THE NEW
REVISED STANDARD VERSION
OF THE BIBLE
SHALL WE ACCEPT IT?
IS IT FOR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS?
By
Rowland F. Wilkinson, B.S., M.D., F.I.C.S.
Takoma Park, Md.
F
IRST
EDITION
March, 1953
S
ECOND
EDITION
May, 1953
T
HIRD
EDITION
June, 1953
REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE
Shall We Accept It?
By Rowland Wilkinson
Dr. Luther Weigle, chairman of the Revision Committee
of the Revised Standard Version, recently published by the National
Council of Churches, speaking to a capacity audience in the armory in
Washington, D. C., Sept. 30, 1952, said, in effect, that you cannot use
the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version together. It will
bring in confusion; use one or the other. Of course he recommended the
Revised Standard Version. The National Council of Churches, widely known
for its higher critical attitude toward inspiration, has plainly stated
that it intends to displace the King James Bible with this new Version.
You cannot use these two Versions together because one
teaches doctrines conflicting with the other. To accept two mutually
contradicting versions as Bibles will tend to destroy faith in the Bible
itself and in God. We do not overlook the improvement made in the new
Version by replacing with modern expressions a number of words in the King
James whose meanings have changed during past decades. We wish the
revisers had stopped there. Instead, they gave us many uncalled-for
changes. We now compare only a few of the texts drastically changed in the
new Version. One need not be a Hebrew or Greek scholar to see the
revolutionary effect of these changes.
TEXTS THAT AFFECT DOCTRINE
I. CREATION
G
EN.
1:5
KING JAMES:
And the evening and the
morning were the first day;
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:*
And there was evening
and there was morning,
one day.
* From the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Copyrighted 1946 and
1952.
"One day" is indefinite. "First day" as in the King
James is definite. The other days in the RSV are "second day", "third
day", etc. Modernists say "one day" is a long period, possibly billions of
years. You therefore cannot find in Genesis I the literal seven-day week
of creation as in the King James Version.
This indefinite "one day" opens the way for the long
geological ages which the revisionists believe and which they intend to
propagate as their commentaries show.
Patriarchs and Prophets
says: "Assumption that the events
of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes
directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment . . . It is
infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form." p. 111.
II. SABBATH
EXODUS 20: 10
KING JAMES:
But the seventh day is
the
sabbath of the Lord
thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
But the seventh day is
a
sabbath to the Lord your
God; in it you shall not do any work.
This change anticipates making a ceremonial sabbath out
of the weekly, holy Sabbath. A translation from the Hebrew as "a sabbath"
is entirely uncalled for. Col. 2 :16 is also translated a sabbath. See
drastic changes in Acts 17: 1, 2.
III. SOUL AFTER DEATH
JOB 19:25, 26
KING JAMES:
For I know that my redeemer
liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And
though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet
in
my flesh shall I see God.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
For I know that my Redeemer
lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has
been thus destroyed, then
without
my flesh I shall see God.
This change in the RSV is against a resurrection of the
body. It also teaches the, immortality of the soul.
II PETER 2:9
KING JAMES:
The Lord knoweth how to
deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust
unto the day of
judgment to be
punished.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
The Lord. knows how to
rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous
under
punishment
until
the day of judgment.
This text, of course, teaches purgatory pure and
simple, or that torments await the wicked at death. Other texts in the RSV
that teach the same idea are Jude 6 and 7, Matt. 25:46, and Job 26:5,
IV. THE DIETY OF CHRIST
ISA.7:14
KING JAMES:
Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
Therefore the Lord
himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Read verses 10, 11, and 12. Notice the setting for
verse 14. The Lord Himself is going to give a great sign. A young woman
having a son is certanly no sign. It is obvious that "young woman" does
not come up to the proclamation of the Lord. Hebrew scholars of authority
down through, the centuries translate the Hebrew word "almah" as "virgin."
Biblical scholars such as Rawlinson, Machen, Wilson, Lowth, Gesenius,
Ewald, and Delitzch also render that word "almah" by "virgin." The
historical creed going back to 150 A.D., says, "conceived of the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." Will Christianity now accept this
repudiating of the creed by this new Version? The virgin birth is likewise
denied in the RSV in Gal 4:4; Matt. 1:16 (footnote); Luke 1:34, 35; and
2:33. Attempts are made in these texts to imply that Jesus had a human
father—Joseph.
Dr. John C. Trevor, executive director, department of
English Bible, of the National Council of Churches and closely associated
with the translating committee that produced this Version, in discussing
Isa. 7: 14, said, "It has nothing to do with the doctrine of the virgin
birth of Jesus. . . . A later time in history there appeared a man who
embodied the symbol in His own life, of the Immanuel. But Isaiah was
talking about Immanuel, the name of a child, to’ symbolize the necessity
of faith in God to get through a difficult political situation that arose
in 735 B.C."
1
Thus the revisers make Matthew
misinformed when he quotes Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1 :23. Furthermore, Matthew
is made to misquote this Old Testament prophecy. This change is consistent
with the revisers systematic undermining of the doctrine of the Deity of
Christ.
