|
UNHOLY HANDS ON GOD’S HOLY BOOK: A REPORT ON THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES
1999 Edition PART I OF II By any standard the United Bible Societies are enormously wealthy and are involved in quite an amazing amount of work. The first Bible society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, was formed in 1804. The American Bible Society was formed in 1814, and similar societies have multiplied throughout the world as the years have passed. The United Bible Societies was formed in 1946 and now coordinates the work of most of the world’s Bible societies (Andrew Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p. 124). As of 1998, there were 135 member societies involved in the United Bible Societies. In 1997, the world distribution of Scriptures by the United Bible Societies reached almost 561 million (this includes Bibles, New Testaments, portions, readers, etc.). This total included 20 million whole Bibles and 18.5 million New Testaments. Nearly 80 percent of the world’s Bibles are distributed through the UBS. As of 1998, the United Bible Societies were involved in translation work in 685 different languages. The annual budget of the UBS is almost $40 million, and almost half of that is underwritten by the American Bible Society. As we can see, the United Bible Societies are very influential. Take a close look at Christian work in practically any locality, and you will find that an affiliate of the United Bible Societies is actively involved, and especially will be found at the forefront of any ecumenical activity. Not only do the Bible societies have a great influence around the world through their Bible translation and distribution activities, but their influence is increased by the fact that their Greek text and vernacular versions are used by most Christian groups, even many which are strongly Bible-based. The world’s most commonly used Greek New Testament is the one published by the United Bible Societies. A majority of the new Bible translations produced this century has been based upon this Greek text (or one practically identical to it). It should be kept in mind that there are many organizations involved in Bible translation and distribution that are not a part of the United Bible Societies. Among these are the Trinitarian Bible Society, Wycliffe Bible Translators, the International Bible Society, the Lockman Foundation, Lutheran Bible Translators, Living Bibles International, plus many church-based Bible printing centers, such as the Bearing Precious Seed ministries in the United States. Some of these are New Evangelical in philosophy and are becoming increasingly ecumenical. Wycliffe is a prime example. Wycliffe is a very large organization, and though not a part of the United Bible Societies and not as liberal as the UBS, Wycliffe is extremely ecumenical and has close ties with the Roman Catholic Church. For example, according to an article in Eternity magazine, November 1971, page 22, "The Catholic Bible Association and the Lutheran Bible Translation Society sponsored the Wycliffe mission's celebration of their annual Bible Translation Day in Washington, D.C." Wycliffe uses the United Bible Societies' Greek text in their translations, and works closely with the UBS in many of their projects. We praise the Lord that there are faithful Bible publishers. Following are some of these:
Without going any further, though, into the workings and doctrinal position of other Bible publishers, it is enough here to remind our readers that none of these should be confused with the United Bible Societies. For the purpose of this study, we are referring only to member bodies of the United Bible Societies when we use the term "Bible society." THE BIBLE SOCIETIES’ STRANGE HISTORY Apostasy is not new to the Bible societies. They have been leavened with apostasy from their very inception in the early 19th century. The apostasy has increased with the passing years, but the destructive seeds of false doctrine and ecumenism were present from the earliest days. The first Bible Society was formed in 1804 in England and named the British & Foreign Bible Society (BFBS). It was established on March 7, 1804, at London Tavern (The History of Christianity, Lion Publishing, 1977, p. 558). The BFBS, which was a founding member of the UBS in 1946, was deeply leavened with heresy from the beginning. Consider a few well-documented facts regarding this group's early history: The British Bible Society Worked with Roman Catholic Priests "Roman Catholics also enjoyed the support of the BFBS. Soon after its founding, the BFBS sent funds to Bishop Michael Wittmann [Roman Catholic] of Regensburg. When the Bavarian priest, Johannes Gossner prepared a German translation of the New Testament, he too was supported by the BFBS. The main Catholic agent of the BFBS was, however, Leander van Ess, a priest and professor of [Catholic] theology at Marburg" (The History of Christianity, p. 558). "The policy of the United Bible Societies regarding the Apocrypha and interconfessional co-operation with Roman Catholic scholars on Bible translations was outlined in a booklet published by the American Bible Society in 1970 ... Referring to the interdenominational character of the Bible societies, [the booklet] states that Roman Catholics participated in the founding of some Bible societies in Europe, and that ‘the British and Foreign Bible Society from the beginning co-operated with Roman Catholic groups.' It is also acknowledged that Roman Catholic churchmen were invited to participate in the founding of the American Bible Society in 1816" ("The Bible Societies," Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Jan.-Mar., 1979, pp. 13-14). The British Bible Society Invited Unitarian Participation Most of the readers of this study will know that Unitarians, while claiming to be Christian, have no right to be called such. They deny the very Triune God of the Scriptures, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They scoff at Christ's Deity, vehemently denying that our Lord was very God and very Man. How, then, can they possibly be considered Christians? And yet, the British & Foreign Bible Society brought these heretics into its membership upon its founding at the turn of the 19th century. The shameful history is given briefly from firsthand accounts and historical documents quoted from the files of the Trinitarian Bible Society in London.
It was the failure to secure a provision in the society’s constitution to remove the Unitarian heretics which led to the formation of a separate organization in 1831, the Trinitarian Bible Society.
