A REVIEW OF THE VERSIONS WHICH ARE RELIABLE?

A Review of e Versions Which Are Reliable? A REVIEW OF THE VERSIONS WHICH ARE RELIABLE? Introduction It is always a joy supreme to appear on is lectureship each September. Genuine gratitude is expressed to e elders, Jack Williams a e 39 Street congregation for e gracious invitation to speak on is current one. Three ousa years ago wise Solomon observed at of e making of many books ere is no e (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Were e Sage of Jerusalem still among us, he might as well say, of e making of many English translations or versions ere is no e. A ieed ere is no e in sight. People have long prided emselves in having e church of eir own choice; now we have Bibles available for everyone s choice. Wi but few exceptions ey get worse a worse. Brief Explanations of Some Well Know Versions Some fourteen will be numbered a noted briefly. 1. THE KING JAMES VERSION. This version came out in 1611 a is nearly four centuries old. It is readable, depeable a accurate. The average word in it is five syllables. It contains no damnable errors. It has been by far e most popular English translation ever made. It is my conviction at it will be responsible for populating Heaven wi more English readers an any of its ancient or modern competitors. I have used it all my life, preach from it, write from it, do all my memory work from it a love it loyally a favor it fuamentally. 2. THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION. It came out in 1901 a was e work of 101 men. It is scholarly, depeable a exceptionally close to e Greek original in e New Testament. It is not as easy to read or memorize as is e smooer-flowing language of e stately KJV. It is not used as much as it was a generation ago a is is sad. 3. THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION. This is a fairly recent product. It updates words in e KJV at have changed meanings like prevent to precede a wist to know. It has some weaknesses but is safer by far an most of e ones which have come out e last irty to fifty years. Yet, I fi no compelling reason to give up my beloved KJV for it. 4. MCCORD S NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATION OF THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL. This version first came out in 1988. He asked me to be a consultant for it as he worked on it during e 1980 s. I made many suggestions some of which he accepted a oers which he rejected. It has a number of ings to comme it. I do appreciate his inclusion of Acts 8:37, ough bracketed, in e text a his defense of it in notes at e back of his work. The way he dealt wi monogenes (Greek term for only-begotten) a his total elimination of e word church are two of its most serious deficiencies in my judgment. I begged him repeatedly not to follow e RSV on is word staying wi only-begotten in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I John 4:9 a to retain e word church in its more an one hured Issues Facing The Church 22 Annual Mid-West Lectures Page 1 2004 This material may be freely distributed as long as it remains unchanged a proper credit is given for source. It is not be be sold. For information contact e 39 Street church of Christ, 15331 East 39 Street, Iepeence, MO 64055.

A Review of e Versions Which Are Reliable? occurrences in e New Testament. He desisted in bo of ese. He opted for you a your in prayer language instead of ee, ou, y a ine. Such is not a plus to many of us who still love e ring of ese solemn forms which are not outdated or archaic in e least. Who objects to My Country Tis of Thee in is patriotic lyric? Any number of religious songs recently written still retain ee, ou, y a ine, such as How Great Thou Art. Would it really enhance is stately song to sing, How Great You Are? If so, how? 5. THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION. The main trouble wi it is its modernism. An early critic of it said at its success in sales would be a triumph for modernism. One of its translators, Harry M. Orlinsky, said in 1978 at e RSV is e Bible of e liberal Protestant Community. He called it correctly. The RSV New Testament came out in 1946 a e RSV Bible made its literary debut in 1952. It is highly dangerous as a Bible for study a guidance. It has lost much of e popularity it had in e 50 s, 60 s, a 70 s. The quicker it dies permanently, e better! 6. THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE. This is a Lockman Fouation Bible a is very wordy. It is difficult to separate e actual text from e abuance of words ey have added. At times it is contradictory a teaches fatal error. It is far from being e best study testament on e market as Billy Graham once assessed it. Graham is a novice when it comes to recommeing reliable Bibles! It is far too dangerous to use as one s spiritual guide. A quick look at Ephesians 5:19 tells why in just one verse. 7. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN ENGLISH. J. B. Phillips is e translator. A serious examination of his preface remarks about Biblical penman not knowing ey were writing Scripture, at Paul was inconsistent a did not care wheer his later writings were in harmony wi earlier writings, how he dealt wi Acts 8:20 wi its fatal footnote a how he mutilated I Corinians 14:22 wi its fatal footnote gives a fair sampling of his translational perversions. Though a wizard wi word his product is far too dangerous to use as a study testament. I will not recomme it. 8. THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE. This English product came out more an forty years ago. It is way out in left field wi its modernism a liberalism. Were I a modernist or liberal in religion, is would be my Bible by all means. I would want no oer. It not only promotes a abets modernism a liberalism, but is defensive of Romanism a Protestantism. In its reering of Matew 16:18 it actually out-romed Rome a out-poped e Pope. Were I a Caolic I would give it a hearty recommeation on just Matew 16:18 alone. This product really messes up Acts 20:7 as touching e proper time for observing e Lord s Supper. It leaves I Corinians 14 in shambles. It is a leal, literary product. C. H. Dodd was e Chairman of e producing committee a he was a staunch modernist. Tru was not safe in his has nor e has of his fellow committee members. It is a perversion personified in a literary product. 9. TODAY S ENGLISH VERSION (TEV) OR GOOD NEWS FOR THE MODERN MAN. This poisonous product spelled bad news for man at its literary debut in 1966. It was misnamed. It should have been called BAD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN. The Old Issues Facing The Church 22 Annual Mid-West Lectures Page 2 2004 This material may be freely distributed as long as it remains unchanged a proper credit is given for source. It is not be be sold. For information contact e 39 Street church of Christ, 15331 East 39 Street, Iepeence, MO 64055.