1 Dr. John C. Trever, a
quoted in Milwaulkie, Wi., "Sentinel". Jan. 24, 1953.
In the new Version the old forms of "thee" and "thou"
have been changed to "you" and "yours", except (according to the revisers)
when referring to Deity. Yet when referring to Christ, the familiar form
of "you" is used: Matt. 16:16; Ps.2:7; Ps. 45:6; Matt 14:28; Matt. 14:33
and others, thus denying the Deity of Christ. Micah 5:2 in the RSV removes
His eternal pre-existence. According to this new Version in Matt.27:54 and
Mark, 15 :39, Christ becomes "a son of God" instead of "the Son of God"
stead of "his Son." Hebrews 1:2 has "a Son" instead of "his Son."
In John 3:16 the word "begotten" is omitted. Also this
is true in John 1:14, 18, and I John 4:9. There are at least sixty texts
in the RSV that tone down or destroy the. Deity of Christ. If you remove
the Deity of Christ from the Bible you destroy the Bible and undermine the
whole Christian economy.
V.
BLOOD ATONEMENT OF
CHRIST
COL. 1:14
KING JAMES:
In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
In whom we have
redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Through his blood
is omitted in the RSV.
I COR. 5:7
KING JAMES:
For even Christ our
passover is sacrificed for us.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
For Christ, our paschal
lamb, has been sacrificed.
For us
is omitted in the RSV.
ZECH. 9:9
KING JAMES:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion! behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having
salvation
. . .
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Zion! . . . Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and
victorious is he.
Notice how the RSV has removed salvation from the
prophecy of Christ’s first coming.
MATT. 18:11
KING JAMES:
For the Son of man is
come to save that which was lost.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
This entire verse is
omitted.
See how the doctrine of the blood atonement of Christ
is weakened.
VI. SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
MATT. 24:3
KING JAMES:
And as he sat upon the
Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us,
when shall these things be? and what, shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of the end of
the world?
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
As he sat on the Mount of
Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, Tell us, when will
this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of
the close of the
age?"
Other texts that change "the end of the world" to "the
close of the age" are Matt. 13 :39, 40, 49; and Matt. 28:20. This change
destroys the personal and apocalyptic second coming of Christ which will
bring an end to time and, usher in eternity. The expression "close of the
age" can mean merely the gradual transition from one era of earth’s
history to another.
TITUS 2:13
KING JAMES:
Looking for that blessed
hope, and the glorious appearing of the "great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
Awaiting our blessed
hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus
Christ.
This text in the King James demands definitely an event
in the future; as changed in the RSV the event can be in the present. The
event as given in the King James is physical. As given in the RSV it can
be a spiritual conversion, or some other nonphysical phenomena.
The second coming of Christ is prophesied in Jude 14
and discussed in II Thess. 2:2. In the RSV these texts have both been put
in the past tense as having already occurred. How can prophecy refer to
events which transpired in the past? Confusion is thus produced. Matthew
25:13 in the RSV omits His second coming.
VII. PROPHECY
DAN. 8:14
KING JAMES:
And he said unto me,
Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be
cleansed.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
And he said to him, "For
two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary
shall be restored to its rightful state."
The doctrine of the cleansing of the Sanctuary is gone.
Also the 2300 days are gone. There can be no meaning to the 2300 days if
the topics it concerns are gone. Chapter 23 of
Great Controversy
was written about this
verse.
DAN. 9:25
KING JAMES:
Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and
three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall,
even in troublous times.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
Know there fore and
understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build
Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven
weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and
moat, but in a troubled time.
The prophetic time-period for Christ’s first coming is
ruined. This indefensible rendering has taken away that basis of the
Seventh-day Adventists’ date of Christ’s first coming.
DAN. 9:27
KING JAMES:
And he shall confirm the
covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall
cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
And he shall make a
strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall
cause sacrifice and offering to cease.
The prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion in the "midst of
the week", which locates the date of Christ’s death, is gone.
REV. 12:17
KING JAMES:
And the dragon was wroth
with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which
keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION:
Then the dragon was
angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her
offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to
Jesus.
This change destroys the basic text of the Seventh-day
Adventist doctrine of The Spirit of Prophecy. Also the Remnant Church is
gone. Mrs. White wrote much about the Remnant Church. I believe that the
foregoing group of texts speak for themselves. We need not be highly
schooled in the Biblical languages to recognize these detrimental changes.
These texts change doctrine! The revisers did not follow any one
manuscript. According to their own admission, they translated portions
from many different manuscripts (MSS) which in their Judgment were
correct. By so doing they claim to clarify the meaning they think the
original writers meant to convey. Actually they entered upon their task
with a preconceived philosophy. They apparently picked out such portions
of different MSS which would teach what they wanted taught, not what the
MSS as a whole taught. Also they seem to have sought out obscure MSS to
harmonize with their own doctrines. To claim that from such a maze of
varied and conflicting morsels of MSS the word of God is easily
discernable is obviously untrue. This choosing of sections and verses from
different MSS they designate as the
eclectic principle.2
2 Members of the Revision committee, "An Introduction
to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament", p. 41.
