In the celebration of this sacrament we receive the renewed assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, and of our fellowship with Christ; unite with one another as members of His Body, and rejoice in the hope of His return to glory. Therefore, we will commune faithfully and thus renew our pledge of allegiance to Him.
Unknown Author

Why We Reject This Version

Why We Reject This Version

WHY WE REJECT THIS VERSION We have been asked a number of times recently about a new version of the New Testament that is being widely circulated today. We feel compelled to set forth very good reasons why we cannot recommend, “Good News for Modern Man” — “The New Testament in Today’s English Version.” PREACHERS ARE SLIPPING FAST In 1952 when the “REVISED STANDARD VERSION” of the Bible was published, there were many preachers who stood up and opposed it across the nation. In 16 short years, many preachers must have lost their protest. Even though the “Today’s English Version” (hereafter referred to by TEV), is just as bad as the “Revised Standard Version” in some places, we have heard very little protest against it. Thank God for a few who have spoken out on the subject. May this cause others to make a serious study of this poor translation of the Bible, and to sound the alarm. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE TEV The TEV Bible seems to have something against the word “virgin”. In the “King James Version” (hereafter referred to by KJV), we find the word “virgin” 14 times in the New Testament. The TEV Bible re- moves “virgin” from 11 of these places, and retains it in only 3 of these passages. Note the following passage: Luke 1:27 KJV, “to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” Luke 1:27 TEV, “He had a message for a girl promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. The girl’s name was Mary.” Note how that virgin is changed to girl in the TEV. There is a world of difference in the meaning of the two words. Sad to say, many girls are not virgins. This poor and unwise translation of Luke 1:27 should be enough to convince the average Bible believing Christian to reject the TEV, but there is more to come. TEV CHANGES IN THE SECOND EDITION The TEV was copyrighted in 1966 by the American Bible Society. A “Second Edition” was printed in 1968 and was also printed under the 1966 copyright. The outside cover and inside printing along with the line drawings look almost exactly the same, except for “Second Edi- tion” being printed on the end of the cover jacket in fairly small type. There is absolutely nothing that we can see in the preface or anywhere else in the “Second Edition” that would indicate the vast difference between the first edition and the “Second Edition” when we compare the two translations of Luke 1:27. Luke 1:27 TEV, 1966 edition: “He had a message for a virgin who was promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. The virgin’s name was Mary.” Luke 1:27 TEV, 1968 edition: “He had a message for a girl prom- ised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. The girl’s name was Mary.” Please note that “virgin” is found twice in the 1966 edition, and removed twice in the 1968 “Second Edition”. Is this another form of the old shell game, now you see it, now you don’t? The preface to both editions are exactly the same. There is nothing to suggest any such radical and unwise changes, as found in Luke 1:27, have been made. Please notice the following quotation from the preface of both editions: “The text from which this translation was made is the Greek New Testament prepared by an international committee of New Testament scholars sponsored by several members of the United Bible Societies, and published in 1966. Verses marked with brackets are not in the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament. “The basic text was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher; the line drawings were prepared by Mlle. Annie Valoton.” WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE? It might be well to ask a few questions about the above mentioned text and the translator, Dr. Robert G. Bratcher. Was the word “vir- gin” in the text used in translating Luke 1:27 in the 1966 edition? If it was, how did it get out of the 1968 “Second Edition”? What kind of translator would put “virgin” in the 1966 edition and take it out and substitute “girl” in the 1968 “Second Edition”? Was “virgin” put in the 1966 edition to make it look pretty good to keep an RSV type protest from developing and then taken out two years later when it seemed safe to do so? Even the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which was sponsored by the modernistic National Council of Churches does not remove the word “virgin” from Luke 1:27. In our opinion, the TEV is just one more attack on the Word of God, and the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How the devil hates the Word of God and the Deity of Christ, and would do anything to destroy the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. THE TEV AND THE WORD VIRGIN ELSEWHERE IN THE N.T. Matt. 25:1 KJV: “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins…” Matt. 25:1, TEV: “On that day the Kingdom of heaven will be like ten girls…” How easy it is to see the difference in the King James Version and the TEV. Matt 25:7 KJV: “Then all those virgins arose…” Matt 25:7 TEV: “The ten girls woke up…” The TEV removes “Virgin” also from Matt 25:11; Acts 21:9; I Cor. 7:25, 28,36,37: Rev. 14:4 and Luke 2:36. The TEV leaves “virgin” in I Cor. 7:34; II Cor 11:2; and Matt. 1:23. “VIRGIN” BELONGS IN ALL 14 PLACES The Greek word “PARTHENOS” which is translated “virgin” 14 times in the King James Version, means “virgin” and should be so translated in any reliable version. The translator of the TEV must not have believed in verbal inspiration, for “virgin” is inserted in Luke 1:34 where it is not found in the original text. While it is true as far as the interpretation of Luke 1:34 goes, it is not a translation, for no word for “virgin” appears in the original text. Since it is not in the original anyway, it will be no problem for the translator or the publisher to take it out later. SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION AND TEV Surely conservative Bible scholars among Southern Baptists know better than