Home What We
Pages By
Pages By



Do you know for a fact that if you were to
die today that you would not go to hell?
If you do not know, click here.


Deity And Titles Of The Lord Jesus Christ
The Virgin Birth And The Firstborn
The Blood Of Christ
The Eternality Of The Lord Jesus Christ
Heaven And Hell
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged
Sexual Sin And Perversion
Salvation As A Process Of Works And Eternal Insecurity
Our Servants And Ministers Have Been Replaced With Slaves
The Priests Have Hauled Off Our Pastors And Ministers
Fasting And Prayer
The New Version Cutting Boards
The Living Bible Turns The Lord Jesus Christ Into A Brawler
The One
Specific Comments About Some Versions
Frank Logsdon's Repudiation Of His Support For The NASB
Why Do Good Men Err On The Bible Version Issue?

    David Cloud in discussing the theological implications of a footnote in the 1901 American Standard Version made the following statement:

“A footnote in the 1901 American Standard Version at John 9:38 illustrates the perverted theology of its translators.  This verse says the blind man who was healed by the Lord Jesus Christ “worshiped him”.  The Bible plainly says that God and God alone is to be worshiped (Exodus 20:3–5).  Thus the fact that Christ received worship clearly proves that he is God.  Note the clever way the American revisers attempted to overthrow the teaching of this verse with their wicked footnote: “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the creator”.  I cite this from an edition of the 1901 American Standard Version which I have in my library.”4

David Cloud in discussing the Revised Standard Version had the following comment:

“Not only did the Revised Standard Version translators base their work up on the critical Greek text, they introduced many liberal readings of their own.  When Revised Standard Version was published, the chairman of the translation committee, Luther Weigle, stated that the use of THEE, THOU , and THINE had been restricted to the address of deity.  This was a testimony to the fact that the revisers did not believe Jesus Christ is God, because they never addressed him with these terms in their version.”5

    In discussing the footnotes and marginal notes of the American Standard Version Peter Ruckman wrote:

 “In the footnotes and marginal notes of the American Standard Version (1901) will be found the textual readings of the Revised Standard Version(1952)! Out of 5,788 departures from the Greek texts of the Receptus, that American Standard Version displays at least forty omissions which deal with the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, or the authority of Jesus Christ. among these, the student should study Matthew 19:19, 20:22,23:14, 28:17;Mark 6:11,9:24,13:14, 10:21,11:26;Luke 2:33, 4:4, 4:8,4:41, 23:38; John 1:14,1:27, 3:15,4:42, 9:35;Acts 1:3,8:37;etc., etc.”6

    In comparing the King James Version and the Inclusive Language New International Version in Psalm 34:20 Ian Paisley made the following observation:

King James Bible Psalm 34:20: “He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken”.  Inclusive language New International Version Psalm 34:20: “He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken”.  This translation corrupts a key prophetic passage.  Psalm 34:20 refers to Christ and the fact that his bones were not broken on the cross.  John 19:32–36 was a direct fulfillment of Psalm 34:20.  The Inclusive Language New International Version changes the singular masculine pronoun “he has” to the plural pronoun “their”, thereby destroying its prophetic significance.7

    In comparing the reverent language of the Authorized Version to the irreverent language of the Living Bible Ian Paisley notes:

“Compare Saul’s attack on his son Jonathan in I Samuel 20:30 as it was first translated in the Living Bible, (so-called) “you son of a bitch” to the Authorized Version’s “son of the perverse rebellious woman”, which by the way is admitted in the most recent edition of the Living Bible as the literal rendering.  Further, compare the Living Bible translation of the Elijah’s mocking of the prophets of Baal and I Kings 18:27 “else he is sitting on the toilet” (this is both inaccurate and ugly) to the Authorized versions “he is pursuing”.  Moreover, it is what the original Hebrew says.8

    In discussing the attacks on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in the modern English versions of the Bible, Ian Paisley had this to say concerning the New English Bible:

The Authorized Version universally uses “thee” and “thou” whether these pronouns are used of God or of man.  If the translators of the new English Bible are going to be consistent they would use “you” and “yours” all through their translation.  For some reason they have retained “thee” and “thou” in the passages where God is referred to, and “you” and “ yours” elsewhere. For example, in the book of Revelation, chapter 11:17, God is addressed in the New English Bible thus: “we give the thanks, O Lord God, sovereign over all, who art and who wast, because thou hast taken thy great power into thy hands and entered upon thy reign”.  Notice the pronoun “thou” used concerning Deity.  Never however, in the Gospels in the New English Bible is “thee” or “thou” used of our Lord Jesus Christ.  They consistently reject the Deity of the son of God.  For example, in Matthew 16:16 the great confession of Peter in Caesarea-Philippi is changed to read: “You are the Messiah”.  Here again Christ to the New English Bible translators is just a man.  This distinction of pronouns is unwarranted and is a subtle act to separate Jesus Christ from God, an act which is an entire contradiction of the scriptures.9

Peter Ruckman identified the following major problems in the New English Bible:

1. Deity of Christ attacked in Romans 9:5;1 Timothy 3:16;1 Corinthians 15:47; Matthew 9:2; Matthew 2:11(note the removal of all “worship”in the last reference); Matthew 9:18,14:32–33; Mark 5:6; Matthew 20:20 (“worship” has been removed again – though it is in ALL Greek manuscripts).
2. The virgin birth of Christ is attacked in Luke 1:26–27, 2:33; Matthew 1:25.
3. The Sinlessness of Christ questioned in John 14:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21(note the wording).
4. The Blood Atonement is denied in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10 (note substitution of “remedy” for “propitiation”), 1 Peter 4:1.
5.  Resurrection and Ascension questioned in Luke 24:3, 6, 12, 51–52 (see these “Western omissions”under note E, Chapter Seven”.
6.  A return to the corrupt American Standard Version of 1901 by mistranslating 2 Timothy 3:16 and placing the verb in the wrong place.  (They placed it in the right place in Romans 7:12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 10:10; and 1 Timothy 1:15, but they had a little “neutral trouble” in approaching 2 Timothy 3:16 “neutrally”).
7. The miracle at Calvary was an eclipse (Luke 23:44) which the Naval Observatory has never been able to locate!
8. The Roman reading of the Douay Version is found in Matthew 16:18 and in John 1:42.
9. The director of the translating committee is C.H. Dodd. He is about as conservative as Elvis Presley.” 10

Edward F. Hills in a brief evaluation of the NEB and the Revised Standard Version stated:

The modernism of the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. appears everywhere in them. For example, both of them profess to use thou when referring to God and you when referring to men. Yet the disciples are made to use you when speaking to Jesus, implying, evidently, that they did not believe that He was divine. Even when they confess Him to be the Son of God, the disciples are still made to use you. You are the Christ, Peter is made to say, the Son of the living God (Matt.16:16). In both the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. opposition to the virgin birth of Christ is plainly evident. Thus the N.E.B. calls Mary a girl (Luke 1:27) rather than a virgin, and at Matt. 1:16 the N.E.B. and some editions of the R.S.V. include in a footnote a reading found only in the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript which states that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

The N.E.B. exhibits all too plainly a special hostility to the deity of Christ. This is seen in the way in which the Greek word proskyneo is translated. When it is applied to God, the N.E.B. always translates it worship, but when it is applied to Jesus, the N.E.B. persistently translates it pay homage or bow low. Thus the translators refuse to admit that Jesus was worshipped by the early Church. Even the Old Testament quotation, Let all the angels of God worship Him (Heb.1:6), is rendered by the N.E.B., Let all the angels of God pay him homage. The only passage in which proskyneo is translated worship when applied to Jesus is in Luke 24:52. But here this clause is placed in a footnote as a late variant reading. By using the word worship here these modernistic translators give expression to their belief that the worship of Jesus was a late development which took place in the Church only after the true New Testament text had been written.11

The NEB is the New English Bible. The RSV is the Revised Standard Version.
    Jack Moorman’s in depth collation of the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and Revised Standard Version reveled the following:

The Name “Jesus” is frequently disassociated from the titles “Lord” and “Christ.” Whereas in the AV we will read “Jesus Christ” or the “Lord Jesus Christ,” in the Modern Versions “Jesus” is often made to stand alone or not at all. ln fact, our Savior’s full title “Lord Jesus Christ” is found 84 times in 81 verses in the AV and only 60 times in 60 verses in the New International Version, 62 times in 62 verses in the New Revised Standard Version, and 63 times in 63 verses in the Revised Standard Version. A noticeable difference is clearly apparent! 12

    Jack Moorman documents the following names of Christ as being missing in the New American Standard Version (New American Standard Bible) and the New International Version:11

Name New American Standard Version New International Version
Jesus 73 36
Christ 43 44
Lord 35 35
God 33 31
Other Names 30 30
Total Missing Names
214 176

    The New American Standard Bible (NASB, New American Standard Version) alters the King James Bible text in over 36,000 places. The New American Standard Bible also refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as an “only begotten God” in John 1:18.   The New American Standard Bible omits the word “Son” in John 1:18 which denies the eternality of the Lord Jesus Christ by making him a “begotten God”.  This want, or habit, of breaking apart the names and titles of the Lord Jesus Christ is connected to an ancient heresy called adoptionism.  It also has Gnosticism as its bedfellow.  Gnosticism is a system of worshipping and exalting man’s knowledge.  Jack Moorman says of this heresy:

    “This separation of “Jesus” from “Christ” occurs far too often to look for any cause other than deliberate editing in certain N.T. manuscripts. That there was a strong movement in the early centuries which could result in such a systematic editing, there can be no doubt! The foremost error regarding the Person of Christ, is of course, to deny His true Deity and true Humanity. The chief means by which this was done, and which finds expression down to our own day, is technically known as “Adoptionism” or “Spirit Christology.” The heresy follows this line of reasoning: Jesus of Nazareth, an ordinary man of unusual virtue, was “adopted” by God into divine Sonship by the advent of the “Christ-Spirit” at His baptism. Therefore, Jesus became Christ at His baptism, rather than, the fact that He was always the Christ from eternity. And though united for a time, Jesus and Christ were separate personages. Many names and groups are associated with this wicked teaching, foremost of whom were the Gnostics...This terrible heresy has found expression in a number of ways down through the centuries, and it has been given a new lease on life through the Modern Versions. This then is the Dark Secret!”14

    Jack Moorman also identifies an additional 169 passages where words and whole phrases are missing from the New International Version, most other modern English translations, and most foreign language translations.15  This is because they are missing in the Greek text upon which these versions are based.  Many “fundamental” pastors, evangelists, and preachers think that the New International Version is the product of so-called “conservative” scholarship.  For those of you who may think that the New International Version is not so bad, please consider the following information put forth by Grady:

“In his book, God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper Ray compared 45 Bible versions against 162 test scriptures to determine how many times a departure from the Textus Receptus had occurred. The results of his study were enlightening. Whereas the Douay Version (Catholic) show changes in 75 of these verses; The Living New Testament, 114; the Revised Version, 135; the American Standard Version, 135; Good News for Modern Man, 145; and the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World translation, 145, – the New International Version (success story of Wall Street) was declared guilty in 160 out of a possible 162 verses for a 98.7% departure factor!16  

“The following whole verses have been omitted from the New International Version text: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24, 1 John 5:7.    The New International Version has taken away at least part of the following 147 versus: Matthew 5:44; 6:13; 15:6, 8; 19:9; 20:7, 16, 22, 23; 25:13; 27:35; 28:9; Mark 1:42; 6:11, 33; 7:8; 8:26; 9:38, 45, 49; 10:21, 24; 11:8, 10, 23; 12:23, 29, 30, 33; 13:14; 14:19, 27, 68, 70; Luke 1:28; 4:4, 8, 18; 5:38; 7:31; 8:43, 45, 48, 54; 9:54, 55, 56; 11:2, 4, 11, 44, 54; 17:9; 18:24; 19:45; 20:23, 30; 22:64, 68; 23:23, 38; 24:1, 42; John 1:27; 3:13, 15; 5:3, 16; 6:11, 22, 47; 8:9, 10, 59; 10:26; 11:41; 12:1; 16:16; 17:12; 19:16; Acts 2:30; 7:37; 9:5, 6; 10:6, 21, 32; 13:42; 15:18, 24; 18:21; 20:15; 21:8, 22, 25; 23:9; 24:6, 8, 26; 26:30; 28:16; Romans 8:1; 9:28; 10:15; 11:6; 13:9; 14:6, 21; 15:24; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:28; 11:24; Galatians 3:1; Ephesians 3:4; 5:30; Philippians 3:16; Colossians 1:2, 14; 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:3; 6:5, 7; Hebrews 2:7; 3:6; 7:21; 8:12; 10:30; 11:11, 13; 12:20; 1 Peter 4:14; 1 John 4:3; 5:13; Revelation 1:8, 11; 5:14; 11:1, 17; 14:5; 15:2; 21:24.”17   