A Review of e Versions Which Are Reliable? Testament is bad; if anying, e New Testament is even worse. Robert Bratcher, e one man translator of e New Testament, was a orough-going modernist a infatuated wi Protestantism. His modernism shows in how he dealt wi e blood passages linked wi Christ. Denominationalism reeks in numerous places. Like e NEB he really tampered wi Acts 20:7 having e supper on Saturday a changing it to a fellowship meal! Fellowship, koinonia, does not even occur in e Greek text of Acts 20:7. In e initial printing he has line drawings in Matew 2 a Acts 9. He has ree wise men coming to see Jesus a Saul falling from a horse. My initial reaction over e line drawing in Acts 9 was, Have I been reading a preaching from Acts 9 all ese years a missed a ing as big as horse erein? There is no horse in Acts 9. Bratcher horsed arou wi Saul s conversion in fullness on e Damascus Road instead of in Acts 22:16 where, ree days later, he was commaed to be baptized for e washing away of his sins. He was not saved on e Damascus Road. Frequent are his contradictions. He contes for fai only in Romans 1, 3 a Galatians 2 a refutes his own leal error in James 2:24. If right in Romans a Galatians, he was wrong in James 2. If right in James 2, he was wrong in Romans 1, 3 a Galatians 2. Here is a case of where he cannot be right wiout being wrong or wrong wiout being right! What a dilemma for a so-called Biblical translation or more correctly, Biblical mistranslation! He has castigated severely ose of us who believe in verbal inspiration. It is far too dangerous to use as a study Bible. 10. THE LIVING BIBLE PARAPHRASED. Kenne Taylor is its paraphraser. My, but what he has done to e Taylor name. For irty years I have wished he had a different last name! In LBP his Calvinism a premillennialism are dominant in bo testaments. At times he is quite vulgar. Baptists, in Nashville, once became very upset wi his vulgarity a protested against eir big Baptist book store in Nashville selling it. Yet, anoer Baptist, Billy Graham, was pushing it into prominence bo nationally a internationally about at same time. Graham s eorsement of it should alert us to its obvious dangers. Tru has never been safe in Graham s has. Taylor was totally inept as a translator. He frequently complained about e difficulty of getting up his Calvinistic sermons wi a KJV in ha. Furermore, he said his children had difficulty in uerstaing e KJV. My wife a I have Taylor children a ey grew up reading a learning form e KJV. Bo were baptized in you a bo are faiful today wi our daughter married to a faiful gospel preacher a our son a deacon where he attes. The LPB is very, very, dangerous. It is not eve a fif-rate commentary. Like e magic books in Acts 19 it needs to be burned world-wide! 11. THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. This is also a Lockman Fouation Bible. It is considerably superior to its literary predecessor, THE AMPLIFIED BIBLE, but it runs a poor, poor seco to e great translation aft which it is named a which it apparently hoped to supplant one day. It has too many serious problem areas to be one s study a directional Bible. How it deals wi Amos 7:14; Matew 5:17; Ephesians 2:15 a Mark 16:9-20 are enough for me not to recomme it, period! A number of conservative religious leaders in oer religions, especially among some Baptists, have filed objections to e NSB. Why it has caught on wi some of our professors, preachers a congregations is baffling to me. Why exchange a good one which we have in e KJV for one at is questionable in some key reerings? I am not opposed to accepting a good reliable one, Issues Facing The Church 22 Annual Mid-West Lectures Page 3 2004 This material may be freely distributed as long as it remains unchanged a proper credit is given for source. It is not be be sold. For information contact e 39 Street church of Christ, 15331 East 39 Street, Iepeence, MO 64055.