One would certainly think that a Bible Society should be founded on "Scriptural principles"! As we have seen, though, such was not the case with the British and Foreign Bible Society, and such has not been the case with the other societies which have banded together to form the United Bible Societies. They translate and distribute the Bible, but they do not obey it. The British Bible Society Did Not Allow Public Prayer Or Bible The history of the British and Foreign Bible Society becomes even stranger. One compromise leads to another, as the Bible so solemnly warns. Let’s take a closer look at the British and Foreign Bible Society around 1830, keeping in mind that the Unitarians were a strong presence by this time.
Could anything be stranger than this true history of the British Bible Society? What a shameful, sad account! Here we have professing Christians hissing at and heckling a man of God who had made a simple proposition that those who deny the Triune God should have no part in that God's business! Do not forget that these were supposed Christian leaders and men involved in Bible translation and distribution. Here we have a Bible Society refusing to allow the Bible to be quoted, saying such is against their principles! Here we have a Bible Society having to fight a great battle just to have public prayer allowed in their meetings! And here we have a Bible Society, within 30 years of its founding, voting 6 to 1 against separating from Bible- and Christ-denying Unitarians! If any of our readers are confused at this, please understand that those causing the trouble at the meeting discussed above were not true Christians in any sense. The Bible warns that there will be many who claim to be Christians, but who will be false Christians. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself warned of this many times: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many" (Matt. 24:11). "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15). Those who were in control of the Bible Society in Britain in the 1830s were the wolves in sheep’s clothing Jesus warned of. What could be more clever than for the Devil to take over the very production and distribution of the Bible! He has done exactly this during the past century and a half. Praise God that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the true churches (Matthew 16:18), and even in this day of awful apostasy (turning away) from the truth there are many churches and organizations continuing to translate and distribute the pure Word of God and who not only distribute the Bible but OBEY the Bible! The Word of God is not lost, and God's work is not confounded. At the same time, it is true that much of the work of Bible production has been taken over by heretics. The Apostles added their voices to Christ's warning about false teachers. Paul foretold that conditions among professing Christians will grow increasingly corrupt: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men ... [will have] a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of truth. ... Evil men and seducers SHALL WAX WORSE AND WORSE, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:1,5,7,13). What a perfect description of today's Bible Society "scholars," who are swept from one new theory of inspiration and textual criticism to another! THE BIBLE SOCIETIES’ APOSTATE VERSIONS To produce and distribute the Bible is good only inasfar as the Bible being distributed is an accurate translation of the preserved Word of God. The Devil has not kept his dirty hands out of the matters surrounding Bible production. As early as the first century A.D. we find the Apostle Paul warning that many evil men were already about the Devil’s business of corrupting the Word of God. "For we are not AS MANY, WHICH CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:17). Note that the Apostle reported that MANY were then corrupting the word of God. In fact, the attempted corruption of God's Word began at the dawn of man's history when the Devil questioned and openly denied the Word of God in his conversation with Eve. For her part, Eve changed the Word of God when she quoted it:
God did not say exactly what Eve quoted. God's exact command was this: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). Note how Eve corrupted God's Word by adding her own thought about not touching the tree and by subtracting the word "freely." To change God’s Word in any way is to corrupt it. If one takes away from God’s Word or adds to it or changes the meaning, he corrupts it. This dirty business of tampering with the Word of God has not ceased since that terrible day in the Garden of Eden. In the days of the prophets in Israel we are told that the false prophets "perverted the words of the living God" (Jer. 23:36). Yes, the Devil and his cohorts have been busy corrupting the Word of God throughout earthly history. ROMAN CATHOLIC VERSIONS The Bible societies have distributed many different kinds of versions in various parts of the world. They have actually distributed Roman Catholic versions, that is, versions produced by the Roman Catholic Church. An example comes from Canada.
