DECEMBER 2, 2015

Grave Errors in the St. Pauls Good News Bible

The Good News Bible – Today’s English Version, with Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha

Published in India by the Society of St. Paul, St. Pauls Publications

St. Pauls have already been castigated by the Holy See for publishing the heretical, syncretized, New Age, Hinduised (as far as its commentaries/notes and line-drawings/sketches are concerned) New Community Bible (NCB) in 2008. Following a crusade spearheaded by this ministry the NCB was pulled and subsequently sent for revision by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India under instructions from Rome to Bishop Thomas Dabre, then Chairman of the Conference’s Doctrinal Commission (as informed to me personally by the then General Manager of St. Pauls, Fr. George Chathanatt SSP on November 18, 2015 in Chennai), but the First Revised Edition 2011 (see the list of 29 files at the end of the present report) still contained some serious errors (NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 25-REVISED EDITION NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CATHOLICS) despite around 90% (in my estimation) of the original errors being expunged/excised by a team of fifteen theologians (according to Fr. Chathanatt of St. Pauls) rounded up to remedy the embarrassing situation.

Now, we find that the St. Pauls’ flagship Bible, the popular hardback cover “Good News Bible –Today’s English Version” (GNB or TEV), is also replete with errors, though of a very different kind from those in the New Community Bible. (Interestingly, St. Pauls brought out one set of the revised NCB with a cover strikingly similar to that of the GNB, see the following page, and it takes no guessing as to why they did it.)

In the NCB, the errors were in the commentaries and not in the Bible texts. The GNB has no commentaries; the errors are in the translation itself.

The GNB-look-alike NCB First Revised Edition

What is of serious concern is that almost every new Confirmant buys a copy of the GNB because it is the cheapest and most available.

The GNB is admittedly easy to read and has always been priced low enough (I am guilty of purchasing one in December 1997 for Rs. 98.00 less a discount of 20%) so that it is a basic or beginners’ version and is found in the hands and homes of Catholics who generally have not progressed to delving deeper into the mysteries of the Bible, comparing the GNB texts with those of other translations, and studying the notes which are given in the Christian Community Bible (CCB), New American Bible (NAB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), etc.

When citing verses from Scripture, I had gotten into the habit of first referring to my copy of the NAB which I had bought on March 28, 1995, then the Revised Standard Version (RSV) which I favour greatly for its ‘language’, and the several other Catholic translations that I have in my library. Some of them have very helpful notes. The available combination of good commentaries and texts in the different Bibles available with me precluded any need to consult the GNB, not that I was even a little aware that it might have problems of the like that I have now uncovered with the help of Valentine and Anna Coelho of Goa.

Of course, I knew that in the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount the GNB said, “Happy are those…” while most other Bibles read “Blessed are the…” (Matthew 5)

Though I prefer to be blessed than happy, it didn’t strike me as something to be very concerned about.

I checked my NAB for notes that I had made in it a long time ago and found some comparisons with the GNB of which I randomly reproduce five below:

Acts 13: 52

NAB: “The disciples were filled with joy and the holy Spirit.”

RSV, DB, LRCSB: Ditto as the NAB

GNB: “The believers in Antioch were full of joy and the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 15: 11

NAB:
“On the contrary, we believe that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

NJB, RSV, DB, LRCSB: Ditto as the NAB

GNB: “No! We believe and are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they are.”

1 Corinthians 6: 11

NAB: “…you were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ…”

NJB, RSV, DB, LRCSB: Ditto as the NAB

GNB: “…you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ…”

1 Timothy 3: 2

NAB: “Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable…”

RSV, DB, LRCSB: Ditto as the NAB

GNB: “A church leader must be without fault…”

1 Timothy 3: 8

NAB: “Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink…”

NJB, RSV, DB, LRCSB: Ditto as the NAB

GNB: “Church helpers must also have a good character and be sincere; they must not drink too much wine…”

One can see that the GNB translation is “weaker” than the others which are generally in agreement with one another.

Certain Scripture verses are meant to stir one’s soul and I had observed (though some might disagree) that the translations of the GNB did not meet that requirement, as we see in one of my favourite passages:

Matthew 6:33

GNB: “Instead, be concerned above everything else with the Kingdom of God and with what he requires of you, and he will provide you with all these other things.”

NAB/LRCSB: “But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.”

With major inputs by Valentine and Anna Coelho, a couple who teach “Theology of the Body” retreats:

While studying Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body we came across several shocking errors in the
Good News Bible, Today’s English Version translation because of which the theological meanings of several verses quoted by John Paul II were severely distorted or rendered meaningless.

We now contrast some of those errors (which were not identified by the Protestant critics, see pages 10 through 32) with the translations in the Catholic New American Bible (NAB),
the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB),
the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV),
the Didache Bible with Commentaries based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (DB) and the Little Rock Catholic Study Bible (LRCSB).

CCC: Catechism of the Catholic Church

CSDC: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

I. The removal of the word “woman” in the Gospel according to St. John

A.1 At the wedding feast at Cana, Jesus addresses his mother as ‘woman’; John 2:4:

NAB: “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.'”

NJB: “Jesus said: ‘Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet.'”

GNB: “‘You must not tell me what to do,’ Jesus replied. ‘My time has not yet come.'”

A.2 At the foot of the Cross, Jesus once again addresses his mother as ‘woman’; John 19:26:

NAB: “…he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son.'”

NJB: “…Jesus said to his mother, ‘Woman, this is your son.'”

GNB: “…so he said to his mother, ‘He is your son.'”

In both of the above verses,
all
other popular Catholic translations use the word ‘woman’.

In both of the above verses, the translators of the
GNB
have chosen to drop the word ‘woman’.

In the Gospel of John, whenever Jesus calls his mother ‘Woman’ he is speaking to her as the new Eve, because Jesus is the new Adam.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen calls this event the mystical marriage of the new Adam and the new Eve on the marriage bed of the Cross. Through the mystical marriage of the new Adam and the new Eve, the Church was conceived.

The Apostle John (Son, behold your mother) is the first fruit of this mystical union. He represents the Church.

In the
NJB
notes on John 2:4, we read, “Unusual address from son to mother; the term is used again in 19:26, where its meaning becomes clear as an allusion to Genesis 3:15, 20; Mary is the new Eve, ‘mother of the living.”

In the DB
notes on John 2:4, we read,
“By calling his mother ‘woman’, Christ was making reference to her role as the New Eve (cf. Genesis 3:15) whose obedience to God contrasted with the disobedience of Eve; later, as Mary stood at the foot of the Cross, Jesus would again address her as ‘woman’. (CCC 964, 2618)“

In the
NJB
notes on John 19:26, we read, “The reference to the Old Testament (vv. 24, 28, 36, 37) and the unusual term ‘woman’ suggest that the evangelist sees more in this than the gesture of a dutiful son: namely, a declaration that Mary, new Eve, is the spiritual mother of all the faithful, of whom the beloved disciple is the type and representative, cf. 15:10-15.”

In the DB
notes on John 19:26, we read, “Woman: Just as at the Wedding Feast at Cana, Christ referred to his mother as ‘woman’. It is reminiscent of Eve, the ‘woman’ of the Garden of Eden. Mary’s obedience to God reversed the sin committed by Eve, which is why the Church regards Mary as the New Eve.“

B. Genesis 2:23:

NAB: “…the man said, ‘This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.'”

NJB: “And the man said, ‘She is to be called Woman, because she was taken from Man.'”

GNB: “Then the man said, ‘… ‘Woman’ is her name because she was taken out of man.'”

The first Adam says this to the first Eve.

In Genesis 2:23, immediately above, the
GNB
translation retains “woman” only because there is no possibility of their omitting of the word.

Just as Eve was created without original sin, Mary, the new Eve, was also conceived without original sin.

The fallen angel appeared to Eve and tempted her and she said Yes to sin to avoid suffering and passed on original sin to all mankind.

The archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary and gave his proposal in God’s name and she said Yes to suffering so as to gain mankind their redemption from sin.

In the
NJB
notes on Genesis 2:23, we read, “Figurative expression of the close relationship between man and woman, v. 23, which brings them together in marriage, v. 24.“

In the
DB
notes on Genesis 2:18-25, we read, “Man and woman were created in a state of marriage and their marital love has two purposes: the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children, which is a cooperation in the creative power of God. They were created as complementary partners, being equal in the dignity of reflecting God’s image. As ‘helper’ to man, woman is not subservient; rather, she shares in God’s providence and care by providing loving service. The man reciprocates by assisting his wife and respecting her exalted dignity. God’s use of the man’s rib to make woman is symbolic of the personal connection between them and their intimate communion of love.

It is also a prefiguration of the Church, which was born out of the side of Christ on the Cross (cf. John 19:34). (CCC 369-372, 1605-1608, 1652; CSDC 111-113, 146-147, 149)“

In the
DB
notes on Genesis 2:24, we read, “Marriage involves a mutual act of total self-giving between a man and a woman. They become “one flesh”, a reality symbolized in the marital act and lived out in the unity, exclusivity and permanence of the marriage covenant. This unity is deepened through loving fidelity, a mutual spirit of service, and growth in friendship, which is bolstered by the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony and a strong spiritual life, (CCC 1625-1632, 1643-1644, 2335; CSDC 217-219)“

In the
DB
notes on Genesis 2:25, we read, “Before sin entered the world, the first man and woman had no experience of lustful desires; they lived in harmony within themselves, with creation, and with one another. This state of being, free of pain or death, is referred to as “original justice”. Only after the Fall did they clothe themselves as a consequence of feelings of shame due to concupiscence. (CCC 375-376)“

More parallels can be found in Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West.

At the wedding feast of Cana (John 2), John only mentions two names: Jesus and Mary.

Mary, the new Eve, asks Jesus, the new Adam, to perform his first miracle. Jesus protests that his time (hour) has not yet come but complies with her request, thus inaugurating the work of redemption (“… and so revealed his glory, and all his disciples began to believe in him”: John 2:11,
NAB)

Thus we can see that there is a very significant loss of Catholic catechism when the word ‘woman’ is dropped in the GNB.

II. The word “sister” becomes “sweetheart”

A. The Song of Songs

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: my sister, my bride (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my beloved, my dove, my perfect one”)

NJB: my sister, my promised bride (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my beloved, my dove, my perfect one”)

DRB: my sister, my spouse (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled”)

RSV: my sister, my bride (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one”)

DB: my sister, my bride (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my love, my dove, my perfect one”)

LRCSB: my sister, my bride (In chapter 5, verse 2b reads “my sister, my friend”)

In the GNB:

Songs 4:9:

The look in your eyes, my
sweetheart
and bride, …

Songs 4:10:

Your love delights me, my
sweetheart
and bride.

Songs 4:12:

My sweetheart, my bride, is a secret garden, …

Songs 5:1:

I have entered my garden, my
sweetheart, my bride.

Songs 5:2b:

Let me come in, my darling, my sweetheart, my dove.

Looking at the phrase in question literally, by no stretch of imagination can “sister” be translated or interpreted as “sweetheart”, as
GNB
has done.

Pope John Paul II (theologizing on the Song of Songs in his Theology of the Body) comments on the importance of the lover calling his beloved “sister” before calling her “bride.”

This demonstrates that the lover respects her as a person who shares the same humanity. It demonstrates that his desire for her as “bride” is not one of lust, but of love.

The normal man recoils at the idea of lusting after his sister – and so should a man recoil at the thought of lusting after his bride. Marriage, after all, does not justify a man using his wife as an object for his pleasure. Marital intercourse is meant to express divine love, not base animal instinct. It’s precisely the lover’s recognition of his wife as “sister” that allows him to approach her with selfless tenderness
(see TOB 110:2).

Source: Reflections on the Song of Songs by Christopher West,

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/reflections-on-the-song-of-songs-by-christopher-west

The evidence indicates that the translators of the
GNB consciously, deliberately and consistently substituted “sister” with “sweetheart”.

B. The Book of Tobit

Tobit 5: (20) 21 (22):

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “…do not worry about them, my love*.”

NJB: “Do not think such thoughts; do not worry on their account, my sister**.”

RSV: “Do not worry, my sister;”

DB: “Do not worry, my sister;”

LRCSB: “…do not fear for them, my sister***.”

GNB: “Now stop worrying about them, dear.”

*The NAB explains, “My love: literally, “sister“, a term of endearment applied to one’s wife, cf. Tobit 7:11, 15, 8:4, 21, 10:6, 13; Songs 4: 9, 10, 12, 5:1f.

**The NJB explains, “The same term is used for wife or bride in 8:4, 7, 21, and in Songs 4:9, 10, 12, 5:1, 2.

*** The LRCSB explains, “My sister: ‘sister‘ was a term of endearment used in antiquity even for one’s wife; similarly ‘brother’ for one’s husband. cf. Tobit 7:11, 15, 8:4, 21, 10:6, 13; Songs 4: 9-10, 12, 5:1-2.

Tobit 7:9 (8):

Other Catholic translations:

NJB: “… ‘Brother Azarias, will you ask Raguel to give me my sister Sarah?'”

(NAB, RSV, DB, and LRCSB use the word ‘kinswoman‘.)

GNB: “… ‘Azarias, my friend, when are you going to ask Raguel to let me marry Sarah?'”

Tobit 7:11:

Other Catholic translations:

NJB: “… ‘I therefore entrust your sister to you. From now on you are her brother and she is your sister.'”

(NAB, RSV, DB, and LRCSB use the word ‘kinswoman’.)

GNB: … “I will give her to you just as the Law of Moses commands. God in heaven has arranged this marriage, so take her as your wife. From now on, you belong to each other…”

Tobit 7:15 (16):

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “Later Raguel called his wife Edna and said, “My love*, prepare the other bedroom and bring the girl there.”

NJB: “Raguel called his wife Edna and said, ‘My sister, prepare the other bedroom and bring Sarah there.'”

RSV: “And Raguel called his wife Edna and said to her, ‘Sister, make up the other room, and take her into it.'”

DB: “And Raguel called his wife Edna and said to her, ‘Sister, make up the other room and take her into it.'”

LRCSB: “Later Raguel called his wife Edna and said, ‘My sister, prepare the second room and take her there.'”

*The NAB explains, “My love: literally, “sister“, a term of endearment applied to one’s wife, cf. Tobit 7:11, 15, 8:4, 21, 10:6, 13; Songs 4: 9, 10, 12, 5:1f.

GNB: “Raguel called his wife and said, ‘Get the spare room ready, my dear, and take Sarah there.'”

Tobit 8:4:

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “…Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, ‘My love*, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance.'”

