©Fundamental Evangelistic Association
Modern Bible Versions Are Dangerous:
Watch Out For Them!
by Marion H. Reynolds, Jr. and Dennis W. Costella
Revised and Expanded March 2000
"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." Psalms 12:6-7
The Bible is the most wonderful and precious book in the world. In these days
of rapid change and crumbling foundations, what a blessing it is to be reminded
that our Lord Jesus Christ said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). What a comfort and
encouragement comes as we read Psalm 119:89: "For ever, O LORD, thy
word is settled in heaven." How thankful we are that "the foundation
of God standeth sure" (2 Timothy 2:19); the "foundation of the
apostles and prophets" which speaks of the completed canon of Scripture
(Eph 2:19-3:5).
We must also be aware that the Bible is under attack. Satan, who succeeded
in selling the first "revised" edition of God's Word to Eve in
the Garden of Eden, has surely been busy in this 20th Century along the same
lines. We know about the
"population explosion" and the "explosion of scientific knowledge,"
but we are also in the middle of a "Bible translation explosion"—
a veritable flood of new Bible translations, versions, revisions and paraphrases,
all claiming to be the "most accurate," the "most readable" and
the "most up-to-date." The publishing and sale of these new Bibles
has become a highly profitable business, employing all the psychological
approaches of modern advertising to sell them to the public. Some think this
proliferation of Bible versions is wonderful. But serious-minded, thoughtful
people must eventually ask, "Which Bible is the real Bible, the true
Word of God?"
In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the Spirit of God warned against the "many which
corrupt the word of God " Therefore, it is not surprising in studying
church history to discover that such attempts to corrupt the Word of God
were clearly evident in the altered, polluted and revised manuscripts purporting
to be the Word of God that have existed through the centuries. Unfortunately,
many people today fail to see that even greater corruptions of the Word of
God are taking place before our very eyes. The purpose of this [article]
is to share with God's people, simply and briefly, some of the important
information we have found in studying this important subject.
It is impossible in such limited space to trace the history and preservation
of the true Word of God down through the centuries [see Forever
Settled] . However, in the providence of God, two very important
things happened in the 15th and 16th centuries for which we should all be
eternally grateful. First, was the invention of the printing press and second,
the Protestant Reformation. It was the combination of these two developments
that made possible the translation and publication of the Authorized King
James Version of the Bible in 1611. From then until now, this wonderful gift
of God and its subsequent translation into every known major language in
the world has changed the course of history and we enjoy its benefits today.
In the latter part of the 19th Century, Satan and his angels of light set
out to destroy the Church by undermining its foundation, the Bible. Charles
Darwin's Origin of the Species was blindly accepted as "new light
on an old problem" by the scholarship of that day which had become largely
obsessed with rationalism and humanism. Theories and methods of "higher
criticism" and "textual criticism" were developed and couched
in such scholarly language that most people failed to recognize that these
were actually attacks upon the Word of God — even though carefully disguised
as an effort to "supply the English reader with a more correct text
of the New Testament" and to "render the New Testament more generally
intelligible."
The rush toward new versions was on and though the early progress was slow,
we are seeing the results today.
Three important issues must be understood and addressed when discussing the
translation of the Bible from one language to another: first, the reliability
of the document being translated; second, the knowledge and skill of the
translators and third, the philosophy of translation (formal or dynamic equivalence).
On all counts, the King James Bible still stands supreme. In 1881, influenced
by and sympathetic to the Darwinian theory of evolution, two men, Brooke
Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort brought forth a different version of
the Greek New Testament — one which differed from the Textus Receptus (the
underlying Greek text of the KJV) in over 5,700 places.
This Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English
Revised Version and the American Standard Version. It gave great weight to
two corrupted manuscripts—the Vaticanus (Codex B) which was found in
the Vatican Library in 1481 and was known to the KJV translators but was
not used by them, and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) which was found in a monastery
wastebasket at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
appear to have been copied from the same source in the 4th Century and held
great weight with Westcott and Hort due to their antiquity. Tischendorf,
who discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript, noted at least 12,000 changes that
had been made on this manuscript by other than the original copyist. It
is difficult to understand why such documents as these could lead one to
ignore the simple fact that the Greek text underlying the King James Version,
the Textus Receptus, agreed with 90-95% of all known Scripture-related
manuscripts, numbering over five thousand.