This business of distributing Roman Catholic Bibles began in the very earliest days of the Bible societies. We have already shown that the British and Foreign Bible Society supported versions produced by Roman Catholic priests in the early 1800s. These Roman priests were working with the Latin Vulgate, the officially approved Catholic version. Catholic Bibles had to contain the approved notes that taught Catholic heresies. According to the Catechism prescribed by Pope Pius X in 1911:
This policy was changed somewhat during the 1960s, but when we read that a Bible society sponsored the work of a Catholic priest prior to Vatican II we can be sure that the version was purely Roman Catholic. That this was a great problem in the early days of the Bible societies is seen in the protests made against the policy by godly men. An illustration is found in two letters to the Trinitarian Bible Society, one in 1859 and one in 1860, by a missionary and Bible translator. He speaks concerning God’s work among the Spanish-speaking people. Consider the wise things this man had to say about Bible distribution, and keep in mind that he is referring to the practice of the British and Foreign Bible Society in circulating Catholic versions of the Bible:
A few comments on this honorable letter are in order. First, note the wise observation that "the important question is not the mere number of copies of the Bible that are put into circulation, but the character of those copies and their freedom from doctrinal corruption." We cannot forget this when considering the work of the United Bible Societies. Though they have done an amazing amount of work, they have done as much harm as good since great numbers of the Scriptures being distributed are corrupted. Second, the missionary recognized that even seemingly "small" changes in the Bible are important and produce great harm. We agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion that "a single perverted word becomes of consequence." Amen and amen! We could only wish that the United Bible Societies had such a wonderful attitude toward the holy, eternal, God-breathed words of Scripture. We have seen, then, that the Bible societies have distributed various kinds of versions, even purely Roman Catholic ones. Of course, they have also distributed accurate versions such as the King James Bible in English and the old Luther Bible in German, but the Bible reminds us that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." The apostasy of the Bible societies has come into full blossom in the 20th century. This appears in the form of their Greek New Testament and three versions taken from it, the Revised Standard Version, the Today's English Version and the New English Bible. The copyright of the Revised Standard Version is held by the National Council of Churches in America, but it is widely distributed by the Bible societies. The Today's English Version (Good News Bible) was published by the American Bible Society, founding member of the United Bible Societies. This version has become the model for many of the so-called "common language" versions being produced throughout the world by the United Bible Societies (as well as by other organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators). The New English Bible was produced by the British & Foreign Bible Society. The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (or one of its earlier predecessors) is the basis for all of these translations. THE UBS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT The Third Edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament was published in 1975; it is also the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland text. Its influence is incalculable. It is used for study and translation throughout the world, and can be found in practically every country, in pastor's libraries, on translator's desks, in Bible college classrooms. What sort of Greek text is this? We limit our comments to two basic observations: The UBS Greek New Testament Was Produced by Heretics The Bible forbids God's people to fellowship with heretics. Romans 16:17 says, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." 2 Timothy 2:16 commands us to "shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." 2 Timothy 3 describes the apostasy of the end times, and warns of those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. From such God says to "turn away" (2 Tim. 3:5). As we look at those who produced the UBS Greek New Testament and see their deep apostasy, we must keep these warnings in mind. God has commanded us to separate from heretics. It is clear that He would not use heretics to give us the Scriptures! The editors of the UBS Greek New Testament are Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. Eugene A. Nida also "took part in Committee discussions, especially those relating to major decisions of policy and method (The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, Preface to the First Edition, 1965). Not one of these men believes the Bible is the verbally inspired, infallible Word of God. Six of these men are theological modernists. The seventh is a Roman Catholic archbishop! Jesuit cardinal CARLO MARIA MARTINI (1908- ) is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. Since 1967, he has been a member of the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. His diocese in Europe is the largest in the world, with two thousand priests and five million "laity." He is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. He is also President of the Council of European Bishop’s Conferences. Time magazine, December 26, 1994, listed him as a possible candidate in line for the papacy. Another Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together a syncretistic convocation of over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a new age, one-world religion. In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We need to synthesize a new religion for thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world and lead us into a new age." EUGENE NIDA (1914- ) is the father of the blasphemous dynamic equivalency theory of Bible translation. Originally with Wycliffe Bible Translators, Nida has been associated with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies since 1943. "In addition to administrative responsibilities, his work involved field surveys, research, training programs, checking manuscripts of new translations, and the writing of numerous books and articles on linguistics, anthropology and the science of meaning. This work has taken him to more than 85 countries, where he has conferred with scores of translators on linguistic problems involving more than 200 different languages. Dr. Nida was also Translation Research Coordinator for the United Bible Societies from 1970 to 1980" (Record, American Bible Society, March 1986, p. 17). Though retired, Nida retains his relationship with the ABS and UBS as a Special Consultant for Translations, and is active in research, writing, and lecturing. As to his view of biblical inspiration, Nida says, "...God’s revelation involved limitations. ... Biblical revelation is not absolute and all divine revelation is essentially incarnational. ... Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life. ... The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves. ... the word is void unless related to experience" (Nida, Message and Mission, pp. 222-228). The Psalmist did not hold to Nida‘s theories about the words of Scripture. He said, "The words of the Lord are pure words..." (Psalm 12:6). Throughout Scripture, it is the very words of the Bible that are said to be important, not just the basic meaning. The words of the Bible ARE something in and of themselves, regardless of whether they are related to anything else. Nida is wrong. The words of the Bible are intrinsically the eternal words of God. Nida’s chief problem is his rejection of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration.
Nida is dead wrong in his views that the Bible is not absolute, is not eternal truth, and that it is written in imperfect language. Though written by imperfect men, the Bible is written in words chosen by God and settled forever in heaven. The Bible IS written in a language that is divine; it IS Holy Ghost language. The Bible’s words are God’s words and they have eternal validity whether or not they are "translated into life," whether or not they are understood by man! Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not necessarily to be interpreted literally.