NJB: “Tobias rose from the bed, and said to Sarah, ‘Get up, my sister! You and I must pray and petition our Lord to win his grace and his protection.'”

RSV: “…Tobias got up from the bed, and said, ‘Sister! Get up, and let us pray that the Lord may have mercy upon us.'”

DB: “…Tobias got up from the bed and said, ‘Sister! Get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he may grant us mercy and safety.'”

LRCSB: “Tobiah rose from bed and said to his wife, ‘My sister, come, let us pray and beg our Lord to grant us mercy and protection.'”

*The NAB explains, “My love: literally, “sister“, a term of endearment applied to one’s wife, cf. Tobit 7:11, 15, 8:4, 21, 10:6, 13; Songs 4: 9, 10, 12, 5:1f.

GNB: “…Tobias got up from the bed and said to his wife, ‘Get up, dear. Let’s pray for the Lord to be merciful and protect us.'”

Tobit 8:7:

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “Now, Lord, you know that I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose.”

NJB: “And so I take my sister not for any lustful motive, but I do it in singleness of heart.”

RSV: “And now, O Lord, I am not taking this sister of mine because of lust, but with sincerity.”

GNB: Lord, I have chosen Sarah because it is right, not because I lusted for her.

Tobit 8:21:

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “I am your father, and Edna is your mother, and we belong to you and to your beloved now and forever.”

NJB: “We are your parents in future, as we are your sister‘s.”

LRCSB: “I am your father, and Edna is your mother; we belong to you and to your sister both now and forever.”

GNB: “…from now on you are as much our son as Sarah is our daughter.”

Tobit 10:6:

Other Catholic translations:

NAB: “But Tobit kept telling her: ‘Hush do not think about it, my love*; he is safe!’ … ‘So do not worry over him, my love*.'”

NJB: “And Tobit would reply, ‘Hush, my sister! Do not worry. All is well with him … Do not lose heart, my sister.'”

LRCSB: “But Tobit kept telling her: ‘Be still, do not worry, my sister; he is safe!’ … ‘So do not grieve over him, my sister.'”

*The NAB explains, “My love: literally, “sister“, a term of endearment applied to one’s wife, cf. Tobit 7:11, 15, 8:4, 21, 10:6, 13; Songs 4: 9, 10, 12, 5:1f.

GNB: “Tobit tried to comfort her. “Calm down, my dear,” he said. “Don’t worry. He will be all right … Don’t let yourself get so upset over him, dear.'”

In each and every instance where either Tobit or Raguel or Tobias use the word sister for their wives, the GNB either removes the word or replaces it with “dear”.

Conclusion

The translators of the Good News Bible cannot tolerate mystery. They removed Jesus’ reference to his mother as ‘woman’ in the Gospel of John, maybe because of Protestant rejection of Mary as the co-redemptrix (mystical marriage of the New Adam and the New Eve). They also cannot fathom how someone’s “sister” can be his bride/wife, so they remove any reference to it or replace it with “sweetheart”. When we learnt that the chief translator of the GNB, Robert Bratcher (see page 33) openly “denied the deity of Jesus Christ” and “ridiculed the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible” at the Southern Baptist Bible Convention in Dallas in 1981, we are not in the least bit surprised at the sweeping liberties taken with the translation.

Not quite a Catholic Bible 

http://www.amazon.in/Holy-Bible-Translation-Catholic-Edition/dp/0310922526
{slightly edited by me -Michael}

By EMM, December 23, 2011

While the American Bible Society has added the full original Christian Old Testament – this translation is hardly Catholic.
First the Good News Bible is not a direct translation. It uses dynamic equivalence. That is a fancy word for paraphrasing. The translation does some goofy things.
In Exodus, they do not build an Ark of the Covenant. They build a covenant box. Where’s the Ark?
A perfect example of the errors in this translation is in the Gospel of Luke.

The Annunciation begins with a greeting of Peace. {“Peace be with you”, Luke 1:28}

The original Greek has the angel Gabriel doing a royal salutation to Mary. Translating as “Hail, Favored One” or “Hail Full of Grace”, so Mary is no longer recognized by the angel Gabriel as Queen of Heaven or without sin.
Then go a little further to the Canticle of Mary in the same chapter. “All generations will call me blessed” has now been changed to “From now on all people will see me happy”. {Luke 1:48} That only speaks for itself.
This is a Protestant translation pretending to be Catholic. But before I offend any Protestant readers, this isn’t even a good Protestant Translation.
If you’re Catholic, I strongly recommend the NAB or RSV CE versions.
If you’re Protestant and you want to read all 73 books of the original Holy Bible but with a good Protestant translation, try the original King James Version 1611. The King James Version had all the books until 1885, so a reprint of the original will give you all 73 books of the Bible with an authoritative and Good Protestant Translation.
What I can say positive about this translation is, it is very easy to read. {!!!!!}

The Good News Bible: Today’s English Version

Below are the Forward and Preface of the Good News Bible as they appear in the First Edition (New York: American Bible Society, 1979.)

FOREWORD

The Bible in Today’s English Version is a new translation which seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by all people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and style found in the historic English Bible versions. Rather it attempts in this century to set forth the Biblical content and message in standard, everyday, natural form of English.

The aim of this Bible is to give today’s readers maximum understanding of the content of the original texts. The Preface explains the nature of special aids for readers which are included in the volume. It also sets forth the basic principles which the translators followed in their work.

The Bible in Today’s English Version was translated and published by the United Bible Societies for use throughout the world. The Bible Societies trust that people everywhere will not only find increased understanding through the reading and study of this translation, but will also find a saving hope through faith in God, who made possible this message of Good News for all people.

PREFACE

In September 1966 the American Bible Society published The New Testament in Today’s English Version, a translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language. Shortly thereafter the United Bible Societies requested the American Bible Society to undertake on its behalf a translation of the Old Testament following the same principles. Accordingly the American Bible Society appointed a group of translators to prepare the translation. In 1971 this group added a British consultant recommended by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The translation of the Old Testament now appears together with the fourth edition of the New Testament.

In a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament this Bible contains two series of books: (1) Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek text), Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, and (2) 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. With the exception of 2 Esdras, these books formed part of the Septuagint Greek text of the Old Testament which was in circulation at the time of Christ. The first series of books are accepted by Roman Catholics as part of the canon of the Old Testament; and both series are regarded by many Protestants (including especially Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Lutherans) as worthy of at least private reading, though they are not regarded as a basis for doctrine. For further information about these books, see the Introductions to the respective series.    

The basic text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text printed in Biblia Hebraica (3rd edition, 1937), edited by Rudolf Kittel. In some instances the words of the printed consonantal text have been divided differently or have been read with a different set of vowels; at times a variant reading in the margin of the Hebrew text (qere) has been followed instead of the reading in the text (kethiv); and in other instances a variant reading supported by one or more Hebrew manuscripts has been adopted. Where no Hebrew source yields a satisfactory meaning in the context, the translation has either followed one or more of the ancient versions (e.g. Greek, Syriac, Latin) or has adopted a reconstructed text (technically referred to as a conjectural emendation) based on scholarly consensus; such departures from the Hebrew are indicated in footnotes.    

With the exception of 2 Esdras, the basic text for the two sections of books occurring before the New Testament is the Greek text printed in the Septuagint (3rd edition, 1949), edited by Alfred Rahlfs. For 2 Esdras the text is the Latin text printed in Biblia Sacra (1st edition, 1969), edited by Robert Weber.    

The basic text for the New Testament is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (3rd edition, 1975), but in a few instances the translation is based on a variant reading supported by one or more Greek manuscripts.    

Drafts of the translation in its early stages were sent for comments and suggestions to a Review Panel consisting of prominent theologians and Biblical scholars appointed by the American Bible Society Board of Managers in its capacity as trustee for this text. In addition, drafts were sent to major English-speaking Bible Societies. Final approval of the text on behalf of the United Bible Societies was given by the American Bible Society’s Board of Managers upon recommendation of its Translations Department Committee.

The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their first task was to understand correctly the meaning of the original. At times the original meaning cannot be precisely known, not only because the meaning of some words and phrases cannot be determined with a great degree of assurance but also because the underlying cultural and historical context is sometimes beyond recovery. All aids available were used in this task, including the ancient versions and the modern translations in English and other languages. After ascertaining as accurately as possible the meaning of the original, the translators’ next task was to express that meaning in a manner and form easily understood by the readers. Since this translation is intended for all who use English as a means of communication, the translators have tried to avoid words and forms not in current or widespread use; but no artificial limit has been set to the range of the vocabulary employed. Every effort has been made to use language that is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous. Consequently there has been no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order, and grammatical devices of the original languages. Faithfulness in translation also includes a faithful representation of the cultural and historical features of the original, without any attempt to modernize the text. Certain features, however, such as the hours of the day and the measures of weight, capacity, distance, and area, are given their modern equivalents, since the information in those terms is of greater importance to the reader than the Biblical form of those terms.

In cases where a person or place is called by two or more different names in the original, this translation has normally used only the more familiar name in all places; e.g. King Jehoiachin of Judah (Jeremiah 52.31), also called Jeconiah (Jeremiah 24.1) and Coniah (Jeremiah 37.1). Where a proper name is spelled two or more different ways in the original text, this translation has used only one spelling; e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar (compare Jeremiah 29.3 and 29.21), and Priscilla, also spelled Prisca (compare Acts 18.26 and Romans 16.3).

In view of the differences in vocabulary and form which exist between the American and the British use of the English language, a British edition is being published, which incorporates changes that are in keeping with British usage.

Following an ancient tradition, begun by the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) and followed by the vast majority of English translations, the distinctive Hebrew name for God (usually transliterated Jehovah or Yahweh), is in this translation represented by “LORD.” When Adonai, normally translated “Lord,” is followed by Yahweh, the combination is rendered by the phrase “Sovereign LORD.”

In order to make the text easier to understand, various kinds of readers’ helps are supplied. The text itself has been divided into sections, and headings are provided which indicate the contents of the section. Where there are parallel accounts elsewhere in the Bible, a reference to such a passage appears within parentheses below the heading. There are, in addition, several kinds of notes which appear at the bottom of the page. (1) Cultural or Historical Notes. These provide information required to enable the reader to understand the meaning of the text in terms of its original setting (e.g. the explanation of Rahab in Psalm 89.10; the explanation of Day of Atonement in Acts 27.9). (2) Textual Notes. In the Old Testament these indicate primarily those places where the translators were compelled for a variety of reasons to base the translation on some text other than the Hebrew. Where one or more of the ancient versions were followed, the note indicates this by One ancient translation (e.g. Genesis 1.26) or Some ancient translations (e.g. Genesis 4.8); where a conjectural emendation was adopted, the note reads Probable text (e.g. Genesis 10.14). In the New Testament, as well as in the Deuterocanonicals and other books of the Apocrypha, there are textual notes indicating some of the places where there are significant differences among the ancient manuscripts. These differences may consist of additions to the text (e.g. Matthew 21.43), deletions (e.g. Matthew 24.36), or substitutions (e.g. Mark 1.41). (3) Alternative Renderings. In many places the precise meaning of the original text is in dispute, and there are two or more different ways in which the text may be understood. In some of the more important of such instances an alternative rendering is given (e.g. Genesis 2.9; Matthew 6.11). (4) References to Other Passages. In addition to the notes there are references, by book, chapter, and verse, to other places in the Bible where identical or similar matters or ideas are dealt with.

There are several appendices at the end of the volume. A Word List identifies many objects or cultural features whose meaning may not be known to all readers. A Chronological Chart gives the approximate dates of the major events recorded in the Bible. An Index locates by page number some of the more important subjects, persons, places, and events in the Bible. A List of Passages from the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the Old Testament, which are quoted or paraphrased in the New Testament and which differ significantly in meaning from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, will help the reader understand some otherwise puzzling differences in quotations. The Maps are designed to help the reader to visualize the geographical setting of countries and localities mentioned in the Bible.

The line drawings which accompany the text were especially prepared for this translation.

The numbering of chapters and verses in this translation follows the traditional system of major English translations of the Bible. In some instances, however, where the order of thought or events in two or more verses is more clearly represented by a rearrangement of the material, two or more verse numbers are joined (e.g. Exodus 2.15-16; Acts 1.21-22).

No one knows better than the translators how difficult has been their task. But they have performed it gladly, conscious always of the presence of the Holy Spirit and of the tremendous debt which they owe to the dedication and scholarship of those who have preceded them. The Bible is not simply great literature to be admired and revered; it is Good News for all people everywhere – a message both to be understood and to be applied in daily life. It is with the prayer that the Lord of the Scriptures will be pleased to use this translation for his sovereign purpose that the United Bible Societies has now published The Bible in Today’s English. And to Christ be the glory forever and ever!

Below are the Forward and Preface of the Good News Bible as they appear in the Second Edition.

FOREWORD

The Good News Bible in Today’s English Version is a new translation which seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and style found in the historic English Bible versions. Rather it attempts in this century to set forth the biblical content and message in the standard, everyday, natural form of English.

The aim of this Bible is to give today’s reader maximum understanding of the content of the original texts. The preface explains the nature of special aids for readers which are included in the volume. It also sets forth the basic principles which translators followed in their work.

The Bible in Today’s English Version was translated and published by the United Bible Societies for use throughout the world. The Bible Societies trust that the reading and study of this translation will result in a better understanding of the meaning of the Bible. We also earnestly pray that readers will discover the message of saving faith and hope for all people which the Bible contains.

PREFACE

In September 1966 the American Bible Society published The New Testament in Today’s English Version, a translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language. Shortly thereafter the United Bible Societies requested the American Bible Society to undertake on its behalf a translation of the Old Testament following the same principles. Accordingly the American Bible Society appointed a group of translators to prepare the translation. In 1971 this group added a British consultant recommended by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The translation of the Old Testament, which was completed in 1976, was joined to the fourth edition New Testament, thus completing the first edition of the Good News Bible.

The basic text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text made available through printed editions, published by the UBS, and since 1977 under the title of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In some instances the words of the printed consonantal text have been divided differently or have been read with a different set of vowels; at times a variant reading in the margin of the Hebrew text (qere) has been followed instead of the reading in the text (kethiv); and in other instances a variant reading supported by one or more Hebrew manuscripts has been adopted. Where no Hebrew source yields a satisfactory meaning in the context, the translation has either followed one or more of the ancient versions (e.g. Greek, Syriac, Latin) or has adopted a reconstructed text (technically referred to as a conjectural emendation) based on scholarly consensus; such departures from the Hebrew are indicated in footnotes.

The basic text for the translation of the New Testament is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (3rd edition. 1975), but in a few instances the translation is based on a variant reading supported by one or more Greek manuscripts.

