baptized? Does that prove that their life was any different than it was before? No. What if Paul told them to start preaching the Gospel? Well, that's a slight change in lifestyle change if they weren't doing that before, unless they were proselytizing their old religion. But that doesn't prove that the rest of their life was any different whatsoever. And while I'm on this tirade, I'm sure that many of you have heard Christians and I'm using that word very loosely, parrot this kind of nonsense. Right, turning from sins is not work salvation. Parc, salvation is free, but you show that you truly repented by your changed life. Right, well if repenting of sins is a lifestyle change, but lifestyle change is not work salvation. Why did the translators of the CEV replace works with change the way you live? If those two things are not the same thing, they have no grounds to do that, did they? The reason why they did it is because a change life is works. Therefore, if that's what repentance onto eternal life is, it's work salvation. You see, let me try and illustrate this for you. What this is doing to the reader. From the King James Version, Acts 26-20 goes in his brain and he sees the word works, so he is able to appropriately categorize this and make a separation between grace, which includes salvation by faith and such, and works, which includes the law and his own obedience. So he can put the components of this verse into their appropriate boxes, but when he reads another version, like the contemporary English version, well now he can't understand the connection here. He gets confused by the verse. He's got a completely different instruction from Paul here, because now he thinks that Paul's preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem was all about turning from sins instead of Christ crucified, so he doesn't know how to categorize this anymore. And what happens is all this stuff gets jumbled up, we don't know which way is up anymore, is it works, is it not works, how do we categorize this change lifestyle? And so now he's confused and his gospel interpretation sounds like complete nonsense, like this double tuck that they always do. Well salvation is a free gift and not of ourselves, but if you're truly saved, you'll stop sinning and have changed life. But it doesn't just stop there, it gets worse. The New World translation, or mistranslation as I call it, was produced by the Watchtower to deliberately promote false Jehovah's Witness doctrine. And in this verse, they don't replace the word works, but look at what they do here. They translate that they should repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance. By adding the word by, the NWT has made the works themselves the actual repentance. Now again, referring back to my video on Acts 2620, we saw that when Paul went around Damascus and Jerusalem, he was telling people about Christ. So we can discern that repent and turn to God is believing on the Christ that Paul was preaching and encouraging new converts to do works that are appropriate for their repentance. The NWT has brought these things together, so essentially by saying that Paul was going around Jerusalem, not preaching Christ and what he did, but telling people to do works to come to God. Now whereas evangelicals and Protestants would say, well you say freely by grace, not by works, but you know if you really believe you will do the works, but it's just not by doing the works that you're saved. The Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand do essentially the same thing as the Catholics do, except that they have a different list of pet works of course, where instead of grace and works being Paul opposite, as it is written, if it's by grace it's no more of works, or instead of doing works because we have the grace as the Protestants tend to believe, works are now the mechanism through which you access God's grace, right? You see what they've done there. So they'll say, yeah we're saved by grace but it's through the doing of the works that we have access to his grace. And in fact they will literally say on their website, JW.org, that to be saved you must exercise faith by obeying his commandments. Then they say their horse poop about how we're saved by grace and it's undeserved even though you have to do works to get the grace. But false doctrine never makes sense of course. Now as some of you will know, the Seventh Day Adventists also like the JWs came out of the Millerite movement. They don't normally make their own Bible translations. They tend to pick one of the Protestant ones, as we also do. But there was an attempt to make a paraphrased Bible specifically to promote Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. Now the Seventh Day Adventists do recognize that this was a paraphrase or a devotional. It wasn't an accurate translation. But again, you get the problem is that you're getting man's interpretation of what he thinks the Bible means rather than what God actually said. And so because the author Jack Blanco is an unsaved Seventh Day Adventist, false prophet, obviously he stuck his false prophet beliefs into the paraphrase of the Bible. And in this translation it flats out says, change their ways to repent of their sins and to live for God. He wasn't pointing people to Christ. He was pointing people to look at themselves and do their works. Once again, this statement is just flat out work salvation. And this wicked devil has no proof that the works meet for repentance had anything to do with turning from sins. Now at this point some of you might be thinking, well the Seventh Day Adventist and Jehovah's Witnesses are an easy target. So of course they're going to promote a false Bible version. But nobody outside of their false denomination is going to use their books anyway. I wish the issue was that easy to dismiss. Unfortunately it isn't. The Amplified Bible is not among the top 10 bestselling translations, but it is widely known and used by evangelical Christians. It's endorses like the translation because it provides multiple potential meanings of words and statements in brackets, so as to offer the reader a choice