TWO TYPES OF MANUSCRIPTS: TWO STREAMS OF BIBLES
In reality there are only two types of manuscripts. One
type was miraculously preserved by God through the centuries; the other
corrupted by man with pagan and papal philosophies.
This is true both of the Old and New Testaments. The
first type of manuscripts of the New Testament contains a great number
which generally agree among themselves. The second type have far fewer
manuscripts. These disagree with one another. The first group came from
the original Greek in which language the New Testament books were written
by the apostles themselves. From the Greek came a translation into the
Syriac language, known as the Peshitto. This occurred in the Apostolic
Age. Almost at the same time, another translation was made into the Latin.
This is generally considered to be the Itala.
The original Greek autograph of the New Testament is
represented by hundreds of manuscripts, all of which virtually agree with
one another. These were preserved down through the centuries by the
arduous copy-work of God-fearing Christians in every age and in every
land. This group of Christians is referred to in Revelation as the "church
in the wilderness". (Rev. 12:6, 14) Mrs. White says: "Satan had urged on
the papal priests and prelates to bury the word of truth beneath the
rubbish of error, heresy and superstition; but in a most wonderful manner
it was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness."
3
3 Ellen G White, Great Controversy, p. 69. Also read the book Truth
Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness by B. G. Wilkinson, Ph.D. Pacific
Press Pub. Co.
According to this authoress, we must look not to papal
but to evangelical forces for the preservation of the true MSS. Erasmus
and Tyndale based their famous translations of the New Testament on these
pure sources. On these sources the scholars who produced the King James
Bible based their New Testament Version.
The second group of manuscripts, is the corrupted
stream. Erroneous teachings began with Justin Martyr who was born about
100 A.D. His pupil Tatian embraced the Gnostic heresy and wrote a harmony
of the Gospels, called the Diatessaron, which had a stormy career. Clement
(200 A.D.) headed a school of heresy at Alexandria. In all probability he
was a pupil of Tatian. Origen, the pupil and successor of Clement, did the
most of all to create and to give direction to the forces of apostasy and
of corrupted manuscripts down through the centuries. Yet, by their own
confession, Origen is a great guide to the revisionists. He published a
six-column edition of the Greek Bible called the Hexapla. Eusebius took up
the work of Origen and edited the famous fifth column of his Hexapla. This
fifth column became a masterly source of errors. The Roman Emperor
Constantine (312 A.D.) ordered 50 of the Eusebio-Origen Bible manuscripts
to be made for his new capitol at Constantinople. Evidence points to two
of these MSS as being in existence today; one being the
Vaticanus;
the other, the
Sinaiticus. These two
latter MSS partake of the corruptions of the said Bible. It was from this
type of manuscript that Jerome translated the
Latin Vulgate
which has been the official
Bible of the Catholics up to the present time.4
Mrs. White has also given us a clear lead about
manuscripts she says: "While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the
people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the
same for England. (Note the word
impelled).
Wycliffe’s Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained
many errors."5
God led Tyndale to know this and
to reject that version, which had many errors.
"In 1516 . . . Erasmus had published his Greek and
Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the word of God
was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former
versions were corrected."
6
Mrs. White shows that Tyndale based his Bible, not on
the Latin of the Vulgate, but upon the Greek of Erasmus; which, according
to the above statement, was both the word of God and the original Greek.
"Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving
the Bible to his countrymen. A diligent student and an earnest seeker for
truth, he had received the gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus.’’
7
Since the King James Version is a continuation of the
Bible of Tyndale, it is not correct to say that the King James was based
upon the Latin. Erasmus, Tyndale and Mrs. White present it as based on the
Greek New Testament.
On this point I now quote a paragraph from a pamphlet
put out by the revisers themselves.
4 B.G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, pp.
16-22.
5 White, Great Controversy, p. 245.
6 Idem.
7 White, Great Controversy, p. 245
"The first and most important improvement made by the
revisers was in the Greek text which was made the basis for their
translation. The King James Version was based essentially upon the Greek
text of Beza, printed in 1598. Though he had available what we know to be
much better manuscripts, Beza had followed the text of Erasmus, which was
based on late and corrupt medieval manuscripts."
8
So! The revisers were obliged to confess that the great
scholar Beza followed Erasmus, (though he printed his text eighty years
after Erasmus printed his). Beza evidently threw away as corrupt some
manuscripts which the revisers now pick up.
In other words, both Mrs. White and the revisers
themselves state that the King James Bible was based on the Greek text of
Erasmus. The only difference is that Mrs. White upholds the pure text of
Erasmus which the revisers claim to be corrupt. I, for one, would feel
that in accepting the work of the revisers I would be rejecting the
leading of Mrs. White, as well as that of Erasmus and the great scholar
Beza.
The revisers assert that the King James contains 5,000
errors. They claim repeatedly that they have produced in 1952 a Bible
superior to the King James. These claims, they allege, are based upon
keener analyses of manuscripts, Biblical criticism, literary criticism and
archaeology. Now, dear friends, do you think that the Lord would wait
until 1952 to give us the true Bible, while through centuries He gave His
people a Bible full of errors?
Mrs. White says that the truth was kept unadulterated
down through the centuries of the Dark Ages.
