Double Jeopardy NASB, Excerpt

8/2/2019 Double Jeopardy NASB, Excerpt

1/23

King James Bible Believers Depository

.Collective of KJB Defence Articles & Sound Biblical Doctrine & Study.

z Which Bible?z

z Purposez

z Salvationz

z Contact Usz

z Sitemapz

z Booksz

z BIBLE AUDIO NT{

MATTHEW{ LUKE{ MARK{ JOHN{ ACTS{ ROMANS{ 1st CORINTHIANS{ 2nd CORINTHIANS{ GALATIANS{ EPHESIANS{ PHILIPPIANS{ COLOSSIANS{ 1st THESSALONIANS{ 2nd THESSALONIANS{ 1st TIMOTHY{ 2nd TIMOTHY{ TITUS{ PHILEMON{ HEBREWS{ JAMES{ 1st PETER{ 2nd PETER{ 1st JOHN{

2nd JOHN{ 3rd JOHN{ JUDE{ REVELATION

z

z Bible Audio OT

{ GENESIS{ EXODUS{ LEVITICUS{ NUMBERS

Page 1 of 23Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update | King James Bible Believers Depository

3/25/2012http://www.king amesbiblebelievers.com/depository/?p=1936


2/23

{ DEUTERONOMY{ JOSHUA{ JUDGES{ RUTH{ 1st SAMUEL{ 2nd SAMUEL{ 1st KINGS{ 2nd KINGS{ 1st CHRONICLES{ 2nd CHRONICLES{ EZRA{ NEHEMIAH{ ESTHER{ JOB{ PSALMS{ PROVERBS{ ECCLESIASTES{ SONG OF SOLOMON{

ISAIAH{ JEREMIAH

{ LAMENTATIONS{ EZEKIEL{ DANIEL{ HOSEA{ JOEL{ AMOS{ OBADIAH{ JONAH{ MICAH

{ HABAKKUK{ NAHUM{ ZEPHANIAH{ HAGGAI{ ZECHARIAH{ MALACHI

The New International Version ExposedThe King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations

Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update

Author: Steve

Double Jeopardy:The New American Standard BibleUpdate




3/23

Excerpt from Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update

Chapter 1

The History of the NASB

There are several significant dates in the history of the NASB. In 1960 the NASB first appearedas just the Gospel of John. This was followed in 1962 with the translation of the Four Gospels.The completed New Testament was issued in 1963, the Psalms in 1968, and the entire Biblewas published in 1971. But the history of the NASB does not begin with any of these dates.

According to the original preface to the NASB New Testament, the NASB is a revision of theAmerican Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. The reason for the production of the NASB wasbecause "the producers of this translation were imbued with the conviction that interest in the

American Standard Version should be renewed and increased." The "chief inducement" for thepublication of the NASB "was the recognized value of the version of 1901 which deserves anddemands perpetuation." The "most weighty impetus" for the production of the NASB "can beattributed to a disturbing awareness that the American Standard Version of 1901 was fastdisappearing from the scene. As a generation which knew not Joseph was born, even so ageneration unacquainted with this great and important work has come into being." Theresponsible party for the NASB, The Lockman Foundation, because of a perceived"responsibility to posterity," sought to "rescue" the ASV "from an inevitable demise" and to

"preserve it as a heritage for coming generations."

The preface to the NASB New Testament then listed six "observations" about the ASV:

1. The American Standard Version of 1901 has been in a very real sense thestandard for many translations.

2. It is a monumental product of applied scholarship, assiduous labor and thoroughprocedure.




4/23

3. It has enjoyed universal endorsement as a trustworthy translation of the originaltext.

4. The British and American organizations were governed by rules of procedurewhich assured accuracy in the completed work.

5. The American Standard Version, itself a revision of the 1881-1885 edition, is the

product of international collaboration, invaluable for perspective, accuracy andfinesse.

6. Unlike many modern translations of the Scriptures, the American StandardVersion retains its acceptability for pulpit reading and for personal memorization.

In view of all that the preface to the NASB New Testament said about the ASV it would seemlike the simple solution would have been to merely republish the ASV. But obviously, this wasnot done, or we would not have the NASB.

The reason the ASV was not reprinted is two-fold. First of all, The Lockman Foundation did not

own the copyright to the ASV. And secondly, even if The Lockman Foundation had thecopyright, it would have soon expired thereby allowing anyone to publish the ASV. Under pre-1978 copyright law, the copyright on a work endured for twenty-eight years from the date of

publication but could be renewed during the twenty-eighth year.1 This is what happened to theASV. In 1928 the copyright of the ASV, held by Thomas Nelson and Sons, was acquired by the

International Council of Religious Education.2 This council is now a part of the National Council

of Churches.3 The Council then renewed the copyright and established the American Standard

Bible Committee.4 Under the law at that time, copyright renewals lasted for another twenty-

eight years.5 But soon after the Committee was formed, work was begun on what was tobecome the RSV.

After the NASB New Testament was published in 1963, the emphasis on the ASV in theforward, preface and other introductory material was toned down considerably over the years.The forward to the 1963 New Testament states: "It has been the purpose of the Editorial Boardto present to the modern reader a revision of the American Standard Version in clear andcontemporary language." Later editions change this to: "This translation follows the principlesused in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty." Butbeginning with the forward to the 1975 edition, reference to the ASV in the forward is droppedcompletely. The preface to the 1975 edition is likewise amended. Gone are the sixobservations about the ASV and the adulation predicated toward it. In fact, the preface isomitted entirely and the heading "Principles of Revision" is changed to "Principles ofTranslation." Then in the 1977 edition we are told in a brief preface that The Lockman

Foundation only recognized "the values of" the ASV and that the ASV "has been highlyregarded for its scholarship and accuracy." And this time, instead of "revising the ASV," we aretold that "The Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to update it by incorporating recentdiscoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more currentEnglish." The NASB was now only "based on the ASV" as it sought to "preserve" the "lastingvalues of the ASV." And in a outburst of self-adulation peculiar to the editions, one paragraphunder the heading "Principles of Revision," in the 1971, 1972, and 1973 editions, states that "itis enthusiastically anticipated that the general public will be grateful to learn of the availabilityand value of the New American Standard Bible. It is released with strong confidence that those




5/23

who seek a knowledge of the Scriptures will find herein a source of genuine satisfaction for aclear and accurate rendering of divinely-revealed truth."