of meanings to aid their interpretation. And in the Amplified version it adds these brackets after the word repent, offering an interpretation of change their inner self, their old way of thinking. So they've added self-reformation as their interpretation of what they think repentance means. Notice how the literal translation of metaneo, change of mind, did not make it into the brackets. Also they've added their own narrative without brackets, making it look like this is an authoritative translation of the text. But it isn't. There is no Greek text representing and living lives. They do the same thing in other repentance passages as you can imagine. They always make repentance about you instead of about Jesus. And again notice how they've left out the literal definition of change your mind. And also notice how instead of saying believe in Jesus, it's this blurry line of accept and follow Jesus. But the reason why this is a terrible interpretation of Acts chapter 2 is that, as I have already explained in video number 18 of the series, Peter was talking about Jesus in the chapter, his death, his resurrection, his status as the Christ. He wasn't talking about your lifestyle. The deception of the Amplified version is that for the most part it seems like it's a literal translation, but the brackets are there to help you understand what it means. But you're going to get an unsaved person's false interpretation of what it means. And herein lies the problem. Bibles that are meant to be translations claiming to help you better understand the Bible in your modern worldview and language, they're riddled with unsaved, false Lordship believers sticking their own false narratives and misinterpretations into the Bible and completely butchering God's spirit filled original words. Another example of a Bible that does this, which is far more popular than the Amplified, is the New Living Translation, ranked as the third best-selling Bible translation in 2021, being outperformed only by the 1769 King James Version in second place, and the New International Version in first place. And the wicked sons of Belial that compiled this translation did the same thing as the Seventh Day Adventist Clear Word in Acts 2620. They added the words of their sins, but this is not a translation, these words did not come from the underlying Greek. You can go on Bible Hub, you can look up the Greek words that underpin Acts 2620, you won't find any Greek words representing of their sins, it's not there. The New Living Translation has added it here, even though it's meant to be a translation and not a paraphrase. And what's so alarming about this translation is that being so popular in the number three slot, at least the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, deep down they know that they're false prophets, right? But evangelical Christians, they think they're right, and yet they're swanning around with this New Living Translation telling everybody to repent of their sins, that's what's so terrifying. And this is not the only verse where they add of your sins, they do it in many, many verses. And they also once again make the work something that proves repentance with this lifestyle change nonsense. But this is ridiculous, I've already done a study on that passage in the series. We went back to the passages about Paul preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem, he was preaching Christ, he wasn't preaching about lifestyle change. Why did that definition make it into the Amplified or NLT Bibles in Acts 26? If Paul is going about from place to place preaching the gospel to different people and then leaving, why would he demand that they prove their repentance by showing how they've changed their lives? He's not going to see them again, he has no opportunity to fruit inspect them, it makes no sense. But this is the kind of nonsense that happens when unsaved people think, oh this Bible's too hard to understand, you can't understand it with the Spirit of God, so here let us interpret it for you, we'll make it easier, even though we're unsaved goats and we're completely wrong about what it means, and we can't discern passage after passage after passage after passage that's talking about Jesus and not about you. Now you might think at this stage, well okay, there's lots of false Bible versions out there, we know this already. Are we safe if we stick to a more literal translation then? Well even then, I wish I could say it was that simple. You may have heard of Jung's literal translation, so it calls itself a literal translation, you would hope that that's quite authoritative and accurate. And the Jung's literal translation translates repentance as reformation, and it seems to do this across the New Testament. Now there are two verbs that underpin the word repent in English from the Greek, it's metaneo and metamelemy. So Jung's literal translation will translate repent from metamelemy, which is unusual actually because a lot of modern Bibles don't run only enough, whereas it will translate reform from metaneo most of the time, with one exception being Revelation 222. So in Revelation 2 there is a degree of inconsistency there. In the verses where repentance is about sin or works, instead of saying repent of, Jung's will instead say reform from. In the Old Testament it does still translate repent in many places where the King James Bible does also say that God repented. Now I can't say for sure what Jung's understanding of repentance was, so the Jung's literal doesn't try to impress upon the reader a particularly forced definition of this so-called reformation, as far as I know anyway. It is possible that he wasn't trying to superimpose his own definition of repentance into the text. The problem really is how we use reformation in our language. Reformation generally means correcting something that's wrong or making amendments to a broken system. And part of the problem with the repent of sins gospel is that it is self-reformation, self-correction. You know, it's no longer Jesus washing you and sanctifying you and justifying you, now you're self-correcting, you're reforming yourself. And that's the