to approve this poor and misleading translation of the Bible. However, we do not believe that the conservative Bible Schol- ars have been making the decisions for a long time in the Southern Baptist Convention. Why did the Baptist General Convention of Texas buy and distrib- ute 1,400,000 copies of the TEV? The Lubbock Baptist Churches (SBC) were to distribute copies to 10,000 people in Lubbock alone. We contend that the KJV is far superior in accuracy, clarity, and literary beauty. Even if a new version were needed in the English today, we do not believe that the TEV could qualify as an honest effort to fill that need. CATHOLICS GIVE OKAY TO VERSION OF BIBLE The above quoted headline appeared recently in the Lubbock Ava- lanche-Journal over the name “Louis Cassels UPI Religion Writer”. Mr. Cassels says: “The best-selling Bible translation in history has been cleared for use by Catholics as well as Protestants. It’s the so-called `Today’s English Version’ of the New Testament, known as `TEV’ for short. Published by the American Bible Society, the TEV has racked up a phenomenal sale of 15 million copies since it was put into circulation in Sept., 1966. Neither the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New English Bible (NEB), nor any other modern English translation has come close to matching TEV in annual sales. “TEV sales should soar even higher in the year ahead because the translation has received the official approval, or imprimatur, of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Catholic archbishop of Boston, It was Cardinal Cushing who earlier gave an imprimatur to the Protes- tant-sponsored Revised Standard Version. “Protestant and Catholic scholars in recent years have reached substantial agreement on the translation of the Bible into Eng- lish, and Cardinal Cushing’s expert consultants did not seek a single change in the text of the TEV before approving it for Catholic use. “A committee of scholars headed by Dr. Bratcher is still at work on the Old Testament portion of the TEV. It is scheduled for publication in 1973.” We believe that the above article by Louis Cassels is self- explanatory and needs very little comment. Bible believing Christians might well beware of anything that the Roman Catholic Church is en- dorsing. The TEV seems to be fitting in right well into the plans for the Ecumenical One World Church. SPECIAL EDITION PUBLISHED FOR BROADMAN PRESS The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention liked the TEV so well that their publishing company (Broadman Press) had the Ameri- can Bible Society publish a special edition for them. In this edition they added Footnotes and Auxiliary material and this part is copy- righted by Broadman Press. None of these footnotes correct the faulty text. The text in the Broadman edition follows the Second Edition text, although we could not find any place where it says so. The RSV Bible of the 50’s was pushed by the Southern Baptists in their Book Stores, State papers and literature, but it was never accepted by the people as a whole. Now they have solved that problem with the TEV; they are just giving it away by the multiplied millions, and this operation is being financed by the tithes and offerings of many sound Bible believing Southern Baptists. Now the Roman Catholics have endorsed the TEV. What strange bedfellows we find today. The Roman Catholics endorsed it and the Southern Baptists are giving it away by the millions. We would like for some good Southern Baptist to explain that to the people. THEY LEARNED A LOT FROM THE RSV Those who are promoting the TEV must have learned a lot from the experience that they had with the RSV. When the RSV was published in the early 50’s, the protest was enormous. The flap of the RSV carried the names of 22 men who had helped with the translation. Most of them were well-known modernist, who had already written books, articles, and sermons which set forth their very unorthodox beliefs. Of course, the modernistic record of these men was definitely a hindrance to the sale of the RSV. Leading fundamental preacher began to expose these unbelieving translators and the eyes of the people were opened. However, it seems that the TEV promoters were determined not to make the same mistake. They printed on page iv: “The basic text was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher.” It seems little is known of Dr. Bratcher, but is evident that his theological views must be very close to that of the modernistic RSV translators. THE TEV AND THE BLOOD The devil and the modernists hate the blood. Especially the blood of Christ. Some denominations have sought to take the word “blood” out of their song books, and we believe this is a serious error; but when men dare to take the “BLOOD” out of the Bible, they commit a far graver error. Notice how the meaning of these verses are clouded by leaving out the “blood”. Col. 1:14 KJV: “In whom we have REDEMPTION through HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins.” Col. 1:14 TEV: “By whom we are set free and our sins are forgiv- en.” Notice that the TEV leaves out “redemption” and “blood”. We contend that this is a poor, obscure and misleading translation. But, let us notice another: Col. 1:20 KJV: “And, have made peace through the blood of his cross…” Col. 1:20 TEV: “…God made peace through his Son’s death on the cross…” How the devil must laugh in glee when he hears the TEV, as it leaves out the blood in passage after passage. Heb. 10:19 KJV: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by THE BLOOD OF JESUS.” Heb. 10:19 TEV: “We have then, brothers, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus.” This translation of Heb. 10:19 destroys the Old Testament type. The High Priest could not enter the holy of holies without the blood on the day of atonement. (Lev. 16:15). Without the blood he dare not enter. No matter how many animals had died, he could not enter the holiest place without the blood. 