THE NASV: WHAT DOES IT SAY?
- What about Jesus:
- Was he a begotten God?
- Was he a created being?
- Was there a time he did not exist?
- Is he actually God judging or not?
- Was he God manifest in the flesh?
Some other issues:
A characteristic of the new Bible versions is found in the way that virtually very one of them alters Scriptures which plainly teach the Deity of our Lord Jesus. In some cases the teaching is watered down, and in others it is eliminated by altering the punctuation or by deceitful scholarship. There follows a partial list of those found in the New American Standard Version.
K.J.V. John 1:18 - "The only begotten Son, ... He hath declared Him."
N.A.S.V John 1:18 - "The only begotten God, ... He has explained Him."
N.W.T. (Jehovah Witness) - "The only begotten God...is the one that has explained Him."
The Amplified Bible - "The only unique Son, (f) the only begotten God,...hath made Him known." (f) Footnote. "Supported by a great mass of ancient evidence (Vincent)."
By substituting "God" for "Son" the latter three of the above four translations change the glorious truth of God into a lie.
If Christ is really a "begotten God," then the great truth regarding His Deity is invalidated. This rendering delights the heart of the "Unitarian" and the "Jehovah Witness", neither of which believe in the Deity of our Lord Jesus.
The New American Standard Version shares the dubious distinction of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Jehovah Witness' Bible at this and many, many other points of alteration.
Concerning the reading of the Amplified, it is of interest to note, that it also originates with the Lockman Foundation, as does the New American Standard Version.
Does some one feel that this is not evidence of "intent" on the part of translators of N.A.S.V. and The Amplified Bible?
Let us not be in a hurry to reject the evidence.
In the "Foreword" of the New American Standard Version, we read "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version of 1901, KNOWN AS THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY."
A.S.V. 1901. John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him." That is he worshipped Jesus who had given him who was born blind, his sight.
A disgraceful footnote reads: (re. the word worshipped) "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or the Creator."
This is a plain statement to the effect that the translators as a board have approved a blasphemous doctrine which seeks to make the Eternal One, a created being.
The Change in the N.A.S.V. in John 1:18 is a slightly more subtle insinuation, but none the less repulsive.
Re. the scholarly(?) footnote in the Lockman production, The Amplified Bible. The claim is made that their great substitution in John 1:18 is supported by "a great mass of ancient evidence".
Will some one now please stand up and tell us why this great mass (or mess) of ancient evidence is rejected by the scholars who, while producing exceedingly faulty versions, still did not go so far in following their blind guides (the oldest and best manuscripts) as to fall in to this ditch together with the others; namely Lockman's N.A.S.V., Lockman's Amplified, and Jehovah Witness, New World Translation.
The reading "begotten God" instead of "Son" is rejected by the translators of Douay-Rheims, Knox, R.V. 1881,A.S.V. 1901; (but it does have a corrupt footnote here), R.S.V.; Williams, Moffat, Goodspeed, Twentieth Century, The New Berkeley Version, New English Bible, New International Version, Good News for Modern Man, and The Living Bible. Supremely it is rejected by the unexcelled scholarship of the world's finest and most accurate English translation, THE KING JAMES VERSION.
So much for the "GREAT MASS OF ANCIENT EVIDENCE". Where is it, and why do so very many scholars reject it all at this point?
Kenneth Wuest includes the corrupt reading in his expanded translation of the Gospels. There may be others who do, but out of those so far examined the writer has found only the above four who include this travesty on the person of the Son of God.
John 1:30 N.A.S.V. - "After me cometh a man who has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me." A footnote reads, "lit. has become before me."
Here is an intimation that there was a time when the Lord Jesus came into existence. Keep in mind that vile footnote of John (9:38) in the Rock of Biblical Honesty.
Even the Rutherford version (New World Translation) which openly denies the Deity of our Lord Jesus, did not dare to insert such a footnote.
John 8:58 K.J.V. - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I AM". Our Lord here claims the great title of Deity. (Exodus 3:14)
N.A.S.V. renders it properly "I AM", but in another of those famous marginal notes recommended so highly by Theodore Epp, and others, we read, "or, I have been". So this helpful marginal note manages to indicate the possibility of a reading which eliminates His great claim to Deity.