Drafts of the translation in its early stages were sent for comments and suggestions to a Review Panel consisting of prominent theologians and Biblical scholars appointed by the American Bible Society Board of Managers in its capacity as trustee for the translation. In addition, drafts were sent to major English-speaking Bible Societies throughout the world. Final approval of the translation on behalf of the United Bible Societies was given by the American Bible Society’s Board of Managers upon recommendation of its Translations Committee.

The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their first task was to understand correctly the meaning of the original. At times the original meaning cannot be precisely known, not only because the meaning of some words and phrases cannot be determined with a great degree of assurance, but also because the underlying cultural and historical context is sometimes beyond recovery. All aids available were used in this task, including the ancient versions and the modern translations in English and other languages. After ascertaining as accurately as possible the meaning of the original, the translators’ next task was to express that meaning in a manner and form easily understood by the readers. Since this translation is intended for all who use English as a means of communication, the translators have tried to avoid words and forms not in current or widespread use; but no artificial limit has been set to the range of the vocabulary employed. Every effort has been made to use language that is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous. Consequently there has been no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order and grammatical devices of the original languages. Faithfulness in translation also includes a faithful representation of the cultural and historical features of the original. Certain features, however, such as the hours of the day and the measures of weight, capacity, distance, and area, are given their modern equivalents, since the information in those terms conveys more meaning to the reader than the Biblical form of those terms.

In cases where a person or place is called by two or more different names in the original, this translation has normally used only the more familiar name in all places; e.g. King Jehoiachin of Judah (Jeremiah 52:31), also called Jeconiah (Jeremiah 24:1) and Coniah (Jeremiah 37:1). Where a proper name is spelled two or more different ways in the original text, this translation has used only one spelling; e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar (compare Jeremiah 29:3 and 29:21), and Priscilla, also spelled Prisca (compare Acts 18:26 and Romans 16:3).

In view of the differences in vocabulary and form which exist between the American and the British use of the English language, a British edition has been published, which incorporates changes that are in keeping with British usage.

Following an ancient tradition, begun by the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint) and followed by the vast majority of English translations, the distinctive Hebrew name for God (usually transliterated Jehovah or Yahweh) is in this translation represented by “LORD.” When Adonai, normally translated “Lord,” is followed by Yahweh, the combination is rendered by the phrase “Sovereign LORD.”

Since the appearance of the full Bible in Today’s English Version in 1976, some minor editorial changes and corrections of printing errors have been introduced into the text in connection with various printings. The New Testament was already in its fourth edition at the time the full Bible appeared, but for the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha there has been no revised edition. The preparation and publication of this second edition of the full TEV Bible in two formats, with and without the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, is the result of a broad international process of careful review and evaluation of the TEV translation by many scholars and experts over a period of several years.

In December 1986, acting in response to a mounting perception of a need for TEV revisions, the ABS Board of Managers approved the undertaking of a revision of the TEV translation. The revision is restricted to two main areas of concern that have been raised and discussed over the years since the first appearance of Today’s English Version: (1) passages in which the English style has been unnecessarily exclusive and inattentive to gender concerns, and (2) passages in which the translation has been seen as problematic or insensitive from either a stylistic or an exegetical viewpoint.

The process followed in preparing this revised edition was one of first inviting and collecting proposals for needed revisions from all English-language Bible Societies and English-speaking UBS translations consultants around the world, as well as numerous scholarly consultants in the USA and representatives of various American churches. The proposals received were then assembled for review and evaluation by the same broad array of experts whose specializations included translation, linguistics, English usage, literary and poetic style, biblical studies, and theology. In a series of four stages, consensus was sought on which proposals were necessary and valid, and at each of these review stages the number of proposals under consideration was reduced until widespread agreement was reached. On the recommendation of the program committee of the ABS Board of Trustees, and its Translations subcommittee, the ABS Board acted to approve the revisions for the TEV Second Edition in September, 1990. These revisions have also been adapted for use in British usage editions of the TEV.

In the decade and a half since publication of the full TEV Bible, many Bible readers have become sensitive to the negative effects of exclusive language; that is, to the ways in which the built-in linguistic biases of the ancient languages and the English language toward the masculine gender has led some Bible readers to feel excluded from being addressed by the scriptural Word. This concern has led to the revision of most major English translations during the 1980s, and, increasingly, TEV readers have written to request that the Bible Society take this concern into consideration in preparing any revision. In practical terms what this means is that, where references in particular passages are to both men and women, the revision aims at language that is not exclusively masculine-oriented. At the same time, however, great care was taken not to distort the historical situation of the ancient patriarchal culture of Bible times.

The numbering of chapters and verses in this translation follows the traditional system of major English translations of the Bible. In some instances, however, where the order of thought or events in two or more verses is more clearly represented by a rearrangement of the material, two or more verse numbers are joined (e.g. Exodus 2:15-16; Acts 1:21-22).

No one knows better than the translators how difficult has been their task. But they have performed it gladly, conscious always of the presence of the Holy Spirit and of the tremendous debt which they owe to the dedication and scholarship of those who have preceded them. The Bible is not simply great literature to be admired and revered; it is Good News for all people everywhere—a message both to be understood and to be applied in daily life. It is with the prayer that the Lord of the Scriptures will be pleased to use this translation for his sovereign purpose that the United Bible Societies has published the Bible in Today’s English Version. And to Christ be the glory forever and ever!

Nihil Obstat:

R.C. Fuller, D.D., Ph.D., L.S. S., Censor

Imprimatur:

Cardinal Basil Hume O.S.B., Archbishop of Westminster

25^th July, 1979

(From what we have seen of the history of the St. Pauls New Community Bible 2008 Edition as well as their Revised Edition 2011, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur do not guarantee that a particular Bible is free from error in its commentaries and, in this present case, texts.)

This Bible is published by the priests and brothers of the Society of St Paul who proclaim the Gospel through the media of social communication

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_Bible
EXTRACT

The GNB has been a popular translation. By 1969, Good News for Modern Man had sold 17.5 million copies. By 1971, that number had swelled to 30 million copies. It has been endorsed by Billy Graham     and Christian groups such as the Catholic Church (Today’s English Version, Second Edition)*, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). The GNB is one of the versions authorized to be used in services of the Episcopal Church. Excerpts from the New Testament were used extensively in evangelistic campaigns, such as the Billy Graham crusades and others, from the late 1960s right through to the early 1980s. In 1991, a Gallup poll of British parishioners showed that the GNB was the most popular Bible version in that nation.

*http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

http://www.gotquestions.org/Good-News-Bible-GNB.html
EXTRACT

If it has a general flaw, it does seem that the GNB is a little too dynamic in places, causing some of its renderings to be significantly different from what is said in the original languages. There is one particularly poor translation, however:

“What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature, to do away with sin” (Romans 8:3). 

Romans 8:3 in the GNB/TEV essentially says that Jesus had a sinful nature, which obviously goes against many other Scriptures in the New Testament, even within the Good News Bible itself. END

NAB: “For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.” (Romans 8:3)

Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/tev.html

New Testament. Robert G. Bratcher, Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today’s English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1966. Second edition, 1967. Third edition, 1971.

Bible. Robert G. Bratcher, ed., Good News Bible: The Bible in Today’s English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1976. Revised with inclusive language in 1992.

The New Testament of the Good News Bible was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher in consultation with a committee appointed by the American Bible Society. ⁽¹⁾ Bratcher had been on the staff of the American Bible Society since 1957, and he did his translation according to principles of translation set forth by Eugene Nida, who since 1946 had been the Executive Secretary of the ABS Translations Department. Nida called his theory of translation Dynamic Equivalence. ⁽²⁾

In addition to being a Dynamic Equivalence version, the Good News Bible is also what some translation theorists call a “Common Language” version. “Common Language” is defined as the language which is “common to the usage of both educated and uneducated” in any given language, ⁽³⁾ or, to put it more bluntly, it is the level of language used by uneducated people and children. Bratcher says that the version was originally conceived as one which would be suitable for people who speak English as a second language. ⁽⁴⁾ But the main “market niche” of the Good News Bible was from the beginning the mainline Protestant churches in America and Great Britain, where copies were bought by the box for use in Sunday-school classes. The version was promoted as one which was suitable for children.

Others for whom the version was intended to be useful were the field translators employed by the American Bible Society in Asia and Africa, most of whom lacked proficiency in the original languages and relied upon English versions in their work. Because the Bible versions being done by these field translators were actually based upon English versions, the Good News Bible was to serve as a new resource for their use. ⁽⁵⁾

What did Paul mean? That Christ did not think that equality with God was something to be obtained, or something to be retained? A translator must decide, and make the meaning quite clear. The TEV (along with the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, Weymouth, Knox, Goodspeed, and the New English Bible) gives the idea of acquiring: “but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” ⁽⁶⁾

Everything here depends upon the assertion that “In English … the word ‘blood’ does not mean death.” The assertion is somewhat misleading, because the question before us is whether or not the word has the sense “killing,” not merely “death.” But if dictionary definitions of the word are accepted as valid indications of its meaning, we would have to say that Bratcher’s assertion is not true, because English dictionaries do list “the taking of life” as one of the several senses of the word “blood.” Bratcher might well argue that this sense is not common outside of religious discourse, but his assertion that in English “blood” means “only the liquid that flows in the veins and arteries of men and animals” is patently false. He seems to avoid the real issue raised by conservative critics, who sense that by eliminating the “blood” Bratcher has muted the biblical teaching that Christ’s death on the cross was a vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice of atonement, comparable to the blood of victims slain on the altar in the Temple, and not merely an example of self-sacrificial devotion to others, as the modern liberal theology would have it. The term “blood” in this context means much more than “death” or “killing” because it links the death of Christ to the sacrifices offered on the altar of atonement (Leviticus 16). As one theologian puts it, “the shedding of the blood of Christ is the typical act which marks the offering up of His life as a propitiatory and redeeming sacrifice.” ⁽⁷⁾ Moreover, in Scripture the “Blood of Christ” signifies not only his redemptive death but also the power of his life, as Westcott observes: “while the thought of Christ’s Blood (as shed) includes all that is involved in Christ’s Death, the Death of Christ, on the other hand, expresses only a part, the initial part, of the whole conception of Christ’s Blood. The Blood always includes the thought of the life preserved and active beyond death.… The blood is not simply the price by which the redeemed were purchased, but the power by which they were quickened so as to be capable of belonging to God.” ⁽⁸⁾ Bratcher seems completely unaware of these dimensions of meaning for the term “blood of Christ” in the Bible and religious discourse.

“Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding ‘with respect to the autographs’ is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error … No truth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God … No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications … Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.” ⁽⁹⁾

In 1992 the ABS issued a revision of the Good News Bible with gender neutral language, and in 1995 it published the Contemporary English Version, a very similar version which is apparently meant to replace the Good News Bible.

The request followed research of the US Bible market conducted last year by Zondervan. The findings showed that while the GNB ranked fourth highest in terms of awareness (42 per cent), it ranked only twelfth in terms of sales (3.1 per cent). Researchers concluded that one reason why high brand awareness translated into a low market share was the mistaken belief that GNB is a paraphrase — a conclusion supported by the ABS’s own research. Zondervan and the ABS have agreed that changing the name to the Good News Translation “will help build confidence in the translation because it addresses the misperception head-on.” ⁽¹⁰⁾

Robert G. Bratcher, “The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today’s English Version,” The Bible Translator 22/3 (July 1971) pp. 97-107.

Robert G. Bratcher, “The TEV New Testament and the Greek Text,” The Bible Translator 18 (October, 1967) pp. 167-74.

Robert G. Bratcher, “Translating the TEV New Testament.” In The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978) pp. 146-52.

Euan Fry, “The Good News Bible Translation Principles,” The Bible Translator 28 (October 1977) pp. 408-12.

Anthony Howard Nichols, Translating the Bible: A Critical Analysis of E.A. Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and its Impact upon Recent Bible Translations. Doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Biblical Studies of the University of Sheffield, November 1996.

Eugene A. Nida, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977.

Dale Moody, “The Good News Bible.” Review and Expositor 76 (Summer 1979) pp. 409-16.

Eugene A. Nida, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco: Word Books, 1977.

Stephen Prickett, “What Do the Translators Think They Are Up To?” Theology 80 (November 1977) pp. 403-10.

Donald Schiemann, “Another Translation, Another Disaster.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 42 (April 1978) pp. 167-69.

W.F. Stinespring, “Today’s English Version or The Good News Bible.” The Duke Divinity School Review 44 (Spring 1979) pp. 142-63.

Notes

1. The ABS committee appointed to consult with Bratcher on his translation of the New Testament was composed of five members: the Rev. Howard Beardslee, of the Board of National Missions of the Presbyterian Church; Dr. Hugo Culpepper, Professor of Missions at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.; the Rev. Harold Moulton, Deputy Translations Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society; Dr. Howard C. Kee, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, Madison, N.J.; and Dr. Frederick J. Rex, of the Committee on World Literacy and Christian Literature of the National Council of Churches.

2. Nida developed the rationale and method for “dynamic equivalence” in his books Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960) and Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964).

3. For a full explanation of the concept see William L. Wonderly, Bible Translations for Popular Use. London: United Bible Societies, 1968. Eugene Nida explains, “This is the kind of language common to both the professor and the janitor, the business executive and the gardener, the socialite and the waiter. It may be described as ‘the overlap language’ because it is that level of language which constitutes the overlapping of the literary level and the ordinary, day-to-day usage. The overlap area is itself a very important level, for it probably constitutes the form of language used by fully 75% of the people more than 75% of the time. It is essentially the same level of language in which the New Testament was first written, the so-called Koine Greek. The term Koine itself means ‘common,’ and it was precisely this type of ‘common language’ which the Gospel writers employed to communicate their unique and priceless message.” (Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible [Waco: Word, 1977], p. 12.)

4. R.G. Bratcher, “The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today’s English Version,” The Bible Translator 22/3 (1971), p. 106.

5. Although this is usually not openly acknowledged by the translators, it is no secret that missionary translators rarely have competence in the original languages and that they commonly use English versions instead of the original language texts. See H. Fehderau, “The Role of Bases & Models in Bible Translations,” The Bible Translator 30 (1980), pp. 401-19. For a discussion of the use of the GNB as a base text for Indonesian translations see the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Anthony Howard Nichols, Translating the Bible: A Critical Analysis of E.A. Nida’s Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and its Impact upon Recent Bible Translations (University of Sheffield, November 1996).

6. “The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today’s English Version,” The Bible Translator 22/3 (July 1971), p. 102.

