David Cloud in discussing the theological
implications of a footnote in the 1901 American
Standard Version made the following statement:
|
“A footnote in the 1901 American Standard Version at John
9:38 illustrates the perverted theology of
its translators. This verse says the blind
man who was healed by the Lord Jesus Christ
“worshiped him”. The Bible plainly says
that God and God alone is to be worshiped
(Exodus 20:3–5). Thus the fact that Christ
received worship clearly proves that he is
God. Note the clever way the American
revisers attempted to overthrow the teaching
of this verse with their wicked footnote:
“The Greek word denotes an act of reverence,
whether paid to a creature (as here) or to
the creator”. I cite this from an edition
of the 1901 American Standard Version which
I have in my library.”4 |
David Cloud in discussing the Revised Standard
Version had the following comment:
|
“Not only did the Revised Standard Version translators base
their work up on the critical Greek text,
they introduced many liberal readings of
their own. When Revised Standard Version
was published, the chairman of the
translation committee, Luther Weigle, stated
that the use of THEE, THOU , and THINE had
been restricted to the address of deity.
This was a testimony to the fact that the
revisers did not believe Jesus Christ is
God, because they never addressed him with
these terms in their version.”5 |
In discussing the footnotes and marginal notes
of the American Standard Version Peter Ruckman
wrote:
|
“In the footnotes and marginal notes of the American
Standard Version (1901) will be found the
textual readings of the Revised Standard
Version(1952)! Out of 5,788 departures from
the Greek texts of the Receptus, that
American Standard Version displays at least
forty omissions which deal with the Virgin
Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, the Deity of
Christ, or the authority of Jesus Christ.
among these, the student should study
Matthew 19:19, 20:22,23:14, 28:17;Mark
6:11,9:24,13:14, 10:21,11:26;Luke 2:33, 4:4,
4:8,4:41, 23:38; John 1:14,1:27, 3:15,4:42,
9:35;Acts 1:3,8:37;etc., etc.”6 |
In comparing the King James Version and the
Inclusive Language New International Version in
Psalm 34:20 Ian Paisley made the following
observation:
|
King James Bible Psalm 34:20: “He keepeth all his bones: not
one of them is broken”. Inclusive language
New International Version Psalm 34:20: “He
protects all their bones, not one of them
will be broken”. This translation corrupts
a key prophetic passage. Psalm 34:20 refers
to Christ and the fact that his bones were
not broken on the cross. John 19:32–36 was
a direct fulfillment of Psalm 34:20. The
Inclusive Language New International Version
changes the singular masculine pronoun “he
has” to the plural pronoun “their”, thereby
destroying its prophetic significance.7 |
In comparing the reverent language of the
Authorized Version to the irreverent language of the
Living Bible Ian Paisley notes:
|
“Compare Saul’s attack on his son Jonathan in I Samuel 20:30
as it was first translated in the Living
Bible, (so-called) “you son of a bitch” to
the Authorized Version’s “son of the
perverse rebellious woman”, which by the way
is admitted in the most recent edition of
the Living Bible as the literal rendering.
Further, compare the Living Bible
translation of the Elijah’s mocking of the
prophets of Baal and I Kings 18:27 “else he
is sitting on the toilet” (this is both
inaccurate and ugly) to the Authorized
versions “he is pursuing”. Moreover, it is
what the original Hebrew says.8 |
In discussing the attacks on the deity of the
Lord Jesus Christ in the modern English versions of
the Bible, Ian Paisley had this to say concerning
the New English Bible:
|
The Authorized Version universally uses “thee” and “thou”
whether these pronouns are used of God or of
man. If the translators of the new English
Bible are going to be consistent they would
use “you” and “yours” all through their
translation. For some reason they have
retained “thee” and “thou” in the passages
where God is referred to, and “you” and “
yours” elsewhere. For example, in the book
of Revelation, chapter 11:17, God is
addressed in the New English Bible thus: “we
give the thanks, O Lord God, sovereign over
all, who art and who wast, because thou hast
taken thy great power into thy hands and
entered upon thy reign”. Notice the pronoun
“thou” used concerning Deity. Never
however, in the Gospels in the New English
Bible is “thee” or “thou” used of our Lord
Jesus Christ. They consistently reject the
Deity of the son of God. For example, in
Matthew 16:16 the great confession of Peter
in Caesarea-Philippi is changed to read:
“You are the Messiah”. Here again Christ to
the New English Bible translators is just a
man. This distinction of pronouns is
unwarranted and is a subtle act to separate
Jesus Christ from God, an act which is an
entire contradiction of the scriptures.9 |
Peter Ruckman identified the following major
problems in the New English Bible:
1. Deity of Christ attacked in Romans 9:5;1 Timothy 3:16;1
Corinthians 15:47; Matthew 9:2; Matthew
2:11(note the removal of all “worship”in the
last reference); Matthew 9:18,14:32–33; Mark
5:6; Matthew 20:20 (“worship” has been
removed again – though it is in ALL Greek
manuscripts).