    “The New International Version has 64,098 less words than the King James Bible.”

    “In Exodus 3:14, the New International Version changes “”I AM THAT AM” to “I AM WHO I AM”.”19        
    “The New International Version changes the word science to knowledge in 1 Timothy 6:20, deleting the Bible’s only clear warning against false science.”20      
    “The New International Version makes a big blunder in Mark 1:2 when they replace the King James Bible word “prophets” with the New International Version phrase “Isaiah the prophet”.  Verse 2 does not contain a quote from Isaiah. The quote is from Malachi 3:1 with Mark 1:3 being quoted from Isaiah 40:3. Thus the King James Bible rendering “prophets” is correct.”21 

“The New International Version altered the most important reference to Bible preservation by changing the King James Bible phrase “thou shall keep them” to you will keep us safe”.  The King James Bible phrase “thou shalt keep them” refers to God’s words; not to God’s people.”22  
    “The New International Version altered the meaning of Psalm 138:2 by changing the King James Bible reading from “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” to, “for you have exalted above all things your name and your word”.”23
The New International Version and other perversions have mounted a major attack upon the deity, eternality, and name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The “name which is above every name” is removed in the following passages:

“Matthew 8:29; 13:36; 15:30; 16:20; 17:11, 20; 18:2; 24:2; Mark 5:13; 6:34; 11:14; Luke 7:22; John 4:16, 46; 8:20; Acts 3:36; 9:29; 19:10; Romans 1:16; 15:8; 16:18; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 16:22; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 5:18; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 3:9, 14; Colossians 1:2, 28; 2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon 6 and 1Peter 5:10, 14.”24

    The New International Version attacks the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in John 9:35 when they changed the King James Version reading from “dost thou believe on the son of God” to “do you believe in the son of man”.25

    One of the most serious blunders of the New International Version was changing the King James Bible rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 from “God was manifest in the flesh” to “He appeared in body”.26  The question we would ask is, who is he. The New International Version denied that he eternality of Christ when they changed Micah 5:2 from the King James Bible reading.  The King James Bible reads: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”  The New International Version reads:  “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”27 
The key word in the New International Version is “origins” which leaves the impression that the Lord Jesus Christ had a beginning, or an origin.  The Lord Jesus Christ has no beginning and no end.  The New International Version makes the Lord Jesus Christ a sinner by omitting the King James Bible phrase “without a cause” from Matthew 5:22.28

    The New International Version also removed hell from 40 out of the 53 places that it is found in the King James Version.29

“The New International Version, in its determination to do away with words that might not be easily understood by modern readers, has changed one final word from the generally accepted translations of that word to one that fits in well with modern thought. For centuries sheol has meant either the physical grave (or death), or ‘hell’ as the abode of the dead. The New International Version clings to that first meaning, but never translates sheol as hell. Thus, “The wicked shall be turned into hell” is changed to “The wicked return to the grave” (Psalm 9.17). God’s omnipresence comes into doubt when “if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there” becomes “if I make my bed in the depths” (Psalm 139.8). His omniscience is limited when His perfection as high as heaven, “deeper than hell” becomes “deeper than the depths of the grave” (Job 11.7-8).
Probably the worst effect of limiting sheol to the grave is the heresy the idea supports. In recent years not only liberals but also those who would consider themselves conservatives have accepted the belief that hell does not exist, that at death is the grave (in which the soul is not conscious of pleasure or pain but merely sleeps) and then either eternal reward or annihilation. The belief has become so prevalent (and is so inviting –  every Christian knows at least one person who has gone to a Christless grave), that even John Stott has voiced doubt regarding the historical Christian view of eternity. The New International Version does nothing to direct its readers –  saved and unsaved –  to a correct understanding of eternity for the unsaved. In the New International Version, even Lucifer, son of the morning, has been denied eternal punishment. No longer will he “be brought down to hell,” but instead will be “brought down to the grave” (Isaiah 14.15), to be with wicked Capernaum in “the depths” (Matthew 11.23) as long as the depths and grave shall last.” 30