English Revised Version (1885)
American Standard Version (1901)
The first full-scale frontal attack on the Word of God came with the publication
of the ERV in 1885, and its counterpart, the ASV in 1901. Only a few voices
of protest were raised. Most staunch defenders of the faith of that day were
apparently unaware that the ASV differed from the KJV in over 36,000 places
or that the Greek text underlying the translation of the ASV (the Westcott-Hort
Text) differed from the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) in
over 5,700 instances. Possibly it was because the Fundamentalists then were
too busy combating the modernists' infiltration of seminaries and churches;
or, perhaps it was due to the fact that the ASV never really found great
acceptance publicly. It was not until the publication of the Revised Standard
Version in 1946 and 1952 that many Fundamentalists became aware of how effectively
a new Bible version or translation could be used to pervert the truth.
Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)
Some of God's people woke up with a start when the Revised Standard Version
was published in 1952. This version, supposedly a revision of the ASV of
1901, eliminated the word virgin in the prophecy of Christ's birth
in Isaiah 7:14. It was also copyrighted by the apostate National Council
of Churches. Protests were heard far and wide! Sadly, many failed to recognize
that some of the same changes they found so objectionable in the RSV were
also true of the ASV. The furor over the RSV gradually died down. But this
was the version which paved the way for future perversions of the Scriptures.
It had conditioned people to accept changes in the Bible—changes dictated
by modern scholarship. At least the RSV left the word virgin in the New Testament
references to the birth of Christ. It remained for the Good News Bible to
remove it in both the Old and New Testaments.
Good News For Modern Man (1966)
Good News Bible (1976)
When the first edition of Good News For Modern Man (The New Testament in Today's
English) was published in 1966, the word virgin appeared in all the
texts in Matthew and Luke referring to the birth of Christ. But, when the
2nd and 3rd editions were published and then the entire Good News Bible was
published in 1976, the word virgin had mysteriously disappeared from
Luke 1:27 while remaining in Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, the latter
two verses have no meaning at all if the word virgin is removed or
replaced. Also, the blood of Christ, a most important and precious word and
theme, was lacking in many key New Testament references. It was replaced
by
"death" or "costly sacrifice," both good words in their
own place but not what the Holy Spirit gave in the original text. The heretical
views of the main translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher, help to explain the many
places in which the Deity of Christ is played down or omitted. The Good News
Bible is one of the worst versions, yet it has been distributed by the millions,
largely due to endorsements by Billy Graham, Bill Bright and other evangelical
leaders.
The Living Bible (1967, 1971)
This is neither a translation nor a version — it is a paraphrase. The Living
Bible, praised by Billy Graham and other New Evangelical leaders, has reached
a publication figure of 37 million copies and has made its author, Ken Taylor,
a wealthy man. It is very readable, but at the expense of truth in so many
places. Taylor admits that the principle he worked from was not a "word-for-word" translation
but rather a
"thought-for-thought" paraphrase which he called, "dynamic
equivalence." Taylor said he worked for the most part from the ASV of
1901, a corrupt translation to begin with. The Living Bible decimates the
Scriptures, almost completely eliminating important and precious words and
truths as grace (see John 1:17; Acts 4:33, 15:11, 20:24; Romans 3:24; 2 Corinthians
9:8; Ephesians 2:8-9; Jude 4) and repentance (see Matthew 9:13 and Acts 17:30). "Honor" is
substituted for "begotten" in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5.
Significant changes are made regarding such matters as creation in Genesis
1:1-2 and a prophecy of Christ in Zechariah 13:6. The meaning of Romans 8:28
is changed completely. Vulgar language is used in John 9:34, 11:39 and 2
Kings 18:27. The language of 1 Samuel 20:30 in early editions of TLB shocked
many but it has now been softened. The author has left the door open for
further suggestions, corrections and clarifications. Who knows what future
editions may contain?
New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)
The NASV was to be the Bible for conservatives, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.