1 Peter 1:19 KJV: “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 1 Peter 1:19 TEV: “…By the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was like a lamb without defect or spot.” Rev. 1:5 KJV: “…Unto him that loved us, and WASHED us from our sins in HIS OWN BLOOD.” Rev. 1:5 TEV: “…He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins.” We think that a comparison of the above scriptures will convince our readers that the TEV New Testament has left out many important scriptures that speak of the “BLOOD” of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They did not leave “blood” out of all scriptures, as this would be too obvious. However, we do give the references of some of the other places where the “BLOOD” is left out. See Matt 27:4,24,25; Act 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom.3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; and Rev. 5:9. ATTACKS UPON THE DEITY OF CHRIST We have already pointed out the attack upon the VIRGIN BIRTH of Christ, giving particular attention to Luke 1:27 where a “virgin” is left out of this verse twice. If Christ was not VIRGIN BORN, then we have no savior. The modernist have been denying the Virgin Birth for many years. But this is not the only way to attack the deity of Jesus Christ. Note the following scriptures where an obvious attempt has been made to make Joseph the father of Jesus. Luke 2:23 KJV, “And Joseph and his mother marveled…” Luke 2:33 TEV, “The child’s father and mother were amazed…” Luke 2:43 KJV, “…Joseph and his mother knew not of it.” Luke 2:43 TEV, “…His parents did not know this…” This could be nothing but an attempt to make it appear that Joseph was the father of our Lord. Notice the next scripture leaves out “BEGOTTEN”. John 3:16 KJV, “for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” John 3:16 TEV, “for God love the world so much that he gave his only Son…” The TEV also leaves “BEGOTTEN” out in John 1:14,18; 3:18; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; and I John 4:9. “ONLY BEGOTTEN” comes from two Greek words, one meaning “alone” and the other meaning “I am born”. When Christ said in John 3:16 that He was the only begotten Son of God, He was claiming to be the only person who ever had God for the father of his physical nature. This is an insistence that He was not Joseph’s son or any other man’s son, but the virgin born Son of God, conceived in a supernatural way by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word “monogenes” meaning “only begotten” is in the manuscripts and for the translator to leave it out of the TEV is wicked, unscholarly, and dishonest. In John 9:35, the TEV changes “Son of God” to “Son of Man”. In scripture after scripture, we see how the TEV weakens the truth con- cerning the eternal deity of Christ, in relationship to creation, redemption and many other Bible doctrines. Eph. 3:9 KJV, “…God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” Eph. 3:9 TEV, “…God, who is the Creator of all things…” In Col. 1:2 and I Thess. 1:1 we are told in the KJV that “Peace” comes from “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” In both in- stances the TEV leaves out “Lord Jesus Christ.” We believe this is wicked and sinful. Rev. 1:11 KJV, “Saying I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…” In the TEV this is left entirely out. In Rev. 1:8 KJV we are told that Christ is “the beginning and the ending,” but in the TEV this is left out. In Rev. 5:14 KJV, we are told that the Lamb “Liveth forever and ever,” but in the TEV this is left out. Time after time the TEV leaves out “Christ” or “Lord” when speak- ing of our Lord Jesus Christ. We object to this changing of the Scriptures in order to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ. PLAN OF SALVATION CHANGED The TEV not only confuses the reader concerning the Virgin Birth, Deity, and Blood Atonement of Christ, but misleads concerning almost every major doctrine found in the New Testament. The plan of salva- tion, so vital to the sinner, is confused in a number of places. Note the following: I Peter 2:2 KJV, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” I Peter 2:2 TEV, “Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the pure spiritual milk, so that by drinking it you may grow up and be saved.” In this scripture, the TEV changes the wording in such a manner to make salvation the result of works. In the KJV, the scripture rightly reads, and teaches Christian growth and maturity. GOD WARNS ABOUT TAKING FROM OR ADDING UNTO HIS WORD Rev 22:18, 19 KJV, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Deut. 4:2 KJV, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” Deut. 12:32 KJV, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” THE BIBLE AND SAVING FAITH Saving faith is produced by hearing the Word of God. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17, “For by grace are ye saved through faith…” Eph. 2:8. When man begins to change the Bible, he is changing the very Word that produces faith, and we would say that this is a dangerous thing to say the least. The Bible is not the writings of men, “but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” II Peter 1:21. Modernism would like to take away the purity and the power of the Word of God. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6. “Thou has magnified thy word above all they name.” Psalm 138:2. “…The scrip- ture cannot be broken.” John 10:35 GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- filled.” Matt. 5:18. JOT is for JOD, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. TITTLE is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter JOD as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be de- stroyed.” Vincent. We are told that “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” is an essential part of the Christian soldier’s equipment. Eph. 6:17. Indeed without the Word of God, man cannot have salvation or any part of the Christian armour. “The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” Heb.4:12. Some may want to go into battle with a “sword” that has been nicked, broken, twisted, and damaged, but we prefer the pure word of God, a sword that will never fail. The Bible warns us of false prophets who would come in the last days. They will continue to try to change God’s word, but they will ultimately fail. GOD’S WORD WILL STAND “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOREVER.” Isaiah 40:8. God will keep his word. Keep your King James Version of the Bible and reject these Christ-denying ver- sions of the Bible. Don’t be deceived!

Reproduced by: Holy Alamo Christian Church, Consecrated P.O. Box 398, Alma, AR 72921 (501)997-8118