    The changes in the New International Version have not only been radical changes that take away from the doctrines of the Bible, but those changes have been huge in number.  “The OLD New International Version has changed and altered the Hebrew and Greek words in over 6,653 places according to D.A. Waite’s study.31  The new editions of the New International Version continue the changes at an unabated pace even seeking to be politically correct. 
    The New International Version Inclusive Language Edition is one of several recent “Bibles” that have gone to gender neutral language.  Some of these changes actually change Bible prophecy in the interest of being politically correct.  When translating the Bible, it is not a question of what I want it to say, but rather a question of what does the text say.  The Bible is most definitely NOT politically correct in its language.  The Bible must not be made to conform to a feminist agenda.  When we blur the line between genders, we blur the line of authority that God has established in both the home and in the church.  When we blur the line between gender, we blur the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality.  When we blur the line between gender, we have people like the lesbian Virginia Mollenkott referring to God as “she”.  Satan’s agenda is to get enough radical feminists and homosexuals agitating for God to be called “she” that they can force a compromise in the middle that leads to God being called “THE ONE”(the Luciferian god of the pagans).  In evaluating the general character of the changes in the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, D.A. Waite cited 136 examples of gender neutral language.  These 136 examples are but a tiny portion of the changes that have been made in this perversion.  This feminist manifesto changes “man” to “human beings” in Genesis 1:26; changes “Adam” to “human beings” in Genesis 5:2;  changes “men of war” to “soldiers” in Numbers 32:28; alters “craftsmen” to “skilled workers” in 2 Kings 24:14; alters “men” to “those” [It still does not change the fact that it was men who were performing this ministry in the Temple]; changes “his” to ‘their” in Psalms 34:20 [this destroys the prophetic reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in Psalm 34:20]; alters “man” to “one” in John 5:5; changes “man” to “child” in John 7:22 [This change is outrageously ridiculous when you consider that circumcision is only for men.  This change might help the covenant theologians who try to equate baptism in the New Testament to circumcision in the Old Testament!); changes “man” to “person” in John 18:14 [This deletes the specific prophecy of the coming sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for all men.].32  Consider this statement from THE BIBLE:

1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Bible)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Now consider this perversion of the words of scripture:

1 Timothy 2:5 (NI-VILE)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the Christ Jesus, himself human.

Notice how cleverly the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition dropped the word “man’ and chopped the sentence up so much that it sounds worse than a car without a muffler running on four or five cylinders.  What an abomination!.  Waite goes on to document 32 instances where the King James Bible word “brethren” is changed to “brothers and sisters”.33 Even the liberal Southern Baptists balked at this perversion.  They would rather walk with their little demon, the New International Version, because it gives them some spiritually blind claim to being “conservative” and “fundamental”.  D. A. Waite quotes Dr. Gruden, an advocate of the “OLD New International Version”, as saying:

“For example, the generic use of ‘he-him-his’ has consistently been changed to ‘we’ or ‘you’ or ‘they’.  The result is that whenever readers of this inclusive language New International Version read the words ‘we’ and ‘you’ and ‘they’, they will never know whether what they are reading is what God originally cause his Word to say, or what the translators have decided what his Word should say instead.  In hundreds and probably thousands of places, readers will never know whether these are the words of God or the words of man. “Such revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God.  They are human words that men have substituted for the words of God, and they have no place in the Bible. [World, April 19, 1997 p. 18] 34

