An Open Letter to Cheryl

Bible Versions Article - BV.0100

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

At the bottom is my email to "Cheryl", which followed a series of emails on several topics. In it, I raise a new issue of concern regarding her beliefs. To avoid arguments and wasted time, I summarized the issue and asked whether she would reconsider her position. In her response, just above my email, she effectively says 'no' and closes the issue.

In respect of her wishes, I have not responded further on the issue. More importantly, in obedience to God's word at (I Cor 14:38), I intend to let her be ignorant. But, because the issue is so important, I post my thoughts here below in open reply to her comments, for the benefit of the church.

I have re-copied her email below in purple and will intersperse my comments throughout it in blue.

From: Cheryl at XXXXXXXX (address deleted)
Sent: April-28-08 7:38 PM
To: Mike (name deleted)
Subject: Re: The Word of Truth

Dear Mike (name deleted),

Regarding authority:

[The comment in para 7 below is actually mine but is purple because Cheryl quoted me in her reply.]

"7. But when it comes to receiving instruction from that one true God, you speak as if there are many words of God. No, Cheryl. Consistent with the list above, there is one true word of God and many false words of God." You have accurately quoted me here, Cheryl and it is obvious from your reply that my assessment was correct.

God's word is authoritative as it was given in the original languages. Then you do not have an authoritative copy of God's word to read today. You do not have God's word in the original languages. You do not have God's word in the original manuscripts, and by your own admission, you do not primarily "use" a translation of God's word in English in your DVDs.

No translation into another language is an inspired translation although most translators have done a very good job of translating. You don't know what you're talking about.

First, no translation is inspired, because God did not inspire translations, nor did he inspire the originals (Read II Tim 3:16 in God's word). So your point is moot.

Second, what you meant is that the originals were inspired but that none of the translations were inspired; therefore the originals are authoritative, but the translations are not. Again you are wrong – on two counts.

First, as proven, the originals were not inspired.

Second, the translations of God's word are equally authoritative to the originals and are more beneficial to the reader than are the originals. You seek man's authority to "prove" your points; I will continue to seek God's authority - my final authority - the authorized and inerrant King James Bible.

There are three examples of translations in the bible:

Enoch was translated,

Saul's kingdom was translated into David's kingdom, and

We are to be translated into the kingdom of God's son.

In every case the state of the translation was an improvement over the original, to the benefit of God's people.

You are also wrong about the authority of translations in language. Pharaoh spoke in Egyptian but Moses translated his words and wrote them in Hebrew. Joseph spoke to the Egyptians in Egyptian but Moses wrote his words in Hebrew. Paul spoke to the Jews in Hebrew but his words were recorded in Acts 22 in Greek. So, there are many scriptural examples of translations that were recorded in the "original" scripture that are authoritative, and that you - in ignorance - would acknowledge were authoritative before realizing that there were actually translations.

Finally, you have proudly set yourself up in judgment over translators whom you don't even know, when you lack the knowledge and experience to determine whether they have "done a very good job of translating" or not. Which translators fit into your category of "most" who have done a good job? Which ones don't? Who says whether they have done a good job or not?

You? (Then you are proud and are not judging righteous judgment.)

Someone else whom you respect – a professor, pastor, theologian? (Then you are looking to man; not to God.)

If there is one official God-inspired translation into each language, I would like to know which one it is. I have already named it – the authorized King James Bible.

Which Italian translation is inspired? Which German translation? Which Chinese translation? Your argument is fallacious because you and I both read English and can clearly understand the King James. You are trying to justify the existence of other English "bibles" - when God has already given us his word in English - by arguing that you can't find God's word in a language that you don't even understand. That's ridiculous. It would seem to me that you might not want to read and obey God's word in the English that he gave you, so you concoct fallacious excuses and look for a book that tells you what you want to hear. (II Tim 4:3, 4)

This is one area that Matt Slick and I are in perfect agreement. That is cause for concern; not something about which to boast.

God's word as originally God-breathed (You are adding to God's word. Take heed. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Prov 30:6) is completely inspired (you have no scripture to support this) and completely authoritative. It continues to be authoritative. So why don't you read it, believe it, and obey it?

