We have been asked a number of times recently about a new version

of the New Testament that is being widely circulated today. We feel

compelled to set forth very good reasons why we cannot recommend,

"Good News for Modern Man" -- "The New Testament in Today's English



In 1952 when the "REVISED STANDARD VERSION" of the Bible was

published, there were many preachers who stood up and opposed it

across the nation. In 16 short years, many preachers must have lost

their protest. Even though the "Today's English Version" (hereafter

referred to by TEV), is just as bad as the "Revised Standard Version"

in some places, we have heard very little protest against it. Thank

God for a few who have spoken out on the subject. May this cause

others to make a serious study of this poor translation of the Bible,

and to sound the alarm.


The TEV Bible seems to have something against the word "virgin".

In the "King James Version" (hereafter referred to by KJV), we find

the word "virgin" 14 times in the New Testament. The TEV Bible re-

moves "virgin" from 11 of these places, and retains it in only 3 of

these passages. Note the following passage:

Luke 1:27 KJV, "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 TEV, "He had a message for a girl promised in marriage

to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. The girl's

name was Mary."

Note how that virgin is changed to girl in the TEV. There is a

world of difference in the meaning of the two words. Sad to say, many

girls are not virgins. This poor and unwise translation of Luke 1:27

should be enough to convince the average Bible believing Christian to

reject the TEV, but there is more to come.


The TEV was copyrighted in 1966 by the American Bible Society. A

"Second Edition" was printed in 1968 and was also printed under the

1966 copyright. The outside cover and inside printing along with the

line drawings look almost exactly the same, except for "Second Edi-

tion" being printed on the end of the cover jacket in fairly small

type. There is absolutely nothing that we can see in the preface or

anywhere else in the "Second Edition" that would indicate the vast

difference between the first edition and the "Second Edition" when we

compare the two translations of Luke 1:27.

Luke 1:27 TEV, 1966 edition: "He had a message for a virgin who

was promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant

of King David. The virgin's name was Mary."

Luke 1:27 TEV, 1968 edition: "He had a message for a girl prom-

ised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King

David. 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". Is this another form of

the old shell game, now you see it, now you don't? The preface to

both editions are exactly the same. There is nothing to suggest any

such radical and unwise changes, as found in Luke 1:27, have been

made. Please notice the following quotation from the preface of both


"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. Verses marked with brackets are not in the

oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament.

"The basic text was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher; the

line drawings were prepared by Mlle. Annie Valoton."


It might be well to ask a few questions about the above mentioned

text and the translator, Dr. Robert G. Bratcher. Was the word "vir-

gin" in the text used in translating Luke 1:27 in the 1966 edition?

If it was, how did it get out of the 1968 "Second Edition"? What kind

of translator would put "virgin" in the 1966 edition and take it out

and substitute "girl" in the 1968 "Second Edition"? Was "virgin" put

in the 1966 edition to make it look pretty good to keep an RSV type

protest from developing and then taken out two years later when it

seemed safe to do so? Even the Revised Standard Version of 1952,

which was sponsored by the modernistic National Council of Churches

does not remove the word "virgin" from Luke 1:27.

In our opinion, the TEV is just one more attack on the Word of

God, and the Deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How the devil

hates the Word of God and the Deity of Christ, and would do anything

to destroy the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.


Matt. 25:1 KJV: "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened

unto ten virgins..."

Matt. 25:1, TEV: "On that day the Kingdom of heaven will be like

ten girls..."

How easy it is to see the difference in the King James Version

and the TEV.

Matt 25:7 KJV: "Then all those virgins arose..."

Matt 25:7 TEV: "The ten girls woke up..."

The TEV removes "Virgin" also from Matt 25:11; 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.


The Greek word "PARTHENOS" which is translated "virgin" 14 times

in the King James Version, means "virgin" and should be so translated

in any reliable version. The translator of the TEV must not have

believed in verbal inspiration, for "virgin" is inserted in Luke 1:34

where it is not found in the original text. While it is true as far

as the interpretation of Luke 1:34 goes, it is not a translation, for

no word for "virgin" appears in the original text. Since it is not in

the original anyway, it will be no problem for the translator or the

publisher to take it out later.


Surely conservative Bible scholars among Southern Baptists know

better than to approve this poor and misleading translation of the

Bible. However, we do not believe that the conservative Bible Schol-

ars have been making the decisions for a long time in the Southern

Baptist Convention.

Why did the Baptist General Convention of Texas buy and distrib-

ute 1,400,000 copies of the TEV? The Lubbock Baptist Churches (SBC)

were to distribute copies to 10,000 people in Lubbock alone.

We contend that the KJV is far superior in accuracy, clarity, and

literary beauty. Even if a new version were needed in the English

today, we do not believe that the TEV could qualify as an honest

effort to fill that need.