Another notable difference between the preface of the 1973 and earlier editions and thoseappearing later is the mention of other versions of the Bible that were not mentioned in theoriginal one. Besides the ASV, the only translation mentioned in the original preface is theRevised Version of 1885. But in the 1977 preface, the King James Version is mentioned in the

first sentence. There it is lauded as "time-honored" and "the most prestigious" of English Bibletranslations. However, we are informed that the KJV is "itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of1568." Moreover, it is also announced that "in the preparation of this work numerous othertranslations have been consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblicalscholarship."

The preface that appears in the NASBU contains even more changes. Reference to the ASV isreduced from even the 1977 preface. And this time, instead of a new translation "based on the

ASV," the preface states that the NASBU is "based on the time-honored principles oftranslation of the ASV and KJV," as if the KJV and ASV were actually alike in that respect.

No matter which preface to the NASB that one reads, the fact remains that the history of theNASB goes back to the ASV. But since the ASV is merely the American edition of the RVpublished in England in 1885, the history of the ASV must necessarily begin with the RV. Yet,one still cannot jump from the ASV straight to the NASB, for there is one other version thatlikewise claims to be an authorized revision of the ASV.

The Revised Version

Although the translation of the RV officially began with a resolution in 1870, culminating in thepublication of the New Testament in 1881 and the complete Bible in 1885, the impetus can betraced to the appearance in 1832 (re-edited in 1836 and 1849) ofHints for an Improved

Translation of the New Testamentby James Scholefield, a professor of Greek at Cambridge.This was followed in 1856 by William Selwyn's Notes on the proposed Amendment of theAuthorized Version. This in turn initiated Archbishop Trench's work in 1858: On the AuthorizedVersion of the New Testament, in connexion with some recent Proposals for its Revision.Meanwhile, in 1856, five scholars, among them C. J. Ellicott and Henry Alford, agreed toprivately undertake a revision of the Authorized Version New Testament beginning with theGospel of John. This revision was first published in 1857 as The Authorized Version of StJohn's Gospel, revised by Five Clergymen. Subsequent translations of Romans andCorinthians appeared in 1858, while Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians were issued in1861. Alford later produced his own translation of the New Testament. As the work of the RVwas commencing, Ellicott brought forth Considerations on the Revision of the English Versionof the New Testamentand in 1871, Lightfoot, one of the translators, added On a Fresh

Revision of the English New Testament. In America, a volume edited by Philip Schaffappeared entitled The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament, which containedthe essays by Lightfoot, Trench, and Ellicott.

On February 10, 1870, Bishop Wilberforce introduced a motion to the Upper House ofConvocation of the Province of Canterbury:

That a Committee of both Houses be appointed, with power to confer with anyCommittee that may be appointed by the Convocation of the Northern Province, to




6/23

report upon the desirableness of a revision of the Authorized Version of the NewTestament, whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages where

plain and clear errors, whether in the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted bythe translators, or in the translation made from the same, shall, on due

investigation, be found to exist.6

By an amendment, the Old Testament was included in this proposal and a committee was

appointed.7 On May 3, 1870, the following report was issued consisting of five resolutions:

1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorized Version of the HolyScriptures be undertaken.

2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings andsuch emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the

Authorized Version.

3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of theBible, or any alteration of the language, except when in the judgment of the mostcompetent scholars such change is necessary.

4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language employed in theexisting version be closely followed.

5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own membersto undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of

any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.8

These resolutions being adopted, another was proposed and approved:

That a Committee be now appointed to consider and report to Convocation ascheme of revision on the principles laid down in the report now adopted, and thatthe Bishops of Winchester, St. David's, Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, Ely,Lincoln, and Bath and Wells, be members of the Committee. That the Committeebe empowered to invite the co-operation of those whom they may judge fit from

their Biblical Scholarship to aid them in their work.9

A joint committee of sixteen then convened and separated into two companies, one for the Old

Testament and one for the New.10 Invitations to become members of the Revision Committeewere sent to the leading scholars of the day, including Trench, Hort, Lightfoot, Milligan,

Moulton, Scrivener, and Westcott.

11

Tregelles declined on account of failing health. TheRoman Catholic, John Henry Newman, likewise dissented. A Unitarian, G. Vance Smith, also

served on the committee.12

The general principles to be followed during the work were eight in number:

1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the AuthorizedVersion consistently with faithfulness.


3/25/2012http://www.kingjamesbiblebelievers.com/depository/?p=1936


7/23

2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language ofthe Authorized and earlier English versions.

3. Each company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, thesecond time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided.

4. That the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly

preponderating; and that when the Text so adopted differs from that from which theAuthorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.

5. To make or retain no change in the Text on the second final revision by eachCompany, except two thirds of those present approve of the same, but on the firstrevision to decide by simple majorities.

6. In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, todefer the voting thereupon till the next meeting, whensoever the same shall berequired by one third of those present at the Meeting, such intended vote to beannounced in the notice for the next Meeting.

7. To revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation.

8. To refer, on the part of each company, when considered desirable, to Divines,

Scholars, and Literary men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.13

The work on the New Testament began on June 22, 1870, with Bishop Ellicott as the

chairman.14 On July 7, 1870, it was voted by the Convocation of Canterbury "to invite the co-

operation of some American divines."15 An American committee was formed in December of1871 with Dr. Theodore Woolsey elected chairman of the New Testament and Dr. William

Henry Green of the Old.