2. The virgin birth of Christ is attacked in
Luke 1:26–27, 2:33; Matthew 1:25.
3. The Sinlessness of Christ questioned in
John 14:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21(note the
wording).
4. The Blood Atonement is denied in 1 John
2:2 and 1 John 4:10 (note substitution of
“remedy” for “propitiation”), 1 Peter 4:1.
5. Resurrection and Ascension questioned in
Luke 24:3, 6, 12, 51–52 (see these “Western
omissions”under note E, Chapter Seven”.
6. A return to the corrupt American
Standard Version of 1901 by mistranslating 2
Timothy 3:16 and placing the verb in the
wrong place. (They placed it in the right
place in Romans 7:12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 2
Corinthians 10:10; and 1 Timothy 1:15, but
they had a little “neutral trouble” in
approaching 2 Timothy 3:16 “neutrally”).
7. The miracle at Calvary was an eclipse
(Luke 23:44) which the Naval Observatory has
never been able to locate!
8. The Roman reading of the Douay Version is
found in Matthew 16:18 and in John 1:42.
9. The director of the translating committee
is C.H. Dodd. He is about as conservative as
Elvis Presley.” 10 |
Edward F. Hills in a brief evaluation of the NEB and
the Revised Standard Version stated:
The modernism of the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. appears
everywhere in them. For example, both of
them profess to use thou when referring to
God and you when referring to men. Yet the
disciples are made to use you when speaking
to Jesus, implying, evidently, that they did
not believe that He was divine. Even when
they confess Him to be the Son of God, the
disciples are still made to use you. You are
the Christ, Peter is made to say, the Son of
the living God (Matt.16:16). In both the
R.S.V. and the N.E.B. opposition to the
virgin birth of Christ is plainly evident.
Thus the N.E.B. calls Mary a girl (Luke
1:27) rather than a virgin, and at Matt.
1:16 the N.E.B. and some editions of the
R.S.V. include in a footnote a reading found
only in the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript which
states that Joseph was the father of Jesus.
The N.E.B. exhibits all too plainly a
special hostility to the deity of Christ.
This is seen in the way in which the Greek
word proskyneo is translated. When it is
applied to God, the N.E.B. always translates
it worship, but when it is applied to Jesus,
the N.E.B. persistently translates it pay
homage or bow low. Thus the translators
refuse to admit that Jesus was worshipped by
the early Church. Even the Old Testament
quotation, Let all the angels of God worship
Him (Heb.1:6), is rendered by the N.E.B.,
Let all the angels of God pay him homage.
The only passage in which proskyneo is
translated worship when applied to Jesus is
in Luke 24:52. But here this clause is
placed in a footnote as a late variant
reading. By using the word worship here
these modernistic translators give
expression to their belief that the worship
of Jesus was a late development which took
place in the Church only after the true New
Testament text had been written.11 |
The NEB is the New English Bible. The RSV is the
Revised Standard Version.