The foreword states that the NASV "has been produced with the conviction
that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew and Greek
were inspired of God." The basic problem with this translation, however,
is revealed in this statement: "This translation follows the principles
used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical
Honesty." Who gave the ASV such a title? In the Principles of Revision,
it is stated: "In revising the ASV, consideration was given to the latest
available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In
most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed."
This gets right to the heart of the major problem with the modern Bible versions—most
are patterned after the corrupted Westcott-Hort Greek Text rather than
the Textus Receptus. The word virgin does appear in Isaiah
7:14, but a footnote says, "or, young woman"—no doubt a sop to
the liberals. Verses like Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23:14 appear in brackets
with a footnote saying, "most ancient manuscripts omit this verse" or, "this
verse is not found in earliest manuscripts." A corrupted Greek text
thus becomes the basis for raising questions about the entire verse In other
instances as in Luke 24:40, the number of the verse appears followed by "see
marginal note" which explains that "some ancient Mss. add verse
40." One wonders if the NASV translators were determined to list everything
anyone ever added or left out of a manuscript until one discovers that some
parts of verses are left out with no explanation whatsoever as in Colossians
1:14 and 1 Timothy 6:5. It is sad to see so many conservatives pushing this
version and criticizing the KJV.
New International Version (1973, 1978)
Like the NASV, the NIV was produced by those who are said to "hold a
high view of Scripture." Sponsored by the New York Bible Society, they
admitted the NIV translators represent a "broad spectrum in evangelical
Christianity" and the list of names confirms the broadness of the spectrum.
Instead of being a revision of a previous version, the preface says, "It
is a completely new translation made by many scholars working directly from
the Greek." The Greek text used is an
"eclectic one," that is, the translators mixed different texts
supposedly in "accord with sound principles of textual criticism." However,
they did not state what those principles were and much of the previous
undermining of the Scripture has been done on the supposed basis of
"sound principles of textual criticism." Examining the text, you
find that the NIV leaves out many of the same verses and portions that the
ASV and the NASV also omit. An added problem, however, stems from the fact
that where an entire verse is omitted, even the verse number is missing and
only a small letter refers to a footnote of explanation. A careful study
of this version confirms what one Christian leader said several years ago, "For
every verse or word clarified in these new translations, two new problems
are created." We agree with his statement. In a critique of the New
International Version, one Fundamentalist scholar correctly objected that "words
were dropped out; words were added; and key words were sometimes changed." Yet,
the same objection must also be raised concerning the New American Standard
Version which this same Fundamentalist scholar defends and recommends. This
objection—the deletion or addition of words—also applies to all the other
modern versions. We still insist on using and recommending only the Authorized
Version.
New King James Version (1979,1982)
The NKJV translators claim to have
"preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity
and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and
beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus
Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations
to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions
are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted
underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the
text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the
1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources
which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim
text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result, the NKJV preface rightly
stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We
believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the
KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament.
New Revised Standard Version (1990)
The NRSV is the latest product of ecumenical scholarship and will soon replace
the RSV, thus helping to fill the financial coffers of the apostate National
Council of Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and NRSV.
Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars, and eliminating
so-called sexist language, the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received
the Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well become the ecumenical
Bible of the future.
Other Recent Versions
In recent years, the proliferation of modem Bible versions has increased tremendously.
New versions that are based primarily upon the United Bible Societies' 4th
revised edition Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Novum
Testamentum Graece include the New Living Translation (NLT), the New
Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and Eugene
H. Peterson's The Message. Most of these versions and translations
are not only based on an inferior Greek text, but are also thought-for-thought
translations (which allow for greater interpretive freedom of the text by
the translators) rather than literal, word-for-word translations.
The more we have studied and researched this question of Bible versions, the
more convinced we are that many of our dear brethren in the ministry and
many Fundamentalist leaders have not taken time to look at the abundant evidence
now available that clearly demonstrates the inaccuracies, inconsistencies
and confusion that results from new translations. It is clear that many scholars
who consider themselves to be evangelical have been influenced by the apostate
scholarship of the past and present. We recognize the difference between "higher
criticism" (which would be rejected by most Fundamentalists) and "textual
criticism" or
"lower criticism" (which is accepted by most Fundamentalists).