The above quoted headline appeared recently in the Lubbock Ava-

lanche-Journal over the name "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. It's the so-called

`Today's English Version' of the New Testament, known as `TEV' for

short. Published by the American Bible Society, the TEV has

racked up a phenomenal sale of 15 million copies since it was put

into circulation in Sept., 1966. Neither the Revised Standard

Version (RSV), the New English Bible (NEB), nor any other modern

English translation has come close to matching TEV in annual


"TEV sales should soar even higher in the year ahead because the

translation has received the official approval, or imprimatur, of

Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Catholic archbishop of Boston, It

was Cardinal Cushing who earlier gave an imprimatur to the Protes-

tant-sponsored Revised Standard Version.

"Protestant and Catholic scholars in recent years have reached

substantial agreement on the translation of the Bible into Eng-

lish, and Cardinal Cushing's expert consultants did not seek a

single change in the text of the TEV before approving it for

Catholic use.

"A committee of scholars headed by Dr. Bratcher is still at work

on the Old Testament portion of the TEV. It is scheduled for

publication in 1973."

We believe that the above article by Louis Cassels is self-

explanatory and needs very little comment. Bible believing Christians

might well beware of anything that the Roman Catholic Church is en-

dorsing. The TEV seems to be fitting in right well into the plans for

the Ecumenical One World Church.


The leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention liked the TEV

so well that their publishing company (Broadman Press) had the Ameri-

can Bible Society publish a special edition for them. In this edition

they added Footnotes and Auxiliary material and this part is copy-

righted by Broadman Press. None of these footnotes correct the faulty

text. The text in the Broadman edition follows the Second Edition

text, although we could not find any place where it says so.

The RSV Bible of the 50's was pushed by the Southern Baptists in

their Book Stores, State papers and literature, but it was never

accepted by the people as a whole. Now they have solved that problem

with the TEV; they are just giving it away by the multiplied millions,

and this operation is being financed by the tithes and offerings of

many sound Bible believing Southern Baptists.

Now the Roman Catholics have endorsed the TEV. What strange

bedfellows we find today. The Roman Catholics endorsed it and the

Southern Baptists are giving it away by the millions. We would like

for some good Southern Baptist to explain that to the people.


Those who are promoting the TEV must have learned a lot from the

experience that they had with the RSV. When the RSV was published in

the early 50's, the protest was enormous. The flap of the RSV carried

the names of 22 men who had helped with the translation. Most of them

were well-known modernist, who had already written books, articles,

and sermons which set forth their very unorthodox beliefs. Of course,

the modernistic record of these men was definitely a hindrance to the

sale of the RSV. Leading fundamental preacher began to expose these

unbelieving translators and the eyes of the people were opened.

However, it seems that the TEV promoters were determined not to

make the same mistake. They printed on page iv: "The basic text was

translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher." It seems little is known of Dr.

Bratcher, but is evident that his theological views must be very close

to that of the modernistic RSV translators.


The devil and the modernists hate the blood. Especially the

blood of Christ. Some denominations have sought to take the word

"blood" out of their song books, and we believe this is a serious

error; but when men dare to take the "BLOOD" out of the Bible, they

commit a far graver error.

Notice how the meaning of these verses are clouded by leaving out

the "blood".

Col. 1:14 KJV: "In whom we have REDEMPTION through HIS BLOOD,

even the forgiveness of sins."

Col. 1:14 TEV: "By whom we are set free and our sins are forgiv-


Notice that the TEV leaves out "redemption" and "blood". We

contend that this is a poor, obscure and misleading translation. But,

let us notice another:

Col. 1:20 KJV: "And, have made peace through the blood of his


Col. 1:20 TEV: "...God made peace through his Son's death on the


How the devil must laugh in glee when he hears the TEV, as it

leaves out the blood in passage after passage.

Heb. 10:19 KJV: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter

into the holiest by THE BLOOD OF JESUS."

Heb. 10:19 TEV: "We have then, brothers, complete freedom to go

into the Most Holy Place by means of the death of Jesus."

This translation of Heb. 10:19 destroys the Old Testament type.

The High Priest could not enter the holy of holies without the blood

on the day of atonement. (Lev. 16:15). Without the blood he dare not

enter. No matter how many animals had died, he could not enter the

holiest place without the blood.

1 Peter 1:19 KJV: "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a

lamb without blemish and without spot."

1 Peter 1:19 TEV: "...By the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was

like a lamb without defect or spot."

Rev. 1:5 KJV: "...Unto him that loved us, and WASHED us from our

sins in HIS OWN BLOOD."

Rev. 1:5 TEV: "...He loves us, and by his death he has freed us

from our sins."

We think that a comparison of the above scriptures will convince

our readers that the TEV New Testament has left out many important

scriptures that speak of the "BLOOD" of our blessed Lord and Savior

Jesus Christ. They did not leave "blood" out of all scriptures, as

this would be too obvious. However, we do give the references of some

of the other places where the "BLOOD" is left out. See Matt

27:4,24,25; Act 5:28; 17:26; 20:28; Rom.3:25; 5:9; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; and

Rev. 5:9.


We have already pointed out the attack upon the VIRGIN BIRTH of

Christ, giving particular attention to Luke 1:27 where a "virgin" is

left out of this verse twice. If Christ was not VIRGIN BORN, then we

have no savior. The modernist have been denying the Virgin Birth for

many years. But this is not the only way to attack the deity of Jesus


Note the following scriptures where an obvious attempt has been

made to make Joseph the father of Jesus.