danger with this translation. And even though Jung's does say that God repented in the Old Testament, you lose the linguistic connection between God repenting and man reforming. The word reformation is already found in our Bible in only one instance, Hebrews 9-10, from the Greek word Neothosios, referring to the transition of the Covenant from old to new. There could be a connection that Jung made between the New Testament message of reformation or repentance and the Old Covenant being replaced with the new that Christ was pointing people to himself, as I have argued in the series. So I can't say for sure that Jung's literal translation is deliberately trying to distort the definition of repentance, but the reader could mistake two very different words as being the same thing. One might argue that reformation is really more of an interpretation of repentance rather than a literal translation. That's its namesake ought to be. But the fact that Jung's literal says that God repented in the Old Testament is actually a minority case nowadays because a lot of modern Bibles completely remove the idea of God repenting or remove the idea of repentance referring to very trivial nonsense issues. So take for example, one Samuel 15 is one of many examples of God repenting. In the context, he repented of making Saul the King. Now when I've discussed this with somebody, his defence was that the word repent makes it look like God was sorry in the sense of something he didn't intend would happen, like he makes mistakes or he doesn't know the future or something like that. But he was basing that objection on how Christians frequently misdefine repentance. God repented because he simply changed course of action in reaction to the situation. And his criticism of the King James made no sense because making God look sorry and apologetic and full of mistakes is exactly what these modern Bibles do. So the ESV says that God regretted doing it, like he wishes he hadn't done it as if he couldn't foreknow which way Saul would go. In the NLT, God apparently said I am sorry that I ever made Saul King, like God needs to apologise to man or he's very upset with himself or something. Modern Bibles completely remove the notion of God repenting. They will substitute it with other words like God relented or God changed his mind or he was sorry. Now in the isolated context of those verses, it may not technically be a wrong translation, but you would have to say that they're translating it contextually rather than consistently. And so from the English, you wouldn't know that the same word is behind that each time. Now the King James Bible does also do this with certain words where it translates contextually, and some modern Bibles will translate those words more consistently. But those don't really have any such big implications as the subject of repentance. Even with the King James Bible saying that God repented, the repent of sins ilk will say, Well, God repenting has nothing to do with man's repentance anyway, so whether God repented or relented, that's got nothing to do with the commandment towards man to repent of his sins. So they'll dismiss it as a strawman or a non sequitur. Well okay, but this does affect man's repentance as well though. As well as substituting God repenting with other words, they also substitute repentance in verses that explicitly prove that the word does not automatically mean to turn from sin, even when it is applied to man. So for example, in the King James in Exodus 1317, the word repent means to go back to Egypt if the people fear when they see war. And something that you just won't get from a modern translation is that this is actually a bad kind of repentance. Arguably they would be repenting to sin, not away from sin according to this verse. And so in the modern versions, this is substituted with change their minds or words to that effect. So in English, you would lose the linguistic connection between Exodus 1317 and say John the Baptist's message of repentance or Peter's message of repentance. You wouldn't know the relationship between these words. And again, before they want to try that if we go back to the Greek and Hebrew, I've already dealt with the Greek and Hebrew previously in the series. I've exposed their fraudulent arguments to my regular viewers already. You don't even need to know Greek and Hebrew enough to actually dispel their nonsense because they don't know it themselves. And I have a Greek subscriber who verified what I said in the Greek video anyway. Another example which I've used frequently in the series to prove that John the Baptist's message of repentance was about believing, not repenting of sin, is Matthew 21 32. The King James Bible makes it so obvious that John the Baptist's command to repent means to believe on him that is the repentance. They're not two separate things. Many translations will substitute repent with change your minds or relent as the English Standard Version of the New King James, the New American Standard, do. And as a consequence of doing this, the reader loses the connection between this verse and John the Baptist's command to repent. In the new international version, they do translate repent, but they add the conjunction that false prophets could use to make repentance and belief separate. Now, of course, Mark 1 15 does this anyway, even in our King James Bible, repent and believe the gospel, right? And that's because there is a Greek word for and in that verse. So what false prophets will try and do is they'll try and separate those two things and say, well, it's repent and believe. Therefore, that's two instructions. So first, you have to repent by which they mean of your sins, and then you have to believe the gospel. Otherwise, the sentence would make no sense. Well, Matthew 21 32 doesn't have the word and. So the NIV translators made a translation decision to add the word and in English. But this conjunction is ambiguous because sometimes and in English can mean joining two things together as if they're one and the same or putting two separate things side by side. And there's quite a lot of verses that even in our King James are