But many do not see how the whole field of textual criticism has been shaped
and molded by the false premises and conclusions of "higher criticism." The
central issue revolves around the acceptance of the Westcott-Hort text rather
than the Textus Receptus as the basis for Bible translations, versions
and revisions.
While recognizing the extreme difficulties involved in translations of any
kind and especially of a book as important as the Bible, we are convinced
that the King James Bible has been blessed by God for hundreds of years and
should be used by believers today. It will be far better for us to expand
our vocabulary in order to understand its terminology than to continually
rewrite the Bible to suit those who will not be able to understand it anyway
apart from the New Birth or to suit those Christians who are too lazy to
study. It is true that the meanings of some English words have changed and
others are no longer commonly used. Yet such words are comparatively few
and can easily be comprehended with the use of a good dictionary; but if
the word is missing altogether, what then?
The promotion and use of so many different Bible versions has resulted in
great confusion among God's people. Why don't more pastors and Christian
leaders see this? Congregational reading is becoming virtually impossible.
Bible memorization is most difficult. Men and women lose confidence in the
validity of God's Word when some verses are included, some are bracketed,
and some are missing completely.
For all of these reasons and many more, we conclude that modem Bible versions
are dangerous and that God's people should beware of them. We close with
a plea to all who love the Lord and His Word—look into this important question
quickly and carefully. Then join us in seeking to alert and warn others concerning
these subtle and devastating attacks being made upon God's Holy Word.
Our Final Authority
The written Word of God is our final authority in all matters of which It
speaks, for It is God's final revelation to man. The Bible is God's trustworthy,
authoritative Book, and no more is to be added thereto. The Holy Spirit supernaturally
inspired the writers of the 39 books of the Old Testament to record the very
words God desired His people to possess (2 Pet. 1:21). Likewise, the prophetic
promise Jesus Christ made to His disciples (soon to be the apostles and writers
of the 27 books of the New Testament) restated the same divine operation
of inspiration, for the Holy Spirit later also guided these men
"into all truth" (Jn. 16:12-15). "All Scripture is given by
inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16,17), and that inspired Scripture encompasses
nothing more, nor anything less, than the 66 books of the Bible, the completed
canon of Scripture. 2 Peter 3:2 tells us that if we want to know God's Word,
then we are to look nowhere other than to the "words which were spoken
before by the holy prophets [O. T. Scripture], and of the commandments of
us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour [N.T. Scripture]." God's Word
provides us with all we need to be built up in the faith and to do God's
will and work—God gave no additional revelation once the Bible was
completed. The inspired writings of the apostles, circulated among the churches
and later canonized, were perfect and complete (Lk. 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 14:37;
Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13; Rev. 22:18,19). The internal evidence of the Word
of God states without equivocation that believers today have a final authority—God's
Written Word.
Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, no additional divine revelation
has come through any "latter day prophets," charismatic dreamers,
cult authorities or the tradition/Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church,
as Pope John Paul II has reinforced in a recent encyclical. With the passing
of the original disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (the apostles who penned
the 27 books of the New Testament), the partial revelation ceased and
"that which is perfect"—the Written Word of the Living God—was
come. "That which is in part" was done away (1 Cor. 13:8-12). With
the passing of the apostles and the subsequent completion of the canon, no
more revelation came from God. It is essential, therefore, that we earnestly
contend for the faith "once delivered" (past tense) and against
any attempt to claim an authority for faith and practice other than God's
Word, the 66 books of the Bible. Remember, Timothy's household did not have
the "original autographs," but the copies they had were designated
by God as "the holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:14,15). Likewise, Paul
commended the Ephesian elders to the "word of his grace, which is able
to build you up..." (Acts 20:27,32). We can have confidence today that
we have a Bible that is the holy Word of God in the Authorized (King James)
Version.