9
She also says: "By a
miracle of His power He has preserved His written word through the ages."l0
Speaking of the King James
Version in 1889, twelve years before the American Revised version was
published, p. 27.
8 Revisers. "Introduction to the RSV of the New
Testament", p. 15.
9 White, Great Controversy, p. 69.
10 White, "Sign of the Times", March 28, 1906, as
quoted in My Life Today,
Mrs. White wrote, "My brethren, let the word of God
stand just as it is. Let not human wisdom presume to lessen the force of
one statement of the Scriptures."
11
There are 59 verses or passages which are found in the
New Testament of the King James Version that are omitted from the text of
the Revised Standard Version! In the light of this mutilation of the
original text, notice the following quotation from
Patriarchs and Prophets:
"Every chapter and every verse of the Bible is a communication from God to
men." (p. 504).
Mrs. White quotes and comments on most of these
passages from the King James which are omitted from the text of the
Revised Standard Version.
SCHOLARSHIP
It has been said over and over that we must believe in
the revisers’ inherent honesty of scholarship regardless of what changes
they made. Let us examine the honesty which we are asked to accept.
1. In the Old Testament of the RSV footnotes appear
repeatedly to indicate that the Hebrew original has been abandoned. In its
place, a reading has been adopted which is found only in some ancient
translation different from the original Hebrew. Frequently the Revised
Standard Version Old Testament abandons the Hebrew altogether and
substitutes a different reading of questionable evidence. Footnotes often
indicate substitution; often there is nothing to show what has been done.
2. It is claimed that many new Bible manuscripts have
been discovered in the last 50 years since the first Revised Version was
published. This claim has not been substantiated. Whatever documents they
offer in proof are not weighty enough to have any affect upon the text of
the King James Version. Each manuscript is to be judged on its own merit.
11 White, Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 711.
3. There are portions of the Bible narratives in which
practically all types of manuscripts agree; yet, the revisers take no
account of this fact. In a variety of ways they transmit these texts
arbitrarily.
4. This new Version has greatly unsettled texts in the
Old Testament which are quoted or referred to in the New Testament. This
causes the Old Testament and the New Testament to disagree. Old Testament
prophecy is practically done away with.
5. There are many supplied words, but no italics or
footnotes
are present to indicate
that these words have been supplied. It is impossible for one to discern
between the words of the Bible writers and those of the translators. This
is not literary honesty.
6. The revisers repeatedly claim that they have
revolutionized the readability of the Bible by the major improvements they
have made in clarity of renditions and in modernizing the language of the
new RSV. We do not overlook that they have put a number of words and
phrases in modern speech, but they certainly have not retained the beauty
of the King James. Compare this new Revised Standard Version with the King
James and you will surely agree with Dorothy Thompson’s statement in the
"Ladies’ Home Journal" of March, 1953, article, "The Old Bible and the
New." She says:
"I find the new text inferior on nearly every page to
the one it seeks to supplant. . . It is weaker, less vivid, defective in
imagery, less beautiful, less inspired. And I, at least, do not find it
easier to understand."
Please contrast with this her tribute to the King James
Bible.
"The men in the reign of King James who produced the
great Bible were a large body of the greatest scholars of the period. . .
The fidelity of their text to the original has never since been
successfully challenged, and its beauty makes it the greatest monument of
the English language. . . It appeared in an age when the Reformation was
revitalizing the religious sense of the people; in an age when men had
gone to the block for the right to print and read the Bible; it coincided
with the English renaissance that produced Shakespeare; it was written
when the English language was most vivid and virile. All these factors
combined to produce the clarity, simplicity, passion, beauty and majesty
of the King James Bible which has outlasted all subsequent revisions."
A MISLEADING ARGUMENT
There are those who say it makes no difference what
version you use; the Message can be found in anyone of them. They point
out that some people in foreign lands have been brought into the Truth
through the use of many different versions; such as Spanish, French,
Italian, German, the different languages of India, and of other
non-English speaking countries. To this we reply, Some foreign versions
are based on the superior manuscripts from which the King James came;
others’ are not. Missionaries going to these foreign fields were schooled
in the King James and could "square? the deficient foreign versions with
the King James. It is argued that many people in foreign lands never heard
of the King James or of the manuscripts upon which the King James is
based. Be that as it may; after they hear the Message, they will have been
taught doctrines as found in the King James.
This Revised Standard Version is more dangerous than
any other version now in general use. If all the Bibles in the world were
destroyed except this new RSV, the Third Angel’s Message could never be
taught from it. Deficient foreign versions should not be used to give
standing to this most deficient one of all.
If the Revised Standard Version had been the Bible in
the days of William Miller, there never would have been an Advent
movement. The message could not have arisen from it, because the 2300
days-prophecy and the 70 weeks predicting the year of Christ’s baptism are
completely destroyed by the RSV.
WHAT ARE THE BELIEFS OF THE REVISERS?