already quite hard to understand because it's not clear whether and is putting two things together or just grouping them together. So the NIV translators could argue on a round table that their translation is correct here. But the problem is that a false prophet could separate those two things to assert that John the Baptist was preaching repentance by which they mean of your sins and believe as two things that you need to do to be saved. The King James proves that believing him is the repentance itself, not another item alongside it. It does this because according to Bible Hub, the underlying Greek for believe uses the arised, infinite, active sense or in layman's terms, the one time action, repent, would result in an inevitable never ending conclusion that you might believe. And once again, the satanic NIV translation just does what they do all the time. They just add the words of your sins after repentance again. Look, there is no Greek representation of these words. The NLT supports the false prophets who split repentance from believe and say that it means the term from your sins. And alongside Matthew 21-32, Acts 19-4 is another strong proof text in our English King James Bible that proves that the repentance itself was to believe. So surprise shockface, what does the NIV and LLT do? They split this verse in a very similar way like they split Matthew 21-32. They use a full stop to split the sentence, severing the connection between repentance and believing, and the satanic NLT adds the words from sin. There is no Greek word for from sin in this verse. And so herein lies the problem. All the verses that explicitly prove that repentance doesn't always mean turn from sin, and that explicitly proves that repentance for salvation is to believe instead of changing your behaviour. That's what these translations are specifically, purposefully altering to promote their false repent of sins to be saved salvation doctrine, because that's the false gospel that these translators believe. And what's so terrifying is that the new international version and new living translation are not study Bibles or commentaries or paraphrases. They are treated as authoritative translations of the Bible and yet, like the paraphrases and commentaries, they are injecting their interpretations of repentance into the text, instead of directly translating it to let the reader understand it for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit. And unfortunately, because unsaved Christians don't have the spirit, they are completely ignorant or lack any discernment about this topic whatsoever. And this is the kind of thing that they say, well, these Bibles are just trying to make it easier. I find it too hard to understand the King James or these more literal translations. These are the versions made for people like me. But what's so terrifying about the mindset of people that have that is that I'm not talking about baby Christians who have only been in the faith for a year. I'm talking about Christians in their 50s, 60s, 70s who have been Christians longer than I've been alive. They've been Christians for decades. And yet they still need things making simple because the real Bible is too complicated for them. It's mind blowing, but that's how bad this really is. But the problem when these Bible translations make things simple is that they're also making it wrong. Because the people who are trying to simplify it are wrong about what it means anyway. So they're wrong about the thing that they're trying to simplify. In fact, for Christians that seemingly have no capacity to understand the accurate Bible at all, even after being a Christian for many, many years, being ever learning and never able, all for their denominations that are so far apostate and fallen away from the faith, the situation is so bad now that many of them will turn to paraphrases and heretical translations in place of a legitimate Bible translation. So some of you watching this have probably been in churches where the Message Bible was used as the reading for the sermon, as if it represents what the actual Bible says. And many churches, particularly of the Liberal persuasion or the NAR persuasion, are endorsing and using these deliberately distorted Bible corruptions. So let's take, for example, Matthew 4.17 from our King James. It says, For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It's a literal, accurate translation. No interpretations added to the text. In the Message Bible, it replaces repent with change your life. And this is very similar to the Geneva translation we saw earlier, and worryingly, the message is one of the most popular versions that is described as a paraphrase rather than a translation. And again, I've heard the Message Bible used for readings in a church that I used to attend and in sermons I have seen online. And what's really frightening about the Message Bible is that despite being a paraphrase and not a translation, and it's author even says that it's a paraphrase or a study Bible, it's not meant to be read in a church, as far as I understand. According to that list I referred to earlier, it's in the top 10 bestsellers for 2021. That same list ranks the Message Bible at the number eight spot. And so that means that the Message Bible has outranked far more accurate translations, such as the New American Standard, and it sold more copies to the English speaking world than even the Spanish equivalent of the NIV. The Nueva Version in Tunas Nile has sold to the Spanish speaking world. Its popularity for a paraphrase is dangerous. In the Passion translation, it says, keep turning away from your sins and come back to God. This reader makes repentance a perpetual action, a lifetime of works and trying over and over again to meet God's standard and failing. It makes repentance a lifestyle rather than a one-time action that we see in the correct translation. And the Passion translation was authored by this guy, Brian Simmons. If you know anything about this guy, this is the cuck that said in an interview with Sid Roth that John's Gospel has a secret chapter 22, and God is waiting to reveal it to us. And of