This is another video from my good friend Steve in California. I learned so much from it! When I first listened to it, some things went over my head. But transcribing it into text drove the points home! It gave me even more conviction that the King James Version is the best Bible in English.

Jason Breda (webmaster of Be A Good Berean) outlines his top five reasons for transitioning from the New King James Version (NKJV) to the King James Version (KJV) as his primary Bible translation:

Why I’m Switching to the King James Bible

Transcription

Jason Breda: For those of you who have been around my channel for a while you know I strongly have endorsed the New King James Translation as my go-to translation. Today marks a change for me. I am moving to the King James Version.

I have realized that the reason why I resisted the KJV were several reasons. It’s old, outdated language, and we’ll talk about that. I inherited framing and arguments against the KJV without actually putting those arguments to the test to see if they carried any merit or weight. And when I did finally put it to the test it changed everything for me. And what I share today I think is going to change your perspective too.

Today I’m going to share my top five reasons why I switched to the King James. Now there are many more than just five reasons that I could give. This is a starting point for us today. And my number five reason is the reason that drew me initially to test the KJV for myself. And that’s the fact that the King James is public domain.

If you know me you know this is a big deal for me. The Word of God should not be behind a paywall. One could make the argument that books about the Bible come at a cost, yet the Word of God itself should not. I am not saying Bibles should be physically free because printing and binding and translation work, all of that does come at a cost. And supporting that kind of work is very legitimate.

But we live in the digital age where things can be downloaded for free, especially the text itself. People should be able to freely use God’s Word, freely we have received, freely we should give. You should be able to quote it without legal concern, publish it without permission, preach from it without restriction, and share it without counting any verses.

Modern copyrighted translations restrict that. Even churches and ministries and missionaries may have to calculate how much scripture they’re allowed to use. That should not exist in our day when it comes to the Word of God.

My philosophy is go by donation only as much as possible, which is why all my resources are free on my website. So yes, public domain greatly matters, but that alone does not lead uniquely to the King James. There are other public domain translations and options that many of you know.

And that leads me to the second question, why not other public domain Bibles? If public domain is the issue, then why not the World English Bible or the Berean Standard Bible? Both of those are public domain. So why the King James? Because the issue is not just access, it is what text are you accessing? And this is where we get into something very interesting. You see the question isn’t merely which English Bible do I like, it’s what Greek and Hebrew text is being treated as authoritative beneath that English.

And specifically in the New Testament, there are competing approaches. The Byzantine text form, the majority text, the critical text, which is an eclectic text, and the Alexandrian text are what most people today know best. The modern scholarly reconstructions represented by editions such as the Nestle-Alland, NA 28, and the UBS, using an eclectic method that weighs both external and internal evidence across all manuscript families.

While the Alexandrian text type is the textual family associated with early manuscripts such as Codex Venacanus and Codex Sinaiticus, often favored in critical editions due to age and perceived textual quality. You will see the ESV, the NASV, the NIV, the BSV, the NARSV, among others, that fit within that family of translation.

And then we get to the Textus Receptus, or the TR, the early printed Greek New Testament tradition behind the King James, based primarily on a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts and shaped by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

For me, the key issue is not manuscript quantity, it is textual transmission and reception. The Byzantine majority text is built by counting manuscripts. The problem is that most surviving manuscripts are medieval. That tells you what became numerically dominant later, but it doesn’t automatically tell you what was preserved earliest, what was read continuously, and what the Church recognized as settled before later copying patterns standardized the text. So, in other words, numerical majority reflects survival, not necessarily originality or faithful transmission. Makes sense?

The Textus Receptus represents a stable, received text form that was continuously used by the Church in preaching, worship, translation, and doctrinal defense. The TR’s readings were preserved because they were read, taught, copied, not because they survived in the largest number centuries later. This is important because the doctrine of preservation is not just God-preserved manuscripts somewhere. The biblical idea of preservation is that God’s Word is known, heard, read, taught, and obeyed by his people in every generation. So, preservation is functional and ecclesial, not merely archival.