At this point the logical question is, Who are the
revisers that put out this new Version and what do they believe? The
majority of them are modernists, liberal scholars who do not believe in
the Deity of Christ or the inspiration of the Bible. The Revision
Committee was created and sponsored by the National Council of Churches,
originally the Federal Council of Churches. The Revision Committee was
headed by Dr. Luther A. Weigle, former head of Yale University Divinity
School, an out-spoken higher critic, and former Federal Council president.
On the cover-piece for this new Version is a list of the members of the
Revision Committee, both Old and New Testament. These men have written
books. Following are extracts from books written by some of them which
give the tenor of their thinking and writing.
JULIUS A. BEWER
,
Literature of the
Old Testament.
"The chronological sequence of the books which literary
criticism has established differs greatly from their order in our Bibles.
And not only is this true of the books as a whole but of their component
parts as well, for most of the books are of composite authorship. The
majestic story of Creation, for example, which now stands at the beginning
of the Old Testament, is quite late as a literary composition. The stories
of the Garden of Eden and of the Temptation which follow immediately upon
it are several centuries earlier; and the history of Saul and David in the
Books of Samuel is, from a literary point of view, older than the books
themselves, older indeed than the oldest stories in the Book of Genesis."
Intro. xii.
HENRY J. CADBURY,
Jesus, What Manner of
Man.
"Much of the most appreciative writing about him
(Jesus) runs the risk of putting him into the introvert class. Indeed, as
is well known, the emphasis of orthodoxy upon his messianic claims and
messianic consciousness led some psychiatrists to doubt his sanity." p. 8.
"Why does he Jesus seem such an extremist? Something
could be set down to a habit language. He was given to overstatements,—in
his case not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the oriental
world." p. 69.
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED
,
How to Read the
Bible.
"Genesis is not hard reading in any version, for it is
almost entirely narrative; indeed, it reveals the oriental story teller at
his best." p. 40.
"The little idyll of Ruth follows the Book of Judges in
the Bible, only because its story falls in the days of the Judges. But it
belongs to Israel’s fiction, rather than to its history, and should be
read among its tales and stories." p. 51.
"We must think of the books of the Bible which are
fiction, that is, short stories. The Book of Job is more than a novel, for
it is principally drama and debate, but its setting is unmistakably
fiction." p. 147.
An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the
New Testament,
Article
by Goodspeed.
"The APOCRYPHA whatever we may think of their value for
religion, form an INDISPENSABLE introduction to the New Testament, for it
is they and not the Old Testament that constitute its immediate
background." p. 31. (Caps supplied).
Goodspeed looks forward to the much discredited
Apocrypha being inserted in a new version of the Bible, as he brought out
in his three lectures in Long Beach, California, Oct., 1952.
JAMES MOFFATT.
Moffatt, of the famous modern speech Moffatt Bible says
in the preface to the translation, that the Hebrew manuscripts from which
the King James Bible was translated are "desperately corrupt."
The Approach to the New Testament, London, 1922.
"We also know that the New Testament writers attached a
meaning to some Old Testament prophecies which was unhistorical . . .
Historical criticism has rendered a true service to Christianity by
relieving it of the necessity of accepting literally such attempts. . .
Predictions like that of the millennium in the book of Revelation are due
to some passing mood of faith in a particular age." pp. 85-86.
WALTER R. BOWIE
,
The Renewing
Gospel.
"As poetry, the story of the Virgin Birth has
imperishable loveliness, . . . Recognition of the incomparable spiritual
power of Jesus does not in this period of Christian development make
itself dependent upon assurance that he was miraculously born." p. 96.
Bowie questions the fact of the resurrection and states
that the gospels are an expression of mystic emotion. pp. 104, 105.
FREDERICK C. GRANT
,
The Earliest
Gospel.
Grant believes that the Bible is tradition. "The source
material available for the composition of Mark’s gospel was the evangelic
tradition as it circulated in the church at Rome in the middle or late
sixties of the first century." p. 58.
WILLIAM A. IRWIN
,
Revision of The
Prophets and Their Times,
(written by J. M. Powis Smith).
"The pious tradition of more than twenty centuries has
loved to affirm that they were divinely inspired." p. 321.
"Only bigotry could bring us to deny an equal validity
with the prophets of Israel in the religious vision of men such as
Zoroaster or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the unnamed thinkers of
ancient Babylon," p. 322.
"The prophets were forced by the disaster that befell
Israel to do some hard and painful thinking. They were forced by the
history of their own times to revise their messages again and again in
order to keep pace with the progress of the age. The Assyrians and
Babylonians forced them to revise their conception of Yahweh from time to
time until they finally made him God of the Universe." p. 324.
MILLAR BURROWS
,
Founders of Great
Religions.
"The accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels are
confusing, and it is impossible to, construct from them a clear,
consistent story." As to what actually happened to the of Jesus we may not
be able to agree among ourselves." pp. 206, 207.
"Modern study of the gospels makes all too plain how
distressingly little We know about Jesus." p. 207.
"Yet it is by no means certain that he (Jesus)
considered himself the Messiah." pp. 217, 218.
"Recent investigators tend to believe that Jesus
thought of his mission simply as that of a prophet." p. 218.
CLARENCE T. CRAIG
,
The Beginning of
Christianity.
He says of the death of John the Baptist, "Clearly we
have to do with a popular legend." p. 74.