16

Dr. Philip Schaff was chosen president of the whole committee.

17

Work actually began in October of the following year after copies of the precursory revision

finished by the English revisers were circulated to the Americans for review.18 The Americanscholars who worked on the revision included James Strong, J. Henry Thayer, and the Baptist

T. J. Conant.19

The completed New Testament was published on May 17, 1881:

The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Translated out of the Greek: beingthe Version set forth A.D. 1611. Compared with the most ancient Authorities and Revised A.D.1881. Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Oxford, at the University Press,

1881.

The same was also published at Cambridge, at the University Press. The demand for the new

revision was great, both in England and America.20 It was called "the best version of the New

Testament ever made."21 But soon after its publication, the new revision was opposed inEngland by the textual scholar, Dean Burgon, in a series of articles for the Quarterly Reviewof1881 and 1882. These articles were published in 1883 as The Revision Revised. Millions of

copies, however, were still quickly sold in England and the United States.22




8/23

The Old Testament was concluded four years later, and on May 19, 1885, the completerevised Bible was published:

The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments. Translated out of theOriginal Tongues, Being the Version set forth A.D. 1611. Compared with the mostancient Authorities and Revised. Printed for the Universities of Oxford andCambridge. Oxford, at the University Press, 1885.

The same was also published at Cambridge, at the University Press, as both institutions had

the sole copyright and paid for the expenses of the British Committee.23 After the arrival of thecomplete RV, some of the revisers began work on the revision of the Apocrypha. It was madeavailable in 1894 and bore its own title:

The Apocrypha, Translated out of the Greek and Latin tongues; being the Versionset forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the most ancient Authorities and Revised A.D.1894. Oxford, at the University Press, 1894.

Although Westcott and Hort supplied to the Revision Committee the readings of their

forthcoming Greek Testament, the New Testament text was an eclectic one.24 Not only werethe various editions of the Received Text available, but also all the critical editions ofGriesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Tregelles. The readings adopted by therevisers were published in the Oxford Greek Testament of 1881. The Old Testament revisionwas not as severe as the New since it was based on the same Massoretic Hebrew text as was

the Authorized Version.25

Besides containing many differences from the KJV because of the Greek texts it followed, theRV as a whole is characterized by a revision and reduction of italicized words, a revision of thepunctuation, the omission of page and chapter headings, a listing of alternate renderings andvariant readings in the margin, and an attempt to render each Greek and Hebrew word

uniformly. The text is divided into paragraphs and the verse numbers are put along the edge ofthe text. In their preface to the New Testament, five types of alterations from the text of theKJV are delineated: the adoption of a different underlying text, where the rendering seemed tobe wrong, where the text was ambiguous, where the KJV was inconsistent with itself in therenderings of two or more passages confessedly alike or parallel, and those renderednecessary by consequence of changes already made, although not in themselves required bythe general rule of faithfulness.

Philip Schaff, the head of the American Committee, claimed that the RV was "the most faithfuland accurate version ever made for popular use, and that it brings the English reader far

nearer to the spirit and words of Christ and his Apostles than any other version."26 And

although he could say in 1891 that "the Revision has been steadily gaining ground amongscholars and thoughtful laymen who take the trouble to compare the rival versions with the

Greek original,"27 he admitted that "to the great mass of English readers King James's Version

is virtually the inspired Word of God."28 So despite the initial euphoria over the RV, it has beenrelegated to the dustbin of history and copies can scarcely be found in antiquarian bookstores.

The American Standard Version

The ASV is not an entirely new translation but a simply an American edition of the English RV.




9/23

The recommendations of the American Committee of the RV had to be approved by a two-

thirds margin by the English Committee to be included in the RV.29 It was then agreed that anyof the American suggestions for revision that were rejected be made known:

If any differences shall still remain, the American Committee will yield itspreferences for the sake of harmony; provided that such differences of reading andrendering as the American Committee may represent to the English Companies tobe of special importance, be distinctly stated either in the Preface to the RevisedVersion, or in an Appendix to the volume, during a term of fourteen years from thedate of publication, unless the American Churches shall sooner pronounce adeliberate opinion upon the Revised Version with the view of its being taken for

public use.30

The introductory note to an appendix to the RV that was to contain the American Committeereadings was given to the English Revisors in the following form:

The American New Testament Revision Company, having in many cases yieldedtheir preferences for certain readings and renderings, present the following

instances in which they differ from the English Company as in their view ofsufficient importance to be appended to the Revision, in accordance with an

understanding between the Companies.31

This appendix was not meant to contain every reading preferred by the Americans but only

those deemed most important.32 Dr. Schaff suggested "a small Appendix for the authorizededition of the Revision, and a separate publication of all our changes, which shall perpetuate

the results of our ten years' labor for the use of scholars."33 The appendix consisted of twoparts. The first contained classes of changes while the second contained specific changes.

For reasons never given by the English Revisors, the actual heading of the published appendixto the 1881 Revised New Testament was merely:

List of readings and renderings preferred by the American Committee, recorded attheir desire.

This abbreviated heading led the public to believe that the appendix contained all of the places

where the two Committees differed.34 The appendix to the 1885 Revised Old Testamentlikewise consisted of two parts but the heading affixed to it was much longer:

The American Old Testament Revision Company, while recognizing the cordial

acceptance given to many of their suggestions, present the following instances inwhich they differ from the English Company, as of sufficient importance to beappended to the Revision in accordance with the original agreement.

The English revisers who produced the Revised Version disbanded their committee at theconclusion of their work. According to the preface to the ASV, the American Committee viewedthe appendix to the Revised Version containing their preferences as "prepared undercircumstances which rendered fulness and accuracy almost impossible." Therefore, theCommittee continued its work and resumed full activity in 1897 when Thomas Nelson and

Sons was secured as the publisher.35 The leader of the American effort, Philip Schaff, had




10/23

died in 1893, and after other deaths and resignations, the New Testament Committee was

reduced to just three in number: Dr. Dwight, Dr. Thayer, and Dr. Riddle.36 The Americans heldtheir last committee meeting on April 19, 1900, and as the fourteen-year period previously

agreed upon had expired, the complete American revision was released on August 26, 1901. 37

The title page reads:

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of theoriginal tongues, being the version set forth A.D. 1611 compared with the mostancient authorities and revised A.D. 1881-1885. Newly Edited by the AmericanRevision Committee A.D. 1901. Standard Edition. New York, Thomas Nelson &Sons.