Now, let me apply that directly to the three other public domain modern options people might raise. Why not the WEB Translation? The World English Bible follows the majority text. That means it inherits the underlining weaknesses of the majority approach. It privileges manuscript survival over ecclesiastical continuity and treats the text as something to be reconstructed rather than received.

The issue is not that majority text equals evil or unusable. I’m not saying that. Don’t hear what I’m not saying, okay? The issue is that if we believe God preserved his Word through the Church’s continuous use, not merely through later manuscript accumulation, then the TR model fits that doctrine more faithfully within the Byzantine tradition itself.

Many majority readings show signs of later scribal smoothing and harmonization, and that’s normal. It can be at least over time, and the TR often preserves harder, less harmonized readings that better explain how the later majority form arose. That suggests that the TR preserves earlier states within that tradition.

So, if someone says, but most manuscripts say X, my answer is, that’s not the decisive question. The decisive question is, what reading has the marks of faithful transmission and continuous reception? Do you see the difference?

Others might say, why not the BSB? The Berean Standard Bible is explicitly reconstructive in approach, even when it reads well. The philosophy underneath it matters, and it treats the New Testament as a text that must be recovered by modern scholarship, implying discontinuity in practical preservation.

Secondly, it often omits or brackets passages that were widely read, preached, and translated for centuries. Here are a few examples. Even with footnotes, it weakens confidence in the stability of the received text. That casts doubt on God’s Word, which is a big deal.

Third, it tends to overweight a small cluster of early manuscripts. Age does not automatically equal faithful. A manuscript can be early and still reflect a localized or corrupted stream. The TR argument is that wide continuous use is a stronger indication of preservation than isolated antiquity.

Fourth, it has no historical ecclesiastical standing. It was not the Bible of the Reformation, missions, creeds, or worship. It’s a modern project designed for readability and study, not a received Bible formed through centuries of church use.

And that brings the theological problem into focus. The idea that the better manuscripts were unknown, unused, or inaccessible to the Church for around 1,500 years implies God allows his people to rely on inferior or partially corrupted texts while keeping the truer text buried and confined to a narrow stream. And for me, that undermines confidence, not only in past translations, but in God’s faithfulness to preserve his Word. In practice, not just in principle. And we should take a pause and actually reflect on what that means to God’s character.

Some of you might ask, well, why not the New King James? You held it so near and dear for so long. You know, a lot of people, like myself for many years, thought that the New King James is basically the King James in a modern English. And if that were true, I’d have a lot less to say here. But sadly, it isn’t. The NKJV does more than update archaic terms. It systematically introduces modern textual scholarship into the reader’s experience, especially through footnotes that give alternative readings from the critical text and the majority text. Some see that as a benefit. However, three things happen because of that.

Number one, it removes the exclusive authority of the TR by placing other textual traditions alongside it in a way that normalizes them.

Two, it repeatedly trains readers to think that the received text is uncertain. Earliest manuscripts omit this. The NU text reads or says this, and so on, even when the verse remains. The psychological effect is that the text feels provisional.

And third, and in many ways most importantly, it smooths language in translation choices, not just spelling or word updates. And that affects doctrinal sharpness. And that should greatly matter to us all. In other words, the KJV presents scripture as a settled text. The NKJV presents scripture as a qualified text. Here is the Word of God, but consider these alternatives. That is not merely linguistic modernization. It’s a shift in how authority is framed. Is the Word of God authoritative? Which Word of God is authoritative? Which manuscript is authoritative? Do you see the problem?

And on top of that, the NKJV is not public domain. It still carries restrictions on how much can be reproduced before copyright issues arise.

I’m not choosing something that’s going to bridge me away from what was already standardized as the received text. You may have heard a little conspiracy theory surrounding the NKJV, which claims that it was intentionally produced as a bridge away from the KJV, designed to be close enough to gain the acceptance of KJV readers, while subtly introducing them to the idea of alternative manuscript traditions.

Voice of interviewer: So tell me now, what is it that happened regarding the new KJV? We’re talking the late 1970s, right? 76, 77?