7. “Blood,” in Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt (2nd ed. London: Rivingtons, 1872), p. 89.

8. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (London: MacMillan and Co., 1883), 35-36.

9. Bratcher’s words are here quoted from page 15 of Robert Martin’s Accuracy of Translation (Banner of Truth, 1989). Martin cites “a printed formal press release from Baptist Press, the official news agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, dated 25 March 1981 (by-line by Dan Martin).” Along these lines also, much earlier the TEV had acquired some embarrassing liberal supporters in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. William Hull, who had served as a professor and Dean of the graduate school at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, spoke the following words at a meeting of the Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (of which he was President) on February 23, 1968: “with the passing of the torch to younger hands, one notes a growing impatience to go beyond the tired cautions of an earlier era … We cannot worry forever with the millennium, or verbal inspiration, or the Scofield Bible. For an increasing number of restless spirits, it is time to move on … What are the implications of widespread SBC [Southern Baptist Convention] acceptance of the TEV [Today’s English Version]? To begin with, we have here the employment of a much more daring translation theory than that adopted by the RSV … Of course, Southern Baptists do not yet realize all of this … Shout it not from the housetops, but the TEV is clearly incompatible with traditional notions of verbal inspiration, and the theologies built thereon. It could be that Southern Baptists will embrace the TEV with their hearts before they grasp the implications with their heads.” These words are quoted from Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pages 159-160. Lindsell gives as his source a typescript of Hull’s address, entitled Southern Baptist Biblical Scholarship: Harbingers of Hope.

10. “Good News Bible Gets New Name,” UBS World Report, no. 361 (July/August 2001).

Good News Bible Exposed – Bad news for modern man!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/GNB/good_news_bible-exposed.htm

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/gnb.html
Bold and italics emphases theirs

By Terry Watkins

1966 was a watershed year in the spiritual battle for good and evil.

The atheistic anti-God movement (Matt. 16:23) was formally unveiled as the April 08, 1966, Time magazine blasted on it’s cover “Is God Dead?” Also in April 1966, the satanic church was officially unleashed when Anton La Vey founded the Church of Satan.

And in 1966, the Bible PERversion army recruited a major soldier as The American Bible Society (ABS) released the New Testament of the deceitful and devious Good News for Modern Man Bible.

By 1969, the Good News for Modern Man sold over 17 million copies. Two years later, the number was a staggering — 30 million copies. According to Bible publication stats, more than 100 million copies (some estimates are over 200 million) of the GNB are in circulation. In some countries, the GNB is still the most popular version. A 1991 Gallup Poll awarded the GNB the most popular version in Britain.

In 1976 the Old Testament was completed. The American Bible Society later shortened the name from the Good News for Modern Man to the Good News Bible (GNB).

The GNB’s primary promotion is it’s ecumenical and interconfessional appeal. The GNB claims it is, “genuinely ecumenical, hailed by representatives of every church from Baptists to Jesuit Father Abbott of Rome’s Christian Unity Secretariat, who describes it as ‘a masterpiece of modern linguistic study’.” Because of the GNB’s watered-down, inclusive, tolerant, distortions it was welcomed with open arms by the new age, ecumenical movement, groups such as the liberal leaning Southern Baptist Convention, Billy Graham, the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches have recommended the GNB.

The American Bible Society has published several special editions of the GNB. They have published several Roman Catholic GNBs including the Catholic Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books with the official Roman Catholic “imprimatur”. They also published an African-American Jubilee edition also including the Catholic Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books. And of course, ABS published a Teen Extreme Faith GNB which so happens to include the Catholic Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books complete with the official Roman Catholic “imprimatur”.

In 1992 the GNB was revised to fashion a feminist-neutered-inclusive edition, removing much of the masculine language, despite the clear masculine gender of the Greek text.

The GNB leads the list of the most perverted and mis-translated Bibles available. It attacks, distorts, intentionally mis-translates and just flat-out perverts virtually every major doctrine in the Bible.

Dr. Robert Bratcher

GNB’s chief translator was Dr. Robert Bratcher. As you’ll see, Dr. Bratcher heads the class of the most heretical apostates to ever touch a mainstream Bible translation.

In the Brazilian Baptist paper called O Jornal Batista [The Baptist Journal], under the “Questions & Answers” (July 9, 1953) Bratcher openly denied the deity of Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ would not enjoy omniscience. That is an attribute of God. … Jesus did not claim He and the Father to be one — which would be absurd.”
(Cited in M.L. Moser, Jr., The Devil’s Masterpiece, p. 73)

Dr. Bratcher also ridicules the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible:

“Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible … To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god. . .”

“Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. . .”

“The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life … Quoting what the Bible says in the context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful–and may be a hindrance in trying to meet and solve the problems we face. . .”

“We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.”

“As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; …”
(The Baptist Courier, Apr. 2, 1981)

According to Dr. Bratcher, the Bible is “shifting sand”.

After lecturing at Furman University, Dr. Bratcher was asked the following questions about the Bible:

“Are there historical sections of the Bible that are sub-Christian?’ asked a student. 
“`Certainly. Wishing that God would destroy one’s enemies. You call that Christian?’
“`You admit that the Bible has fallacies; then how is it valuable?’ a student questioned.
“`If we build our faith wholly on the Bible, then we are building our faith on shifting sand.
We must follow the facts or there is nothing to believe. We cannot literally follow Jesus, only go in his direction’.”
(The Greenville News, November 8, 1970)

Would a truly saved person refuse to confess Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour? The Bible is clear. Confession of the Lord Jesus Christ is essential for salvation:

Matthew 10:32-33
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Romans 10:9-10
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Why did Dr. Bratcher refuse to “confess” Jesus Christ as his “personal Saviour”? In a Question and Answer at the First Baptist Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina, the following took place:

Question: ‘Why did you leave out the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5:9 and 14 and other places?’ 
Answer: ‘It is a matter of translation.’
Question: ‘Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour?’
Answer: Dr. Bratcher would not answer this question.
Question: ‘Is the human heart by nature Man- centered or God-centered?’
Answer: ‘Let us stick with questions about translation.’
Question: ‘Is Jesus Christ God, or the same as God?’
Answer: ‘Jesus is not the same personality as God.’
(Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual, pp. 98-99)

In another Question and Answer encounter at the First Baptist Church in North Augusta, South Carolina, Dr. Bratcher again would not answer the question:

Question: ‘If you should die, do you know you would go to heaven?’
Answer: Dr. Bratcher would not answer this question.’
(Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual, pp. 98-99)

As we open the covers of the Good News Bible (GNB), notice the “reflection” of Dr. Bratcher’s apostate beliefs beaming off the pages.

Note: KJB is the King James Bible. GNB is the Good News Bible (a.k.a. Good News for Modern Man and Todays’ English Version).

The GNB attacks the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ

Acts 20:28 is one of the greatest verses in the Bible. It clearly states the “blood” that flowed through the Lord Jesus was God’s “blood” and that Jesus Christ was God. The GNB changes the emphasis or object of blood from “his” [God] to “his Son”. “Son” is not found in any Greek text.

Acts 20:28, KJB
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:28, GNB
So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son.

1 Timothy 3:16 is probably the clearest verse in all the Bible asserting that Jesus Christ was “God manifest in the flesh”. The GNB changes it to the trivial “He appeared in human form”. So what. . . We all appear in human form!

1 Timothy 3:16, KJB
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Timothy 3:16, GNB
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.

The GNB changes the clear statement of Philippians 2:6 testifying that Jesus Christ was “equal with God” to the vague and goofy “. . . he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.”

Philippians 2:6, KJB
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:6, GNB
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God.

In 1 Timothy 6:14-16, the GNB completely changes the object of “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;” from the Lord Jesus Christ to “God” by inserting “by God” — without ANY Greek evidence whatsoever. They deliberately and deceitfully de-throne the Lord Jesus Christ as “King of Kings, and Lord of Lords”. Notice also, “commandment” is changed to the nonspecific “orders”.

1Timothy 6:14-15, KJB
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

1Timothy 6:14-15, GNB
to obey your orders and keep them faithfully until the Day when our Lord Jesus Christ will appear. 
His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

The late-great Evangelist Brother Roloff once preached a message on John 1:1 titled “The Greatest Verse in the Bible”. What a wonderful and enlightening verse, plainly emphasizing the deity of the Word – the Lord Jesus.

John 1:1, KJB
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And like a wild-Texas-tornado ripping through a trailer park, the damage left by the GNB is devastating.

John 1:1, GNB
Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.

The GNB changes the eternal, infinite, without-time, “in the BEGINNING” to the time-constrained “before the world was created” thus attacking the eternality of the Word. And the clear reference to the deity of the Word, “and the Word was God” is now destroyed by the distorted “he was the same as God”. By adding “the same as” clearly negates the deity of the Word – creating a unfounded difference between the Word and God. It’s worth mentioning, as in nearly every case, there is no Greek evidence for the distortions.

In Colossians 2:9, the GNB completely twists the declaration that in Jesus “dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” into the new-age, divine-humanity — “the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity”. The “divine nature” of humanity is the root teaching of the Lucifer-worshipping, New Age Movement. It is also the serpent’s message of Genesis 3:5, “ye shall be as gods”.

Colossians 2:9, KJB
For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

Colossians 2:9, GNB
For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,

In Ephesians 3:9, the GNB rudely strips the Lord Jesus as the architect of ALL creation. The GNB completely distorts Ephesians 3:9 into gabble to rob Jesus Christ’s role of creator. Why? And there exists no Greek manuscripts to reinforce such a mess. It is simply a deliberate attempt to de-throne the Lord Jesus.

Ephesians 3:9, KJB
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9, GNB
and of making all people see how God’s secret plan is to be put into effect. God, who is the Creator of all things, kept his secret hidden through all the past ages,

In Revelation 1:11, the titles of “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” are removed from the wonderful Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 1:11, KJB
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Revelation 1:11, GNB
It said, “Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

The mutilation of John 3:16

John 3:16 has been called the “gospel in a nutshell”. John 3:16 is known and loved more than any other verse in all the Bible. It’s poetic beauty and crystal-clear clarity leaves the reader in a majestic awe.

John 3:16, KJB
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16,
GNB
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

Notice in John 3:16, the GNB removes the critical word “begotten” thus denying the direct and only “begotten” relationship of God the Father and God the Son. While at the same time, introducing a glaring contradiction in the light of verses such as Philippians 2:15 and 1 John 3:2 where the Christian is called the “sons of God”. Or even in Luke 3:38 where Adam is called the “son of God”. Begotten is also removed in John 1;14, 1:18, 3;18, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, and 1 John 4:9,

In John 3:16 the GNB also pours some nonsense in with the replacement of “should not perish” to “may not die”. John 3:16 is plainly a reference to a lost soul “perishing” in hell without Christ.

The GNB removes the Blood

Salvation is only through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other way. And there is no other doctrine more important and more essential to the Christian faith. The “blood” of the Lord Jesus Christ flows through the inspired veins of the living Word of God — from book to book, from chapter to chapter, from verse to verse and from word to word. . . The blood of Jesus Christ is the “life-blood” of the Christian faith.

After researching scores of Bible PERversions, no other Bible so maliciously removes the precious blood of the Lord Jesus as the Good News Bible. Many times the GNB destroys the price and passion of our salvation by callously changing “the blood” to the impersonal and cold “death”.

Here’s a sampling of some wonderful verses where the GNB removes “the blood”.

Acts 20:28, KJB
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:28, GNB, (1966 edition)
Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your charge. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the death of his own Son.

Romans 3:25, KJB
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 3:25, GNB (1966 edition)
God offered him so that by his death he should become the means by which men’s sins are forgiven, through their faith in him. God offered Christ to show how he puts men right with himself. In the past, God was patient and overlooked men’s sins;

Romans 5:9, KJB
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:9, GNB (1966 edition)
By his death we are now put right with God; how much more, then, will we be saved by him from God’s wrath.

Ephesians 1:7, KJB
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 1:7, GNB (1966 edition)
For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven. How great is the grace of God,

Ephesians 2:13, KJB
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Ephesians 2:13, GNB (1966 edition)
But now, in union with Christ Jesus, you who used to be far away have been brought near by the death of Christ.

In Colossians 1:14 the phrase “through his blood” is removed.

Colossians 1:14, KJB
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 1:14, GNB
by whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.

Colossians 1:20, KJB
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 1:20, GNB (1966 edition)
Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s death on the cross, and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven.

Hebrews 10:19, KJB
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hebrews 10:19, GNB
We have, then, my friends, complete freedom to go into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus.

Hebrews 13:20, KJB
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Hebrews 13:20, GNB (1966 edition)
God has raised from death our Lord Jesus, who is the Great Shepherd of the sheep because of his death, by which the eternal covenant is sealed.

1 Peter 1:19 is one of the most wonderful verses in the Bible. And the wicked GNB changes the “precious blood of Christ” to the impersonal, generic “costly sacrifice of Christ”.

1 Peter 1:19, GNB
it was the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was like a lamb without defect or flaw.

1 Peter 1:19, KJB
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Again, Revelation is a marvelous witness to the personal love and compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ. And again, the GNB dilutes and deadens the personal pain and passion.

Revelation 1:5, KJB
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 1:5, GNB
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins

Revelation 5:9 KJB
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Revelation 5:9 GNB
They sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to break open its seals. For you were killed, and by your sacrificial death you bought for God people from every tribe, language, nation, and race.

The message of the “the innocent blood” of Jesus Christ from the mouth of Judas, testifying of the sinless, blood-atonement of the Lord Jesus, is changed to the frivolous “innocent man”. Notice also the definite “THE innocent blood” is changed to the indefinite “AN innocent man”. There are many “an innocent man” but there is only ONE “THE innocent blood”.

Matthew 27:4, KJB
Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

Matthew 27:4, GNB
I have sinned by betraying an innocent man to death!” he said. “What do we care about that?” they answered. “That is your business!”

Why did Dr. Bratcher and the GNB remove the blood?

In a question and answer time at the First Baptist Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Dr. Bratcher was asked “Why did you leave out the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5:9 and 14 and other places?’. 

His reply was “It is a matter of translation“.

(Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual, pp. 98-99)

The correct answer would have been “It is a matter of MIS-translation“.