Some one says, "it is only in the margin". yes so far it is, but in these new versions, the marginal notes have strange ways of finding their way into the text in later editions.
A good example of this not so subtle intrusion into and change in the text if found in T.E.V. first edition includes the word "Virgin" in the text approx. fourteen times; a slightly later edition, without a word of warning eliminates the great majority of the "virgins".
John 8:58 At this point the Jehovah Witness version is slightly less subtle than the N.A.S.V., for it inserts the reading, "I have been" into the text, while the N.A.S.V.,with its little halo shining, just has it in the margin. In the former the Lord's title "I AM" is rejected out of hand, in the latter it is insinuated that it might not be so.
In so doing the scholars have introduced a Greek tense instead of the Present Active Indicative, first Person Singular, which tends to eliminate the doctrine of our Lord's eternal existence.
It is not hard to understand why this "I have been" should be found in the text of New World Translation; but who among the translators of the N.A.S.V. would give any credence to such a corruption, even in the margin of their work.
It also helps us to understand why Lockman Foundation refuses to divulge the names of the translators of the N.A.S.V. until at least 17 years after the publication of the N.A.S.V. New Testament in 1960.
Here is another very plain statement of the Deity of our Lord Jesus. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...to give account of ourselves to GOD. The teaching is obvious.
The N.A.S.V. once again joins with its cousin, the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, and others to eliminate this plain statement of our Lord's Deity.
The process employed is very simple. The judgment seat of CHRIST, is altered to read "The judgment seat of GOD". Now their version no longer clearly teaches His Deity at this point.
Away back in history when the original mutilators of the Scripture produced the ancestor of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the criminal slipped up and left evidence of their crime. They forgot to mutilate 2Corinthians 5:10 which reads in the "oldest and best" (?) manuscripts, "the judgment seat of CHRIST" at this point.
Our modern scholars, blindly following their corrupt texts, follow them into the mutilation of Romans 14:10-12; perhaps not realizing that in so doing they create a clear contradiction in their new versions. N.A.S.V., New World Translation, and many others bow obediently, to the dictates of dead rationalistic theologians.
N.A.S.V., New World, and most of the others leave 2Corinthians 5:10 to read "The judgment seat of Christ".
Matt 19:16-17 - "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God".
Here the Lord invites his inquirer to consider why he should address Him as "good" stating that only "God" is "good". It is a plain invitation for the man to recognize Christ, as "God manifest in the flesh".
The N.A.S.V. and New World Translation, again conspire in error to remove this glorious truth. In each case the "good" is removed from the text, to make the reading simply, "Teacher". Then instead of "Why do you call me good?", the new reading is "Why are you asking me about what is good?" New World is very similar.
Interestingly in Luke 18:17 - 19 where this same incident is recorded the text is left untouched in both of these versions, one might say in virtually every version which follows Westcott and Hort, or Nestles Greek texts. Once again this creates a built in contradiction in the various versions.
1Tim. 3:16 K.J.V. - "And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh."
For hundreds of years, millions of Christians have read these glorious words, and have known most certainly in thier hearts that the One Who came from the glory of Heaven to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins, was truly "God, manifest in the flesh."
Before the Devil can have a world church, or a world Bible, this tremendous witness to the Deity of our Lord must be removed.
In no other way could the conflicting religious views of the world's may religions be reconciled, except by the elimination of all Scriptures that teach the Deity of Christ.
We are not therefore surprised to find the New American Standard Version and that of the Jehovah Witnesses, uniting in the rejection of this great Scripture, or rather in the alteration of it so that the Deity of Christ is no longer clearly stated.
"THE ROCK OF BIBLICAL HONESTY". American Standard Version of 1901, declares in a footnote: "The word of God, in place of He Who rests on no sufficient ancient evidence, some ancient authorities read which". Now that would look nice wouldn't it? "The mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh"
N.A.S.V. is slightly more kind, its marginal note, which is truly a masterpiece of understatement of the case, says; "some later manuscripts read God."
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
DEAN BURGON - A truly great scholar who personally researched many of the ancient manuscripts. "The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father."
PROF. CHARLES HODGE - Re. "God" in 1Tim 3:16: "For God, we find the great body of the cursive manuscripts, and almost all of the Greek fathers, and the internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the common text."
TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY. Re 1 Timothy 3:16: "At the time of the revision (1881) nearly three hundred Greek copies were known to give indisputable support to the Received Text (God was manifest in the flesh) while not more than a handful of Greek copies could be quoted in favour of "who" or "which". i.e. "Which was manifest in the flesh"
CODEX SINAITICUS. The only manuscript of great antiquity that can be cited in favour of the new reading, "Who was manifest in the flesh", is the Codex Sinaiticus. For notes on the thoroughly unreliable nature of this text see page 6 of this brochure.
CODEX VATICANUS AND SINAITICUS. These two ancient manuscripts share the awesome responsibility for omitting the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark. Vaticanus leaves a blank space or rather column after Mark 16:8, indicating that the scribe knew he was omitting the verses.
Sinaiticus bears unmistakable evidence of serious tampering with the text at this point, and is therefore an unreliable witness.
Back to 1Tim 3:15 (God was manifest in the flesh.)
In the second century approximately 200 years before the offending Sinaiticus was in existence, the writings of Hippolytus, Barnabus, and Ignatious evidence the fact that second century Christians read "God was manifest in the flesh" in their Bibles.
Dionysius of Alexandria, writing approximately A.D. 264, quotes "God was manifest in the flesh", at least 100 years before either of the "oldest and best manuscripts" were written.
The New American Standard Version makes much of ancient witnesses. Simple integrity demands that the translators should acknowledge that these writings prove that the authors found "God was manifest in the flesh", in Bibles much more ancient in their witness, than those they are using to correct the Authorized Version.
Further, let them now confess that the Authorized, King James Version at this point and on many other occasions transmits to us a text which was in common use, long before the manuscripts used to "revise" the K.J.V. were in existence.
Repeatedly in the New Testament we find clear indications that this glorious Name of our God is the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That blessed Name is filled with revelations of the character of our God. The souls of God's people have been thrilled through the passing centuries with, Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Shalom, Jehovah Tsidkenu etc.
The preface to the New American Standard Version of 1963 states, regarding that Name: "It is felt by many who are in touch with the laity of our churches that this name conveys no religious or spiritual overtones. It is strange, uncommon, and without sufficient religious and devotional background. No amount of scholarly debate can overcome this deficiency. Hence, it was decided to avoid the use of this name in the translation proper." Editorial Board, Lockman Foundation.
Vaticanus claimed by many to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript. VATICANUS OMITS:
All of first Timothy
All of second Timothy
All of Titus
Nearly all of Genesis (Gen 1 to 46:29)
The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. (Mark 16:9-20)
Our Lord's prayer on the cross. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)
Our Lord's agony and bloodlike sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Luke 22:44)
The last four and a half chapters of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25)
Thirty three of the Psalms (Psalms 106 - 138)
Plus many other omissions
Scholars discern the hand of ten different scribes, making many, many alterations over a period of several hundred years. Tischendorf the discovered of Sinaiticus noted 12,000 alterations in the text.
IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS:
1. If Sinaiticus was an accurate copy of the Word of God at the beginning of its history, it is absolutely impossible that it is now, after ten specialists have made so many alterations in the text.
2. If Siniaticus was not an accurate copy of the Word of God at the start, then it is absolutely inconceivable that ten different textual chiropractors labouring over a period of a few hundred years, have succeeded in making what must have been a hopelessly corrupt copy into one of the "oldest and best" of manuscripts.
The marginal notes of the New American Standard Version, which constantly quote "the oldest" or "late mss. add" etc. serve to obscure the truth of God's Word, rather than to enlighten it.
In the light of the above it is evident that the statement "not found in the earliest manuscripts" is at its best misleading, and at its worst either intentionally or unintentionally, a withholding of the actual facts.
EVERY BIBLE STUDENT:
Should beware of accepting any change from the King James Version at any time, but especially when the change is accompanied by the explanation, "not found in the oldest and best manuscripts", regardless of which version they may be examining.
Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institure, Prairie Bible Institute, have all properly rejected the Revised Standard Version. In each case exception is taken to the fact that this version fails to exhibit the full Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
What now, will be their attitude towards the New American Standard Version, which is perhaps equally guilty.
by Cecil J. CarterReturn to the top