The Bible’s accounts of angels do not have different meanings for different cultures. They are infallibly recorded accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ believed in literal angels and interpreted the Old Testament miracles literally, and He is certainly a more faithful guide than Dr. Nida. As to the atonement of Jesus Christ, Nida says, "Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commercial transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the ‘two natures of God’ (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the ‘cost,’ in terms of suffering" (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53). In A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nida (with co-author Barclay Newman) says, "...‘blood’ is used in this passage [Romans 3:25] in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. ... Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament." Nida is wrong. The sacrifice of Christ was not just a figure; it WAS a placation of God, of His holiness and of the righteous demands in His law. Christ’s sacrifice WAS a commercial transaction between Christ and God, and was NOT merely a figure of the cost in terms of suffering. The sacrifice of Calvary was a true sacrifice, and that sacrifice required the offering of blood—not just a violent death as Nida says. Blood is blood and death is death, and we believe that God is wise enough to know which of these words should be used. Romans 5:8-10 teaches us that salvation required BOTH the blood and death of Christ. Had Christ died, for example, by strangulation, though it would have been a violent death, it would not have atoned for sin because blood is required. Those, like Nida, who tamper with or reinterpret the blood atonement often claim to believe in the cross of Christ and in justification by grace, but they are rendering the Cross ineffective by reinterpreting its meaning. There is no grace without a true propitiation. This word means "satisfaction" and refers to the fact that the sin debt was satisfied by the blood atonement of Christ. The great difference between the heathen concept of propitiating God and that of the Bible is this—the God of the Bible paid the propitiation Himself through His own Sacrifice, whereas the heathen thinks that he can propitiate God through his own human labors and offerings. The fact remains, though, that God did have to be propitiated through the bloody death of His own sinless Son. Nida is a clever man. He does not openly assault the blood atonement and the doctrine of inspiration as his translator friend Robert Bratcher does. (Bratcher, translator of the Today’s English Version, has co-authored books with Nida.) Nida uses the same words as the Bible believer, but he reinterprets key words and passages such as those above. This is called Neo-orthodoxy. Beware. Nida says Bible language was not given of God but was determined by the writers of the Bible.
Nida does not believe the Bible’s own confession about its nature. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Since the Bible writers did not choose their words, it is heretical to say they would write in a different language form if they were writing today. Paul’s words did not arise from his own will and context but were Revelations from Heaven and were written in words chosen by God. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12). See also 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, where Paul states that the very words of New Testament Revelation are of God. Nida says there are no absolutes in Christianity except God.
Nida puts everything which man has touched in the category of imperfection, even the Bible and the institutions of described in Scripture, such as the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the church. Nida is wrong. The Bible, though written by fallible man, is infallible Revelation. Nida says Bible translation is to be tested by the response of non-christians and by youth.
Nida has things backwards. How could unsaved people and young people determine if a Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture? They don’t have the ability, spiritually or educationally, to make such a determination. The Bible plainly says the unsaved cannot understand God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:12-14). It is the translator’s job to make an accurate Bible translation. It is then the job of evangelists and teachers to help people understand the Bible. Nida’s erroneous view of the Bible is his foundational heresy, and this heresy alone is justification for God’s people to mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17). It is very strange to see people who profess to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God following the teachings of men who deny this precious doctrine. Another of the editors of the United Bible Societies‘ Greek New Testament is BRUCE MANNING METZGER (1914- ). Metzger is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the American Bible Society. Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today its chief editor sometimes is invited to speak at Evangelical forums. The RSV hasn’t changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has! Metzger was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible and wrote the introductions to each book in this butchered version of the Scriptures. The Preface claims that "Dr. Metzger was actively involved at every stage of the work, from the initial studies on each of the sixty-six books through all the subsequent editorial reviews. The finished condensation has received his full approval." The Condensed Bible removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19! In the introductions to the books of the Reader’s Digest Bible, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider some examples:
Metzger‘s modernism was also evident in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973). Metzger co-edited this volume with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman Catholic authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Metzger wrote many of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider some excerpts from the notes:
This modernistic babble is a lie. The Pentateuch was written by the hand of Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation! In Metzger’s "Introduction to the New Testament" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, he completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are divine revelation, not some happenstance editing of oral tradition. Bruce Metzger is a heretic. He piously claims on one hand that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and error. He denies the Bible’s history, its miracles, and its authorship, while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not do injustice to the Word of God, because, he says, the Bible is not "written for history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind"! Metzger has been called an Evangelical by some who should know better, but upon the authority of the man’s own writings, I declare that Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. He is a false teacher. He is an apostate. He is a heretic. Those are all Bible terms. Having studied many of the man’s works, I am convinced those are the terms that must be applied to him. One Baptist writer cautiously defended Metzger to me with these words—"he did write a superb pamphlet in 1953 refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses and defending the full and absolute deity of Christ." Even the Pope of Rome defends the full and absolute deity of Christ. A man can defend the deity of Christ and still be a false teacher. A man who denies the written Word also denies the Living Word. They stand or fall together. If the Bible contains error, Christ was a liar. If Christ is perfect Truth, so is the Bible. In The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, which appeared in 1965, Metzger claims that "the discipline of form criticism has enlarged our understanding of the conditions which prevailed during the years when the gospel materials circulated by word of mouth" (p. 86). This is not true. Form criticism is that unbelieving discipline which claims that the Gospels were gradually developed out a matrix of tradition and myth. Form critics hold a variety of views (reflecting the unsettled and relativistic nature of the rationalism upon which they stand), but all of them deny that the Gospels are the verbally inspired, divinely-given, absolutely infallible Word of God. Metzger says, "What each evangelist has preserved, therefore, is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church" (Ibid.). Metzger is wrong. The Gospel writers have indeed given us, by divine revelation, a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ in precisely the form designed by the Holy Spirit to present Christ to the world. Praise God for it! KURT ALAND (1915- ) has served as coeditor of the Nestle-Aland Greek text since the 1940s. His wife, Barbara, is director of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Munster, Westphalia, Germany. With most Bible critics, Aland rejects verbal inspiration.