Jack Moorman’s in depth collation of the New
American Standard Bible, New International Version,
New Revised Standard Version, and Revised Standard
Version reveled the following:
|
The Name “Jesus” is frequently disassociated from the titles
“Lord” and “Christ.” Whereas in the AV we
will read “Jesus Christ” or the “Lord Jesus
Christ,” in the Modern Versions “Jesus” is
often made to stand alone or not at all. ln
fact, our Savior’s full title “Lord Jesus
Christ” is found 84 times in 81 verses in
the AV and only 60 times in 60 verses in the
New International Version, 62 times in 62
verses in the New Revised Standard Version,
and 63 times in 63 verses in the Revised
Standard Version. A noticeable difference is
clearly apparent! 12 |
Jack Moorman documents the following names of
Christ as being missing in the New American Standard
Version (New American Standard Bible) and the New
International Version:11
|
Name |
New
American Standard Version |
New
International Version |
|
Jesus |
73 |
36 |
|
Christ |
43 |
44 |
|
Lord |
35 |
35 |
|
God |
33 |
31 |
|
Other Names |
30 |
30 |
Total Missing Names
|
214 |
176 |
The New American Standard Bible (NASB, New
American Standard Version) alters the King James
Bible text in over 36,000 places. The New American
Standard Bible also refers to the Lord Jesus Christ
as an “only begotten God” in John 1:18. The New
American Standard Bible omits the word “Son” in John
1:18 which denies the eternality of the Lord Jesus
Christ by making him a “begotten God”. This want,
or habit, of breaking apart the names and titles of
the Lord Jesus Christ is connected to an ancient
heresy called adoptionism. It also has Gnosticism
as its bedfellow. Gnosticism is a system of
worshipping and exalting man’s knowledge. Jack
Moorman says of this heresy:
“This separation of “Jesus” from “Christ” occurs
far too often to look for any cause other than
deliberate editing in certain N.T. manuscripts. That
there was a strong movement in the early centuries
which could result in such a systematic editing,
there can be no doubt! The foremost error regarding
the Person of Christ, is of course, to deny His true
Deity and true Humanity. The chief means by which
this was done, and which finds expression down to
our own day, is technically known as “Adoptionism”
or “Spirit Christology.” The heresy follows this
line of reasoning: Jesus of Nazareth, an ordinary
man of unusual virtue, was “adopted” by God into
divine Sonship by the advent of the “Christ-Spirit”
at His baptism. Therefore, Jesus became Christ at
His baptism, rather than, the fact that He was
always the Christ from eternity. And though united
for a time, Jesus and Christ were separate
personages. Many names and groups are associated
with this wicked teaching, foremost of whom were the
Gnostics...This terrible heresy has found expression
in a number of ways down through the centuries, and
it has been given a new lease on life through the
Modern Versions. This then is the Dark Secret!”14
Jack Moorman also identifies an additional 169
passages where words and whole phrases are missing
from the New International Version, most other
modern English translations, and most foreign
language translations.15 This is because
they are missing in the Greek text upon which these
versions are based. Many “fundamental” pastors,
evangelists, and preachers think that the New
International Version is the product of so-called
“conservative” scholarship. For those of you who
may think that the New International Version is not
so bad, please consider the following information
put forth by Grady:
“In his book, God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper Ray compared
45 Bible versions against 162 test
scriptures to determine how many times a
departure from the Textus Receptus had
occurred. The results of his study were
enlightening. Whereas the Douay Version
(Catholic) show changes in 75 of these
verses; The Living New Testament, 114; the
Revised Version, 135; the American Standard
Version, 135; Good News for Modern Man, 145;
and the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World
translation, 145, – the New International
Version (success story of Wall Street) was
declared guilty in 160 out of a possible 162
verses for a 98.7% departure factor!16
“The following whole verses have been
omitted from the New International Version
text: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark
7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36,
23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7,
28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7. The New
International Version has taken away at
least part of the following 147 versus:
Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 15:6, 8; 19:9; 20:7, 16,
22, 23; 25:13; 27:35; 28:9; Mark 1:42; 6:11,
33; 7:8; 8:26; 9:38, 45, 49; 10:21, 24;
11:8, 10, 23; 12:23, 29, 30, 33; 13:14;
14:19, 27, 68, 70; Luke 1:28; 4:4, 8, 18;
5:38; 7:31; 8:43, 45, 48, 54; 9:54, 55, 56;
11:2, 4, 11, 44, 54; 17:9; 18:24; 19:45;
20:23, 30; 22:64, 68; 23:23, 38; 24:1, 42;
John 1:27; 3:13, 15; 5:3, 16; 6:11, 22, 47;
8:9, 10, 59; 10:26; 11:41; 12:1; 16:16;
17:12; 19:16; Acts 2:30; 7:37; 9:5, 6; 10:6,
21, 32; 13:42; 15:18, 24; 18:21; 20:15;
21:8, 22, 25; 23:9; 24:6, 8, 26; 26:30;
28:16; Romans 8:1; 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9;
14:6, 21; 15:24; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:28;
11:24; Galatians 3:1; Ephesians 3:4; 5:30;
Philippians 3:16; Colossians 1:2, 14; 3:6; 1
Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:3; 6:5, 7;
Hebrews 2:7; 3:6; 7:21; 8:12; 10:30; 11:11,
13; 12:20; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 John 4:3; 5:13;
Revelation 1:8, 11; 5:14; 11:1, 17; 14:5;
15:2; 21:24.”17
|
“The New International Version has 64,098 less
words than the King James Bible.”