Preacher: “My dad and then me were friends with the owners of the largest independent Christian bookstore east of the Mississippi. Hackman’s Bible Bookstore. It just went out of business in June. People don’t buy books anymore. Anyway, they sponsored a conference, and they brought in the vice president of some sort. I don’t know what level, but a vice president from Thomas Nelson, in a pre-publication meeting for the new KJV. And they showed us a series of film strips and many lectures, and ultimately came to this decision. Now, it’s been 30, 40 years, so I’m paraphrasing, but being as literal as I can. They said, we’re educators here. There were about 300 teachers, pastors, etc. We’re educators, and we would never admit this to our people, our congregations. But we all know that the King James Bible is an inferior translation coming from inferior manuscripts. But every time we’ve tried to give your people a better Bible, they just refuse to take it. So what we’ve done is we’ve taken the King James Bible, and we’ve revised it as little as we could, changed it here and there. So to give you, and they use the phrase, a transitional bridge to get your people away from the King James Bible, so that ultimately, you can move them to a better, more accurate Bible. And at that point, I’m done looking at King James.”

It was deliberately deceptive. Let’s go to the back cover of the June 1979 issue of Moody Monthly, and you can see it right up there. It says, the New King James Bible. Now look at this. Here’s what they claim now. Isn’t a new translation. It isn’t another version. And then they say this, it is a carefully researched new edition of the King James, in which some of the words, punctuations, and grammars have been changed to make it more accurate and easy to read. That’s what they claimed.

The ad goes on to say this, it restores. Now look at, look at this. I mean how ridiculous. It restores and protects the original intended beauty, authority, and meaning of every verse.

And then it says this, I take offense at this, it makes the King James Bible even better! Now look what happens three years later. It’s a very, very interesting thing, how that three years later, in Moody Monthly, in June of 1982, Moody Monthly ad contradicts the previous ad. In this ad, it is called a version. Now remember, it hadn’t changed, it was just made the King James better. Born again August 2nd, the New King James version, the most significant publishing ever since, event, the most significant publishing event since 1611.

It also says a New King James version faithfully preserves the beauty, inspiration, and authority of God’s Word. Now so many of the people who are involved in the New King James version, you’ll see in a minute they were involved in a lot of the other modern versions, and when we talk about the inspiration, if you say that of the King James Bible, they freak out! But now they’re saying it themselves, the New King James version faithfully preserves the beauty, inspiration, and authority of God’s Word.

On November of 1982, Moody Monthly on page 128 says, the New King James version is a scholarly revision which preserves the lyric beauty authority and originally intended meaning of the 1611 King James version. In fact, the New King James Bible is not simply a revision of the King James Bible, it’s a new version, a new translation.

Manly P. Hall, Occultist: “For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct, but nobody wants it. What’s wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English.”

Dr. Richard Day: In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word, and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized, and then gradually that word replaced with another word. I don’t know if I’m making that clear, but the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words, and the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference, and this was another one of the times where he said the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.

Dr. Lawrence: Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation. He said some of you probably think the churches won’t stand for this, and he went on to say the churches will help us. There is no elaboration on this. It was unclear just what he had in mind when he said the churches will help us. In retrospect, I think some of us now can understand what he might have been at that time.

Jason Breda: By retaining the King James language and overall structure, but including marginal notes that reference majority and critical text readings, the NKJV functions as a transitional tool conditioning readers to eventually accept and adopt other modern translations based on different textual bases. For me, I have decided I do not want a bridge text. I want a Bible that presents the text as settled.

This brings us now to point number three. Isn’t the word Easter in the King James Bible an error? Every other Bible says Passover. Didn’t the King James translation just get this wrong? And there are other examples I could go into, but this one seems to be the most prominent point of contention, and the reason why some people have said they’re not staying with the King James. And this was an issue for me as well. I want a text that I know is right, but like I said before, we need to test that. And I did.

