Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Which Bible Should We Trust?


Urib2007

Recommended Posts

[font="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I found this quote rather interesting.[/font]

[font="Lucida Console"]"[b]I must under God renounce every attachment to the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD[/b]...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; [b]I wrote the preface...
I'm in trouble;[/b] I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...
When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV...The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...[b]Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...[/b]
I don't want anything to do with it...
[T]he finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...
[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!...
If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

-- Dr. Frank Logsdon[/font]

Edited by Urib2007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1203629' date='Feb 23 2007, 08:13 PM'][Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!...
If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

-- Dr. Frank Logsdon[/font][/quote]
Since when is missing seven books 100% correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1203629' date='Feb 23 2007, 08:13 PM'][font="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I found this quote rather interesting.[/font]

[font="Lucida Console"]"[b]I must under God renounce every attachment to the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD[/b]...I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; [b]I wrote the preface...

(clip)

-- Dr. Frank Logsdon[/font][/quote]I thought it would be helpful to indicate that the "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is completely different from the Catholic "New American Bible."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thy Geekdom Come

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1203665' date='Feb 23 2007, 08:48 PM']I thought it would be helpful to indicate that the "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is completely different from the Catholic "New American Bible."[/quote]
Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Raphael' post='1203660' date='Feb 23 2007, 05:42 PM']Since when is missing seven books 100% correct?[/quote]

I just found that quote exceedingly powerful. Dr. Frank Logsdon's actions are meritorious because he admits he did wrong by co-foundering the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He then renders evidence in why the NASB is a heinous translation of God's Word. The NASB is just one example on how newer versions of the Bible are continuing to mislead unknowing and innocent Christians into thinking that what they're reading is truly God's Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[center][color="#000000"]Why we use the King James version

by Dr. Frank Logsdon[/color][/center]

As a pastor, I write this for the people in our church. On occasion, I have been asked why we, in our church, use the outdated King James Version. To answer that, we must touch on some complex and technical subjects. I, accordingly, have attempted to simplify the manner to a degree that most can understand.

In Proverbs 22:28 the Bible says to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark.

Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered.

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text.

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.



[b]Enter Textual Criticism[/b]

Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying.

Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading.

A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number.

The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of me earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.



[b]Manuscripts Aleph and B[/b]

ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume).

About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts.

It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings). Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism.



[b]Drs. Westcott and Hort[/b]

Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could he considered fundamentalists s the term was later coined and used. Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones.

Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and Text o f the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text mat had been received by virtually all Bible believing . churches for the preceding 19 centuries. In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred in as the critical text. 11 represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts.

From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT! Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e g Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes

If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt. any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect.



[b]Modern Versions[/b]

The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God. However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)?

Moreover, a number of the modem versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text. In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only Iess than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive.

In at least one case, a popular version bas bad the honesty to indicate m its subtitle mat it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms m their translations They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity of purpose of the Scripture.

As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted m recent translations based upon -me critical text. That should give pause for concern!



[b]The Godly Heritage of the KJV[/b]

In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark

Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of tbe Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And. it has been God blessed wherever it bas been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles.

Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax.

There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text.

However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "tbee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.


-Dr.Frank Logsdon





NOTES
Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it. "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?



Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (same as the NASB).

You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ."

-Dr. Frank Logsdon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

But the KJV has undergone numberous revisions because it was not well done the first time. You realize of course the 1611 KJV came out in three different versions. How can something done in the 1600s be superior to St Jerome who used original texts from the 4th CENTURY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archaeology cat

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1203728' date='Feb 24 2007, 03:27 AM']I just found that quote exceedingly powerful. Dr. Frank Logsdon's actions are meritorious because he admits he did wrong by co-foundering the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He then renders evidence in why the NASB is a heinous translation of God's Word. The NASB is just one example on how newer versions of the Bible are continuing to mislead unknowing and innocent Christians into thinking that what they're reading is truly God's Word.[/quote]

The NASB is mainly used by scholars because of it being so literal. Is it the only Bible I use? No, I like to read the RSV-CE and Jerusalem Bible for personal study. But I do use it when translating from Hebrew because it helps me with the vocabulary. I don't really see how it being literal could be heinous, so I'm assuming you're talking about verses that are missing. Yes, some translations decided to omit the verses that were not in the earliest manuscripts, but none that I have does so, NASB or otherwise. In my copy of the NASB the verses are there, but with notes saying they aren't in the earliest manuscripts. It's just a note for those who might be interested, but it doesn't invalidate those verse or anything. Now, if I did have a translation that didn't include them at all, not even in a footnote, then I'd probably be a bit upset, and I'm sure there are some that do that. Earliest versions of the NASB could have done that, but the more recent one does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1200708' date='Feb 20 2007, 12:41 AM']The NIV, seriously! a bible that denies the deity of Jesus Christ? That calls Jesus a servant?
That denies the Virgin birth and so the list goes on...At least make an effort and compare the KJV and the NIV.[/quote]

:huh: Where is that? I never read in my bible that there is any denial of Christ's deity. Of course there were instances where he was a servant but that doesn't change anything in his godly being. Jesus never took the role of a master or one who gives orders. He was always a suffering servant and this humility exalts him more as God. Same goes for the virgin birth .... where does it deny it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1203729' date='Feb 23 2007, 10:39 PM']You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ."

-Dr. Frank Logsdon[/quote]My own RSV (Protestant Edition) translation makes the statement, "Yet the King James Version has grave defects," in its preface. The corrections to the "100% correct" Bible are found in the American Standard Version. Maybe the ASV is 101% correct? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ye have perverted the words of the living God." -- Jeremiah 23:36

1. The New Age movement's expressed goal of infiltrating the evangelical church and gradually changing the bible to conform to its One World Religion is evident in the current new versions. Their words and doctrines prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the Antichrist, his mark, image, and religion - Lucifer worship.