The Bible was copyrighted and on the verso of the title page was certified the statement fromwhich its name was drawn:

This Standard American Edition of the Revised Version of the Bible, and editions inconformity with it published by Messrs. Thomas Nelson & Sons and certified by thisendorsement, are the only editions authorized by the American Committee of

Revision.

The New Testament also carried its own title page:

The New Covenant commonly called the New Testament of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christ, translated out of the Greek, being the version set forth A.D. 1611compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1881. Newly Edited bythe New Testament Members of the American Revision Committee. A.D. 1900.Standard Edition.

Unlike the English Revisors, the Americans did not include the Apocrypha in their endeavor.

The changes made in the ASV did not merely consist of transferring the readings of theRevised Version appendix to the text. Many of the alterations were "originally adopted by the

American Old Testament Company at their second revision (and so by a two-thirds majority),

but waived when the Appendix was prepared."38 Some renderings consist of a "return to the

readings of the Authorized Version."39 Where possible, certain changes were also "made for

the sake of euphemism," since in modern times some terms "have become offensive."40

Furthermore, the general intention "to eliminate obsolete, obscure, and misleading terms" from

the Authorized Version has "been more fully carried out."41 Other specific corrections were

made "which have seemed to be required by regard for pure English idiom."42 Considerable

attention was also paid to the paragraph divisions and punctuation.43 One of the mostdistinctive features of the ASV, besides the use of American spellings for many words, is theuse of the word "Jehovah" for "the LORD" in the Old Testament. Another peculiarity of the ASVis the usual substitution of "Sheol" for the words "grave," "pit," and "hell." Thus, the ASV leavesthe word "hell" in the Bible only thirteen timesall in the New Testament. The text of the ASV isdivided into paragraphs, but unlike the English RV, which put the verse numbers along theedge of the text, the ASV inserts the verse numbers in the text making it more difficult to readand look up references.




11/23

The reception accorded the ASV was generally favorable and for years it was acknowledgedby scholars as the most accurate English version of the Bible. Matthew Riddle, the lastsurviving member of the American New Testament Revision Committee, claimed that in thetheological seminaries "there was an immediate welcome" of the ASV and that it received no

scholarly opposition.44 The American Bible Society emended its constitution to enable it to

publish the ASV.45 One reviewer from the University of Chicago insisted that "with regard to

the work as a whole, one can have no hesitation in saying that the American Standard Editionis by far, and in every respect, the best English translation of the Bible in existence, both for

scholars and for people."46 Benjamin Warfield of Princeton considered the ASV as "more

modern, more scholarly and more reverent" than the RV.47 One ad in 1911 called it "the best

version in any language."48 It is significant to note that although one writer esteemed the ASVto be "the most perfect English Bible in existence," he recognized that "the people in general

still cling to the Authorized Version."49 John R. Rice recommended the ASV in his 1969 book

on the Bible and claimed that the ASV "corrects some mistakes in the King James Version." 50

But like its English cousin the RV, the ASV has likewise been relegated to the dustbin ofhistory and copies can scarcely be found in antiquarian bookstores.

The Revised Standard Version

The NASB is not the only version that claims to be a revision of the ASV. The RevisedStandard Version (RSV), the New Testament of which was published in 1946 and thecomplete Bible in 1952, claims to be an "authorized revision of the American Standard Version,

published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611." 51 Thetitle page reads:

The Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Revised Standard Version.Translated From the Original Tongues, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611,Revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901, Compared With the Most Ancient

Authorities and Revised A.D. 1952.

The 1946 New Testament title page had a slightly different reading:

The New Covenant Commonly Called The New Testament of our Lord and SaviorJesus Christ, Revised Standard Version. Translated From the Greek, Being theVersion Set Forth A. D. 1611, Revised A. D. 1881 and A. D. 1901, Compared Withthe Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A. D. 1946.

If the RSV is a revision of the ASV, then two questions need to be answered. Why did theNASB translators undertake a revision of the ASV when it had already been done? And

secondly, why did the NASB translators completely skip over the RSV and go directly back tothe ASV? As will presently be seen, the controversial readings of the RSV and the character ofmany of its translators provide the answer to both questions.

When the copyright of the ASV was acquired in 1928 by the International Council of ReligiousEducation, the Council renewed the copyright and established the American Standard Bible

Committee with fifteen members.52 The Committee was authorized to further revise the text ofthe ASV if deemed necessary provided that "all changes in the text shall be agreed upon by a

two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee."53 Although the work of the




12/23

Committee began in 1930, the lack of funds halted their plans in 1932.54 In 1937 the work ofthe Committee was again resumed after securing a contract with Thomas Nelson and Sons,the publishers of the ASV, to finance the work in exchange for the exclusive right of publication

for ten years.55 According to the International Council of Religious Education:

There is need for a version which embodies the best results of modern scholarship

as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and expresses this meaning in English dictionwhich is designed for use in public and private worship and preserves thosequalities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in Englishliterature. We, therefore, define the task of the American Standard Bible Committeeto be that of revision of the present American Standard Bible in the light of theresults of modern scholarship, this revision to be designed for use in public andprivate worship, and to be in the direction of the simple, classic English style of the

King James Version."56

The RSV was produced by thirty-two scholars from various denominations. Like the RV, theCommittee was divided into Old and New Testament sections, with the work on the New

Testament completed first.57

Luther Weigle served as chairman, while James Moffatt, whohimself made his own translation of the Bible, served as executive secretary until his death in

1944.58 After the publication of the complete Bible in 1952, a section of the Committee was

designated to translated the Apocrypha and it was issued in 1957.59 Some changes wereincorporated into the text of the previously released New Testament when the completed Bible

was published.60 In 1962, the Revised Standard Version was again slightly revised.61 In 1965

and 1966, Catholic editions of the RSV appeared.62 The official second edition of the RSV

New Testament was issued in 1971.63 In 1989 the New Revised Standard Version waspublished under the editorship of Bruce Metzger. It is a radical revision of the RSV that seeksto "continue in the tradition of the King James Bible, but to introduce such changes as are

warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage."