So let’s actually read the passage and see what the text says. Acts 12 tells us that Herod killed James, and when he saw it, it pleased the Jews. He went on to arrest Peter as well. Then the text says very clearly, then were the days of unleavened bread. Peter is arrested during that time, and when Herod puts him in prison, the passage says he intended after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

So the question is simply, is Easter a mistake? To answer that, we have to go back and understand what Passover actually is. In Exodus 12, God lays out the sequence very clearly. On the 10th day of the first month, a lamb is selected. On the 14th day, the lamb is killed and is eaten that night. That night, April 14th, is the Passover. The blood is put on the doorpost, and the death angel passes over Israel.

Then something happens. Beginning the next day, the 15th, the Feast of Unleavened Bread starts. The feast lasts seven days, and during those days, Israel eats unleavened bread as they leave Egypt. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes these two events. Passover is the night. Unleavened bread is the week that follows. Numbers 28 confirms the same order. The 14th day is Passover. The 15th day begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

So here’s the problem for modern translations. Acts 12 explicitly says Peter was arrested during the Days of Unleavened Bread. That means Passover night had already happened! It had to have already happened. The text itself tells you that. So when Acts 12 says Herod intended to bring Peter out after Peshah, which is commonly translated as Passover, it cannot mean after Passover night, because Passover night was already passed, according to the timeline.

So what was Herod waiting for? This is where the King James translators made a distinction that modern versions flatten out. There was a pagan spring festival associated with Ishtar, also called Ashtar or Eshtar and this occurred later in the spring, near the end of April. The timing of that festival was tied to the full moon and the same basic calculations are still used today to determine when Easter falls. Catch that? The festival had nothing to do with the Jewish Passover. It was a pagan celebration tied to fertility, regeneration, and the renewal of the earth. That’s why the symbols are things like eggs and rabbits, fertility symbols.

There is no dispute historically that this was a pagan observance. Herod was not a Jewish king. He ruled over the Jews, correct, but he was a Roman client king with pagan loyalties. He had already shown that he was acting politically, trying to please the Jews by killing James. Now, he’s holding Peter and the text says that he plans to bring him out after something that is still coming. Passover was already gone. The Days of Unleavened Bread were happening now. What was coming next was Herod’s own pagan observance. That’s why the King James Bible says Easter. Fascinating, right?

The claim is not that the Greek word Pasha suddenly means Ishtar linguistically. The claim is that in this context, the event being waited is not the Jewish Passover at all, but a later festival period. The King James translation preserved that distinction instead of automatically translating Pasha as Passover in every instance.

And this wasn’t something they invented. William Tyndale, who coined the English word Passover, did not use that word in Acts 12. In his translation, the idea that Pasha must always be rendered Passover everywhere is a later standardization, a flattening out, not an original rule of English Bible translation.

And so here’s the point. Acts is not an error. It’s a place where the King James translators paid attention to timing, sequence, and context instead of flattening everything into one English word.

Peter was arrested during the Days of Unleavened Bread. Passover was already passed. Herod was waiting for something else. And the King James is the only English Bible that preserves this distinction. (Note: The English Bibles before the KJV such as the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible also say Easter!) And it shows you how the King James translators thought. Not mechanically, not academically detached, but reading the text as a real historical narrative and translating it accordingly.

But what about all those archaic words, right? Now we’re getting into something people constantly misunderstand. Many assume thee, thou, thy, ye are all archaic flourishes, old religious talk that sounds reverent. Historically, that’s wrong.

In early modern English, these pronouns were functional and precise. They carried grammatical information modern English no longer carries. Early modern English had a two-number second-person system. Much like Biblical Hebrew and Greek, thou, thee, and thy is singular, ye, you, your is plural. Modern English collapses that into one word, you, which can mean one person or many people. So modern English creates ambiguity that did not exist in the original language. Did you know this?

The King James translators intentionally preserve that distinction because it maps onto the original languages with high fidelity. This is not about sounding holy. It’s about not losing information.

Luke here is a classic example. Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee. In the King James, the grammar is transparent. You is plural, the disciples, thee is singular, Peter. In most modern translations, the reader sees you in both places and the distinction is gone unless someone explains it.

That’s a significant difference in how easily the English reader can track what was original in the text and what it’s doing. And this isn’t rare. This affects commands to individuals versus commands to community, warnings given to a group versus an addressed specific person, covenant language, especially where blessing and judgments are corporate.