“In Exodus 3:14, the New International Version
changes “”I AM THAT AM” to “I AM WHO I AM”.”19
“The New International Version changes the word
science to knowledge in 1 Timothy 6:20, deleting the
Bible’s only clear warning against false science.”20
“The New International Version makes a big
blunder in Mark 1:2 when they replace the King James
Bible word “prophets” with the New International
Version phrase “Isaiah the prophet”. Verse 2 does
not contain a quote from Isaiah. The quote is from
Malachi 3:1 with Mark 1:3 being quoted from Isaiah
40:3. Thus the King James Bible rendering “prophets”
is correct.”21
“The New International Version altered the most
important reference to Bible preservation by
changing the King James Bible phrase “thou shall
keep them” to you will keep us safe”. The King
James Bible phrase “thou shalt keep them” refers to
God’s words; not to God’s people.”22
“The New International Version altered the
meaning of Psalm 138:2 by changing the King James
Bible reading from “thou hast magnified thy word
above all thy name” to, “for you have exalted above
all things your name and your word”.”23
The New International Version and other perversions
have mounted a major attack upon the deity,
eternality, and name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The
“name which is above every name” is removed in the
following passages:
|
“Matthew 8:29; 13:36; 15:30; 16:20; 17:11, 20; 18:2; 24:2;
Mark 5:13; 6:34; 11:14; Luke 7:22; John
4:16, 46; 8:20; Acts 3:36; 9:29; 19:10;
Romans 1:16; 15:8; 16:18; 1 Corinthians 5:5;
16:22; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 5:18; Galatians
6:15; Ephesians 3:9, 14; Colossians 1:2, 28;
2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon 6 and 1Peter 5:10,
14.”24 |
The New International Version attacks the deity
of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 9:35 when they
changed the King James Version reading from “dost
thou believe on the son of God” to “do you believe
in the son of man”.25
One of the most serious blunders of the New
International Version was changing the King James
Bible rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 from “God was
manifest in the flesh” to “He appeared in body”.26
The question we would ask is, who is he. The New
International Version denied that he eternality of
Christ when they changed Micah 5:2 from the King
James Bible reading. The King James Bible reads:
“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall
he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting.” The New International Version reads:
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small
among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for
me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins
are from of old, from ancient times.”27
The key word in the New International Version is
“origins” which leaves the impression that the Lord
Jesus Christ had a beginning, or an origin. The
Lord Jesus Christ has no beginning and no end. The
New International Version makes the Lord Jesus
Christ a sinner by omitting the King James Bible
phrase “without a cause” from Matthew 5:22.28
The New International Version also removed hell
from 40 out of the 53 places that it is found in the
King James Version.29
“The New International Version, in its determination to do
away with words that might not be easily
understood by modern readers, has changed
one final word from the generally accepted
translations of that word to one that fits
in well with modern thought. For centuries
sheol has meant either the physical grave
(or death), or ‘hell’ as the abode of the
dead. The New International Version clings
to that first meaning, but never translates
sheol as hell. Thus, “The wicked shall be
turned into hell” is changed to “The wicked
return to the grave” (Psalm 9.17). God’s
omnipresence comes into doubt when “if I
make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there”
becomes “if I make my bed in the depths”
(Psalm 139.8). His omniscience is limited
when His perfection as high as heaven,
“deeper than hell” becomes “deeper than the
depths of the grave” (Job 11.7-8).
Probably the worst effect of limiting sheol
to the grave is the heresy the idea
supports. In recent years not only liberals
but also those who would consider themselves
conservatives have accepted the belief that
hell does not exist, that at death is the
grave (in which the soul is not conscious of
pleasure or pain but merely sleeps) and then
either eternal reward or annihilation. The
belief has become so prevalent (and is so
inviting – every Christian knows at least
one person who has gone to a Christless
grave), that even John Stott has voiced
doubt regarding the historical Christian
view of eternity. The New International
Version does nothing to direct its readers
– saved and unsaved – to a correct
understanding of eternity for the unsaved.
In the New International Version, even
Lucifer, son of the morning, has been denied
eternal punishment. No longer will he “be
brought down to hell,” but instead will be
“brought down to the grave” (Isaiah 14.15),
to be with wicked Capernaum in “the depths”
(Matthew 11.23) as long as the depths and
grave shall last.” 30 |
The changes in the New International Version
have not only been radical changes that take away
from the doctrines of the Bible, but those changes
have been huge in number. “The OLD New
International Version has changed and altered the
Hebrew and Greek words in over 6,653 places
according to D.A. Waite’s study.31 The
new editions of the New International Version
continue the changes at an unabated pace even
seeking to be politically correct.