course he points us to works in John 14-12 because we need to be doing works to get access to this secret chapter. No surprises there. This is the kind of nonsense coming from somebody that's writing a false Bible version for you and sticking his heretical garbage into the text. And the Passion translation has received loads of endorsements from some of the worst heretics and freaks and weirdos that Christianity has to offer. Bill Johnson of Bethel Church with all of their New Age nonsense. Lou Engel, another weirdo. Heidi Baker with all of her flopping around on the floor, nonsense and acting drunken and insane. Chuck Pierce with all of his weird nonsensical revelations from God about how he's going to give you new ice cream flavours. Patricia King and everything that's wrong with her. Basically just some of the worst heretics and clowns and filth of evangelical Christianity. And what I find baffling about this is that Calvinists and Lordshipers and Sinless Perfectionists who do rightfully preach hard about holiness, they will point to those clowns and lump them in with us and say well that's the fruit of faith alone and the anti-repent of sins gospel. That they don't preach hard against sin so they get lumped in with us as easy believists. And yet these people that are lumped in with us are endorsing this translation that says repentance means to keep turning away from your sins. Even though they're supposedly antithetical to the repent of sins gospel. You see the problem with these movements isn't actually that they're against the repent of sins gospel per se. They are for it. It's just that they deemphasize sin and the evils of sin. But then they emphasize transformation and radical change of the believer and that repentance leads to transform new lives in Christ. But because they still have a false gospel of works what they have to do is move a few goalposts around so that their sins no longer constitutes as sin. So being heretic is no longer a sin if your heart's in the right place. Or flopping around on the floor acting drunk isn't a sin but just being actually drunk is a sin and you just have to repent of actual drunkenness to believe and go to heaven. You know women preaching isn't a sin that's just a cultural thing that Paul was dealing with but don't lie don't steal that's not a cultural thing we definitely still have to repent of that to be saved. Another heretic who wrote his own fake bible version which is possibly among the most wicked satanic bible versions you've ever heard of is called the mirror bible and it was translated by this guy on the right Francois Dutoy and he's just so self-absorbed he totally fancies himself so he just completely rewrote the bible to make it all about you and how amazing you are and just flips the bible on its head to put the emphasis on what a great person you are and how Jesus is just trying so hard to get you to see what a great person you are. That's not what Jesus taught Jesus said there's none good but God. Now this particular section of the video made me very angry because the mirror bible is not available for free you have to pay for it. I was tempted to give it a miss but then I thought I will buy a copy just so I can inform you in this particular video so I paid 15 british pounds and I've put a few select currency conversions on the screen there for you just to help you relate to this to get the app on my phone only to find out it doesn't even have the complete bible on it there's no book of Matthew it doesn't have all the chapters in acts so I've put 15 pounds in that reprobates pocket I don't even get a complete bible so viewers you've been forewarned you know ever the fool me I could have bought a five guys burger and fries with that amount of money so yeah if you wonder why I get angry on my channel now you know so I can't use Matthew 417 because there is no Matthew on my bible app and if I have to pay extra for it I'm not going to I already feel cheated so let's just pick Luke 3 3 instead it says in our king james bible john came preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins so in the mirror bible he just completely rewrote this verse calling john's baptism of reformation like the young's literal translation and engaging of a radical mind shift celebrating mankind's redeemed identity and innocence this is just word salad it doesn't mean anything it's just weird new age language frankly and it contains a footnote describing metanoia as a radical mind shift a new awakening there it is again the new age pagan witchcraft language and so naturally he does this whenever he reinterprets repentance like in acts 238 this is your metanoia moment awake to the overwhelming evidence of your redeemed inner innocence and identity and notes to keep throwing this word innocence very importantly see that now it's fair to say I've done a lot of work to attack the repent of sins to be saved gospel but despite that I still acknowledge that we are sinners that need saving right I'm just disagreeing with most of Christendom about the mechanism of how that is achieved but this Francois d'etoy as far as I understand it he doesn't believe that we are sinners that need saving you saw him use the word innocence there right the way that he rewrites the bible particularly about being born again as well is that it's not that you need to be born again to receive eternal life you need to realize your identity that you're already born again that you're already innocent you just need to awaken to that reality and claim it as your identity his reinterpretation is completely antithetical even to the repent of sins gospel right but the both false because there's still about this idea that you're good or that you have to be good to present yourself acceptable before God as opposed to the imputed righteousness of Christ that we believe in because those of us who believe in faith without works will we say that nobody's good because that's what Jesus and Paul said what's striking about all three of these dangerous paraphrases and false translation so the message the passion and the mirror is that they're all translated by a single individual unlike