A problem developed, however, with the 20th century's proliferation of new
Bible versions. It became necessary to study the history of the English Bible
and the Greek text which had been used down through the centuries and compare
that text with the claims of the "higher critics" who championed
the minority text upon which the new versions are based. After study of the
subject, the FEA concluded that the Textus Receptus, the underlying
text upon which the Authorized King James Version is based, is the providentially
preserved Greek text. The Textus Receptus was derived from the majority
family of manuscripts used in the Greek-speaking church down through the
centuries. This text was the divinely preserved text—an accurate rendition
of the very originals (miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit) written
by the apostles, and, in the Hebrew tongue, by the Old Testament prophets.
The Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of
the New Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the divinely
inspired original writings.
But now, another problem has arisen within the last few decades. An element
of those who were strong defenders of the inerrancy and veracity of the Authorized
Version, used and blessed by God in the English-speaking world for well over
300 years, began to advance the idea that the KJV English translation is
superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts and that the King James translators
were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit in producing their translation.
As a result of this proposal, they claim that the English King James translation
has been miraculously inspired just as the original autographs themselves
were inspired. This false teaching even assumed the newly ascribed authority
to correct the underlying Greek and Hebrew text from which it was translated.
What we have by this proposed phenomenon is what is often known as
"double inspiration"—the original writings of the prophets and
the apostles consist of the first "inspiration," and the second
work of
"inspiration" occurred when the King James translators produced
the English Authorized Version in 1611. Certainly the King James translators
were the best scholars ever assembled to produce a translation that we can
hold up today as our authoritative, trustworthy translation; but were those
esteemed translators "inspired" in the biblical sense? Absolutely
not!
We cannot accept this conjecture, for the concept of a superior English text
or of "double inspiration"
completely denies what the Bible Itself teaches about its own initial inspiration
by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit and its promised preservation
through each successive generation. No, the English-speaking world is not
the sole proprietor of the Word of God. Other nations and languages can also
boast an accurate, trustworthy translation of the Word of God from the Greek Textus
Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It is the conviction of the FEA that the Authorized Version should be the
standard and final authority for the English speaking world for two reasons:
First, because it is based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and
second, because it is an accurate, literal (formal, word-for-word) translation
of the aforementioned Greek and Hebrew texts (that is, the translation of
the text is literal, as much as is possible of any translation from one language
to another). We must reject the teaching of those who claim the KJV is full
of errors, yet we must also reject the teaching of those "KJV-only" proponents
who claim that the KJV is in itself inspired and superior to the underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts. Notice the following timely words by Pastor M. H.
Reynolds, Jr., which accurately sum up the Biblical position regarding inspiration
and preservation:
We are sometimes accused of believing in "double inspiration" or
"continuing revelation," i.e., that the King James translators
were divinely inspired in the same way as were the original human writers
of the books of the Bible. Not so! The use of these terms amounts to
a dishonest misrepresentation of what we believe. The miracle of inspiration
applies only to the initial giving of the Word of God to the writers
of the autographs (all of which are no longer in existence). But we also
believe that the Bible itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence
supports the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration extends
to the divinely superintended preservation of a pure text to this day.
We have, therefore, an inspired Bible today in the sense that it is the
accurate translation of the text once and finally inspired by God and
recorded in the
"original autographs," the majority text used down through
the centuries in the Greek church. Be wary of any opponent of the KJV
who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the
defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe.
From the FEA publication Modern Bibles-the Dark Secret by Pastor Moorman,
wonderfully used of God to defend the Authorized Version and to debunk the
credibility of the other versions, the concluding paragraph reads:
It is not impossible that in the providence of God another universally
accepted standard translation could be produced. However, given the lateness
of the hour, the lack of spiritual scholarship, and the fact that our
language no longer has the depth and vitality it once had, this seems
most unlikely. All indications point to the KJV as the Bible God would
have His people use in these last days before the Second Coming of Christ.
The Old Testament Scriptures were to accomplish one central purpose—to
glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:25-27). The same is true of the New
Testament as well (John 16:14). Those who undermine the authority and accuracy
of the Authorized Version only cause God's people to lack a confidence in
His Message and the impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This certainly
does not advance the purpose of God—to glorify His dear Son and to cause
His children to have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation.
Praise God, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us in the English
language the Authorized King James Bible, a literal, accurate translation
of the very words God breathed in His Revelation to man.