The New International Version Inclusive Language
Edition is one of several recent “Bibles” that have
gone to gender neutral language. Some of these
changes actually change Bible prophecy in the
interest of being politically correct. When
translating the Bible, it is not a question of what
I want it to say, but rather a question of what does
the text say. The Bible is most definitely NOT
politically correct in its language. The Bible must
not be made to conform to a feminist agenda. When
we blur the line between genders, we blur the line
of authority that God has established in both the
home and in the church. When we blur the line
between gender, we blur the line between
heterosexuality and homosexuality. When we blur the
line between gender, we have people like the lesbian
Virginia Mollenkott referring to God as “she”.
Satan’s agenda is to get enough radical feminists
and homosexuals agitating for God to be called “she”
that they can force a compromise in the middle that
leads to God being called “THE ONE”(the Luciferian
god of the pagans). In evaluating the general
character of the changes in the New International
Version Inclusive Language Edition, D.A. Waite cited
136 examples of gender neutral language. These 136
examples are but a tiny portion of the changes that
have been made in this perversion. This feminist
manifesto changes “man” to “human beings” in Genesis
1:26; changes “Adam” to “human beings” in Genesis
5:2; changes “men of war” to “soldiers” in Numbers
32:28; alters “craftsmen” to “skilled workers” in 2
Kings 24:14; alters “men” to “those” [It still does
not change the fact that it was men who were
performing this ministry in the Temple]; changes
“his” to ‘their” in Psalms 34:20 [this destroys the
prophetic reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in
Psalm 34:20]; alters “man” to “one” in John 5:5;
changes “man” to “child” in John 7:22 [This change
is outrageously ridiculous when you consider that
circumcision is only for men. This change might
help the covenant theologians who try to equate
baptism in the New Testament to circumcision in the
Old Testament!); changes “man” to “person” in John
18:14 [This deletes the specific prophecy of the
coming sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for all
men.].32 Consider this statement from
THE BIBLE:
1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Bible)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; |
Now consider this perversion of the words of
scripture:
1 Timothy 2:5 (NI-VILE)
For there is one God and one mediator
between God and human beings, the Christ
Jesus, himself human. |
Notice how cleverly the New International Version
Inclusive Language Edition dropped the word “man’
and chopped the sentence up so much that it sounds
worse than a car without a muffler running on four
or five cylinders. What an abomination!. Waite
goes on to document 32 instances where the King
James Bible word “brethren” is changed to “brothers
and sisters”.33 Even the liberal Southern
Baptists balked at this perversion. They would
rather walk with their little demon, the New
International Version, because it gives them some
spiritually blind claim to being “conservative” and
“fundamental”. D. A. Waite quotes Dr. Gruden, an
advocate of the “OLD New International Version”, as
saying:
|
“For example, the generic use of ‘he-him-his’ has
consistently been changed to ‘we’ or ‘you’
or ‘they’. The result is that whenever
readers of this inclusive language New
International Version read the words ‘we’
and ‘you’ and ‘they’,
they will never know whether what they are
reading is what God originally cause his
Word to say, or what the translators have
decided what his Word should say instead.
In hundreds and probably thousands of
places, readers will never know whether
these are the words of God or the words of
man. “Such revisions are not the words God
originally caused to be written, and thus
they are not the words of God. They are
human words that men have substituted for
the words of God, and they have no place in
the Bible. [World, April 19, 1997 p.
18] 34 |
What hypocrisy and yet, what truth!! The very same
charges can be laid to the old New International
Version. The underlined bold emphasis in the above
quote was that of brother Waite.
The language of the New International Version in
certain places , like its rival The Living Bible,
leaves a lot to be desired and can plant unclean
thoughts in the minds of Christians. Observe the
following quote:
“The daily newspaper is full of accounts of the sins of men,
and often people (even Christians) will read
lengthy articles looking for a few more
details of what happened. This is
understandable with the unsaved man; his
natural tendency is to progress further into
sin, and the more decadent the better. The
Christian, however, is admonished to be
transformed by the renewing of the mind, a
transformation accomplished by the Holy
Spirit through the Word of God. The original
writers sought to aid in this. Rather than
detailing the sins of men, they spoke of
men’s sins euphemistically. In Judges 19,
the old man of Gibeah who invited the Levite
into the protection of his home was ordered
by the wicked of the city to “Bring forth
the man ... that we may know him” (v22).
When the Levite’s concubine (a term in
itself that could, and today usually is, put
in more explicit words) was instead put out
of the house, she was “abused” (v25) until
she died. Ezekiel 23.20 is more specific,
but the Hebrew still speaks of “the flesh of
asses” and the “issue” (literally
“scattering seed”, whether in begetting
children or planting crops) of horses rather
than using more vivid terminology. Most
translations follow the original authors by
either translating literally or using
euphemisms which express the idea of what
happened without putting impure thoughts or
pictures into the minds of readers, and
without contributing to man’s tendency
toward sin.