What hypocrisy and yet, what truth!!  The very same charges can be laid to the old New International Version.  The underlined bold emphasis in the above quote was that of brother Waite.
    The language of the New International Version in certain places , like its rival The Living Bible, leaves a lot to be desired and can plant unclean thoughts in the minds of Christians.  Observe the following quote:

“The daily newspaper is full of accounts of the sins of men, and often people (even Christians) will read lengthy articles looking for a few more details of what happened. This is understandable with the unsaved man; his natural tendency is to progress further into sin, and the more decadent the better. The Christian, however, is admonished to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, a transformation accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. The original writers sought to aid in this. Rather than detailing the sins of men, they spoke of men’s sins euphemistically. In Judges 19, the old man of Gibeah who invited the Levite into the protection of his home was ordered by the wicked of the city to “Bring forth the man ... that we may know him” (v22). When the Levite’s concubine (a term in itself that could, and today usually is, put in more explicit words) was instead put out of the house, she was “abused” (v25) until she died. Ezekiel 23.20 is more specific, but the Hebrew still speaks of “the flesh of asses” and the “issue” (literally “scattering seed”, whether in begetting children or planting crops) of horses rather than using more vivid terminology. Most translations follow the original authors by either translating literally or using euphemisms which express the idea of what happened without putting impure thoughts or pictures into the minds of readers, and without contributing to man’s tendency toward sin.
The New International Version, however, uses detailed language –  language inappropriate for this paper and certainly out of place in a Book whose Author desires the transforming of the mind to His standards. It is doubtful that the descriptive language used in the New International Version, particularly that mentioned above, would be used in family publications. It could certainly not be read to a child, and would only cause the mind of an unbeliever to stray away from the message of the scriptures. Modernising the Bible is one thing; vulgarising it is uncalled for.”35 

    Do not be deceived.  Just because a Bible has the letters KJV or the words King James Version in its title does not necessarily mean they are King James Bibles.    If it is not a 1611 Authorized King James Version,  it is not a King James Bible.    Take a look at the Bibles mentioned in this paragraph.  Many have the name King James Bible in their titles, but they are NOT 1611 Authorized King James Versions.  The New Scofield Reference Bible (NSRB) claims to use the King James text, but it is NOT.  The KJV-ER also is NOT a King James Bible!
    The As Good As New Version is probably the most perverted and wicked English translation to date. I quote David Cloud from the Friday Church News Notes for August 27, 2004:
“Dr. Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, has come out in strong support of a new Bible translation that encourages fornication. The “As Good as New” version of 1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 8-9 says: “Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner. ... There’s nothing wrong with remaining single, like me. But if you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.” Thus, this Bible says that what the world really needs are more regular sexual partners. This version replaces demon possession with mental illness, calls the apostle Peter “Rocky,” changes “Son of Man” to “the Complete Person,” and otherwise boldly perverts the Word of God. “As Good As New” is advertised as “women, gay, and sinner friendly.”

God have mercy!  What kind of perverted trash will they publish as a “Bible” next?  The Holy Bible says in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2,8-9:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (King James Bible)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (King James Bible)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.   


What is to follow is an extensive quote from one of the organizers of the New American Standard Bible.  His name was Frank Logsdon.  Frank Logsdon was a pastor and very good Bible teacher who was overtaken by the deceit of new version advocates and his lack of knowledge in the area of Bible texts.  Logsdon was taken in because he took some things for granted.  The following lengthy quote expresses Logsdon’s sincere regrets and repentance at having been involved in the translation project for the New American Standard Version (New American Standard Bible).  Logsdon said:


    Back in 1956-57 Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation [contacted me. He was] one of the dearest friends we’ve ever had for 25 years, a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair, one of the most terrific businessmen I have ever met. I always said he was like Nehemiah; he was building a wall. You couldn’t get in his way when he had his mind on something; he went right to it; he couldn’t be daunted. I never saw anything like it; most unusual man. I spent weeks and weeks and weeks in their home, real close friends of the family.
    Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn’t want it. It didn’t get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, “Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we’ll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable.”
    Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You’d be surprised; if I told you, you wouldn’t believe it. They haven’t gone into it just as I hadn’t gone into it; [they’re] just taking it for granted.
    At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words.
    I got one of the fifty deluxe copies which were printed; mine was number seven, with a light blue cover. But it was rather big and I couldn’t carry it with me, and I never really looked at it. I just took for granted that it was done as we started it, you know, until some of my friends across the country began to learn that I had some part in it and they started saying, “What about this; what about that?”
    Dr. David Otis Fuller in Grand Rapids [Michigan]. I’ve known him for 35 years, and he would say (he would call me Frank; I’d call him Duke), “Frank, what about this? You had a part in it; what about this; what about that?” And at first I thought, Now, wait a minute; let’s don’t go overboard; let’s don’t be too critical. You know how you justify yourself the last minute.
    But I finally got to the place where I said, “Ann, I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?” Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think.
    I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, “Dewey, I don’t want to add to your problems,” (he had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy- four years of age) “but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven’t a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere,” (he wasn’t schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”
    I have a copy of the letter. I have his letter. I’ve shown it to some people. The Roberts saw it; Mike saw it. He stated that he was bowled over; he was shocked beyond words. He said that was putting it mildly, but he said, “I will write you in three weeks, and I still love you. To me you’re going to be Franklin, my friend, throughout the course.” And he said, “I’ll write you in three weeks.”
    But he won’t write me now. He was to be married. He sent an invitation to come to the reception. Standing in the courtroom, in the county court by the desk, the clerk said, “What is your full name, Sir?” And he said, “Franklin Dewey...” And that is the last word he spoke on this earth. So he was buried two days before he was supposed to be married, and he’s with the Lord. And he loves the Lord. He knows different now.
    I tell you, dear people, somebody is going to have to stand. If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Don’t get obnoxious; don’t argue. There’s no sense in arguing.
    But nevertheless, that’s where the New American stands in connection with the Authorized Version.
    I just jotted down what these versions, translations, and paraphrases are doing. Consider:
    One, they cause widespread confusion, because everywhere we go people say, What do you think of this; what do you think of that? What do young people think when they hear all of that?
    Two, they discourage memorization. Who’s going to memorize when each one has a different Bible, a different translation?
    Three, they obviate the use of a concordance. Where are you going to find a concordance for the Good News for Modern Man and all these others? You aren’t going to find one. We’re going to have a concordance for every one; you’re going to have to have a lot of concordances.
    Four, they provide opportunity for perverting the truth. There are all these translations and versions, each one trying to get a little different slant from the others. They must make it different, because if it isn’t different why have a new version? It makes a marvelous opportunity for the devil to slip in his perverting influence.
    Five, these many translations make teaching of the Bible difficult. And I’m finding that more and more as I go around the country. I mentioned this thing the other night. How could a mathematics professor or instructor teach a certain problem in a class if the class had six or eight different textbooks? How about that? How could you do it?
    Six, they elicit profitless argumentation. Because everywhere we go they say this one is more accurate. Which one is more accurate? How do they know? And this is not a reflection against those saying this, because I would have done this a few years ago.
    Lest I forget, in one of these questions somebody said, “How can we know that we have the whole truth?” Well, just simply by believing God. And what do I mean by that? John 16:13--“When he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into” how much? Tell me. Tell me, now. “All truth.” And if we don’t have all truth, the Holy Spirit isn’t doing His work. We have to have all truth for Him to lead us into all truth. And there are many, many other passages which teach this.
    If we could hear His voice we would have no trouble learning His Word from the Authorized Version. Let me tell you this: You might not be able to answer the arguments, and you won’t be [able to]. I can’t answer some of them, either. Some of these university professors come along and say, What about this; what about that? They go into areas that I haven’t even had time to get into.
    As I said to you a couple of minutes ago. You don’t need to defend yourself, and you don’t need to defend God’s Word. Don’t defend it; you don’t need to defend it; you don’t need to apologize for it. Just say, “Well, did this version or this translation come down through the Roman stream? If so, count me out.  Whatever you say about Erasmus and Tyndale, that’s what I want.”
    And besides this, we’ve had the AV for 362 years. It’s been tested as no other piece of literature has ever been tested. Word by word; syllable by syllable. And think even until this moment no one has ever found any wrong doctrine in it, and that’s the main thing. He that wills to do the will of God shall KNOW the doctrine.”36