The Greek word for “blood” and ONLY “blood” is “haima“. The following is Strong’s definition for haima:

129. haima, hah’-ee-mah; of uncert. der.; blood, lit. (of men or animals), fig. (the juice of grapes) or spec. (the atoning blood of Christ); by impl. bloodshed, also kindred:–blood

To translate “haima” anything but “blood” is to deliberately MIS-translate the Greek word. Every time the word “haima” occurs in the Greek text the King James Bible correctly translates it “blood”. In fact, the study of the blood is called hematology (from haima – hema – [blood] – tology [study]). Webster’s Dictionary defines the prefix hemo: “a combining form meaning ‘blood’“ Hemophilia is a disease of the blood. A hemorrhage is a discharge of blood.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition 2000) traces the prefix hemo directly to the Greek word haima.
hemo–
VARIANT FORMS: or hema– or hem– also haemo– or haema– or haem–
PREFIX: Blood: hemacyte.
ETYMOLOGY: Greek haimo-, from haima.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition. 2000))

The Collins English Dictionary also traces haemo directly to the Greek word haima — as does every Dictionary and Etymology reference I could find!

haemo-, haema-, before a vowel haem-
combining form denoting blood
example: haemophobia
Also: haemato-[U.S.] hemo-[U.S.] hema-[U.S.] hem-
[ETYMOLOGY: from Greek haima blood]
(The Collins English Dictionary, 2000 edition)

Dr. Bratcher and the translation team of the GNB knew the ONLY accurate translation of haima is blood. Why did they deliberately remove the precious blood of Jesus Christ? How can a “blood-bought, born-again” Christian intentionally mis-translate the Greek in order to remove the blood of Christ?

Will the real “Bright Morning Star” please stand up…

In Isaiah 14:12 “Lucifer” is changed to the “bright morning star”.

Isaiah 14:12, KJB
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:12, GNB
King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground.

Hmmm … Now where have I read about a “bright morning star”? Oh I know. . . In Revelation 22:16, where the Lord Jesus Christ is called the “bright and morning star”! Why did the GNB attribute one of the titles of the Lord Jesus Christ to Lucifer? Do they believe Lucifer and Jesus are the same?

Revelation 22:16, KJB
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The GNB aborts the Virgin Birth

Our blood line comes completely from our father. And without the virgin birth, the Lord Jesus Christ was born from the blood-line of sinful man. No virgin birth – no sinless blood atonement – and no salvation!

The GNB changes the pure, clear “virgin” to “young woman”. There are tons of “young women” who are not “virgins”. To change “virgin” to “young woman” is a denial of the virgin birth.

Isaiah 7:14, KJB
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14,
GNB
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’

Luke 1:27, KJB
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke 1:27, GNB
He had a message for a young woman promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. Her name was Mary.

In Matthew 1:18, The KJB plainly says Jesus Christ was born BEFORE Mary and Joseph “came together” [the act of human conception]. The GNB changes it to “before they were married”, again surgically removing the virgin birth.

Matthew 1:18, KJB
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18, GNB
This was how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. His mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they were married, she found out that she was going to have a baby by the Holy Spirit.

In Luke 2:33, the virgin birth is attacked again as Joseph is changed to “the child’s father”. Note: This is not the same as John 6:42 when quoting the “Jews” saying Joseph is “Jesus’ Father”. In Luke 2:33, it is the Holy Spirit that is speaking, as the narrator.

Luke 2:33, KJB
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Luke 2:33, GNB
The child’s father and mother were amazed at the things Simeon said about him.

Hell is extinguished in the GNB

If there is a word that the ecumenical, inclusive, love-everybody, new version, hates – it is the word “hell”. They will travel “far and wide, through thick and thin” over their translation (or mis-translation) road to pull-out that mean ol’ word “hell”. All the new versions travel this crooked path. Got to get that word out! And the GNB certainly does not disappoint – removing the word “hell” 33 times.

In Luke 16, the GNB “transliterates” hell into the new-age, “happy field” land of purification and transformation called “hades”. In case you did not know, “hades” in the new-age and witchcraft is not a place of eternal punishment but is called Summerland, Happy Fields, etc. and is a place where you go for purification and transformation before you are reincarnated into whatever you are reincarnated into.

Luke 16:23, KJB
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luke 16:23, GNB
and in Hades, where he was in great pain, he looked up and saw Abraham, far away, with Lazarus at his side.

Sometimes the GNB changes “hell” to the creepy “world of the dead”.

Acts 2:27, KJB
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Acts 2:27, GNB
because you will not abandon me in the world of the dead; you will not allow your faithful servant to rot in the grave.

Acts 2:31, KJB
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Acts 2:31, GNB
David saw what God was going to do in the future, and so he spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah when he said, ‘He was not abandoned in the world of the dead; his body did not rot in the grave.’

In Revelation 1:18, the GNB crew gets in bit of a pickle. The word “hell” shows up with the word “death” – clearly showing the difference. Now what will they do? Simple. They just magically and mysteriously create two deaths – “death and the world of the dead”. But, after all, when did “making sense” ever be a requirement for the new PERversions. Just get that word “hell” out!

Oh by the way, the Lord Jesus Christ no longer has “the keys of death and hell” but simply “authority over death and the world of the dead”.

Revelation 1:18, KJB
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Revelation 1:18, GNB
I am the living one! I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I have authority over death and the world of the dead.

The GNB does the same gibberish in Revelation 20:13, 14

After removing the word “hell” in so many obvious places referring to eternal punishment, the GNB goes into the land of crude and rude in Acts 8:20. The GNB has Peter telling Simon the sorcerer, “May you and your money go to hell. . .” Of course, the Greek word for “hell” is nowhere in the verse.

Acts 8:20, KJB
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money

Acts 8:20,
GNB
But Peter answered him, “May you and your money go to hell, for thinking that you can buy God’s gift with money!

[…] The anti-Catholic (mis)interpretations have been removed by me -Michael

The preacher is now the philosopher…

One of the more disgusting changes in the GNB is the change of “preacher” to “philosopher” in the book of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 1:1, KJB
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

Ecclesiastes 1:1, GNB
These are the words of the Philosopher, David’s son, who was king in Jerusalem.

See also Ecclesiastes 1:12, 7:27, 12:8, 12:9, 12:10

In fact, the word preacher, preach, etc. is removed many times in the GNB.

For instance, the “preacher” is no longer in Romans 10:14-15:

Romans 10:14-15, KJB
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 
Romans 10:14-15, GNB
14 But how can they call to him for help if they have not believed? And how can they believe if they have not heard the message? And how can they hear if the message is not proclaimed?
15 And how can the message be proclaimed if the messengers are not sent out? As the scripture says, “How wonderful is the coming of messengers who bring good news!”

There is no fear of God before their eyes. . .

If there’s one root cause of the decay and degradation of society, it is simple – there is no fear of God. It wasn’t too many years ago a Christian was described as “God-fearing”. Not today. The “fear of the Lord” is anathema with today’s Laodicean, inclusive, tolerant, Christians.

And of course, the GNB (as do most new PERversions) remove the “fear of the Lord”. Fitting for someone who does not hesitate to pervert the Words of God.

A couple of examples:

Ecclesiastes 12:13, KJB
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Ecclesiastes 12:13, GNB
After all this, there is only one thing to say: Have reverence for God, and obey his commands, because this is all that we were created for.

Romans 3:18, KJB
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Romans 3:18, GNB
nor have they learned reverence for God.”

The GNB taketh away the Word…

The Lord CLEARLY and EMPHATICALLY warns against “adding and taking away” from the words of God. And yet, the GNB and other new PERversions, removes complete verses, adds and removes thousands of words with no hesitation or fear of God’s warning.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Jesus Christ gives the attack of Satan in Luke 8:12″ “. . .then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word. . . ”

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. — 2 Corinthians 2:17

Why we reject this version
“Good News For Modern Man”

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/GNB/why_we_reject_the_gnb.htm

By Pastor E. L. Bynum

(First Edition of this tract 1969, with over 700,000 in print. Second Edition 1971, revised with added information.)

Many have asked about a widely circulated modern version of the New Testament called “GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN — The New Testament in Today’s English version.” (Hereafter referred to by TEV). We have good reason to reject this faulty version.
 

PREACHERS ARE SLIPPING FAST

In 1952, the National Council of Churches published the “REVISED STANDARD VERSION” (RSV). The RSV was a modernistic version, translated by liberal theologians, and published by the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches. Many Bible believing preachers exposed the RSV, but few have protested against the TEV, even though it is more modernistic than the RSV. However, some are waking up to this modern perversion of God’s Word.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE TEV

The TEV reveals a bias against the word “virgin.”

In the “King James Version” (hereafter referred to by KJV), we find “virgin” 14 times in the New Testament. The TEV removes “virgin from 11 of these places, and retains it in only 3 of these passages.

KJV Luke 1:27, “To a virgin espoused . . . the virgin’s name was Mary.”

TEV Luke 1:27, “He had a message for a girl . . . The girl’s name was Mary.”

This substituting of “girl” for “virgin” should be enough to convince the Bible believer to reject the TEV. Many girls are not virgins.

TEV CHANGES IN THE SECOND EDITION

The TEV was copyrighted in 1966 by the American Bible Society. A “Second Edition” was printed in 1968 under the 1966 copyright. The two editions are almost identical in appearance. There is nothing in the preface or anywhere else that would indicate the vast difference in the translating of Luke 1:27 in these two editions

1966 Edition, TEV, Luke 1:27, “He had a message for a virgin … The virgin’s name was Mary.”

1968 “Second Edition”, TEV, Luke 1:27, “He had a message for a girl . . . The girl’s name was Mary.”

Please note that “virgin” is found twice in the 1966 edition, and removed twice in the 1968 “Second Edition.” There is no explanation of this wicked changing of God’s Word. Please note the following quotation from the preface of both editions.

“The text from which this translation was made is the Greek New Testament prepared by an international committee of New Testament scholars, sponsored by several members of the United Bible societies, and published in 1966 . . .

“The basic text was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher . . .”

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE?

If “virgin” (parthenos) was in the Greek text of the 1966, how did it get out in 2 years? Modern English has not changed that much in 2 years. What kind of a translator would put “virgin” in the text in 1966 and take it out in 1968? We deplore this kind of “scholarship”. Was this manipulation of God’s Word done to fool fundamental Bible believers? Even the National Council RSV did not remove “virgin” from Luke 1:27. The TEV is just one more attempt to destroy the Word of God and the Deity of our Saviour. The Devil hates the written word and the living Word.

The TEV removes “virgin” from 78% of the places where it is found in the KJV. Now instead of the “Parable of the ten virgins”, we now have in the TEV, the “Parable of the ten girls”. Shall we call that progress?

“Virgin” is removed in the TEV from Matt. 25:1, 7, 11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; I Cor. 7:25, 28, 36, 37; Rev. 14:4 and Luke 2:36. The TEV leaves “virgin” in I Cor. 7:34; II Cor. 11:2 and Matt. 1:23.

“VIRGIN” BELONGS IN ALL 14 PLACES

The Greek word “PARTHENOS” is translated “virgin” 14 times in the KJV. Any reliable translation should do the same. The translator of the TEV has inserted “virgin” in Luke 1:34, where it does not appear in the Greek text. This is interpretation and not translation. Obviously the translator does not believe in verbal inspiration.

OTHER ATTACKS ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST

The “Virgin” birth of Christ has been denied by the modernists for many years. Any alteration of the Bible text that gives them another weapon, constitutes another attack upon His Deity. The change of Luke 1:27 is one of these attacks.

The following scriptures reveal an obvious attempt to make it appear that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

KJV Luke 2:33, “And Joseph and his mother marvelled . . .”

TEV Luke 2:33, “The child’s father and mother were amazed . . .”

The same kind of a change was made in Luke 2:43. We protest this changing of God’s Word.

KJV John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son . . .”

TEV John 3:16, “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son . . .”

Notice that “BEGOTTEN” has been removed in the TEV. It has also been removed from John 1:14, 18; 3:18; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5 and 1 John 4:9. “Only begotten” comes from two Greek words, one meaning “alone” and the other meaning “I am born”. When Christ said in John 3:16 that He was the only begotten Son of God, He was claiming to be the only person who ever had God for the father of His physical nature. This is an insistence that He was not Joseph’s son or any other man’s son, but the virgin born Son of God, conceived in a supernatural way by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word “monogenes”, meaning “only begotten”, is in the manuscripts and for the translator to leave it out of the TEV is wicked, unscholarly dishonesty.

In John 9:35, the TEV changes “Son of God” to “Son of Man”. Time after time the TEV weakens the truth concerning the eternal deity of Christ, in relationship to creation, redemption and other Bible doctrines.

KJV Eph. 3:9,” . . . God, who created all things by Jesus Christ . . .” The TEV removes “Jesus Christ”. 

In Col. 1:2 and I Thess. 1:1 the KJV tells us that “peace” comes from “Cod our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. In both instances the TEV leaves out the “Lord Jesus Christ.”

Christ says in KJV Rev. 1:11, “. . . I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last . . .” 

In the TEV this is entirely left out.

Rev. 1:8 we are told that Christ is “the beginning and the ending”, but this is removed from the TEV. Rev. 5:14, we are told that the Lamb “liveth for ever and ever”, but in the TEV this is omitted. Time after time the TEV omits “Christ” or “Lord” when speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ. The changes are aimed at His deity.

In I Tim. 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh” is changed to “he appeared in human form”.

In Acts 2:30 “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ”, has been omitted. In John 16:16 Jesus said, “I go to the Father”, which refers to His ascension. The TEV omits this phrase.

KJV John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

TEV John 1:1, “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.”

The TEV inserts “before”, “world”, and “created”, which are not in the Greek text. “Word” is the Greek “Logos” and is found 3 times in the Greek text and 3 times in the KJV, but the TEV omits it 2 times.

We strongly object to the TEV changing “the Word was God” to read “he was the same as God.” “He was the same as God” does not convey the same meaning as “the Word was God”. “The same as”, of the TEV is not to be found in the Greek text, and the KJV does present the correct translation. This entire verse has been so worded in the TEV, as to weaken the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This surely must be the work of 20th Century Arians.

In Phil. 2:5, 6 the TEV casts grave doubts on Christ being equal with God.

KJV Col. 2:9, “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

TEV Col. 2:9, “For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity.”

“The full content of divine nature” hardly equals the more sublime “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

THE TEV AND THE BLOOD

The blood of Christ is offensive to the devil and the modernists. We were shocked when some denominations took the word “blood” out of their song books, and now we see translators taking the “BLOOD” out of the Bible. “Redemption” has been completely removed from the TEV, and “blood” has been removed in many places.

KJV Eph. 1:7, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins…”

TEV Eph. 1:7, “For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven . . .”

In the above scripture and also in Col. 1:14, “redemption” and “blood” have been omitted in the TEV. The devil must rejoice at this kind of mutilation of God’s Word.

KJV Heb. 10:19, “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” 

The TEV substitutes “death of Jesus” for “blood of Jesus”. 