Of the virgin birth of Christ he affirms, "We are not
in position to trace just how in certain circles of Hellenistic Judaism a
belief in the Virgin Birth of the Messiah originated." p.208.
Again he asks, "How early was Jesus called ‘the Lord’?"
. . . and answers, "Luke puts the term in the mouth of Peter at his first
sermon, but it is unlikely that it began that early." p.209.
ABDEL R. WENTZ
,
A New Strategy
for Theological Education.
According to Dr. Wentz, the New Testament writers ‘are
the origin of what they wrote, not God; it is what the writers meant, not
what God meant. They wrote to win men to their experience and way of life.
The Bible, accordingly, is all a human affair. The work of translating and
revision is never really finished. The New Testament is to reproduce the
experience of the apostles.
"An Introduction to the RSV of the Old Testament",
article by Wentz.
"As, a matter of fact the work of translating and
revising the New Testament is never really finished; it must go on as
continuously as changing human life. . . And the work of the translator of
the Word is never completed, as with tender sympathy and clear
understanding he cleanses the temple and beautifies it and spiritualizes
it." p. 69.
WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT
,
From the Stone
Age to Christianity.
He believes that this earth evolved through long ages,
that man evolved from lower forms, of animal life and that the Bible
religion came not by revelation, but from myths and legends. Thus he
wrote: "The important point for us to know is that the oldest stone
artifacts
12
so far found in the Near East. . .
cannot be less than 200,000 years old and may possibly be much older. . .
.
"Toward the end of the Early Palaeolithic Age in the
middle or late Acheulian (Tayacian), perhaps about 150,000 years ago,
appear the first cave deposits of human origin in Palestine." p. 90.
To assess the influence exerted by native Hebrew on
Moses, among other factors Albright lists "the adoption of the stories of
the Fathers as part of Israel’s inheritance. . . specific appellations of
deity and perhaps the nucleus of the cosmogony of Genesis, though
the latter may again
have been developed later from the native stock of myths and legends"
pp. 206, 207.
(Italics supplied.)
12 Artifact— "A Product of human workshop."—Webster’s
Dictionary.
J. PHILIP HYATT,
The Prophetic Religion.
"The careful student of the Old Testament can find in
the writings even of the great prophets predictions which were not
fulfilled and in the very nature of the case can never be fulfilled." p.
93.
HARRY M. ORLINSKY.
He is a Jewish Rabbi and of course does not believe in
the Deity of Christ. On page 30, of "An Introduction to the Revised
Standard Version of the Old Testament" he says that the early Christians
substituted the word "virgin" in place of "young woman" in the Septuagint
Manuscript.
Quotations from official members of the National
Council of Churches are just as startling as the above quotations. They
follow the same modern, liberal, higher-critical teachings. It is a
serious question whether men such as these in the above list, are
qualified to translate the Word of God. Through holy men in ages past, God
has preserved the Bible for us. Scholarship is not enough! Belief in the
inspiration of the Bible is fundamental to allowing the Spirit of God to
direct in such a work. Why should Bible-loving Christians be asked to
accept a new Version put out by men who do not believe in the inspiration
of the Bible, and who do believe such things as we have quoted above?
At a recent meeting in Denver, Dr. John MacKay said
that the N.C.C.
does believe in the
Deity of Christ. This is an obvious attempt to answer the recent
accusations that they do not. Their printed statements and also their
changes in the new Version seem to betray otherwise.
EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE AROUSED
The Seventh-day Adventists should be told these facts.
The Fundamentalist groups have unceasingly, warned their people of the
dangers and pitfalls in this new Version. The Modernists do not have a
monopoly on, scholarship. The Fundamentalists have brought forth many
scholarly arguments against the new Version. Good articles have appeared
in the "Sunday School Times", the "Eternity" magazine, "Christian Life",
"Moody Monthly" and "Action". Also a number of pamphlets and booklets have
been printed by various. Protestant organizations protesting this new
Version. The following are a few excerpts to show the opinion and the
studied findings of these groups.
Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., D.D., LL.D.; Ph.D.,
president of Shelton College, and professor of Philosophy and Theology,
shows that many of the changes in the new Bible were deliberately made to
accord with the revisers’ opinions and that they did not honestly follow
the manuscripts which they were using:
"Translation work is: expected to be objective. There
are outstanding scholars in the New Testament field who would have been
glad to spend much time in presenting evidence looking toward the
elimination of such errors as I have indicated. The complete avoidance of
Bible-believing scholars, complete failure to consider their criticisms,
does not give evidence of pure objectivity."
13
Dr. Qswald T. Ellis wrote an article in the "Eternity"
Magazine and I quote editorial comment from the same magazine:
"Dr. Oswald T. Allis, in his critical review of the RSV
Old Testament which appears elsewhere in this issue (p. 5), has made it
abundantly clear that the highly touted ‘Bible’ has been prepared by men
who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as evangelicals believe in
Him. They have: used their position to strike at Him as much as the
Pharisees cried ‘Crucify: Him’! This is not a matter of conjecture, nor a
wild statement by irresponsible or unscholarly men; this is a sober
statement made by men highly trained in the languages of the Bible and
able to weigh evidence. . .