64

So like theNASB, the RSV has its own "update."

The reasons given by the American Standard Bible Committee for undertaking a revision of theASV are threefold. The first is because the RV and ASV "lost some of the beauty and force

which made the King James Version a classic example of English literature."65 The second isthat "scholars are better equipped today than they were sixty years ago, both to determine the

original text of the Greek New Testament, and to understand its language."66 And finally, theBible "must not be hidden in ancient phrases which have changed or lost their meaning; it must

stand forth in language that is direct and clear and meaningful to the people of today." 67 Thepreface to the RSV further adds that the RSV "is not a new translation in the language of

today. It is not a paraphrase which aims at striking idioms. It is a revision which seeks topreserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years."

Although the Old Testament of the RSV is claimed to be based on the traditional Hebrew text,

departures from the text were adopted "based on the ancient versions."68 Variants have been

settled by "the best judgment of competent scholars."69 The New Testament text is an eclecticone, although the final readings can, for the most part, "be found either in the text or the

margin of the new (17th) edition of Nestle."70 A notable difference between the RSV and theASV in the Old Testament is the change of the word "Jehovah" back to "the LORD" as it




13/23

appears in the KJV. And throughout the entire Bible, the old pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and"ye" have been replaced with the modern "you," except in language addressed to God. But likethe ASV, the RSV puts the verse numbers in the text. Quotation marks are used for directspeech. And although the preface to the RSV claims that the KJV has "grave defects," and theGreek text upon which it was based is said to be "marred by mistakes, containing theaccumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying," the RSV was still advertised

as being in the tradition of the KJV.71 When the RSV first appeared in 1952, full-page ads byThomas Nelson in The Christian Centuryannounced the arrival of "a new authorized versionmore accurate and easier to readthat preserves the timeless beauty of the beloved King

James translation."72

The RSV was warmly received by denominational churches and liberal preachers andtheologians, including official endorsements by Norman Vincent Peale and Harry Emerson

Fosdick,73 but it also met with severe criticism. There was a rash of pamphlets written against

the RSV with such titles as The Bible of Antichristand The New Blasphemous Bible.74 Theashes of a burned RSV were sent to Luther Weigle, the chairman of the American Standard

Bible Committee.75 There are several reasons for the bad reception given the RSV in some

circles. The first is the acknowledged theological liberalism of many of its translators. Some ofthe translators were also accused of being "communists or fellow travelers."76 Secondly, thefact that the RSV was published under the auspices of the National Council of Churches,known as being infiltrated with communists, was cause for concern. Thirdly, the presence of anon-Christian Jew, Harry M. Orlinsky, from the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, on theOld Testament section of the Committee was especially troubling. The fourth reason for theattacks on the RSV stems from some of its corrupt readings. The two notable examples beingthe substitution of "young woman" for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the removal of "begotten" fromJohn 3:16. And finally, the extremely ecumenical spirit of some of the translators was anothernail in the coffin of the RSV. In 1965, as a result of his work on behalf of a Catholic edition ofthe RSV, the head of the Committee, Luther Weigle, was named a Knight of St. Gregory by

Pope Paul VI.77

It is because of these factors that the NASB claims to be directly related to theASV and never even mentions the RSV.

What is interesting about many who have denounced the RSV is that the same men andorganizations have no problem recommending the ASV or NASB even though they are bothbased on the same type of Greek text as the RSV and contain many of the same corruptreadings. Three examples would be: Stewart Custer, head of the Bible department at BobJones University, Robert Sumner, an evangelist, and former editor of the Biblical Evangelist,and John R. Rice (deceased), an evangelist, as well as the founder and editor of the Sword ofthe Lord. In Custer's book Which Translation? he denigrates the RSV but recommends the

NASB.78 When the complete RSV first appeared in 1952, Robert Sumner issued a scathing

attack on the RSV,79 but in his book Bible Translations, he calls the NASB "reliable" and"translated by competent, evangelical men who revere the Word of God."80 In Rice's book OurGod-Breathed BookThe Bible, he faults the RSV for being a liberal translation while at the

same time praising the ASV.81 The corrupt readings that are followed by the NASB and RSVagainst the KJV will be thoroughly documented in part two of this book.

The New American Standard Bible

Although the history of the NASB begins with the RV and encompasses the ASV and RSV,




14/23

there is one other version of the Bible that the NASB is related to: the Amplified Bible. Both ofthese translations are the product of The Lockman Foundation of La Habra, California, a non-profit, interdenominational organization founded by F. Dewey Lockman in 1942. The statedobjective of The Lockman Foundation is the "translation, publication, and distribution of the

Bible throughout the world."82 The fourfold aim that guides all of the translation work of TheLockman Foundation is as follows:

1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

2. They shall be grammatically correct.

3. They shall be understandable.

4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word

gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.83

The doctrinal statement of The Lockman Foundation declares that "the entire Bible is the

inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

84

F. Dewey Lockman (1898-1974) was converted in Garden Grove, California, in 1927.85 Afterhis citrus farm prospered and he had acquired much land, he began to turn over his vast land

holdings to The Lockman Foundation which he formed in 1942.86 By 1960 he had deeded the

last 10 percent of his land to the Foundation.87 Although Lockman's home church was the First