The TEV destroys the Old Testament type. No matter how many animals had died, the High Priest could not enter the holy of holies without the blood on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:15. ” . . . It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Lev. 17:11). “. . . without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22).

KJV I Peter 1:19, “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of the lamb without blemish and without spot.” The TEV omits “blood”, by substituting “sacrifice”.

KJV Rev. 1:5, “. . . unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”

TEV Rev. 1:5, “. . . He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins.”

“Blood” is also left out of the following passages: Matt. 27:4, 24, 25; Acts 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Col. 1:20; Eph. 2:13 and Rev. 5:9.

The TEV retains “blood” in a number of passages, for its complete removal would be too obvious. The above scriptures show that the TEV has removed the blood of Christ from many important places. The Greek word “haima” is found in the above verses, and it should be translated “blood” in every place.

PLAN OF SALVATION CHANGED

The TEV not only confuses the reader concerning the Virgin Birth, Deity and blood atonement of Christ, but misleads concerning almost every major doctrine found in the New Testament. Notice how the plan of salvation is confused.

KJV I Peter 2:2, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere mild of the word, that ye may grow thereby.”

TEV I Peter 2:2, “Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the pure spiritual milk, so that by drinking it you may grow up and be saved.”

The TEV changed wording makes salvation the result of works. The KJV teaches Christian growth.

The TEV translates Acts 2:38 making salvation the result of baptism.

In Luke 23:42 the repentant thief says, “Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” The TEV removes Lord by having the thief to say, “Remember me, Jesus, when you come as King!”

This is serious error “. . . no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (I Cor. 12:3).

After Philip had preached to the man of Ethiopia, he asked Philip to baptize him. KJV Acts 8:37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” The TEV encloses this part in brackets, which means that it is not in the “oldest and best manuscripts”. In the TEV the Ethiopian makes no profession of faith, and yet Philip baptized him. Paul and Silas told the Philippian Jailor, KJV Acts 16:31,“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . .” 

The TEV leaves “Christ” out of this verse. This is tampering with the plan of salvation.

CASTING DOUBTS BY BRACKETS

The TEV casts doubt upon the authenticity of many parts of the New Testament by putting brackets around many verses. We quote from the PREFACE of the TEV: “Verses marked with brackets [ ] are not in the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament.” This is a suggestion that these verses may not be a part of the Word of God at all.  

[…] The anti-Catholic (mis)interpretations have been removed by me -Michael

DENYING BY BRACKETS

John 8:1-11 is printed in brackets by the TEV. They are thus denying that the woman taken in adultery belongs in the Bible.

The last 12 verses of the book of Mark is in brackets.

The TEV ends the book of Mark three different ways. They show Mark 16 ending with verse 8. If you don’t like that ending, you can read verses 9-20 as they are printed in brackets, under a subhead which reads, “AND OLD ENDING TO THE GOSPEL”. If you don’t like it that way, then you may read on through an entirely different verse 9 and 10. This last ending is printed under, “ANOTHER OLD ENDING”. What a blasphemous way to treat God’s Holy word!

[…] The anti-Catholic (mis)interpretations have been removed by me -Michael

GOD WARNS ABOUT TAKING FROM OR ADDING UNTO HIS WORD

Not only does the TEV remove many words from the Bible, but it also adds many words. Any reliable translation will mark the words that have been added, which did not appear in the Greek text.

In the King James Version this is done by printing the words added in italic letters.

Time after time words are added in the TEV, but not one time does the translator reveal what he has added.

KJV Deut. 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it . . .” 

KJV
Rev. 22:18, 19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:18.

“JOT is for JOD, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. TITTLE is the little bend or point which serves to distinguish certain Hebrew letters of similar appearance. Jewish tradition mentions the letter JOD as being irremovable; adding that, if all men in the world were gathered to abolish the least letter in the law, they would not succeed. The guilt of changing those little hooks which distinguish between certain Hebrew letters is declared to be so great that, if such a thing were done, the world would be destroyed.” – Vincent.

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD SHALL STAND FOR EVER.” (Isaiah 40:8.)

” . . . The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17), is an essential part of the Christian soldier’s equipment. Without the Word of God, there is no salvation and no Christian armour. “The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword . . .” Heb. 4:12. Some may desire crooked, bent, and dulled swords, but we prefer the pure sharp Word of God. The false prophets, disguised as translators, are trying to disarm God’s people.

WHO IS PROMOTING THE TEV?

The TEV has had a wide distribution, with over 25 million being distributed in the first 5 years of its existence. Such phenomenal sales have been unusual to say the least. The American Bible Society has had many helpers in making this circulation possible. Many who consider themselves conservative have joined with liberals in giving the TEV away by the millions. The true conservative Bible believers have been told, “It is nearer to the original,” and many have apparently believed this without checking for themselves.

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION AND THE TEV

The Southern Baptist Convention has done more to promote the TEV, than any other group. We know of no instance where the SBC has ever promoted any other version in this manner. The Southern Baptist of Texas bought and distributed nearly a million and a half copies. The Lubbock Baptist Association bought and distributed 27,800 copies of the TEV. Many of these were given away from door to door. This has been embarrassing to many Southern Baptists who still believe the Bible.

THE BROADMAN PRESS PUBLISHED A SPECIAL EDITION for Southern Baptist. Broadman Press is owned by The SBC. They added footnotes and auxiliary material, but none of the footnotes correct the faulty text. The RSV of the 50’s was pushed by the Southern Baptist Book Stores and through their Sunday School publications. It never did gain acceptance among the people. Now they are solving that problem by giving the TEV away by the millions, and this is being payed for by the tithes and offerings of their people.

“CATHOLICS GIVE OKAY TO VERSION OF BIBLE”

The above quoted headlines appeared in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal over the name of Louis Cassels, UPI Religion Writer. Mr. Cassels says, “The best-selling Bible translation in history has been cleared for use by Catholics as well as Protestants . . . TEV sales should soar . . . because the translation has received the official approval, or imprimatur, of Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Catholic Archbishop of Boston . . . Cardinal Cushing’s expert consultants did not seek a single change in the text of the TEV before approving it for Catholic use.”

[…] The anti-Catholic (mis)interpretations have been removed by me -Michael

The Roman Catholics have endorsed the TEV, and the Southern Baptist are giving it away by the millions. In many instances the modernistic churches of the apostate National Council of Churches have joined in with money and workers to help distribute this very poor translation. Bible believers might well question this strange alliance. The ecumenical movement, with its plans for a ONE WORLD CHURCH, feels compelled to replace the King James Version, with a version that is offensive to no one. We may well be on the lookout for other modern “perversions”, even worse than the TEV.

Making The Evil Seem Good
In all he did, in all he taught,
He kept this aim in sight;
To get the deeds of darkness done,
Disguised as works of light.
He spread his poison, slow and sure,
Through many a specious sect,
And made the evil seem the good,
Bamboozling God’s elect.
–Selected

A most frightful deception – The Good News Bible and translator Robert Bratcher 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/good_news_bible.html

By David W. Cloud (Fundamental Baptist -Michael), 1986 All bold emphases theirs

CHAPTER ONE – THE POPULARITY OF THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE

The New Testament portion of the Today’s English Version (TEV), otherwise known as the Good News for Modern Man, was published in 1966 by the American Bible Society, and has enjoyed phenomenal success. In its first three years it sold 17.5 million copies. <Parade Magazine (November 2, 1969).>

By 1971 more than 30 million copies of the TEV New Testament had been sold–in a period of only five years from initial publication! <Jakob Van Bruggen, Future of the Bible (1972), p. 19.>

In 1973 the TEV whole Bible was published and the popularity of this translation has continued unabated. At its quarterly meeting in December 1985, the American Bible Society Board of Managers presented to retiring president Edmund Wagner the 20 millionth copy of the Good News Bible. <Record, American Bible Society (March 1986), pp. 15, 16.>

Counting distribution in English of the New Testament portion as well as the whole Bible, plus publication of the “Common Language” versions in many other languages, the number of TEV-type Bibles which have gone throughout the world since 1966 is simply amazing–certainly well over 100 million copies and perhaps double that number! While visiting Australia in 1987, we learned that the Today’s English Version has become the most popular Bible text in that country. At least this is the claim of the Australian Bible Society. A Gallup Poll in February 1991 showed that the Good News Bible is the most popular version of the Bible among British churchgoers. <American Bible Society Record (August-September 1991), p. 25.>

CHAPTER TWO – THE ECUMENISM OF THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE

One reason the TEV has enjoyed such tremendous growth is due to its broad ecumenical acceptance — acceptance which was given soon after its release. The Roman Catholic Church gave official approval as early as 1969. In a news release on March 18, 1969, the American Bible Society noted that “Richard Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, had granted this new ‘Bible’ his official approval and that subsequent printing would bear his imprimatur. It was Cardinal Cushing who earlier gave an imprimatur to the Protestant-sponsored Revised Standard Version. Protestant and Catholic scholars in recent years have reached substantial agreement on the translation of the Bible into English, and Cardinal Cushing’s expert consultants did not seek a single change in the text of the TEV before approving it for Catholic use.” <M.L. Moser, Jr., Good News for Modern Man: The Devil’s Masterpiece (Little Rock: Challenge Press, 1970), pp. 74, 75.>

The Southern Baptist Convention, America’s largest denomination, has also promoted the TEV widely. They commissioned the American Bible Society to publish an edition under the “Broadman Press” label and sold it through their bookstores and distributed it widely through Southern Baptist churches.

A big push was given the TEV when, soon after its publication, Evangelist Billy Graham “called it an excellent translation over nationwide television from his campaign in Anaheim, California.” It was then distributed by the Grason Company of Minneapolis, the distributors of Billy Graham materials. <M.L. Moser, Jr., The Devil’s Masterpiece (Little Rock: Challenge Press, 1970), p. 80.>

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, one of the most conservative Lutheran bodies in the United States, has repeatedly commended the Good News Bible. “A free copy of the entire Good News for Modern Man was among the material given to all delegates to this month’s LCMS convention in St. Louis. The same Bible has been distributed free at conventions of the Lutheran Layman’s League.” <Christian News (July 20, 1981).> Many other denominations and organizations have followed this examples.

The Days Inns motel chain published a special edition of the TEV containing notes and supplementary materials by Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ. Copies have been placed in all of their rooms. The author has come across these in his travels. In a motel room in Hong Kong we found a copy of the TEV in Chinese published by the Hong Kong Bible Society. In a motel room in the southwestern part of the United States, the American Bible Society’s edition of the TEV in Spanish, Dios Habla Hoy, was prominently displayed on a dresser.

Many other examples could be given. The ecumenical acceptance of the TEV has been unprecedented.

CHAPTER THREE – THE LIBERALISM OF THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE

The popularity of the Today’s English Version is frightful in light of its perverted renderings of key passages dealing with Christ’s deity, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, the blood atonement, and many other doctrines.

CHRIST’S DEITY

In several important passages the Good News Bible weakens or deletes the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Consider the following examples:

John 1:1

KJV “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

TEV “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.”

Good News translators add to the text the phrase, “before the world was created.” There is no authority or reason for such an addition, unless the translator wants to detract from Christ’s eternal deity. The original text does not specify a certain beginning. There is no definite article to indicate that any particular beginning is in view. The proper rendering is consistent with the biblical teaching that Jesus Christ has no origin. He always was. But the Good News perversion gives support to the false view that Christ was created in ages past. The Greek text says exactly what the KJV says: “the Word was God.” This emphasizes strongly, in no uncertain terms, the full equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father. Jesus Christ is not only “the same as God”; He IS God!

The Good News translation–“he was the same as God”–allows the false view that Christ is God’s Son, but not fully equal in every sense with God. A proper translation does not allow this.

Philippians 2:6

KJV “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

TEV “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.”

The proper translation says clearly that Jesus Christ was equal with God and was in the form of God prior to His incarnation. The Good News translators take the liberty to change this, and their rendering allows for heresy. Many Hindus, as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, and liberal Christians will admit that Christ had the nature of God [as defined by them], but not that He was and is indeed very God, equal with the Father. The TEV translators, as will be seen, lean toward this false view. One great problem with the Good News version is that it ALLOWS FOR heresy, whereas an accurate translation of the Word of God does not.

1 Timothy 3:16

KJV “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

TEV “No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.”

The true mystery of our godliness is that God Himself appeared in human flesh! Compare Matthew 1:23: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” God WAS manifest in the flesh! The TEV rendering removes the greatness of the mystery by deleting God from the text.

1 Timothy 3:16 is one of the New Testament’s clearest and loveliest witnesses to the deity of Jesus Christ, and the reading of the KJV is supported by the best testimony of manuscripts and ancient versions and writings. Yet the TEV ignores this wonderful testimony and makes it into something about how to live a godly life. The verse is not speaking of a godly life, but of the God Life, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, the Triune Godhead.

1 Timothy 6:14-16

KJV “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

TEV “To obey your orders and keep them faithfully until the Day when our Lord Jesus Christ will appear. His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He alone is immortal; he lives in the light that no one can approach. No one has ever seen him; no one can ever see him. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.”

The King James translation makes it obvious that Jesus Christ Himself is the object of this passage. It is a powerful testimony of His eternal godhead. The Good News rendering changes the subject in verse 15 from Christ to God, thus again robbing Christ of His full deity and leaving room for doubt about this crucial doctrine. This is wickedness.

Acts 20:28

KJV “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

TEV “So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the sacrificial death of his Son.”

The proper translation says God purchased the Church with His own blood. What a marvelous testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ. When Christ bled on the cross of Calvary, God was bleeding! It was God who took upon Himself the form of a man and bled and died on the cross for sin. The Good News rendering changes this by adding to and deleting from the text. This is a serious perversion of Scripture.

Colossians 2:3

KJV “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

TEV “He is the key that opens all the hidden treasures of God’s wisdom and knowledge.”

There is a great difference between these two translations. The KJV rendering witnesses to the fact that Christ is the very embodiment of wisdom. This is a witness to His deity. The TEV rendering weakens this witness, saying Christ is a key to wisdom, but not saying that Christ is wisdom itself. The word “key” is an addition to the text. There is nothing in the Greek to answer to this.

Colossians 2:9

KJV “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

TEV “For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity.”

Note that in the TEV the word “bodily” is changed to “humanity” without any manuscript authority whatsoever. This also changes the possible interpretation of the verse, and weakens significantly the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Since God’s Word says that in Christ dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily, why change this to humanity? Is “bodily” more difficult to understand than “humanity”? Of course not. Then why change God’s Word–unless there is an insidious motive?