13 Oliver Buswell, Jr., D.D., LL.D., Ph.D., "The Sunday
School Times", p. 5, (Nov. 16, 1952).
"It should be noted, in passing, that the publishers
spent $500,000 on the advance publicity and arranged for thousands of
meetings to advertise the new ‘Bible,’ and that the meetings were held in
advance of the sale date of the volume. In other words, the whole thing
was rigged in order that there might be no sour note of criticism, such as
this, to mar their serene plans. The ethics of the launching of the volume
conforms with the ethics of the translators."
"In closing, we might remind you that neither the
divine throne nor the Lord Jehovah Jesus are in danger. The condemnation
of these men slumbereth not. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God’s
Word will not pass away. (Matt. 24:35)"
14
Notice a statement made by a scholar of the Bible
Baptist Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas, in a pamphlet entitled, "Why We
Reject the ‘National Council’ Bible".
"The philosophy of modernism underlies the whole
translation. According to modernistic theology, we are all sons of God.
Jesus is not ‘the Son’ but ‘a Son’. In
Hebrews 1:2
instead of the reading ‘God. . .
‘hath spoken unto us by His Son’, they make it to read: ‘But in these last
days, he has spoken to us by a Son’.
"The modernistic picture of Christ is that Jesus went
farther with God, yielded more completely to God, and was more fully
surrendered to God than any other son of God in the history of the race.
He was a pioneer and trailblazer to show all of God’s other sons (the
whole human race) just how Godlike they might all be. In fact, in
Hebrews 12:2
instead of translating the Greek
text correctly ‘Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith’ they make it
read: ‘Looking unto Jesus the pioneer and perfector of our faith.’
14 "Eternity", November, 1952, p. 8.
"One National Council leader, J. W. Nixon, said: ‘We
shall hardly bandy words about the finality of Christ. The field is open
for any one at any time to mean more to men than Jesus has meant."
15
There are a few Seventh-day Adventists who feel that
since some non-Adventist Fundamentalists are against the New Version that
we should go slow, because these Fundamentalists have, in the past,
misunderstood and misinterpreted some of our beliefs. However, truth is
truth, and should be supported always by truth lovers. Many Seventh-day
Adventists feel that these Fundamentalists are right in opposing this new
Version. We should not hesitate to endorse their warning of the insidious
dangers in this modernistic Version.
WHAT WILL BE THE END RESULT OF THIS NEW VERSION?
First, it will destroy faith in the Bible. This will be
accomplished by teaching different doctrines that are based on supposedly
new manuscripts which give supposedly new light. Because of this false
theory many will lose faith in the Bible altogether. According to Mrs.
White this is Satan’s present plan:
"Now that Satan can no longer keep the world under his
control by withholding the Scriptures, he resorts to other means to
accomplish the same object. To destroy faith in the Bible serves his
purpose as well as to destroy’ the Bible itself."
l6
15 Dr. Luther C. Peak, "Why we Reject the National
Council’ Bible" pp. 16,77.
16 Ellen G. White, The great Controversy, p. 586.
"Secondly, it will aid in uniting modernistic
Protestant bodies in one super-organization. This new Version is a product
of the National Council of Churches which embraces 30 Protestant bodies,
who endorsed it. It is the aim of this organization to unite all churches’
into one large Protestant group. They state that they are not a
super-church, nor do they intend to become one. Yet at a recent meeting in
Denver, this Council pointed out that there are more members in the United
States in their organization of Protestant Churches than there are in the
Roman Catholic Church. The members of this Council are also interested in
a one-world ecumenical movement which will embrace the Catholics as well
as Protestants, and thus form a one world church. By accepting the
theology taught in this new "Bible" it is easy to see that the new
Protestant super-church could go hand-in-hand with the Catholic Church.
The Revised Standard Version teaches Purgatory and the Immortality of the
Soul; it leads to evolution by demanding the long geologic ages in
Creation; it removes the certainty of the seventh-day Sabbath and
abolishes the doctrine of the Deity of Christ; it destroys the doctrine of
the cleansing of the Sanctuary; it aids in establishing the Catholic view
of the Atonement. All of this, of course, coincides with Catholic
theology. The following quotations enlarge on this point:
"The National Council of Churches of Christ in America
has issued a new version of the Bible. The way they went about preparing
it, publishing it, monopolizing it, publicizing it, and promoting it is a
first lesson in the way a Super-Church works . . .
Leaders in a Super-Church would have people believe
that the Church and not the Bible is the supreme authority in matters
pertaining to religion. The Roman Catholic Church has used this idea in a
most effective manner to strengthen its power. Attempts at creating a
Protestant Super-Church has been hampered by the commonly accepted belief
that ‘the Bible is the religion of Protestants’. If NCC Super-Church
advocates could get the people to believe that the NCC produced the Bible,
that the NCC owns the Bible, that the NCC has the right to change the text
of the Bible, that the NCC can permit or deny its use, then the minds of
the people would gradually be conditioned to believe that the NCC is more
important than the Bible. From that point on it would onIy be a matter of
time until the people would accept the NCC as a Protestant Super-Church
and its authority as superior to the Bible."