The New International Version, however, uses
detailed language – language inappropriate
for this paper and certainly out of place in
a Book whose Author desires the transforming
of the mind to His standards. It is doubtful
that the descriptive language used in the
New International Version, particularly that
mentioned above, would be used in family
publications. It could certainly not be read
to a child, and would only cause the mind of
an unbeliever to stray away from the message
of the scriptures. Modernising the Bible is
one thing; vulgarising it is uncalled for.”35
|
Do not be deceived. Just because a Bible has
the letters KJV or the words King James Version in
its title does not necessarily mean they are King
James Bibles. If it is not a 1611 Authorized King
James Version, it is not a King James Bible.
Take a look at the Bibles mentioned in this
paragraph. Many have the name King James Bible in
their titles, but they are NOT 1611 Authorized King
James Versions. The New Scofield Reference Bible
(NSRB) claims to use the King James text, but it is
NOT. The KJV-ER also is NOT a King James Bible!
The As Good As New Version is probably the most
perverted and wicked English translation to date. I
quote David Cloud from the Friday Church News Notes
for August 27, 2004:
|
“Dr. Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury,
has come out in strong support of a new
Bible translation that encourages
fornication. The “As Good as New” version of
1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 8-9 says: “Some of you
think the best way to cope with sex is for
men and women to keep right away from each
other. That is more likely to lead to sexual
offences. My advice is for everyone to have
a regular partner. ... There’s nothing wrong
with remaining single, like me. But if you
know you have strong needs, get yourself a
partner. Better than being frustrated.”
Thus, this Bible says that what the world
really needs are more regular sexual
partners. This version replaces demon
possession with mental illness, calls the
apostle Peter “Rocky,” changes “Son of Man”
to “the Complete Person,” and otherwise
boldly perverts the Word of God. “As Good As
New” is advertised as “women, gay, and
sinner friendly.” |
God have mercy! What kind of perverted trash will
they publish as a “Bible” next? The Holy Bible says
in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2,8-9:
1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (King James Bible)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote
unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a
woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication,
let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (King James Bible)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and
widows, It is good for them if they abide
even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let
them marry: for it is better to marry than
to burn.
|
FRANK LOGSDON'S
REPUDIATION
OF HIS SUPPORT FOR THE NASB
What is to follow is an extensive quote from one of
the organizers of the New American Standard Bible.
His name was Frank Logsdon. Frank Logsdon was a
pastor and very good Bible teacher who was overtaken
by the deceit of new version advocates and his lack
of knowledge in the area of Bible texts. Logsdon
was taken in because he took some things for
granted. The following lengthy quote expresses
Logsdon’s sincere regrets and repentance at having
been involved in the translation project for the New
American Standard Version (New American Standard
Bible). Logsdon said:
THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
|
Back in 1956-57 Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman
Foundation [contacted me. He was] one of the
dearest friends we’ve ever had for 25 years,
a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair,
one of the most terrific businessmen I have
ever met. I always said he was like
Nehemiah; he was building a wall. You
couldn’t get in his way when he had his mind
on something; he went right to it; he
couldn’t be daunted. I never saw anything
like it; most unusual man. I spent weeks and
weeks and weeks in their home, real close
friends of the family.
Well, he discovered that the copyright
[on the American Standard Version of 1901]
was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a
football field. Nobody wanted it. The
publishers didn’t want it. It didn’t get
anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me
and said, “Would you and Ann come out and
spend some weeks with us, and we’ll work on
a feasibility report; I can pick up the
copyright to the 1901 if it seems
advisable.”
Well, up to that time I thought the
Westcott and Hort was the text. You were
intelligent if you believed the Westcott and
Hort. Some of the finest people in the world
believe in that Greek text, the finest
leaders that we have today. You’d be
surprised; if I told you, you wouldn’t
believe it. They haven’t gone into it just
as I hadn’t gone into it; [they’re] just
taking it for granted.
At any rate we went out and started on a
feasibility report, and I encouraged him to
go ahead with it. I’m afraid I’m in trouble
with the Lord, because I encouraged him to
go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I
wrote the format; I helped to interview some
of the translators; I sat with the
translators; I wrote the preface. When you
see the preface to the New American
Standard, those are my words.
I got one of the fifty deluxe copies
which were printed; mine was number seven,
with a light blue cover. But it was rather
big and I couldn’t carry it with me, and I
never really looked at it. I just took for
granted that it was done as we started it,
you know, until some of my friends across
the country began to learn that I had some
part in it and they started saying, “What
about this; what about that?”
Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids
[Michigan]. I’ve known him for 35 years, and
he would say (he would call me Frank; I’d
call him Duke), “Frank, what about this? You
had a part in it; what about this; what
about that?” And at first I thought, Now,
wait a minute; let’s don’t go overboard;
let’s don’t be too critical. You know how
you justify yourself the last minute.
But I finally got to the place where I
said, “Ann, I’m in trouble; I can’t refute
these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly
wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I
going to do about it?” Well, I went through
some real soul searching for about four
months, and I sat down and wrote one of the
most difficult letters of my life, I think.
I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said,
“Dewey, I don’t want to add to your
problems,” (he had lost his wife some three
years before; I was there for the funeral;
also a doctor had made a mistake in
operating on a cataract and he had lost the
sight of one eye and had to have an
operation on the other one; he had a slight
heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man
seventy- four years of age) “but I can no
longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing
and I can’t refute them. The only thing I
can do--and dear Brother, I haven’t a thing
against you and I can witness at the
judgment of Christ and before men wherever I
go that you were 100% sincere,” (he wasn’t
schooled in language or anything; he was
just a business man; he did it for money; he
did it conscientiously; he wanted it
absolutely right and he thought it was
right; I guess nobody pointed out some of
these things to him) “I must under God
renounce every attachment to the New
American Standard.”
I have a copy of the letter. I have his
letter. I’ve shown it to some people. The
Roberts saw it; Mike saw it. He stated that
he was bowled over; he was shocked beyond
words. He said that was putting it mildly,
but he said, “I will write you in three
weeks, and I still love you. To me you’re
going to be Franklin, my friend, throughout
the course.” And he said, “I’ll write you in
three weeks.”
But he won’t write me now. He was to be
married. He sent an invitation to come to
the reception. Standing in the courtroom, in
the county court by the desk, the clerk
said, “What is your full name, Sir?” And he
said, “Franklin Dewey...” And that is the
last word he spoke on this earth. So he was
buried two days before he was supposed to be
married, and he’s with the Lord. And he
loves the Lord. He knows different now.
I tell you, dear people, somebody is
going to have to stand. If you must stand
against everyone else, stand. Don’t get
obnoxious; don’t argue. There’s no sense in
arguing.
But nevertheless, that’s where the New
American stands in connection with the
Authorized Version.
I just jotted down what these versions,
translations, and paraphrases are doing.
Consider:
One, they cause widespread confusion,
because everywhere we go people say, What do
you think of this; what do you think of
that? What do young people think when they
hear all of that?
Two, they discourage memorization. Who’s
going to memorize when each one has a
different Bible, a different translation?
Three, they obviate the use of a
concordance. Where are you going to find a
concordance for the Good News for Modern Man
and all these others? You aren’t going to
find one. We’re going to have a concordance
for every one; you’re going to have to have
a lot of concordances.
Four, they provide opportunity for
perverting the truth. There are all these
translations and versions, each one trying
to get a little different slant from the
others. They must make it different, because
if it isn’t different why have a new
version? It makes a marvelous opportunity
for the devil to slip in his perverting
influence.
Five, these many translations make
teaching of the Bible difficult. And I’m
finding that more and more as I go around
the country. I mentioned this thing the
other night. How could a mathematics
professor or instructor teach a certain
problem in a class if the class had six or
eight different textbooks? How about that?
How could you do it?
Six, they elicit profitless
argumentation. Because everywhere we go they
say this one is more accurate. Which one is
more accurate? How do they know? And this is
not a reflection against those saying this,
because I would have done this a few years
ago.
Lest I forget, in one of these questions
somebody said, “How can we know that we have
the whole truth?” Well, just simply by
believing God. And what do I mean by that?
John 16:13--“When he the Spirit of Truth is
come he will guide you into” how much? Tell
me. Tell me, now. “All truth.” And if we
don’t have all truth, the Holy Spirit isn’t
doing His work. We have to have all truth
for Him to lead us into all truth. And there
are many, many other passages which teach
this.
If we could hear His voice we would have
no trouble learning His Word from the
Authorized Version. Let me tell you this:
You might not be able to answer the
arguments, and you won’t be [able to]. I
can’t answer some of them, either. Some of
these university professors come along and
say, What about this; what about that? They
go into areas that I haven’t even had time
to get into.
As I said to you a couple of minutes
ago. You don’t need to defend yourself, and
you don’t need to defend God’s Word. Don’t
defend it; you don’t need to defend it; you
don’t need to apologize for it. Just say,
“Well, did this version or this translation
come down through the Roman stream? If so,
count me out. Whatever you say about
Erasmus and Tyndale, that’s what I want.”