The King James also preserves a type of clarity modern translations often replace with interpretation because once you lose singular plural distinctions, the only way to recover it is a footnote, a commentary, a preacher explaining it, or a study Bible telling you what it really means. The King James frequently puts that information directly in the text.

Now one more point, because people often say, but thou sounds more reverent. Historically, that’s backwards. Thou has the familiar intimate form. You was the formal or plural form. The King James translators didn’t choose thou to sound elevated. They chose it because it was the accurate singular form in their English at that time. So reverence is not the purpose. Fidelity is the purpose. And this fits the broader philosophy I’m defending. Preserve what’s in the original text, even if it requires the reader to learn something, which we should.

Now we get to my number one reason, and it is Christ in prophecy. And I’m keeping it exactly as the driving point. This issue is not always verse deletion. The issue is grammatical and textual designs that weaken messianic focus in subtle ways over time.

Let me give you some examples. Genesis 22, 17, King James says thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies. The New King James says your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. You see, this is not just a modernization. It changes a singular marker to a plural one. Galatians 3, 16 explicitly teaches that the seed is Christ, and the King James preserves a built-in textual pointer, plural imagery, followed by singular conquest. The New King James smooths it out, and the internal signal becomes less visible.

Psalm 110, verse 3, King James says thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. The New King James, your people shall be volunteers. Volunteers is interpretive language. Psalm 110 is massively Christological in the New Testament. Wording that shifts kingship and submission language matters deeply.

Psalm 45, verse 6, King James, thy throne, O God. Many modern translations will say this, your throne is the throne of God. That reframe moves direct address away from the Messiah being called God in the psalm itself. Even if doctrine remains elsewhere, okay? These little subtle things all add up and matter greatly.

Zechariah 12, verse 10, King James, they shall look upon me whom they have pierced. Many modern translations say they shall look upon him. That distances Yahweh from the pierced one and reduces the force of the incarnation pointer that the text is driving to.

Psalm 2, verse 12, King James, kiss the Son. And many modern versions will say kiss his feet or similar. That moves Christology from text into explanation.

Isaiah 53:11, King James, he shall see the travail of his soul. Some modern translations introduce interpretive additions and soften the penal clarity even when not denying atonement. The sharpness is reduced.

Isaiah 7:14, King James, a virgin shall conceive. RSV reads like this, a young woman. That is one of the clearest examples where translation choices affect Christological prophecy directly.

Here is the overarching pattern. The King James often preserves the textual and grammatical signals that point to Christ. While other translations may still allow a Christological reading, they increasingly make the reader depend on external explanation, footnotes, scholarly mediation, cross-references that have to repair what the English text no longer carries plainly.

I want the prophecy itself to be spoken with clarity. I want the text to carry its own witness. That’s the central reason I am moving to the King James. From the ground up, public domain matters, but it isn’t enough by itself. Textual foundation matters more. Translation philosophy matters more than modernization. Grammatical precision matters because meaning lives in details. And above all, Christological clarity matters because Scripture ultimately bears witness of Him. The question we’ve got to ask is, did God preserve His word in the English language? And I think He did.

Now, I’m going to play a quick clip before we close of another channel that has gone into extensive research on the King James Bible, something that’s been very helpful for me. They’ve also produced a website called kjvcompare.com. I would encourage you to check it out. But for now, listen to this quick video.

Speaker from kjvcompare.com: Have you ever looked at a population chart? Have you ever wondered, well, maybe God was intending all these words to come together in such a fashion as this? Now, who exactly is supposed to seek out of this book and read? When it says, seek ye out of the book of the Lord, who is the ye? The ye that this passage is referring to goes all the way back to verse 1 of Isaiah 34. It says, come near ye nations, to hear, and hearken ye people. Let the earth hear, and all that is therein, the world and all things that come forth of it.

