Why is there a new church, "Brassfield Baptist Church", when there are several Baptist churches already in the neighborhood? Why a new church?

There are several reasons for a new church, but one main reason in particular. We are a "Bible Believing Baptist" church. You might say, "So are we! We believe the Bible!" Which book, I ask, are you calling a Bible? When you say Bible, are you referring to the NIV, ASV, NKJB, NASB, RV, NSRV, RV, REV, NWT, NAB or KJB, or is it some other book?

Is it the New King James Bible, (NKJB)? That is a strange name for a so called "Bible", when it has absolutely nothing to do with the King James Bible, (KJB). It is not a revision of the KJB, rather it is the Revised Standard Version of the National Council of Churches, reinstated with readings from the New American Standard Version and the American Standard Version, by mixing both of them in with the readings of the King James Bible. They lied.

If you say the "New International Version" or (NIV), then you have a big problem, because the NIV is not a Bible, and we can prove it. Furthermore, we have the courage to make a stand, and back up this stand. The NIV is the one that is being pushed by the Southern Baptist and many others, therefore this writing will be a short presentation concerning this book that many preachers are trying to present as a Bible. Why would they do this? Is it due to lack of knowledge; believing what they were taught rather than the available, researchable facts; ignorance; or is it their income?

Before we give you part one in proving this claim, let me ask you one simple question. What if you have one hundred pounds of the best grade hamburger, but you add only five pounds of rat poison to this choice meat? It's good hamburger, isn't it? What happens if you eat it, or feed it to your family? Would it be a sure death to you and your family?

This is what you have with the NIV. It has some ?? good. To start with, let me show you what they have taken out of the Word of God. In the NIV, the word "Lucifer" is taken out, and guess what he's called instead? In the NIV, he is referred to as Jesus. That's just a small portion of poison. Right? But are you still willing to feed this to your family? Or maybe take just a little for yourself? Just a little good with the bad, I suppose. Some of your preachers are sure willing to do so.

In the King James Bible:

Isaiah 14:12

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!     (Capitalization added for emphasis)

The NIV substitutes the word "LUCIFER" with the words "MORNING STAR".

Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the "MORNING STAR". The King James Bible never gives this title to anyone else.

Want more? When Philip is talking to the Ethiopian in acts chapter 8:36, the Ethiopian asks Philip, "what doth hinder me to be baptized?" In verse 37, the Ethiopian says, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." In the NIV, that entire last statement is removed. Just a little more spiritual poison. The NIV is loaded with these types of dangerous changes. There's more than just five pounds of poison in the NIV, and it will kill you spiritually.

Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin? According to the King James Bible, it is unquestionably referred to as "sin". But did you know that one of the women responsible for the "wording" of he NIV was a lesbian? Did you know that the references to homosexuality have been watered down, and the actual terminologies for homosexuality have been changed by the lesbian.

The NIV is dishonest. Within the manuscripts of the NIV are many other books called the apocrypha. Yet these books are never printed in this "so called" Bible. Why? The law and the prophets were until John, according to the Bible. The books of the apocrypha are not a part of the "law" or the "prophets", but were written between the time of the law and the prophets, therefore not a legal part of the Word of God.

The NIV was "manufactured" from less than 3% of the available manuscripts, specifically, the Siniaticus and Vaticanus. The Siniaticus was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt Sinai. Both manuscripts contain the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 through 46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:4. If you have ever read Hebrews chapter 10, you would know why. It also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as part of the New Testament. (The Shepherd of Hermas says to "Take the Mark"). The Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7, and many more.

It is believed that the Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text, (over 97% of existing manuscripts), from which the KJB came from, they also differ from each other, and the Vaticanus and Siniaticus are believed to be written by the same person.

According to the book "Fighting Back" by James L. Melton, (James Melton website)

    "When someone says that the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Remenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts."

Who introduced these manuscripts to the world as being legitimate? The two men who legitimized these two perverted manuscripts were Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). These were two English "so called scholars" who PRODUCED these two corrupt Greek texts that the NIV comes from.

Here are some facts about these two men. Neither man openly professed that their faith was in Jesus Christ for salvation. Westcott believed in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship. Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments, and believed in baptismal regeneration as taught by the Roman Catholic institution. He rejected the Scripture as being infallible, but was interested in the woks of Charles Darwin. Both Westcott and Hort did not believe in the literal account of Creation. Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven. Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory. Hort did not believe in the Trinity or in angels. Westcott openly confessed to being a communist by nature, and Hort "hated" democracy in all it's forms. Westcott was a liquor drinker and even after revising the "bible", was a spokesman for a brewery.

While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils," that is, they took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called he Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (what the Bible calls necromancy).

The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee. The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years. The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.

The NIV came from these two men. Does this sound like an honest work of God? Or does this sound like a dishonest work of the Devil?

Why a new church in the neighborhood? There's poison in the land, and we thought you might want to know. We're here for those who want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Psalm 12:6-7. The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. THOU SHALT KEEP THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.