2. This has taken place because the editors of the new versions, as well as the authors of the Greek editions, manuscripts, lexicons and dictionaries used in their compilation, hold beliefs which an orthodox Christian would find shocking. Research opens the door exposing them in seance parlors, mental institutions, prison cells and courtrooms for heresy trials. A few examples include:

*The Greek text used to translate the [b]NIV, NASB and others[/b] was an edition drastically altered by a Sprititualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through seances), who believed he was in the "new age." The other 'new' version editors were also involved in spiritualism. (Arthur Westcott, [i]The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott[/i], Vol II, London: Macmillan and Co., Limited 1903)

*The NIV's chief editor vaunts his version's heresy saying: This (his own translation) shows the great error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith... and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior. (Edwin Palmer, [i]The Holy Spirit[/i] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974)

Few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. (Kenneth Barker, [i]The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation[/i] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1986)

*The NASB's progenitor, called "the mediator between East and West" by his colleagues, was an instrumental member of the 'gathering' which East-West Journal calls the kick off event for the New Age movement and "East West Synthesis." (David Schaff, [i]The Life of Phillip Schaff[/i] New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897) (Alex Jack, [i] The New Age Dictionary[/i] Brookline, Mass.:Kanthaka Press, 1976)

This new version editor referred to his alterations of the articles of faith saying:

The changes thus far..are in the right direction...and should contain the germs of a new theology. ([i]The Life of Schaff,[/i]pp.427-428)

[b]*A surprising number of new version editors have permanently lost their ability to speak (five and still counting).[/b]

*Insanity marked another prominent new version editor whose commitments to mental institutions served as bookends to a life fraught with derangement and hallucinosis.

*The reference dictionary used by new version editors to research Greek etymology was edited by Hitler's propaganda 'high priest,' who was later tried and found guilty of war crimes as an accessory in the death of millions.

3. Contrary to advertising claims, the new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV, according to research using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicators.

4. A 'new' Christianity is emerging from the new versions which substitute riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation.

5. The few Greek manuscripts underlying new versions contain yet unreleased material which is an exact bluepring for the antichrist's One World Religion. A complete translation of these is being called for by new version editors and New Agers alike. This 'new' version could be the final "universal bible" called for by U.N. Assistant Secretary General Robert Muller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urib, you seem to be quoting from the following website's PDF:

[url="http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/NABV/preview.PDF"]http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downlo...ABV/preview.PDF[/url]

Apparently, this website is KJV-only, arguing against the NIV and NASB versions. If so, you'd be happy to know that the Catholic Church has not approved either translation. On the other hand, it also rejects the KJV translation.

Would you like a nice English translation? Try the [url="http://www.drbo.org/"]Douay-Rheims Version (link)[/url], which pre-dates the King James translation by a couple years. Or, if you'd like, you could use the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition"]Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition (link)[/url], which includes all of the Deutero-Canonical books. Otherwise, there's always the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/"]New American Bible (link)[/url] or the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Bible"]Jerusalem Bible (link)[/url]. If you are trying to avoid the "new age" or "spiritualist" influence of Protestant translations, you'll be happy to know that these translations are approved by the Church, and that none of the books of the Bible have been removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mateo "The Ugly",

In fact, I quoted from G.A. Riplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions." I didn't know that piece was available online.
G.A. Riplinger is a commendable source if I might add. However, many may disagree with her rhetoric since she's a former Catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this her?

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.A._Riplinger"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.A._Riplinger[/url]

I don't think that her being "ex-Catholic" is an issue, as much as the positions she espouses. According to the contributors at Wiki, she is even too extreme for "mainstream" KJV-only advocates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIV editor Edwin Palmer comes to his theological conclusion:
"There are few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God."

[b]NIV, NASB, et al.[/b]
1 John 3:16 "We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us."

[b]KJV[/b]
1 John 3:16 "Hereby perceive we the love of God because he laid down his life for us."

[b]NIV, NASB, et al.[/b]
Jude 1:4 "our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ"

[b]KJV[/b]
Jude 1:4 "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ"

[b]NIV, NASB, et al.[/b]
1 Cor. 10:9 "We should not test the Lord, as some of them did and were killed by snakes."

[b]KJV[/b]
1 Cor. 10:9 "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents."

[b]NIV, NASB, et al.[/b]
Rom. 14:10,12 "God's judgment seat...For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

[b]KJV[/b]
Rom. 14:10,12 "judgment seat of Christ...So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. [Christ is God.]

[b]NIV, NASB, et al. [/b]
Acts 2:30 "to seat one of his descendents upon his throne"

[b]KJV[/b]
Acts 2:30 "he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne."

[b]NIV, NASB, et al. [/b]
Rev. 1:11
[Their omission in verse 11, breaks the connection between the "Alpha and Omega" of verse 8, who is the eternal God, and "the Son of man...[who] was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore" in verse 13 and 18. Hort says, "The speaker cannot be our Lord."]

[b]KJV[/b]
Rev. 1:11
"I am Alpha and Omega."
[As the chapter is written in the KJV, it is the best defense of the deity of Christ that can be shown to a Jehovah Witness. They believe that the Alpha and Omega is God, but their version agrees with the new versions which obscure the deity of Christ.]

[b]NIV, NASB, et a.[/b]
Rom. 5:9 "saved from the wrath of God through him"

[b]KJV[/b]
Rom. 5:9 "saved from wrath through him [He is God!]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...