Baptist Church of Anaheim, California, he was also a member of the Masonic Order.88 Afterdeveloping a Bible study program for servicemen in Southern California and establishingsummer Bible schools at many Orange County churches, Lockman and his wife Minna turned

their attention to the development of Christian literature.89 This culminated in the 1954 releaseof the first translation produced by The Lockman Foundation: the Amplified Gospel of John.This was followed by the complete New Testament in 1958. The Amplified Old Testament wasissued in two parts in 1962 and 1964, while the complete Bible appeared in 1965. It was

produced by a committee of "qualified Hebrew and Greek scholars."90 The Amplified Bible"amplifies" the text by supplying alternative renderings or additional words "to reveal, togetherwith the single word English equivalent to each key Hebrew and Greek word, any otherclarifying shades of meaning that may be concealed by the traditional word-for-word method of

translation."91 It is further maintained that "possibly for the first time the full meaning of the key

words in the original text is available in an English version of the Bible."92

But after the publication of the Amplified New Testament, Lockman still saw "the need for a

translation of the Bible that would be clearly readable in current English language, but withoutsacrificing ANY accuracy in the translation from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic."93 Therefore, he

"organized a group of scholars and pastors in 1959" to begin the translation of the NASB. 94

After beginning with two Bible scholars and two pastors, more members were added to thetranslation committee until more than forty-five "pastors and scholars had helped in the work"

by the time the completed NASB was published in 1971.95 For years the names of thetranslators were withheld, but since the publication of the NASBU, they have been readilyavailable. The names of the original translators, as well as those who worked on the update,will be found in appendix 2. Most of the original translators "hold doctoral degrees in the




15/23

Biblical languages and actively teach these languages in universities and seminaries."96 Thedenominations that were represented included: Presbyterian, Methodist, Southern Baptist,Church of Christ, Nazarene, American Baptist, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist, Free

Methodist, Congregational, Disciple, and Independent Baptist.97

The NASB has several distinctive features in its format that set it apart from the ASV and the

KJV. The "Jehovah" of the ASV is replaced with "the LORD," thus matching the KJV. The oldpronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye" have been replaced with the modern "you," except "in

the language of prayer when addressing Deity."98 Personal pronouns are capitalized "when

pertaining to Deity."99 Quotes from the Old Testament are printed in small caps in the NewTestament. The text is divided into paragraphs and indicated by a bold verse number.Quotation marks are used for direct speech. The Greek historical present is "translated with an

English past tense in order to conform to modern usage."100 The Hebrew text employed by the

NASB was "the latest edition of Rudolph Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA."101 This wassupplemented by "the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead

Sea Scrolls."102 The Greek text followed for the New Testament "in most instances" was

Nestle's 23rd edition.103

The New Testament of the NASB was published in 1963 with extravagant advertising claims. Itwas advertised as "the literary masterpiece of this generation" and "the major contribution of

our generation to Biblical literature."104 It was also further advertised that "for personal readingand public worship, the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLENEW TESTAMENT is destined

to surpass all other versions and translations of Holy Scripture."105 Full-page ads touted theendorsement of Earl Kalland of Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, Merrill Tenney of

Wheaton Graduate School, and Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University.106 Wilbur Smithlauded it as "certainly the most accurate and the most revealing translation of the New

Testament that we now have."107 When the complete Bible appeared in 1972, Theodore Epp

recommended it as "one of the very finest translations," one that "you can trust, because it is avery accurate translation."108 In a review of the complete Bible in Moody Monthly, the NASB

was "highly recommended for any kind of serious Bible study."109

Not everyone, of course, accepted with open arms the NASB. When the New Testament firstappeared, Zane Hodges, writing in Bibliotheca Sacra, declared that the NASB was unfaithful tothe Greek text and concluded that "though more accurate in many places than other versions,

there are probably just as many new faults introduced as old ones removed."110 Since thepublication of the complete Bible in 1971, several tracts and books have been written against

the NASB.111 F. F. Bruce (certainly no friend of the KJV), in his book on English Bible history,

perceptively said about the NASB: "If the R.S.V. had never appeared, this revision of theA.S.V. would be a more valuable work than it is. As things are, there are few things done well

by the N.A.S.B. which are not done better by the R.S.V."112

The mention by Bruce of the RSV brings us back once again to the motive behind theproduction of the NASB by The Lockman Foundation. As was seen in the previous section onthe RSV, the controversial readings of the RSV and the character of many of its translators arethe reasons why the NASB claims to be directly related to the ASV and never even mentionsthe RSV. But although the prefaces to the various NASB editions (including the update) allconnect it with the ASV, the NASB differs in many significant passages from the ASV and




16/23

actually has much in common with the dreaded RSV.

The first thing to be noticed is the places where the NASB differs significantly from the ASV. Inthe Old Testament, the book of Isaiah contains thirteen passages where the NASB differs from

the ASV because it follows the reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls.113 In addition to these, the

NASB often follows the readings found in "ancient versions" that the ASV did not.114 And on

several occasions, the NASB follows a textual conjecture.114

In the New Testament, the NASBlikewise departs in many instances from the ASV. As has been mentioned, the Greek text

followed in the New Testament of the NASB (as stated in the preface) was the 23rd edition ofNestle. Therefore, it was inevitable that the NASB would differ from the ASV. In the Gospels

alone, the NASB differs substantially from the ASV in over forty places.116 But even though theNASB was supposed to follow Nestle's text, there are a number of passages where the ASV

reading was retained against the reading of Nestle.117 There are even some places where the

NASB disagrees with both Nestle and the ASV.118

Many of the differences mentioned that exist between the NASB and the ASV wereprerecordedin the RSV. In the Old Testament, the RSV corrects the Hebrew text in eleven out

of the thirteen places where the NASB followed readings in Dead Sea Scrolls.119 The RSVlikewise often follows the NASB in correcting the Hebrew text with the readings found in

"ancient versions."120 And the RSV also agrees with many of the same textual conjectures that

the NASB does.121 In the New Testament, the NASB often unites with the RSV against the

ASV.122 And on occasion, the NASB unites with the RSV against both the ASV and the

Greek.123

So although the RSV is not mentioned in the preface to the NASB, it is evident that the NASBhas just as much in common with the RSV as the ASV. The controversial readings of the RSVand the character of many of its translators are the reasons why the NASB claims to be directly

related to the ASV. But even though the NASB corrects the two most egregious readings in theRSV ("young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isa 7:14 and the removal of "begotten" from John3:16), it introduces some of its own, most notably "the only begotten God" for "the onlybegotten Son" in John 1:18. And even though the NASB and the RSV used differing Greektexts, they still used the same type of critical Greek text and therefore differ substantially fromthe KJV. Therefore, to recommend the NASB while at the same time criticizing the RSV isnonsensical since they both contain many of the same corrupt readings.