This is why I spend much of my time in the Greek and Hebrew texts (You don't know Greek or Hebrew. What are you trying to imply by saying this?) looking up the words and checking the grammar. So you look to man's authority – dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, and concordances - to understand what you think God is saying to you in a language that you don't even know when he has given you perfectly understandable English.

Sometimes I have found that the KJV text brings out the original words the best. Sometimes? So you have made yourself to be a judge of God's word? You don't have the "original" words, so how can you know what "brings out the original words the best"? God says that his words are "perfect," so who are you to say that other words written by man are "best"? Have you become a judge of the law?

Other times some important words are missing in a scripture, How do you know if something is missing? Are you referring here to words missing in God's word – the King James Bible – or are you referring here to words missing in one of the false 'bibles'? What is the perfect text that you are using in order to sit in judgment of God's word and to determine this? even though the ideas are still in the bible elsewhere. God did not promise to preserve his ideas. He promised to preserve his words.

No translation is perfect (You are calling God a liar. Take heed.) and that is why we are told to work hard to study to show ourselves approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. God has commanded us to search, to study and to continue in the scriptures – his word. His word is perfect. He has not commanded us to work hard to study false words and try to find truth in false words. That thinking makes no sense. God is holy. His word is truth. His words are pure and perfect. You openly admit that you study words that are not perfect, but you don't see that by doing so you are judging yourself to be studying something that is NOT God's word; and you are calling God a liar at the same time. Take heed, Cheryl.

At times I need to go away from the KJV (You never need to depart from God's word – the truth). when working with a cult member (You become a cult member by following man when you depart from the words of truth. You are the blind leading the blind.) because the KJV misses some important things (Again you are calling God a liar and are sitting in judgment of his word. Take heed.) that I use to prove the Deity of Christ. You do no such thing. You are deceiving yourself and those who you claim to be teaching. In our DVDs we use the NASB primarily. You have condemned yourself. Even Frank Logsdon wouldn't use the NASB; so why would you?

I hope that helps. (Helps? Who asked for help? Who is it that you are trying to help? I simply asked if you were interested in reconsidering your thinking.)

I wouldn't think that you hold Matt Slick as superior to me (From where did this comment come? You seem insecure.) in this area as we are in agreement regarding bible translations. (Agreement with Matt Slick does not prove you have the truth. Again you are looking to man for truth and for comfort or consolation in affirmation of your beliefs. Cheryl, look to God. Let God be true and every man a liar. Matt Slick is a Calvinist. He worships a God who arbitrarily destines some to heaven and some to hell. That is not the God of the bible. It is no surprise that he too does not recognize the truth.)

I think my answer to your one point above pretty much answers your email. You didn't bother to simply answer my question; but yes, you have certainly conveyed your opinion and your incorrigibility. If it is an argument about which translation is the best, I prefer not to argue about that. I have no interest in arguing with you or with anyone else. I simply asked if you were willing to reconsider your thinking. Obviously, you are not. But no, I did not suggest that we argue about which translation is the best. I just would like you to see which translation is God's word and which ones aren't. "Best" and "better" are not the words God used to describe his own word. He says that his words are pure and perfect.

I stick to the original languages myself (Which you admit that you don't even know. How ludicrous; especially given that your soul is at stake.) but also do research in many translations (None of which are God's word, so you are only confusing yourself further.) and I find that pretty much they all agree. (Then you aren't much of a student, let alone a scholar, because there are thousands of examples that prove disagreement.)

Sometimes one has a different English word that is perfectly acceptable (Perfectly acceptable? Says who? Who decides? Who is the final authority? OH, I see. YOU are the final authority, Cheryl. YOU decide what is acceptable and what is not. YOU decide what is missing and what is not. YOU decide what God really means and what he does not. For example, when God commands that leaders in the church must be "the husband of one wife" YOU decide that he obviously does not mean the "husband of one wife" but that he means "a woman who teaches good doctrine." Isn't that convenient? You are a woman. You want to teach. So, you change God's word and make it look like God endorses what you are doing. Woe unto you.) but a couple of words together might give more of the flavor of the Greek. What "Greek" do you mean? Obviously, you are not referring to the Greek that God wrote. Your new versions are based on the Westcott and Hort Greek. Besides, how do you possibly know what "flavor" [sic] was intended in the Greek? You don't have the originals, and you couldn't read them in Greek, even if you had them.