wickliffe and tindale though they were not motivated to give an accurate translation of the bible to a language that had no other alternative available to it they produced bibles in a language that is already inundated with a ridiculous amount of bible versions they were instead motivated by special revelations and knowledge that nobody else possessed like the existence of john 22 or a special understanding of the mysteriously beautiful immersive and profound underlying hebrew greek language that simply could not be communicated in the most direct translations of the bible or they wanted to push their theological interpretations into the text or they wanted to make the bible relevant bro whatever that's supposed to mean and this is the danger whenever you have one person working on a translation that doesn't know the underlying language they pray on people's ignorance and stupidity it's like they pretend that they know hebrew and greek is this beautiful poetic and incredible language that just moves you with so much emotion that we just don't have an english because english is such a crap language even though we have more words than any other language on this planet by a long shot there is nothing more expressive in english but you know it can't be expressed at least not without making the sentence about eight times as long as the original bible but you know we really have to get to the heart of what god's truly trying to tell us these fools are just trying to compensate for the fact that they don't have the spirit to understand the bible they stumble at god's word so they have to rewrite it to make it understandable except that they're wrong when they do it they stumble at god's real word so they have to rewrite it to make it understandable to people who don't have the spirit to help them understand it except that how they interpret what god said is completely wrong of course they're not satisfied with the plain manner that god sent down from heaven you know the plain flaky bread they want the quail they want the cucumbers they want the melons that they had when they were back in egypt so yeah we have to dress up the bible and give all this emotion and pig squealing passion that we just can't get from a bible that tells it like it is fairness the hardest repentance of your sins messengers such as sinless perfectionists will probably agree with me that those are false bible versions written by heretics but even they themselves are not above writing their own fake bible version as individuals with no accountability so if you saw my second documentary you may remember the tyke exposed ron craig who tells you that you have to turn from all your sins to be saved and he will be rejoicing and celebrating in heaven because you're burning in hell yet this wicked reprobate told you to abandon your english translation and come over and read his translation why did he do this well because he thinks that on a planet of eight billion people with about one and a half billion of them speaking english as a first or second language he is the only person who can translate the hebrew and the greek correctly for you the entire translation committee of the king james bible they just couldn't get it right no matter how hard they tried you know generations of bible translators couldn't get it right you know all these native greek speakers that also speak english they can't get it right but ron craig he knows what's really going on he's really going to sort it out for you and get to the bottom of what god's really saying here so he's going to write his own bible and then you'll really know what god said but if you've seen any of his videos he basically interprets that repentance means to exercise your mind in the midst of the situation not to sin well if that sounds like a mouthful well his translation makes even less sense if you go back to the second documentary i exposed his translation for just being completely incomprehensible and again if you've seen any of my videos previously in the series on repentance in the hebrew and greek we know that this is complete nonsense of course the greek translation of the old testament which ironically ron craig actually puts above the hebrew as the legitimate translation of the old testament says that god metaneoed so ron craig did god exercise his mind in the midst of the situation not to sin because he metaneoed in the old testament or are you just talking out of your rectum again ron craig so in conclusion you hopefully see why this series of mine has been so necessary and this should make it clear to you if you have ever wondered why i exclusively use the king james bible on my channel for doctrine and why there is a strong correlation between easy believers channels and the king james only is in position the trusty king james bible shows that god repented and that repentance could refer to trivial and nonsense issues it is not mistranslating repentance it did not make a poor translation decision in doing so it is simply leveraging the same practice of the greek language that jesus and the apostles spoke and hebrew before it it does not attempt to reinterpret repentance it does not force a definition of repentance it simply translates it from the greek and hebrew and lets you as the reader study and see what the word means which we have already done over and again in this series it was translated by multiple committees of expert scholars and was intended as a translation not a single heretical weirdo pushing his luciferian agenda now i don't expect non-native english speakers to use the king james okay i would hope that there is a decent translation in your own language god willing so for example if you're spanish you can read certain editions of the reign of the lair if you're greek then you can just read the text as receptors on its own without a translation but as an english speaker i trust this bible translation it makes the gospel clear it makes repentance clear i wouldn't trust most of these other versions as far as i could throw them this is no nonsense christianity reminding you that nowhere in the bible does it say repent of your sins to be saved