The conclusions drawn in this book about the relationship between the NASB and the RSV arenot just held by those who advocate the KJV. William Lane, who worked as a critic-consultant

for the New Testament of the NASB,124 reached similar conclusions. After an in-depth

examination of selected portions of both versions, Lane concluded: "First, that the excellenciesin style and diction found in the New American Standard Bible are primarily those alreadyfound in the Revised Standard Version, and secondly, that the existence of the RevisedStandard Version imposed pressure on the Editorial Board to differ from its modern

counterpart."125 He also stated about the NASB: "When compared with the Revised StandardVersion of 1946 it represents no major incidence of revision. To the contrary, its changesrepresent slight transpositions of word order, or conflation of the renderings in theAmericanStandard Version and the Revised Standard Version, or a straining for an English equivalent to

the rendering in the Revised Standard Version."126 And another reviewer, who goes on to say




17/23

that "the NASB may indeed be the contemporary English translation for which we have been

waiting,"127 says that "it would seem that members of the committee were dissatisfied with theRSV, which was intended to be the successor of the American Standard Version, and thattheirs is now an attempt to retain the more conservative aspects of the ASV while up-dating its

language to contemporary English."128 And finally, Robert Bratcher (certainly no friend of theKJV), who would later translate Good News for Modern Man for the American Bible Society,

recommended the RSV as "an excellent revision of the traditional AuthorizedEnglishRevisedAmerican Standard versions of the Bible" and dismissed the NASB because "there isno need this revision will meet that has not already been met in a more satisfactory manner by

existing versions."129

The relationship between the NASB and the RSV has not changed with the publication of theNASBU. But before examining the NASBU and documenting the major departures of theNASB and the NASBU from the KJV, it will be necessary to investigate the "updates" of theNASB that have occurred before the NASBU.

Footnotes Chapter 1

1. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Duration of Copyright(Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, 1994), p. 2.

2. Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht, So Many Versions?revised and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), p. 48.

3. Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, second ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 107.

4. Kubo and Specht, p. 48.

5. Duration of Copyright, p. 2.

6. Quoted in Philip Schaff,A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, fourth ed. rev. (New York: Harper & Brothers

Publishers, 1903), p. 382.

7. Samuel Hemphill,A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament(London: Elliot Stock, 1906), p. 29.

8. Schaff, p. 382.

9. Quoted in Hemphill, pp. 30-31.

10. Hemphill, p. 31.

11. Ibid., p. 33.

12. Ibid., pp. 33-34.

13. Quoted in Schaff, p. 385.

14. Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times,1908), p. 11.

15. Quoted in Riddle, p. 11.

16. Schaff, pp. 392-393.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., p. 392.

19. Ibid., pp. 575, 576.




18/23

20. Ibid., pp. 404-405.

21. Isaac H. Hall, The Revised New Testament and History of Revision (Philadelphia: Hubbard Bros., Publishers, 1881), p. iii.

22. Schaff, pp. 404-405.

23. Ibid., p. 402.

24. Riddle, p. 30.

25. Hemphill, pp. 7-8.

26. Schaff, p. 414.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid., p. 413.

29. Weigle, 92-93

30. Quoted in Weigle, p. 93.

31. Schaff, p. 483.

32. Riddle, p. 44.

33. Quoted in Riddle, p. 44.

34. Lewis, p. 72

35. Riddle, p. 52.

36. Ibid., p.56.

37. Ibid., pp. 65-66.

38. Preface to the ASV.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.

44. Riddle, pp. 67-68, 71.

45. Ad for the ASV in a December 1911 magazine.

46. Clyde W. Votaw, "The American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible," The Biblical World18 (October 1901), p. 268.

47. Benjamin B. Warfield, review ofThe American Standard Bible, in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review13 (October 1902), p. 646.

48. Ad for the ASV in a December 1911 magazine.

49. H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, second ed. (Houghton: The Word-Bearer Press, 1940), p. 383.

50. John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed BookThe Bible (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1979), p. 382.




19/23

51. Preface to RSV.

52. Bruce M. Metzger, "The Story Behind the Making of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible," The Princeton Seminary Bulletin n.s. 1(1978), pp. 189-200.

53.An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, by members of the Revision Committee (n.p., 1946), p. 10.

54. Ibid.

55. Metzger, p. 195.

56. Introduction to the RSV NT, p. 11.

57. Ibid.


59. Herbert G. May, "The RSV Bible and the RSV Bible Committee," Perspective 12 (Fall 1971), pp. 225-226.

60. F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, third ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 186.

61. Ibid., p. 201.

62. Ibid., p. 214.

63. Lewis, p. 119.

64. Preface to the NRSV.


66. Ibid., p. 12.

67. Ibid., p. 13.

68.An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament, by members of the Revision Committee (New York: Thomas

Nelson & Sons, 1952), p. 8.

69. Ibid.


71. The Christian Century, October 1, 1952, p. 1135.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. Metzger, p. 196.