In all these instances in which the Good News translators have tampered with the text, it will noted that the changes are subtle. Christ’s deity is not necessarily challenged outright, but is carefully undermined and questioned. Those familiar with the subtle nature of modernists’ denial of Christ’s deity will understand this and see it for what it is.

CHRIST’S VIRGIN BIRTH

Matthew 1:18

KJV “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

TEV “This was how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. His mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they were married, she found out that she was going to have a baby by the Holy Spirit.”

Luke 1:27

KJV “To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.”

TEV “He had a message for a girl promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. The girls’ name was Mary.”

The above two verses testify plainly to Christ’s virgin birth. When the verses are properly translated, there remains no doubt as to the virginity of Mary. But the TEV rendering wickedly removes the certainty of this blessed truth. My friends, if Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, He was not sinless and He could not have paid the price for our sins. This is no light matter. The sin nature is passed through the man (Rom. 5:12).

CHRIST’S BLOOD ATONEMENT

In at least 16 passages, the Good News Bible deletes the word “blood,” referring to the precious blood of Christ which was shed for our sins. In most of these passages, blood is replaced with the term death. These passages are Mat. 27:4, 24, 25; Acts 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom. 3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:14, 20; Heb. 10:19; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:5; 5:9.

It is agreed, perhaps, that in some passages the word “blood” can be translated “death” or “murder” without abusing the basic meaning of the passage. Romans 3:15 might be an example of this. When Paul referred in this verse to men’s feet being “swift to shed blood,” he doubtless had in mind man’s tendency toward violence and murder in general. But when it comes to Jesus’ blood, we have no liberty to substitute death for blood. In fact, it is highly doubtful that we have such liberty even in passages such as Romans 3:15, since the original words of Scripture have been chosen by God.

Most certainly, though, the Bible makes it clear that Christ’s blood was required for our salvation, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb. 9:22) Jesus’ death alone was not sufficient. His blood also was required for our redemption, because sins cannot be remitted without shedding of blood. Thus the term “blood,” referring to Christ, has deep theological significance. If Christ had died without the shedding of His blood, we would still be in our sins and there would be no hope of forgiveness or of eternal salvation.

This is why Romans 5:9-10 employs both terms to describe salvation. In Romans 5:9 we are told that we have been justified by Christ’s “blood,” but in Romans 5:10 we learn that we have been reconciled by His “death.” It is through Christ’s bloody death that we can have remission of sins.

Translators who persist in changing blood to death are perverting God’s Word.

THE PRESERVATION AND INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE

Psalm 12:6-7

KJV “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

TEV “The promises of the Lord can be trusted; they are as genuine as silver refined seven times in the furnace.”

The TEV’s rendering robs us of the marvelous testimony that God will preserve the very words of Scripture to every generation. “Promises” is NOT the same as “words”! “Trusted” is NOT the same as “pure”! “Genuine” is NOT the same as “purified”!

Proverbs 30:5-6

KJV “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

TEV “God keeps every promise he makes. He is like a shield for all who seek his protection. If you claim that he said something that he never said, he will reprimand you and show that you are a liar.”

The changes made to the text by the TEV are reprehensible. There is no excuse for corrupting the Word of God this way and robbing God’s people of precious passages dealing with the purity of the very words of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:20-21

KJV “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

TEV “Above all else, however, remember that no one can explain by himself a prophecy in the Scriptures. For no prophetic message ever came just from the will of man, but men were under the control of the Holy Spirit as they spoke the message that came from God.”

The perversion of the TEV rendering lies in subtle additions to the text. Note that the word “just” is added. The TEV reads, “no prophetic message ever came JUST from the will of man.” This allows for man to have a part in inspiration, whereas the proper translation does not. The will of man is entirely omitted in the KJV reading, as it should be. God gave the Scripture; man penned it. The TEV rendering leaves room for all of the false views of inspiration so prevalent today. Even many who claim to be “evangelicals” deny that the Bible is the absolutely perfect Word of God. They want to allow for some error, for some fallibility. Many say foolish things such as that the Bible is inspired but not infallible; or that it is infallible but not inspired. Men have many clever ways of denying the absolute veracity of Scripture. But an accurate translation of Scripture proves them wrong. The Bible claims to be perfect, and it is!

CHAPTER FOUR THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE’S APOSTATE TRANSLATOR

The cause for the inaccuracy of the Good News Bible is the apostasy of its chief translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher.

It is this man’s apostasy which is reflected in the false renderings mentioned above. Following is a brief sketch of Dr. Bratcher’s life, belief, and work.

Bratcher spent part of his early years in South America, the son of Southern Baptist missionary parents. Training in Southern Baptist theological institutions, Bratcher “took his undergraduate work at Georgetown College, then earned two graduate degrees from Southern Seminary.” <Christian News (July 20, 1981).> In 1944, Bratcher received a Doctor of Theology degree from the main SBC seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. <Christian News (May 4, 1981), quoting a Religious News Service report.> He returned to Brazil as a missionary with the SBC, taught Greek and New Testament theology in a Baptist Seminary in Rio de Janeiro and also edited the “Questions & Answers” department of O Jornal Batista [The Baptist Journal], which is the official paper of the Brazilian Baptist Convention. It was in that column of July 9, 1953, that Bratcher said: “Jesus Christ would not enjoy omniscience. That is an attribute of God. … Jesus did not claim He and the Father to be one–which would be absurd.” <M.L. Moser, Jr., The Devil’s Masterpiece (Little Rock: Challenge Press, 1970), p. 73.>

In a letter to Julius C. Taylor, July 16, 1970, Bratcher said, “Of course I believe what I wrote in the Journal Batista of July 9, 1953.” <Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual (Millersburg: Bible Truth Institute, 1975), page 95.>

In 1957 Bratcher began working with the American Bible Society and became the chief translator for the Today’s English Version. He also taught at Southern Seminary, the SBC school from which he received his first doctorate in 1944.

Though the TEV became immensely popular, little was known by the average Christian about its translator–at least not until March 1981 when some candid statements Bratcher made at a Southern Baptist Christian Life Commission seminar were given close media attention. According to Religious News Service, Bratcher cautioned those attending the seminar “not to speak in naive fashion about the authority of the Bible” since “only God’s authority is inerrant.” This is typical modernistic doublespeak. Bratcher “advised Christians against using isolated verses to affirm `the Bible says’.” <Foundation (Fundamental Evangelistic Association, March-April 1981).>

Further quotes from Bratcher’s speech were printed in the Baptist Press report written by Dan Martin, news editor, and printed in the Baptist Courier:

“Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible … To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god. …

“Often in the past and still too often in the present to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one seriously claims all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications. …

“The Word of God is not words; it is a human being, a human life … Quoting what the Bible says in the context of its history and culture is not necessarily relevant or helpful–and may be a hindrance in trying to meet and solve the problems we face. …

“We are not bound by the letter of Scripture, but by the spirit. Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek, 35 to 50 years later, do not necessarily wield compelling authority over us today. The focus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as the Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do.

“As a biblical scholar, I view with dismay the misuse of scriptures by fundamentalists; as … Christians we listen with alarm to the simpleminded diagnoses and the simplistic panaceas proposed with smug self-assurance by Moral Majority people intent on curing the evils of this age.” <The Baptist Courier, Apr. 2, 1981; the Courier is the South Carolina SBC state paper.>

He concluded his address by saying,

“We are given authority by the Lord the Spirit to speak and to act, but we can never know in advance that we are doing the will of God. It is the height of presumption and arrogance to say, `I know this is God’s will, and I am doing it.’ No greater responsibility; no higher privilege is given to us than to hear and obey.”

These openly apostate statements caused quite a stir among conservative Christians, so much so that the American Bible Society actually began losing financial support. A report of the events which followed is given in a report by Homer Duncan of Lubbock, Texas:

“The American Bible Society was greatly embarrassed when Dr. Robert Bratcher, the principal translator [of the TEV] made the [previous] comments. …

“Later Bratcher apologized for the `tone of his remarks’ and said he `used language that was intemperate and that seemed to cast aspersions on those who do not agree with my position.’

“He went on to say, `I deeply regret the language I used and I apologize to those who were offended by it.’

“It should be noted that Bratcher only apologized for offending anyone, but did not apologize for the remarks themselves.

“Shortly after Bratcher made these statements the American Bible Society issued the following news release:

“`The American Bible Society wishes to state that it completely disassociates itself from the remarks made by Dr. Bratcher on that occasion and further states that in speaking as he did, Dr. Bratcher violated one of the Society’s basic rules. The American Bible Society, from the day of its founding 165 years ago to the present moment, has made it a cardinal principle not to engage in theological debate nor make comment on the doctrinal positions of the churches and constituencies it seeks impartially to serve. The first article of its constitution states that “its only purpose shall be to promote the distribution of the Holy Scriptures without doctrinal note or comment”… The controversial remarks which Dr. Bratcher made in Dallas have caused grave concern among many Bible-believing and Bible-loving people throughout the nation for which we are deeply sorry, and we hasten to assure all friends of the Bible cause that the historic motivation and mission of the American Bible Society remains unchanged; namely, the wider distribution of the Holy Scriptures throughout the world, without note or comment, in the languages people speak and at prices they can afford to pay.’

“Dr. Bratcher submitted his resignation as research assistant of the American Bible Society in a letter dated June 8th, stating: `Believing that the Bible cause which I love and which I have tried to serve in the years I have been associated with the American Bible Society will now best be served by my resignation from the ABS–I hereby submit my resignation.’

“Even though the Bible Society has repudiated Dr. Bratcher’s statement, they continue to promote and to sell the Good News Bible” <Homer Duncan, A Few Thoughts on Translations of the New Testament (Lubbock: MC International Publications), pp. 3-4.>

Further light into this situation is given by Robert L. Sumner in his report on the 1981 Southern Baptist Convention meeting:

“The uproar following Bratcher’s comments was so loud he was forced to apologize in a later press release for the `tone of his remarks,’ saying he ‘used language that was intemperate and that seemed to cast aspersions on those who do not agree with my position.’

As others have pointed out, he apologized only for offending people, not for the remarks themselves. In fact, the head of the SBC Christian Life Commission, Foy Valentine, declared, speaking of inerrancy … `in light of the reigning heresy, I am glad he said that.’

“Over two months after Bratcher made his statements in Dallas, and after the `society reportedly suffered severe financial losses (note this “key” to this action) since the Bratcher remarks, resulting among other things in a hiring freeze at its New York headquarters,’ the ABS requested Bratcher’s resignation. This action was announced in a press release on the opening day of the SBC meeting in Los Angeles and it is significant that Southern Baptists `contribute more to its work than do those of any other denomination.’ Apparently expedience, not conviction, resulted in Bratcher’s firing” <Robert L. Sumner, Christian News (July 20, 1981).>

THE BIBLE SOCIETY’S DUPLICITY IN CONDEMNING BRATCHER

There is no doubt whatsoever that expedience, not conviction, resulted in Bratcher’s forced resignation from the American Bible Society. For proof we offer the following facts:

One, the American Bible Society did not condemn Bratcher’s statements as heresy, but only expressed sorrow that some had been offended by those statements.

Two, the American Bible Society did not discontinue publication of the apostate translation which was produced by Bratcher and which reflects his theological heresies.

Three, many of the leaders and members of the American Bible Society continue to hold the same heresies as those stated by Bratcher in 1981, yet they remain in good standing within this organization because no public furor is made. This can easily be documented from our own files. In fact, we have provided much documentation along this line in our book, Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book, available from Way of Life Literature. See back cover of this book for ordering information.

Four, the American Bible Society published the Good News Bible with notes reflecting the same heretical views espoused by Bratcher at the 1981 SBC Christian Life Seminary:

“This monstrously unreliable paraphrase [Bratcher’s Good News Bible] has comments at the head of each book which are in harmony with the position about the Scriptures which Bratcher endorses. In his book, The Bible in the Balance, Lindsell says:

“`These introductions are fully in line with the higher critical methodology which undercuts the trustworthiness of the Bible. The introductions are skillfully put together to brainwash the reader without his being aware of what is happening. For example, none of the material contained in the introductions to the Pentateuch gives the reader the faintest notion that any portion of the five books of Moses was written by Moses. The introduction to the Book of Isaiah plainly states there were three Isaiahs, and the two who wrote Isaiah 40-66 did so after the events prophesied actually took place. The Book of Daniel is late-dated at 168 B.C., after the events occurred which are prophesied in the book. None of the Gospels are said to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. When it comes to the Pauline Epistles the readers will look in vain for any hint that Paul wrote Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, or that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter.'” <Robert L. Sumner, Christian News (July 20, 1981).>

How strange for an organization to profess shock and concern at theological statements it has long approved and published!

Five, the American Bible Society was well aware of Bratcher’s heretical views long before 1981. At least as early as 1953 Bratcher had denied Christ’s deity, and in earlier statements he had denied the inerrancy of Scripture. The Bible Society knew Bratcher’s theological views when they hired him.

An example of this is the following statement by Bratcher in 1968:

“The New Testament scriptures were written to specific situations, at specific times, to specific groups or individuals and in response to some felt need. The New Testament writers probably never intended their work to be the gospel record of the future–so there is not a sterile order to the scriptures.” <Dr. Robert Bratcher, The Baptist Courier (South Carolina Baptist Convention, February 22, 1968).>

Another example of Bratcher’s public denial of the faith was evidenced in 1970 and reported by the secular media:

“Translator for the controversial `Good News for Modern Man’ told Furman University [a Southern Baptist institution] students that to keep the Bible locked up in its archaic language would be to disparage history and the medium through which God chose to speak.” <The Greenville News (Greenville, SC, November 6, 1970).>

“On November 5, 1970, after a lecture at Furman University, Dr. Bratcher talked with students: `Are there historical sections of the Bible that are sub-Christian?’ asked a student.

“`Certainly. Wishing that God would destroy one’s enemies. You call that Christian?’

“`You admit that the Bible has fallacies; then how is it valuable?’ a student questioned.

“`If we build our faith wholly on the Bible, then we are building our faith on shifting sand. We must follow the facts or there is nothing to believe. We cannot literally follow Jesus, only go in his direction’.” <The Greenville News (November 8, 1970).>

In 1978 a report appeared in the Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, which again revealed Bratcher’s apostate views:

“[Christ’s] miraculous birth obscured [in the TEV]. Matthew 1:25 `…till she had brought forth her firstborn son.’ GNB [Good News Bible] omits `firstborn,’ and so obscures the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, `A virgin shall be with child.’