And besides this, we’ve had the AV for
362 years. It’s been tested as no other
piece of literature has ever been tested.
Word by word; syllable by syllable. And
think even until this moment no one has ever
found any wrong doctrine in it, and that’s
the main thing. He that wills to do the will
of God shall KNOW the doctrine.”36 |
WHY DO GOOD MEN
ERR ON THE BIBLE VERSION ISSUE?
There you have an answer to the question of:
“Why have many good men of God erred on the issue of
Bible versions”. They were led astray by men that
they trusted. They had not studied the issue for
themselves. My greatest fear is that pastors,
preachers, and Bible teachers will not thoroughly
study the issue for themselves. I am convinced that
if saved men and women will thoroughly study the
issue for themselves that most would reject every
English version of the Bible other than the 1611
Authorized King James Version. The problem for many
pastors, preachers, and teachers is that they let
the smoke of intellectual pride blind their eyes of
spiritual discernment so that they cannot, or will
not, see the truth. Of course, there are many more
who will not see the truth because they are not
saved. Frank Logsdon saw the error of his ways and
set aside his pride and repented to the glory of
God. Men and women must set aside their pride and
lean not on their own understanding. This is a
spiritual issue and not an intellectual issue. The
controversy over the Bible version issue illustrates
perfectly in application that men and women are ever
learning and never able to come to the knowledge of
the truth.
We can truly say in 2010 that this is an age
when knowledge has increased phenomenally (Daniel
12:4). It is truly an age when we are ever learning
and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth. Men and women are without natural affection;
lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God and
lovers of others. They have an intellectual form of
Godliness, but deny the power thereof. Gnosticism
is also characterized by its loveless nature.
“Gnosticism was distinguished by an unethical,
loveless intellectualism. This seems to be the
explanation of the false teaching against which this
epistle is directed. The apostle describes the dry
head-knowledge which left the heart and life
untouched by love, and which led men, while they
professed to love God, nevertheless to remain
destitute of love to their fellow-men.”37
From the theme in the book of First John, we would
have to assume that the Holy Spirit was building a
rampart against the wicked heresy of Gnosticism. We
see also the warning flags go up in 1 Corinthians
chapters 8 and 13, Colossians 2, and in 1 Timothy
6. our modern day churches and the Bible
translation committees are full of Gnostics.
I have spent an enormous amount of time and space
documenting the doctrinal perversions in the new
versions because a typical argument of those who
defend the new versions is that they do not
significantly affect any doctrines of the faith.
What has preceded this paragraph proves that
hypothesis to be absolutely false. Every major
doctrine of the faith has been the subject of a vile
attack from Satan. The doctrinal corruptions are
frightening and much to numerous to be accidental or
innocent.
To the editors and
translators of the new English perversions of the
word of God and the Greek perversions of the New
Testament we say, “ye have perverted the words of
the living God”! (Jeremiah 23:36)
ENDNOTES
1.Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized
Version, p. 58
2.Ibid., pp. 242-249
3.Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 130
4.David W. Cloud, For The Love Of The Bible, p. 38
5.Ibid., p. 226
6.Peter S. Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 34
7.Ian R.K. Paisley, My Plea For The Old Sword, p. 86
8.Ibid., p. 98
9.Ibid., p. 98
10.Peter S. Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, pp.
167-168
11.Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended,
p. 226-227
12.Jack Moorman, Modern Bibles – The Dark Secret, p.
14
13.Ibid., p. 8
14.Ibid., p. 15
15.Jack Moorman, Modern Bibles – The Dark Secret,
pp. 16-21
16.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 286
17.Ibid., pp. 287-288
18.Not Used
19.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 289
20.Ibid., p. 290
21.Ibid., p. 291
22.Ibid., p. 292
23.Ibid., p. 292
24.Ibid., p. 293
25.Ibid., p. 293
26.Ibid., p. 294
27.The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.
28.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 294
29.Ibid., p. 296
30.G.W. Anderson and D.E. Anderson, New
International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs
to Know About the New International Version,
www.trinitarianbiblesocietyusa.com, Article 114
Trinitarian Bible Society
31.D. A. Waite, New International Version Inclusive
Language Edition, p. 5
32.Ibid., pp. 6-40
33.Ibid., pp. 41-52
34.Ibid., p.52
35.G.W. Anderson and D.E. Anderson, New
International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs
to Know About the New International Version,
www.trinitarianbiblesocietyusa.com, Article 114
Trinitarian Bible Society
36.David W. Cloud, From the NASV to the King James
Bible, Article From The Wayoflife Fundamental
Baptist CD Rom, version 2000b
37.James Orr, International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, p. 1243 |