75. Herbert G. May, "The Revised Standard Version After Twenty Years," McCormick Quarterly19 (May 1966), p. 302.

76. Herbert G. May, "The RSV and the RSV Bible Committee," Perspective 12 (Fall 1971), p. 219.

77. May, RSV After Twenty Years, p. 306.

78. Stewart Custer, Which Translation?(Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1974), pp 5-8, 23.

79. Robert L. Sumner, The "New" Bible, 5th ed. (Madison: American Council of Christian Laymen, n.d.).

80. Robert L. Sumner, Bible Translations (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1979), p. 9.




20/23

81. Rice, pp. 383-389.

82. Information from The Lockman Foundation web sitehttp://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Preface to the Amplified Bible.

91. Publisher's forward to the Amplified Bible.

92. Ibid.

93. Information from The Lockman Foundation web site.

94. Ibid.

95. Ibid.

96. The Lockman Foundation, New American Standard Bible: Translation and Format Facts (La Habra: The Lockman Foundation, n.d.), p. 3.

97. Ibid.

98. Explanation of General Format of the NASB.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid.

101. Principles of Revision of the NASB.

102. Ibid.

103. Ibid.

104. Christianity Today9 (October 23, 1964), back cover.

105. Ibid.

106. Christianity Today9 (February 26, April 9, May 21, 1965), back cover.

107. Wilbur M. Smith, "The Best of All the Recent Translations of the Bible," Moody Monthly64 (July-August 1964), p. 15.

108. Theodore H. Epp, "An Excellent Translation," Good News Broadcaster30 (January 1972), p. 2, 3.

109. Louis Goldberg, "The Enduring Rock of Biblical Honesty," Moody Monthly72 (January 1972), p. 67.

110. Zane C. Hodges, review ofThe New American Standard BibleNew Testament, in Bibliotheca Sacra 121 (July 1964), pp. 267, 268.

111. Peter S. Ruckman, Satan' s MasterpieceThe New ASV, revised ed. (Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1978); Donald A. Waite, The




21/23

New American Standard Version Compared to the King James Version and the Underlying Hebrew & Greek Texts, revised ed.(Collingswood: Bible for Today, 1990).

112. Bruce, p. 259.

113. Is. 18:7, 23:2, 34:16, 37:20, 27, 38:15, 40:26, 49:17, 24, 56:5, 10, 12, 64:7.

114. E.g., Jer. 17:1, 18:15, 30:8, 50:5, 51:3, 52:20.

115. E.g., 2 Sam. 13:16, 19:18; 2 Kings 16:18; Neh. 3:26; Job 30:13; Ps. 7:6; Amos 6:5.

116. E.g., Matt. 8:10, 19:9; Mark 7:24, 9:29; Luke 4:44, 9:2; John 1:18, 8:16.

117. E.g., Matt. 23:38; Mark 1:1; Luke 7:39; John 10:29.

118. E.g., Matt. 6:13, 18:11, 23:14; John 15:8.

119. Is. 18:7, 23:2, 34:16, 37:27, 38:15, 49:17, 24, 56:5, 10, 12, 64:7.

120. E.g., Jer. 17:1, 18:15, 30:8, 51:3, 52:20.

121. E.g., 2 Sam. 13:16, 19:18; 2 Kings 16:18; Neh. 3:26; Job 30:13; Ps. 7:6.

122. E.g., Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:24; Luke 11:11; John 3:13.

123. E.g., John 15:8.

124. William Lane, "The New American Standard BibleNew Testament," Gordon Review9 (Spring 1966), p. 155.

125. Ibid., p. 166.

126. Ibid., p. 165.

127. Armin Panning, "The New American Standard Bible, Is This the Answer?" Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly70 (January 1973), p. 32.

128. Ibid., p. 15.

129. Robert G. Bratcher, review ofThe New American Standard BibleNew Testament, in Eternity15 (June 1964), p. 45.

Posted in Defence Of the King James Bible | nasb

Comments are closed.

z Post to Deliciousz Post to Facebookz Send via Gmailz Post on Google Buzzz Add to LinkedInz Send via E-mail programz Print with PrintFriendlyz Add to Redditz Post to StumbleUponz Post to Twitter




22/23

The Time

Log In

Username

Password

Remember Me

z Lost your password?

Categories

z A Study of Psalm 119 By Dr R B Keyes (26)z Articles By Sammy Tabuena (4)z AV King James Bible Lessons (7)z Balanced Christian Living (14)

z Bible Study (15)z Bible Versions Exposed (17)z Christian Cartoons (1)z Competent To Minister(1)z Cults, False Prophets, leaven & False Doctrine (30)z Defence Of the King James Bible (25)z Doctrine Concerning Salvation (4)z Is Calvinism sound doctrine? (8)z Knowledge Discernment Understanding Wisdom (4)

z Studies on Dispensations (6){ The difference is in the dispensations (5)

z

Studies on Prophecy (2)z The James White Controversy (7)z The King James Bible Defended- Edward F Hills. (12)z The Translation of the King James Bible. (10)z Thomas Holland Crowned with Glory (10)z TNIV Translation treason (10)z Which Translation should you trust? (6)

Links

Search

Log In




23/23

z King James Bible Believers Forumsz King James Bible Believers Symposium

Forum RSS

z Board statisticsz No Items Available

Recent Posts

z A Change In The Lawz God Speaks Through The Bible (A lesson for growing believers)z THE KINGDOM OF GOD & THE KINGDOM OF HEAVENz WHICH GOD?z Competent To Ministerz DECISIONSz The Rapture In October?z The Conditions in Unconditional Love

z From Liberty to Legalismz New Bibles and the New Age Movementz KNOWLEDGE {Part I}z DISCERNMENT {Part II}z UNDERSTANDING {Part III}z WISDOM {Part IV}z The Promise Keepers Movement is Dangerous

Font Controller

Contact Us | Forum | Privacy StatementCopyright 2009 King James Bible Believers Depository. All Rights Reserved.


Documents

Double Jeopardy NASB, Excerpt