17
Dr. Carl McIntire, President of the International
Council of Christian Churches, states:
"The leaders of the (RSV) committee are active in the
ecumenical movement, the WorId Council of Churches, which desires to
include the Roman Catholics and have a ‘one-world church’. All this fits
into a pattern."
18
Dr. McIntire hits the nail on the head. This new
Version creates a common ground of belief for the Protestants, Catholics,
and even Spiritualists, so that they can quickly unite into a one-world
church. Of course we Seventh-day Adventists have believed for many years
this would come to pass. The Spirit of Prophecy has warned for years
against this coming event:
"Through the two great errors, the immortality of the
soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his
deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of Spiritualism, the
latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United
States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp
the hand of Spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp the
hands of the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union,
this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights
of conscience."
19
The Lord has given us ample warning concerning this
matter. Revelation, chapters 12-20, deals with the subject of the beast
and his image. The Third Angel’s Message of Revelation 14:9, 10, deals
exclusively with this prophecy. The Lord further illumines this topic
through His servant.
17 James DeFrost Murch, "Action" magazine, Nov. 15,
1952, p. 8.
18 Carl McIntire, "The New Bible, Why Christians Should
Not Accept It" 2nd Ed. p. 21
19 White, Great Controversy, p. 588.
"The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant
churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a
forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in
churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor
of a union based upon common points of doctrine."
20
Are we watching for the sign posts along the way
pointing to that which will eventually bring about this union foretold by
the Apostle John?
CONCLUSION: SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS SHOULD BE ALERT
The dangers and errors in this new Version need to be
brought to the attention of our people. If this Version is used publicly
as a commentary or help, the listener should be at the same time aware
that it contains many corruptions. Some of our ministers and church papers
are recommending this new Version. To say,
"Oh, this is only
another version," fails
to reveal the dangerous situation. Nothing like this ever happened before
in the history of the world. Never before was a nation wide drive for the
Bible undertaken "by Catholics and Protestants at the same time, as on the
week of Sept. 28 to Oct. 5, 1952: the declared aim of Protestants was to
sell a million copies of the RSV and to eliminate the King James Bible
from English-speaking churches.21
This means that the birth
of this new Version is intended to bring about the doom of the King James
Bible. This is declared conflict. Therefore the promoters of the RSV are
instigators of controversy; the believers in the King James are defenders.
The RSV cannot be considered "just another version" for
these additional reasons:
1. Never before was a Bible version published backed by
a million dollars in advertising, and promoted by high-pressure Sales
campaigns in thousand of public centers, so that it is known even to the
man in the street.
20 Ibid., p. 444
21 "Our Parish Confraternity", August, 1952,
Washington, D.C.
2. No other version has affected so many fundamental
doctrines of Christianity, and uprooted the pillars of the Third Angel’s
Message.
3. No previous version has so radically manhandled and
changed the Holy Scriptures. We are told by a college Professor of Hebrew
that, "by actual count, we have found in the footnotes of the O. T., 1292
references to the versions." This means that in 1292 places in the RSV the
original Hebrew has been displaced, and other versions used instead. He
also says, "There are at least 344 conjectures in the O. T."
22
"This is just another version" is a slogan of those who
think it will disarm the fears which the RSV has aroused. Widespread
opposition to this version’s anti-evangelical teachings has come from
Evangelical and Fundamentalist bodies. Moreover: we have read that a
Protestant translation will soon appear which will be more modern and
contain the extra Catholic books of the Apocrypha. Will that also be "just
another version"? This new RSV in the hands of modernists, coupled with
their own modernistic interpretations and commentaries, will hasten a
disbelief in all Bibles; then in Christ; then in salvation and in the
hereafter. (Read Amos 8:11-13).
We do not feel that we should be slow or timid in
exposing the unusual errors of this Version. On this principle we quote
Mrs. White:
"Between truth and error there is an irrepressible
conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the
other."
23
We are also told:
"Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is
regarded of God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of
hostility against God."
24
As to the manuscripts: Mrs. White has pointed out
unmistakably the true line of manuscripts.
25
22 C. L. Feinberg, "The RSV, What Kind of
Translation?", p. 3.
23 E. G. White, Great Controversy, p. 126.
24 E. G. White, Testomies, Vol. 3, p. 281.
25 E. G. White, Great Controversy, p. 245.
With that line, genuine textual science agrees. It has
been further shown that the revisers of this new Version have condemned
this true line of manuscripts as erroneous.
26
We cannot use both versions together as authority; they
will bring in confusion. We must either accept the King James Bible and
its doctrines from which the Seventh-day Adventists and all other standard
Protestant churches were born, and the assurances of our servant of the
Lord that this is the true Message; or accept this new Standard Revised
Version with its changed doctrines and modernistic statements tending
toward atheism. There is only one Bible; namely, the one based on the
original and inspired Hebrew for the Old Testament and on the original and
inspired Greek for the New. The true representative of this in English is
the King James Bible.
26 Members of the Revision Committee, "Introduction to
the RSV of the N.T.", p. 15.
Reprinted 2007