Thus, we see that Aland does not believe in a settled, authoritative canon of Scripture. Everything is to be questioned; everything is open to change. He believes it is crucial that a new canon be created through ecumenical dialogue. He rejects verbal inspiration. Having considered the editors of the UBS Greek New Testament, we come now to the text itself. The UBS Greek New Testament Differs Vastly from the Preserved Text The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament is a revision of the Greek text introduced to the English Revised Version translation committee in the late nineteenth century. This text was produced by two of the members of the committee, Westcott and Hort, who preferred two Greek manuscripts (the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus) to make hundreds of changes in the traditional Greek text that had been used up to that time. The Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament was a critically different text from the one used by Bible translators during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries and by the missionary translators who produced versions in the major languages of the world during the 18th and 19th centuries. Everett Fowler made extensive studies of the Westcott-Hort Text, the Nestle Text, the United Bible Societies (UBS) Text, and many of the modern English versions based upon these, comparing them with the Received Text and the King James Bible. When the UBS Greek New Testament (the revision of the Westcott-Hort Text that is the most popular Greek text today in Christian education and translation work) is compared with the Received Text, we learn the following:
The point is this: If the Bible Societies’ Greek text (there are only 250 or so word differences between the Westcott-Hort text and the United Bible Societies’ text) is assumed to be the nearest to the verbally inspired original text, then the Received Text includes over 8,000 Greek words not inspired of God, including several dozen entire verses and portions of verses. The difference amounts to roughly the same amount of material as the books of 1 and 2 Peter combined. The UBS New Testament deletes or questions more than 40 entire verses that are contained in the KJV and the other God-honored Protestant versions--Matt. 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28 16:9-20; Lk. 17:36; 23:17; 24:12,40; Jn. 5:4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 Jn. 5:8. Large portions of other verses are deleted, including most of Matt. 5:44; 15:8; 19:9; 20:7; 20:16,22; 25:13; 27:35; 28:9; Mk. 6:11; 7:8; 9:49; 10:24; 11:10; 13:14; Lk. 1:28; 4:4; 9:55,56; 11:2-4; 21:4; 22:64; Jn. 5:3; Acts 2:30; 9:5-6; 23:9; 24:6-8; 28:16; Rom. 8:1; 11:6; 14:6; 1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 3:1; Eph. 5:30; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 2:7; 1 Jn. 5:13; Rev. 1:8,11; and 5:14. Not only are the new texts and versions quantitatively different from the Received Text, but they are qualitatively different. Many of the differences are doctrinally significant. Many of the omissions in the UBS Greek New Testament affect important doctrines of the faith, including the Deity and Virgin Birth of Christ, the Atonement, and the Trinity. For example, the UBS Greek Testament deletes the word "God" in 1 Tim. 3:16, thus destroying one of the Bible’s clearest testimonies to Christ’s Divinity. The words "the Lord" are removed from 1 Cor. 15:47, thus destroying this testimony to Christ's deity. The words "by Himself" are removed from Heb. 1:3, thus deleting this powerful witness about Christ’s atonement. The deletion of Acts 8:37 in the UBS Greek Testament destroys the effectiveness of this passage of Scripture as to the fact that faith must precede baptism. The omission of 1 John 5:7 removes from the Bible one of the plainest references to the Trinity. We have included a detailed study of the doctrinal corruptions of the Westcott-Hort Greek text in the book Myths about Modern Bible Versions (1999, Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277. 360-675-8311). There can be no doubt that the UBS Greek New Testament is a significantly different text than that which underlies the King James Version and other great Protestant translations which have been so honored and singularly blessed by God for 400 years. The Bible societies themselves admit that their Greek text is significantly different from the Bible text used in the centuries preceding ours. According to Bible society scholars, the Greek text of the Protestant Reformation is a corrupt text. They contend that it was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the purest text and most accurate methods of discerning the correct textual reading were discovered. This is stated in the Preface to an American Bible Society edition of the Revised Standard Version:
Is this true? Is the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text gravely defected? No, it is not, but we see that the translators of the RSV did not accept the popular idea that there is no significant doctrinal differences between the texts and versions. There are many reasons for rejecting the Bible society’s position in this serious matter, but for the purposes of this study we want to focus on one, and that is God’s promise of preservation. God has promised to preserve His Word from generation to generation. He gave a pure, holy Word, and He has promised to preserve that Word. I believe God has done just this. Consider the following promises carefully:
Because of these promises, I cannot accept any new Greek text which is different from the one that was spread throughout the world during the great Protestant Reformation and world missionary movement of the past four centuries. In light of God’s promises regarding the preservation of His Word, it simply is not possible for me to believe that God would allow the purest text to be hidden away for hundreds of years (collecting dust in a heretical monastery at Mt. Sinai and in the Pope’s library at the Vatican!), while a corrupted text in the form of the Received Text was being distributed throughout the world more widely than at any other time in history. (I deal more thoroughly with the doctrine of preservation in the book Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, available from Way of Life Literature.) This is no light matter. If the Bible societies are correct in their assumption that the Bible of the Protestant Reformation was gravely defected, the great work of God during the hundreds of years prior to this century was based upon a corrupted Bible. If the Bible societies are wrong about this matter, it is their Greek text which is the corrupted one, and they are responsible for distributing to men a perversion of God’s Word. What could be more serious? What could provoke the wrath of God more quickly, more certainly than the corruption of His blessed and Holy Word? It is our settled conviction that the Bible societies of our day stand guilty in this matter. They are using their vast resources to spread throughout the world a seriously corrupted Greek text. THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION Let us pass now from the Bible societies' Greek text to the English versions they are distributing, beginning with the Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version is copyrighted by the National Council of Churches in America and is widely distributed by the United Bible Societies. In South Asia, for example, where we have had our missionary work, the RSV is very popular due to the influence of the Bible societies. On a trip to India in recent years I visited a Roman Catholic bookstore in Calcutta and was told by a nun there that the main version they distribute now is the RSV. I wanted to purchase a Roman Catholic translation, but they had only a few dusty copies of the Jerusalem Bible. The translation they were pushing was the RSV, and the copies they had were published by the Bible societies. On that same trip I visited the Calcutta branch of the Bible Society in India [a member of the United Bible Societies] and saw a large supply of RSV Bibles containing the apocrypha. In addition, it should be pointed out that most translations made by the Bible societies are made from the RSV or from the Greek and Hebrew text underlying the RSV. This is true for the Hindi language, which is one of the two official languages of India and which is spoken by 31% of the more than 700 million people of that country. Practically all of the vernacular translations of the Bible in India are based either on the RSV, the Bible societies' Today's English Version, or the Bible societies' Greek New Testament. What kind of Bible is the Revised Standard Version? Rather than giving a detailed analysis of the translation itself, I will share a brief study of the doctrinal position of the men who produced the translation. Keep in mind, also, that at least two of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament were involved in this shameful endeavor. These men are Bruce Metzger and Allen Wikgren. Tell me now, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed" (Amos 3:3)? The RSV translators included some of the most notorious Modernists of this century. To demonstrate this we will not quote what someone else has said about them; we will give excerpts directly from their own books which we have obtained at considerable expense. The heretical position on biblical inspiration held by these modern translators can be contrasted sharply with that of the men who produced the text and translations in the lineage of the King James Bible. WILLIAM FOXWELL ALBRIGHT (1891-1971) served on the Old Testament committee of the Revised Standard Version.
WALTER RUSSELL BOWIE (1882-1969) served on RSV New Testament committee. He also contributed to The Interpreter’s Bible of 1951-57.
Bowie was dead wrong. We know precisely the form of Christ’s resurrection. It was bodily! We know precisely the time. It was three days after the crucifixion. The writers were not trying to describe the resurrection in their own words; they were writing words given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Their description of the resurrection was not a haphazard attempt to put the event into fallible human words. To claim such a thing is an absolute denial of biblical inspiration. Bowie’s book is misnamed. It should have been titled "I Believe in the Jesus Christ of My Own Imagination." MILLAR BURROWS (1889-c.1990), Yale University, served on the RSV New Testament committee as well as the Old Testament committee. He also helped produce the RSV Apocrypha.
HENRY JOEL CADBURY (1883-1974), Harvard Divinity School, served on the RSV New Testament committee. He also helped produce the RSV Apocrypha.
CLARENCE TUCKER CRAIG (1895-1953), Oberlin College, served on the RSV New Testament committee. He also helped produce the RSV Apocrypha.
ROBERT CLAUDE DENTAN (1907- ) is a translator for the New Revised Standard Version. He authored The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments (Greenwich, Conn.: Seabury Press, 1969), Preface to Old Testament Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), and The Design of the Scriptures: A First Reader in Biblical Theology (New York: Seabury Press, 1965). He also edited The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955).
EDGAR JOHNSON GOODSPEED (1871-1962), University of Chicago, was a member of the translation committee for the Revised Standard Version New Testament. He also published his own translation called the American Translation of the New Testament in 1923.
FREDERICK CLIFTON GRANT (1891-1974), Union Theological Seminary, served on the RSV New Testament committee. He also helped produce the RSV Apocrypha. Grant translated works by Neo-orthodox Rudolf Bultmann. One of these was Form Criticism: a new method of New Testament research; including the study of the Synoptic gospels by Rudolf Bultmann (1962).
WALTER J. HARRELSON was a translator of the New Revised Standard Version. He authored Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1964) and contributed to Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, edited by Douglas A. Knight.
RSV translator H.G.G. HERKLOTS made the following announcement of his modernism:
According to the Modernist, the Gospels are a hodgepodge of almost haphazard man-made writings. According to the Apostles, though, the Gospels were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. WILLIAM ANDREW IRWIN (1884-1967), University of Chicago Divinity School, served on the RSV Old Testament committee.
FLEMING JAMES (1877-1959), dean emeritus of the School of Theology, the University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn., served (beginning in 1947) on the RSV New Testament committee.