The ye that God commands to read from this book is everybody in the earth. All that is therein, the world and all things that come forth of it. If God is telling anybody in the world to read from His book, what book is going to come into their mind first? Even if they’re not a Christian, they’re not saved, when you say, okay, in the Bible it says to seek out of God’s book. What is God’s book? Well, obviously it’s the Bible. What other book is there? And where can they find the Bible? On their bookshelf, at the store, on their phone. Bibles are everywhere.

Now, when these people go to check the Holy Bible, which God has told them to seek out of with His own name on it, will they expect it to be perfect or full of errors if God says it’s His book? You say, well, it could only be perfect in the originals because every translation will have errors.

Does anybody seriously think it’s too hard for God to have His word perfectly available in a future language from when it was originally written? For with God, nothing shall be impossible. If He wills it, who can say otherwise? But our God is in the heavens. He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.

The idea that God’s word can only be perfect in the original tongues is a man-made philosophy. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Truly the author of all language, who knows all things, past, present, and future. For I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them, would have no barrier or obstacle from giving His words so particularly in the original tongues that they would eventually translate into His words of choice in the future tongues.

Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see them, saith the Lord? And for the future world, so that everyone can read from his book. Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith the Lord? Who hath made man’s mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord? And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not. I will lead them in paths that they have not known. I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight.

Most evangelical churches and organizations today have accepted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as supreme truth when it reads, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographic. But the Bible doesn’t say one word about the scriptures being limited to the original languages. The book of the Lord is one book that can be sought out and read from by anybody on earth. And nowhere does it say or indicate this book was actually a series of lost manuscripts. The scriptures nowhere indicate an autographical only doctrine.

Every word of God is pure, incorruptible, and stands forever. The scripture cannot be broken. God cannot lie, and His word will not return unto Him void. With stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people. It doesn’t matter if the whole world believes otherwise. If their view of God directly contradicts His own word, they are simply making their own version of God.

I’m not interested in the God that you have imagined. I’m interested in who He is in reality, who He has revealed Himself to be. The only way I can know that is through His word.

Jason: Very humbling, isn’t it? You see, when it comes to translation, it really does matter. It really does. I don’t want to say that no one can be taught God’s word through other translations. I don’t want to go that far. But I do want to say that if you do want to know which English-speaking translation is the closest, the purest form of the Hebrew and the Greek, which is what we should all be striving for, to find and to know, I now firmly believe through extensive research that is the King James Version.

I don’t want footnotes telling me how to understand things that were taken out. I don’t want scholarly reconstructions of things. I’m not looking for a bridge text. I’m not looking for a continually revised one either. I’m looking for a Bible text that treats the word of God as something given, preserved, and handed down, not perpetually reconstructed.

That decision has also directed implications for my own work, many of you know, because I am persuaded that the biblical text should be received rather than re-engineered. That I no longer believe that my role is to present an alternative English text alongside Scripture as though it carries parallel authority.

And for that reason, a conviction has come over me. I am shifting what was previously the CMV, the Covenant Maker Version, from an annotated parallel text into a commentary. So going forward, it will be the CMC, the Covenant Maker Commentary Series. And that change is intentional. It draws a clear line between biblical text and my explanatory work and notes. The Scripture stands on its own as Scripture. My role is to explain, defend, and clarify it. Not to compete with it or subtly replace it with other renderings. And I feel convicted on this now.

So the CMC will function as what it should have been all along. A commentary that serves the text rather than a parallel text that risks standing beside it. That ultimately is the same principle at work in this entire discussion.

Everyone that has already downloaded the CMV translation will get an update to the CMC commentary notes on the book of Galatians with the King James as its foundational text. Authority belongs to the received Word, not to the tools built around it. And with that, I leave you with your thoughts and comments on all of this.

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, brothers and sisters. God is doing great things, and our role is to submit to His ways, not stand against them. Let’s read with humble hearts and passion for the truth.

As we continue to press through and to press on, I’m telling you, we need to test everything. That’s why I’m so encouraged by some of you that you’re wrestling with these things. We need to wrestle with it. We need to study to show ourselves approved. That is what we’re called to do. May you go in the grace and the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ and go and be a good Berean.

Take care. God bless. Thank you so much.