    There you have an answer to the question of: “Why have many good men of God erred on the issue of Bible versions”.  They were led astray by men that they trusted.  They had not studied the issue for themselves.  My greatest fear is that pastors, preachers, and Bible teachers will not thoroughly study the issue for themselves.  I am convinced that if saved men and women will thoroughly study the issue for themselves that most would reject every English version of the Bible other than the 1611 Authorized King James Version.  The problem for many pastors, preachers, and teachers is that they let the smoke of intellectual pride blind their eyes of spiritual discernment so that they cannot, or will not, see the truth.  Of course, there are many more who will not see the truth because they are not saved.  Frank Logsdon saw the error of his ways and set aside his pride and repented to the glory of God.  Men and women must set aside their pride and lean not on their own understanding.  This is a spiritual issue and not an intellectual issue. The controversy over the Bible version issue illustrates perfectly in application that men and women are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    We can truly say in 2010 that this is an age when knowledge has increased phenomenally (Daniel 12:4).  It is truly an age when we are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.  Men and women are without natural affection; lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God and lovers of others. They have an intellectual form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof.  Gnosticism is also characterized by its loveless nature.  “Gnosticism was distinguished by an unethical, loveless intellectualism. This seems to be the explanation of the false teaching against which this epistle is directed. The apostle describes the dry head-knowledge which left the heart and life untouched by love, and which led men, while they professed to love God, nevertheless to remain destitute of love to their fellow-men.”37  From the theme in the book of First John, we would have to assume that the Holy Spirit was building a rampart against the wicked heresy of Gnosticism.  We see also the warning flags go up in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 13, Colossians 2, and in 1 Timothy 6.  our modern day churches and the Bible translation committees are full of Gnostics.

I have spent an enormous amount of time and space documenting the doctrinal perversions in the new versions because a typical argument of those who defend the new versions is that they do not significantly affect any doctrines of the faith.  What has preceded this paragraph proves that hypothesis to be absolutely false.  Every major doctrine of the faith has been the subject of a vile attack from Satan. The doctrinal corruptions are frightening and much to numerous to be accidental or innocent. 

To the editors and translators of the new English perversions of the word of God and the Greek perversions of the New Testament we say, “ye have perverted the words of the living God”! (Jeremiah 23:36)


1.Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, p. 58
2.Ibid., pp. 242-249
3.Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, p. 130
4.David W. Cloud, For The Love Of The Bible, p. 38
5.Ibid., p. 226
6.Peter S. Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 34
7.Ian R.K. Paisley, My Plea For The Old Sword, p. 86
8.Ibid., p. 98
9.Ibid., p. 98
10.Peter S. Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, pp. 167-168
11.Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 226-227
12.Jack Moorman, Modern Bibles – The Dark Secret, p. 14
13.Ibid., p. 8
14.Ibid., p. 15
15.Jack Moorman, Modern Bibles – The Dark Secret, pp. 16-21
16.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 286
17.Ibid., pp. 287-288
18.Not Used
19.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 289
20.Ibid., p. 290
21.Ibid., p. 291
22.Ibid., p. 292
23.Ibid., p. 292
24.Ibid., p. 293
25.Ibid., p. 293
26.Ibid., p. 294
27.The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.
28.William P. Grady, Final Authority, p. 294
29.Ibid., p. 296
30.G.W. Anderson and D.E. Anderson, New International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know About the New International Version, www.trinitarianbiblesocietyusa.com, Article 114 Trinitarian Bible Society
31.D. A. Waite, New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, p. 5
32.Ibid., pp. 6-40
33.Ibid., pp. 41-52
34.Ibid., p.52
35.G.W. Anderson and D.E. Anderson, New International Version: What Today’s Christian Needs to Know About the New International Version, www.trinitarianbiblesocietyusa.com, Article 114 Trinitarian Bible Society
36.David W. Cloud, From the NASV to the King James Bible, Article From The Wayoflife Fundamental Baptist CD Rom, version 2000b
37.James Orr, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 1243


Back To Top Back To The Main King James Page Back To Home Page