A Review of e Versions Which Are Reliable? should one EVER come along, but am opposed to exchanging a good one for an inferior one which is what many ask us to do. It is strange at breren will ask us to do is but ey have, do a will out ere in e future. 12. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. This new darling, as many of our breren view it, has been arou about irty years. Its New Testament came out before its Old Testament. Bo made eir debut during e 1970 s. This is how long I have been opposed to it. During e 1970 s Noel Meride a I coucted a week-long seminar for a West Tennessee congregation dealing wi version matters. In at study we dealt wi bo e RSV, it was still popular en, a e NIV, which was just emerging wiin Bible buying markets. Bo of us spoke each night a en fielded questions from e audience at e e. We were asked to evaluate e RSV a NIV. We agreed at e main ing wrong wi e RSV is its modernism a e main ing wrong wi e NIV is its sectarianism or denominationalism. About e same time we said is about e RSV, Harry M. Orlinsky said in a speech on e West Coast at e RSV is e Bible of e liberal Protestant community. He should have known his product for he was one of e RSV translators yet believing e New Testament did not belong in e Bible at all. He was blasphemous relative to Mary a e virgin bir of e Christ child. The NIV reeks wi Calvinism in Psalm 51:5; Romans 7-8 a Galatians 2. In just one opening one can count nearly a dozen times it uses sinful nature from e Greek word sarx. This is Calvin s total hereditary depravity doctrine at every baby, no exceptions, is born totally depraved a e depravity is inherited. Be it kept fixed firmly in mi at is is total, entire a whole. But we get our nature from God. Does He, as e Faer of our spirits, bequea us a sinful nature? If so, en we start out bad a due to no fault of our own, not a particle of our own. The NIV s reering of Romans 1:16-17 is just e old Protestant error of fai only warmed over a made palatable for e naïve. The way it hales, more aptly mishales, Acts 2:27, 31 is inexcusable translation. Were I a Jehovah s Witness, I would prefer e NIV on ese two verses over what e Watchtower version has! The NIV really messes up e gospel plan of salvation. It has people included in Christ at e point of hearing in Ephesians 1:13, justified at e point of fai in Romans 10:9-10, saved at e point of confession in Romans 10:9-10 a en baptized into Christ in Galatians 3:27. If included in Christ at e point of hearing, en e person must become lost again in order at he might be justified at e point of fai. But subsequent to fai he must become lost again in order at he might be saved at e point of confession. However, subsequent to e confession, he must get totally out of Christ again in order at he might be baptized into him. What a jumbled-up mess ey have made wi e simple, sublime plan of e gospel for saving aliens. Reliable versions have e person believing unto, repenting unto, confessing unto a en baptized into Christ. In hearing, fai, repentance a confession we are traveling unto or toward salvation. Baptism puts us into, Issues Facing The Church 22 Annual Mid-West Lectures Page 4 2004 This material may be freely distributed as long as it remains unchanged a proper credit is given for source. It is not be be sold. For information contact e 39 Street church of Christ, 15331 East 39 Street, Iepeence, MO 64055.

A Review of e Versions Which Are Reliable? a term of transition, Christ, into His dea a into His church where all e redeemed are enrolled. Shortly after e New Testament portion of it came out I asked broer Guy N. Woods his assessment of it. This is what he told me personally, Broer Taylor, as little as I ing of e RSV I would prefer it over e NIV. The NIV is shot rough wi error! A it is! It is highly dangerous a yet it is preferred by over growing numbers of our professors, preachers, elders, deacons, Bible teachers a people in e pews. It is shameful ey do not know better. I adamantly refuse to recomme it. It is not reliable, period! 13. THE READERS DIGEST BIBLE. It is correctly named. It is not Jehovah s Bible, Jesus Bible or e Spirit s Bible. It is human in origin a perverted by design. It removed about 50% of e Old Testament a 25% of e New Testament. This meant a reduction of 40% or 300,000 words. Who gave Bruce Metzger a his Jehoiakim crew auority to leave out a single syllable? Deity surely did not. This product should be a stench in e nostrils of every person who believes God s Word is inviolable. Its vast deletions make it a leal product from e word go. It is a spiritual murderer; it is a Bible destroyer. It is a spiritual NO, NO to anyone who wants to go to heaven in yoer s world. 14. THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION. It is modernistic like its predecessor a adds e literary crime of being a Feminist Bible. It is unwory of any sort of recommeation among every modern Theophilus one who is a lover or frie of God (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). It is leal a dangerous to e n degree a en some! Conclusion Before his dea in 1975 broer Gus Nichols of Jasper, Alabama, great preacher a a walking Bible among us, advised our staying wi e KJV a ASV. Today s religious society is general a e Lord s church in particular would be ten ousa times better off if his sage counsel had been followed by preachers, professors, schools, colleges, congregations a people in e pews. But alas, ey have not followed his sage counsel. Issues Facing The Church 22 Annual Mid-West Lectures Page 5 2004 This material may be freely distributed as long as it remains unchanged a proper credit is given for source. It is not be be sold. For information contact e 39 Street church of Christ, 15331 East 39 Street, Iepeence, MO 64055.