Luke 2:23 KJV, "And Joseph and his mother marveled..."

Luke 2:33 TEV, "The child's father and mother were amazed..."

Luke 2:43 KJV, "...Joseph and his mother knew not of it."

Luke 2:43 TEV, "...His parents did not know this..."

This could be nothing but an attempt to make it appear that

Joseph was the father of our Lord. Notice the next scripture leaves


John 3:16 KJV, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only

begotten son..."

John 3:16 TEV, "for God love the world so much that he gave his

only Son..."

The TEV also leaves "BEGOTTEN" out in John 1:14,18; 3:18; Acts

13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; and I 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, and


In John 9:35, the TEV changes "Son of God" to "Son of Man". In

scripture after scripture, we see how the TEV weakens the truth con-

cerning the eternal deity of Christ, in relationship to creation,

redemption and many other Bible doctrines.

Eph. 3:9 KJV, "...God, who created all things by Jesus Christ."

Eph. 3:9 TEV, "...God, who is the Creator of all things..."

In Col. 1:2 and I Thess. 1:1 we are told in the KJV that "Peace"

comes from "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In both in-

stances the TEV leaves out "Lord Jesus Christ." We believe this is

wicked and sinful.

Rev. 1:11 KJV, "Saying I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the


In the TEV this is left entirely out. In Rev. 1:8 KJV we are

told that Christ is "the beginning and the ending," but in the TEV

this is left out. In Rev. 5:14 KJV, we are told that the Lamb "Liveth

forever and ever," but in the TEV this is left out.

Time after time the TEV leaves out "Christ" or "Lord" when speak-

ing of our Lord Jesus Christ. We object to this changing of the

Scriptures in order to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ.


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. The plan of salva-

tion, so vital to the sinner, is confused in a number of places. Note

the following:

I Peter 2:2 KJV, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the

word, that ye may grow thereby."

I Peter 2:2 TEV, "Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the

pure spiritual milk, so that by drinking it you may grow up and be


In this scripture, the TEV changes the wording in such a manner

to make salvation the result of works. In the KJV, the scripture

rightly reads, and teaches Christian growth and maturity.


Rev 22:18, 19 KJV, "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 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."

Deut. 4:2 KJV, "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."

Deut. 12:32 KJV, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do

it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."


Saving faith is produced by hearing the Word of God. "So then

faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10:17,

"For by grace are ye saved through faith..." Eph. 2:8. When man

begins to change the Bible, he is changing the very Word that produces

faith, and we would say that this is a dangerous thing to say the

least. The Bible is not the writings of men, "but holy men of God

spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1:21.

Modernism would like to take away the purity and the power of the

Word of God. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried

in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12:6. "Thou has

magnified thy word above all they name." Psalm 138:2. "...The scrip-

ture cannot be broken." John 10:35


"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 ful-

filled." 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 de-

stroyed." Vincent.

We are told that "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of

God," is an essential part of the Christian soldier's equipment. Eph.

6:17. Indeed without the Word of God, man cannot have salvation or

any part of the Christian armour. "The word of God is quick, and

powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword..." Heb.4:12. Some may

want to go into battle with a "sword" that has been nicked, broken,

twisted, and damaged, but we prefer the pure word of God, a sword that

will never fail. The Bible warns us of false prophets who would come

in the last days. They will continue to try to change God's word, but

they will ultimately fail.


"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but THE WORD OF OUR GOD

SHALL STAND FOREVER." Isaiah 40:8. God will keep his word. Keep your

King James Version of the Bible and reject these Christ-denying ver-

sions of the Bible. Don't be deceived!

Reproduced by:

Holy Alamo Christian Church, Consecrated

P.O. Box 398, Alma, AR 72921




OK! New Christian...What Now? | Bible verse for every letter of the alphabet.| Church History Summary.| The Christian Message.| Election. | Is Hebrews 6 a warning? | Seven Incontestable Questions. | Ironside: Agnosticism. | Issues Of The Heart - J. MacArthur. | Natural Laws and God's Laws. | Possession: The Devil Made Me Do It! | The Preisthood Of All Believers. | Why Jesus? | Knowing Why You Believe - Evidence - Bible. | Discussions With Unbelievers. | Inerrancy. | What Does It Mean To Be A Christian? | First Adam; Then Eve; then what? | What Will People Think? | Perfect For All Time. | Jesus Is Lord. | Spiritual Strength And Power. | The Biblical Calendar Of History. | Studying Your Bible. | Computer Analysis Of The Books Of The Bible. | Early Christianity - Is The Record Sound? | The Bible - The Most Popular Book. | Credentials Of The Bible. | Doomed - to Hell. | Faith And Works In The Plan Of God. | Others Can But You Can't. | Impositions - giving to God and by God. | Why Did Christ Die? | The Successful Christian - #1. | The Successful Christian - #2. | Is It What We Say Or What We Are? | Forty-day Bible Study. | Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation? | How To Overcome Sin - Charles Finney. Death. | Why We Reject This Version. | How Does God Keep His Promises? | Radical Genesis Evangelicals.

 This article is from www.BelieversCafe.com