JAMES MOFFATT (1870-1944) was Yates Professor of Greek at Mansfield College, Oxford, and later Professor of Church History at the United Free Church College, Glasgow. From 1927-1940 he was Washburn Professor of Church History at Union Theological Seminary. He served on the translation committee for the Revised Standard Version New Testament. He also made two translations of his own: The first was The Historical New Testament in 1901. The second, The Moffatt Version New Testament, first appeared in England in 1913 and in the States in 1917. The Moffatt complete Bible was printed in 1926.
WILLARD LEAROY SPERRY (1882-1954), professor at Harvard Divinity School, was on the RSV Old Testament committee. Truly, the prophecies of the Apostles regarding the coming of unbelieving teachers and prophets into the churches are being fulfilled as never before. We can see that the Revised Standard Version was produced at least in large part by men who were not born of the Spirit, men who were unbelievers and apostates. This fact alone is sufficient reason for rejecting their work and the work of the Bible societies who promote this wicked translation. The Bible commands that God’s people separate from those who are false in doctrine. Certainly this would mean we are to reject Bible texts or translations made by such men.
We will do well, brethren, to obey these divine commands and to reject the works of unbelieving and apostate men. That means, of course, that we must have nothing to do with translations such as the Revised Standard Version. These are the works of the Devil. These verses also command that we separate ourselves from organizations such as the United Bible Societies, which produce and promote such wicked projects. When we come to the section dealing with the Bible societies’ affiliations with the Roman Catholic Church, we will see that the Revised Standard Version is often the basis for the so-called "interconfessional" Bible translation projects. THE TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION As we pointed out earlier, the Today's English Version (TEV) is owned by the American Bible Society, a founding member of the United Bible Societies. Almost half of the money for the annual operating budget of the United Bible Societies comes from the American Bible Society (Christian News, Dec. 8, 1986, p. 22). That the TEV is fully a United Bible Society production is seen in the following notes:
The popularity of the Today’s English Version (otherwise known as the Good News for Modern Man) is phenomenal. The New Testament portion of the TEV was published in 1966. In its first three years, it sold 17.5 million copies (Parade Magazine, Nov. 2, 1969). By 1971, more than 30 million copies of the TEV New Testament had been sold (Jakob Van Bruggen, Future of the Bible, 1972, p. 19). In 1973, the TEV whole Bible was published and the popularity of this paraphrase translation has continued unabated. From 1976 to 1987 the American Bible Society distributed more than 25 million copies of the TEV Bible (New Zealand Herald, Monday, May 4, 1987). By 1987, the TEV New Testament had sold more than 75 million copies (Focus, Oct. 1986, p. 5). According to the Sowing Circle, a publication of the Bible Society of India, the distribution of the TEV has averaged six million copies per year (Sowing Circle, Oct.-Dec. 1986, p. 2). The Today's English Version has become the most popular text of Scripture in Australia as well as in England (Undated brochure distributed by the Bible House, Australian Bible Society, Perth, West Australia, June 1988; Word in Action, Spring 1986, British & Foreign Bible Society, p. 5). What Greek text was used for this new translation? The Preface to the Thomas Nelson edition of the Good News Bible gives the answer: "The basic text for the New Testament is the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (3rd edition, 1975), but in a few instances the translation is based on a variant reading supported by one or more Greek manuscripts." We have already seen that the UBS Greek New Testament was produced by heretics. It represents the impure stream of corrupted texts. Apostate Translator Robert Bratcher The Today's English Version was translated primarily by Robert Bratcher. Again, rather than giving a detailed analysis of this popular version of the Bible, we will give some of the frightening facts about Robert Bratcher’s life and doctrinal beliefs. Following the biblical principle that a bitter fountain cannot produce a sweet stream, we know that if the translator of a version is a heretic his version will be untrustworthy. For our look at Bratcher we will go back to the early 1950s, when we find him doing missionary work for the Southern Baptist Convention in Brazil. While serving as professor of Greek and New Testament theology in a Southern Baptist Seminary in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Dr. Bratcher edited the "Questions and Answers" section of their paper, O Journal Batista. In this paper, July 9, 1953, Bratcher was asked how to reconcile Matthew 24:36 with John 14:9. His answer (in part): "This cannot mean however, that Christ retained in his incarnation all the attributes of Deity; rather he freely gave up those qualities he enjoyed in his eternal existence with the Father." In a letter to Julius C. Taylor, July 16, 1970, Bratcher said, "Of course I believe what I wrote in the Journal Batista of July 9, 1953" (Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual, Sunbury, Pennsylvania: Bible Truth Institute, 1975, p. 95). Dr. Bratcher held a question and answer session October 13, 1970, at the First Baptist Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Following is one of the questions and his answer:
We see that as early as 1953, Bratcher denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This would easily explain why the Today’s English Version perverts the most important passages on the Deity of Christ. Bratcher’s most vicious attack, though, has been against the Bible itself. Isn’t this an amazing testimony for a Bible translator! Consider some of the public statements Bratcher has made concerning the Bible:
On November 5, 1970, after a lecture at Furman University, Dr. Bratcher talked with students: "You admit that the Bible has fallacies; then how is it valuable?" a student questioned. [Bratcher answered,] "IF WE BUILD OUR FAITH WHOLLY ON THE BIBLE, THEN WE ARE BUILDING OUR FAITH ON SHIFTING SAND. We must follow the facts or there is nothing to believe. We cannot literally follow Jesus, only go in his direction" (The Greenville News, Greenville, South Carolina, Nov. 8, 1970). Though Bratcher’s apostasy was evident before he translated the Today’s English Version, little was known publicly about the man until 1981. In that year, Bratcher made some statements at a Southern Baptist Life Commission seminar in Dallas, Texas, which received close media attention. Following are quotes from Bratcher’s speech:
Here, then, we have the strange matter of a Bible translator who believes faith in the Bible is "shifting sand" and who utterly despises the doctrine that the Bible is the holy, infallibly inspired Word of God. Didn’t the Bible Society Fire Bratcher? The American Bible Society (ABS) was embarrassed by Bratcher’s remarks in Dallas because it cost them significant financial support. Bratcher issued an apology of sorts, saying, "I deeply regret the language I used and I apologize to those who were offended by it." Note that he did not repent of or apologize for his heresies, only of offending people. Soon thereafter, the ABS issued a public statement "completely disassociating" itself from Bratcher’s remarks, and within days Bratcher resigned from his position in the American Bible Society. This was only a duplicitous political move, though. Bratcher’s apostate translation is still distributed by the ABS and the United Bible Societies, and many other Modernists whose views are as heretical as Bratcher’s continue to work for the Bible societies. In fact, Bratcher himself still works with the United Bible Societies as a chief translation’s consultant! (Bulletin of the United Bible Societies, No. 138-139, 1985). Thus, part of Bratcher’s salary is still paid indirectly by the American Bible Society through its massive support of the UBS. In light of what we have seen about Bratcher’s life and beliefs, it is not surprising to learn that his translation is perverted. For instance, in several important passages the TEV weakens the doctrine of Christ's deity. See the TEV translation of John 1:1; Philippians 2:6; 1 Timothy 3:16; 6:14-16; Acts 20:28; Colossians 2:3; and Colossians 2:9 for examples. Also, in at least 12 passages, the TEV deletes the word "blood," referring to the precious blood of Christ which was shed for our sins and without which "there is no remission of sin." See the TEV translation of Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:14; Colossians 1:20; Hebrews 12:4; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5; and Revelation 5:9. The Bible societies accept Bratcher’s argument that to replace the word "blood" with the word "death" in these passages makes no difference in meaning or doctrine. Hebrews 9:22 gives answer to that lie by reminding us that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Christ’s death was not sufficient in itself to atone for our sins; He had to shed His blood as well. Therefore, when speaking of Christ’s atonement, it is wrong to replace the word "blood" with the word "death." Romans 5:9-10 explains the matter. Verse nine says we are justified through Christ’s blood, and verse ten says we are reconciled through Christ’s death. In other words, we are saved through the bloody death of Christ. Both were required for the Atonement. Only an unholy mind and unholy hands would make such changes in God’s holy Word. There are many other wicked changes that have been made in this unfaithful version. Yet, the United Bible Societies are distributing millions of copies of this translation throughout the world. This is a very evil thing. In many of the countries where the Bible societies work, Christians are uneducated and poorly trained. They lack the tools with which to discern the errors in the TEV and often do not have properly trained leaders who can protect them from perversions. The result is the weakening of the faith of multitudes of people. Jesus Christ said even the very smallest details of the Scriptures are perfect and will be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). He said the Scriptures cannot be broken, meaning they are unchangeable and infallible (John 10:35). The Apostles held the same view of Scripture. Paul said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter said, "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, reminds us that the words of the Psalmists are not man’s words, but God’s! (Acts 4:25). In Psalm 12:6-7 we are told that God’s words are absolutely pure and that God preserves His Word. The prophet David, in Psalm 19 and 119 exalts and glorifies the Word of God, the Scriptures, in the highest way, testifying, "Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate very false way" (Psalm 119:127,128). Any concept of biblical inspiration lower than this is false. And any man or society that promotes a fallible view of biblical inspiration is to be treated as apostate. They are to be marked and avoided in obedience to the Word of God. Dr. Bratcher and his companions in the Bible societies who hold similar views are evil false teachers, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and should be dismissed from their churches and denominations as such. It is sad that the Christians with whom they are associated are so weak, so compromising, so undiscerning, so fearful of man that they will not do this. May God help us to have the courage to obey His Word. Root Problem: Unbelief and Unregeneracy Robert Bratcher held a question and answer session October 13, 1970, at the First Baptist Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Following are four of the questions and answers:
On October 15, 1970, Bratcher held a question and answer session at the First Baptist Church, North Augusta, South Carolina. Before anyone could ask a question, the group was advised they could not ask Bratcher questions relating to his theology. Following is one question asked him:
The Bible says, "Let the redeemed of the Lord say so..." It is VERY strange for a Bible translator to refuse to testify to his salvation. The problem with many Christian leaders today, though, is that they have no salvation of which to testify. On a visit to Calcutta in 1984, I sat before the desk of a leader of the Bible Society of India. His name was Mr. S. Biswas, and we were visiting the offices of the Bible Society. An evangelist friend, Maken Sanglir, was sitting beside me as we talked for several minutes with Mr. Biswas. During th | |||||||