It is significant that in an article in the `Bible Translator several years ago Dr. Bratcher, the chief translator, argued at length that Isaiah 7:14 should read `a young woman.’ And so it is rendered in GNB, with an explicit footnote rejecting the translation `virgin’.” <Quarterly Record (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, January-March 1978, No. 462).>

Obviously the American Bible Society knew of Bratcher’s theological heresy long before 1981, yet the professed concern came only when there was a public outcry against some of his more blatant statements.

Six, Robert Bratcher has continued working with the United Bible Societies in the influential position of chief translations consultant.

FACT: The American Bible Society supplies approximately one-half of the operating expenses of the United Bible Societies overseas ministries. Thus the American Bible Society has continued to pay a large part of Bratcher’s salary even though he no longer works directly under them.

According to the Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, “An ecumenical team has been working on a new Bible in Brazilian Portuguese, for Brazil. This is expected to be published shortly, to be followed by a second edition containing the Apocrypha. The most prominent member of the translation committee is the Rev. Dr. Robert Bratcher, who is a UBS international translation consultant. He was the chief translator of the English `Good News Bible’.” <“Ecumenism and the United Bible Societies,” Quarterly Record (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, October-December 1985), pp. 27-28.>

In my possession is the Bulletin of the United Bible Societies, No. 138139, 1985. The listing contained therein of the UBS Committee Membership for that year leaves no doubt regarding Bratcher’s present official affiliation with the United Bible Societies. I will quote the relevant section titled “UBS Committee Membership (1985)”:

“The UBS is governed by a number of policy-making bodies. The UBS Council establishes the general policy of the UBS and reviews the actions of the General Committee and the progress of Bible Society work worldwide. The UBS General Committee between meetings of the Council formulates and reviews the general policy of the UBS. The General Committee appoints an Executive Committee from its own membership to act on its behalf to direct the general activities of the UBS and advises and directs the UBS staff. The Executive Committee appoints Sub-committees of the Executive Committee to carry out specific tasks at its request. The UBS Regional Committees develop and coordinate Bible Society policy in the region within the framework of global policy and make recommendations on all matters relating to the region to the appropriate committees and staff of the United Bible Societies.

“UBS Council Chairman: Miss Alice E. Ball, USA UBS General Committee Chairman: The Rev. Hugo Mayr, Australia … UBS Executive Committee Chairman: The Rev. James R. Payne MBE, Australia Global and Interregional Personnel Interregional Translation Consultants: The Rev. Dr. Robert G. Bratcher, USA The Rev. Dr. Barclay M. Newman, USA Dr. William L. Wonderley, USA”

We see from this that the entire business of Bratcher resigning from the American Bible Society and the Society’s supposed concern about Bratcher’s remarks was only politics. Nothing has changed. Bratcher continues to hold his damnable views of Christ and the Bible. The Bible Societies continue to support him, pay his salary, and employ him as a chief translations consultant in their work worldwide. They continue to print and promote the vile Today’s English Version. They continue to reproduce it through translations into the major languages of the globe. These are the fearful facts.

THE ROOM PROBLEM: UNBELIEF AND UNREGENERACY

Bratcher held a question and answer session October 13, 1970, at the First Baptist Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Following are four of the questions and answers:

Question: ‘Why did you leave out the blood of Jesus Christ in Romans 5:9 and 14 and other places?’ 
Answer: ‘It is a matter of translation.’ 
Question: ‘Do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour?’ 
Answer: Dr. Bratcher would not answer this question. 
Question: ‘Is the human heart by nature Man- centered or God-centered?’ 
Answer: ‘Let us stick with questions about translation.’ 
Question: ‘Is Jesus Christ God, or the same as God?’ 
Answer: ‘Jesus is not the same personality as God.’ <Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual (Millersburg: Bible Truth Institute, 1975), pp. 9899.>

On October 15, 1970, Bratcher held a question and answer session at the First Baptist Church, North Augusta, South Carolina. Before anyone could ask a question, the group was advised they could not ask Bratcher questions relating to his theology. Following is one question asked him:

Question: ‘If you should die, do you know you would go to heaven?’ 
Answer: Dr. Bratcher would not answer this question.’ <Donald T. Clarke, Bible Version Manual (Millersburg: Bible Truth Institute, 1975), pp. 9899.>

The Bible says, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so …” It is VERY strange for a Bible translator to refuse to testify to his salvation. The problem with many Christian leaders today, though, is that they have no salvation of which to testify.

[…] The anti-Catholic (mis)interpretations have been removed by me -Michael

We urge our readers to avoid the Good News Bible and to be careful not to give money to support its distribution. Many popular evangelical organizations support and distribute it, often without saying they are standing behind a liberal paraphrase. Be careful that you do not support its distribution unawares. Remember that the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies are the owners and largest promoters of apostate Bibles.

Bible Translations Guide

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide
EXTRACT

The “Good News Bible” or TEV is especially known for non-traditional renderings. For example, “the abomination of desolation” referred to in the book of Daniel and the Gospels is called “the awful horror,” and the ark of the covenant is known as “the covenant box.” …

We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the
TEV, and suggest using the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. This is a Church-approved version of the RSV that has a few, minor changes in the New Testament.

Comparing Bible Versions (Protestant source)

http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/compare.htm
EXTRACT

By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

Today’s English Version

Score: 30%

The TEV is an only slightly less heretical paraphrase than the
Contemporary English Version*, which more perfects the heresies espoused by the American and Canadian Bible Societies.

Zechariah 12:10 hides the Trinity by translating “on Me” as “at the one.”

Like the CEV, John 14:26 is worded to allow an impersonal view of the Holy Spirit.

The full meaning of repentance is concealed in Mark 1:15, Matthew 21:32, and 2 Timothy 2:25, depicting repentance as only “turning from sins” and not “turning to God.”

Only Genesis 1:2, John 1:1-4, and Luke 24:47-49 were actually translated properly.

A person reading this trash is not reading the Bible, but is wasting his or her time.

*Contemporary English Version

Score: 20%

The CEV would seem to be an even more heretical follow-up to the insipid “Today’s English Version” or “Good News Bible.” It was easy to find one for comparison at the used bookstore; it seems like a lot of them get traded in when people realize what a cesspool of heresy it really is. The TEV/GNB that the CEV succeeds is about 30% accurate, having the same problems in principle as the CEV but in a lower abundance.

[…] This is a total perversion of God’s word.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

‘Good News Bible’ translator Bob Bratcher dies

https://baptistnews.com/archives/item/5338-good-news-bible-translator-bob-bratcher-dies
EXTRACT

July 13, 2010 

Chapel Hill, N.C. (ABP) Robert Bratcher, the New Testament translator for the Good News Bible, died July 11 at the Carol Woods retirement community in Chapel Hill, N.C. He was 90.

Born in Brazil the son of L. M. Bratcher, a Southern Baptist missionary for 35 years, Bob Bratcher taught at Baptist Theological Seminary in Rio de Janeiro from 1949 until 1956, when he resigned from the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board in a dispute over his teaching.

Since he had worked with the American Bible Society in revising a Brazilian Bible, Bratcher asked Eugene Nida, executive secretary of the ABS Translations Department, to recommend him for a teaching position in the United States. Nida invited Bratcher to work with him at the Bible society “in the meantime,” which turned out to be until Bratcher’s retirement in 1995.

“Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible,” Bratcher said. “No truth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god.”

Determining him to be a liability, ABS officials decided Bratcher should be dismissed, but overseas colleagues in the United Bible Societies, the umbrella fellowship of 145 individual Bible societies including ABS, supported him. Eventually Bratcher agreed to resign from the ABS but continued to do the same job as a consultant for the United Bible Societies. After retiring he continued to work with the Brazilian Bible Society. […]

“They felt that way that faithfulness was being preserved, but that is not necessarily true,” Bratcher explained in the 2003 interview with Robert Seymour, his former pastor, on WCHL radio in Chapel Hill.

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/WHICH_BIBLE_VERSIONS_ARE_RECOMMENDED_FOR_USE_BY_CATHOLICS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 01-A CRITIQUE 14 JULY 2008

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_01-A_CRITIQUE.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 02-THE PAPAL SEMINARY, PUNE, INDIAN THEOLOGIANS, AND THE CATHOLIC ASHRAMS 18 SEPTEMBER 2008/SEPTEMBER 2009/APRIL 2012

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_02-THE_PAPAL_SEMINARY_PUNE_INDIAN_THEOLOGIANS_AND_THE_CATHOLIC_ASHRAMS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 03-A FRENCH THEOLOGIAN DENOUNCES ERRORS IN THE COMMENTARIES 24
FEBRUARY 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_03-A_FRENCH_THEOLOGIAN_DENOUNCES_ERRORS_IN_THE_COMMENTARIES.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 04-THE ONGOING ROBBERY OF FAITH 24
FEBRUARY 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_04-THE_ONGOING_ROBBERY_OF_FAITH.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 05-THE ANGEL GABRIEL DID NOT APPEAR TO THE VIRGIN MARY 15 MARCH 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_05-THE_ANGEL_GABRIEL_DID_NOT_APPEAR_TO_THE_VIRGIN_MARY.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 06-PRESS REPORTS AND READERS’ CRITICISMS 22 MARCH/DECEMBER 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_06-PRESS_REPORTS_AND_READERS_CRITICISMS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 06A-EPHESIANS-511.NET PRESS REPORTS
MARCH 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_06A-EPHESIANS-511.NET_PRESS_REPORTS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 07-UNPUBLISHED LETTERS AGAINST ITS ERRONEOUS COMMENTARIES-THE EXAMINER MAY 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_07-UNPUBLISHED_LETTERS_AGAINST_ITS_ERRONEOUS_COMMENTARIES-THE_EXAMINER.doc     

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 08-LETTERS CALLING FOR ITS WITHDRAWAL 31 DECEMBER 2008/DECEMBER 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_08-LETTERS_CALLING_FOR_ITS_WITHDRAWAL.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 09-LETTER TO THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH APRIL-MAY 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_09-LETTER_TO_THE_CONGREGATION_FOR_THE_DOCTRINE_OF_THE_FAITH.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 10-CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECULAR MEDIA, AND WITH PRIEST-CRITICS OF OUR CRUSADE AGAINST ITS ERRORS MAY 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_10-CORRESPONDENCE_WITH_THE_SECULAR_MEDIA_AND_WITH_PRIEST-CRITICS_OF_OUR_CRUSADE_AGAINST_ITS_ERRORS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 10A-A CATECHETICAL MINISTRY LAUDS THE HINDUISED BIBLE MARCH 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_10A-A_CATECHETICAL_MINISTRY_LAUDS_THE_HINDUISED_BIBLE.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 11-VATICAN HELD RESPONSIBLE, BRAHMIN LEADERS DEMAND ITS WITHDRAWAL 25 JUNE 2009/DECEMBER 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_11-VATICAN_HELD_RESPONSIBLE_BRAHMIN_LEADERS_DEMAND_ITS_WITHDRAWAL.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 12-LETTERS TO ROME JUNE 2009/AUGUST 2013

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_12-LETTERS_TO_ROME.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 13-RESPONSES FROM THE BISHOPS AND THEIR EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONS AUGUST 2009

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_13-RESPONSES_FROM_THE_BISHOPS_AND_THEIR_EXECUTIVE_COMMISSIONS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 14-UKRAINIAN ORTHODOX GREEK CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL IT A NEW AGE BIBLE, “EXCOMMUNICATE” INDIAN BISHOPS
MARCH 2010/APRIL 2012

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_14-UKRAINIAN_ORTHODOX_GREEK_CATHOLIC_BISHOPS_CALL_IT_A_NEW_AGE_BIBLE_EXCOMMUNICATE_INDIAN_BISHOPS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 15-DEMAND FOR ORDINATION OF WOMEN PRIESTS-FR SUBHASH ANAND AND OTHERS
APRIL 2010/JULY 2010/APRIL 2012/17 MARCH/10 APRIL 2013

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_15-DEMAND_FOR_ORDINATION_OF_WOMEN_PRIESTS-FR_SUBHASH_ANAND_AND_OTHERS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 16-CRITIQUE BY DERRICK D’COSTA
JULY 2010

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_16-CRITIQUE_BY_DERRICK_DCOSTA.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 17-EXTOLLED BY CAMALDOLI BENEDICTINE OBLATE 1/5/10 MAY 2013

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_17-EXTOLLED_BY_CAMALDOLI_BENEDICTINE_OBLATE.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 18-REVISED EDITION COMING, ST PAULS IN DENIAL JULY 2010/DECEMBER 2011

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_18-REVISED_EDITION_COMING_ST_PAULS_IN_DENIAL.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 19-REVISED EDITION PUBLISHED A YEAR AFTER DENIAL JULY 2010/DECEMBER 2011

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_19-REVISED_EDITION_PUBLISHED_A_YEAR_AFTER_DENIAL.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 20-HALF-TRUTHS FROM CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS 28 JUNE 2013

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_20-HALF-TRUTHS_FROM_CARDINAL_OSWALD_GRACIAS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 21-INDIAN CHURCH’S SYNCRETIZED BIBLE EXPORTED 7 MARCH/6/9/24/30 MAY/5 JUNE, 2013

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_21-INDIAN_CHURCHS_SYNCRETIZED_BIBLE_EXPORTED.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 22-BISHOP AGNELO GRACIAS DEFENDS IT YET IT IS PULLED FOR REVISION FEBRUARY 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_22-BISHOP_AGNELO_GRACIAS_DEFENDS_IT_YET_IT_IS_PULLED_FOR_REVISION.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 23-EDDIE RUSSELL CALLS IT A HINDUISED HERETICAL BIBLE FEBRUARY 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_23-EDDIE_RUSSELL_CALLS_IT_A_HINDUISED_HERETICAL_BIBLE.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 24-WHAT WERE THE REVISIONS MADE IN IT FEBRUARY 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_24-WHAT_WERE_THE_REVISIONS_MADE_IN_IT.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 25-REVISED EDITION NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CATHOLICS FEBRUARY 2015,

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_25-REVISED_EDITION_NOT_RECOMMENDED_FOR_CATHOLICS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 26-RESPONSES TO REVISED EDITION NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CATHOLICS
MARCH 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_26-RESPONSES_TO_REVISED_EDITION_NOT_RECOMMENDED_FOR_CATHOLICS.doc

NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 27-CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS STILL IN DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ERRORS
MARCH 2015

http://ephesians-511.net/docs/NEW_COMMUNITY_BIBLE_27-CARDINAL_OSWALD_GRACIAS_STILL_IN_DENIAL_OF_RESPONSIBILITY_FOR_ITS_ERRORS.doc

Categories: Liturgical Abuses, PROTESTANTISM, The Catechism of the Catholic Church