If you believe that all of us are completely deceived (Yes I do; and yes you are.) because we study the original languages and don't hold to only one translation as the English authority, then we will just have to agree to disagree. So, as an answer to my question, I understand you to be saying "No, [you] are not willing to reconsider". Okay. I would like to have helped…

(But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. I Cor 14:38) (Which I note in your NASB "bible" says: But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.) Of course, you would say that these say exactly the same thing, wouldn't you Cheryl?

Blessings,
Cheryl XXXXXX (name deleted)

From: Cheryl at XXXXXXXX (address deleted)

Sent: April-28-08 7:38 PM
To: Mike (name deleted)
Subject: Re: The Word of Truth

Dear Mike (name deleted),

Regarding authority:

7. But when it comes to receiving instruction from that one true God, you speak as if there are many words of God. No, Cheryl. Consistent with the list above, there is one true word of God and many false words of God.

God's word is authoritative as it was given in the original languages. No translation into another language is an inspired translation although most translators have done a very good job of translating. If there is one official God-inspired translation into each language, I would like to know which one it is. Which Italian translation is inspired? Which German translation? Which Chinese translation?

This is one area that Matt Slick and I are in perfect agreement. God's word as originally God-breathed is completely inspired and completely authoritative. This is why I spend much of my time in the Greek and Hebrew texts looking up the words and checking the grammar. Sometimes I have found that the KJV text brings out the original words the best. Other times some important words are missing in a scripture, even though the ideas are still in the bible elsewhere. No translation is perfect and that is why we are told to work hard to study to show ourselves approved a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.

At times I need to go away from the KJV when working with a cult member because the KJV misses some important things that I use to prove the Deity of Christ. In our DVDs we use the NASB primarily.

I hope that helps. I wouldn't think that you hold Matt Slick as superior to me in this area as we are in agreement regarding bible translations. I think my answer to your one point above pretty much answers your email. If it is an argument about which translation is the best, I prefer not to argue about that. I stick to the original languages myself but also do research in many translations and I find that pretty much they all agree. Sometimes one has a different English word that is perfectly acceptable but a couple of words together might give more of the flavor of the Greek. If you believe that all of us are completely deceived because we study the original languages and don't hold to only one translation as the English authority, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Blessings,
Cheryl XXXXXX

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Mike wrote:

Cheryl,

1. We have begun to study the DVD material you sent us and I have also listened to two radio programs that you did with Matt Slick. As a result, I would like to raise a new subject of discussion with you.

2. I ... (intro deleted) have some experience with two factors that pertain specifically to this issue, as follows:

a. the need for a final authority, and

b. the need for clear and accurate communication.

3. Disputes between two parties cannot be resolved unless someone has the final authority in the matter. For this reason, a pastor and his board cannot have equal authority. Parents and their children cannot have equal authority. A husband and his wife cannot have equal authority. At every level, laws, rules, regulations, orders, policies, etc, must all be issued by a single authority, not by conflicting equal authorities. The result, otherwise, is confusion. (I Cor 14:33)

4. The biblical dialogue between Jesus and the Roman centurion whose servant was ill is a perfect example to us of how submission to an authority is essential. Jesus was a man under authority. The centurion was a man under authority. Jesus even stated that an understanding of this principle is a measure of the "faith" that a person has. In all cases, there has to be a final authority. You might think that I am pursuing the issue of the role of women in the church with you - and there is no doubt that much needs to be considered on that issue with regard to final authority, 'chain-of-command', faith and the effective functioning of the church. But that is not my topic in this email. My topic is more fundamental – and more important - than that.

5. You expressed to Matt your love for the word of God, and you appear to be sincere in expressing that love. But I think someone has deceived you. It was disappointing for us to discover that, in the "Christian Counterfeiters" DVD, Lorri used modern 'bible' versions to make a case against false teachings, as did you in your discussion with Matt. The irony of that is mind-numbing. One may as well use the book of Mormon to convince a Jehovah's Witness that the New World Translation is misguided – because neither is authoritative and both are false.

6. As apologists, you well know that:

a. there is one true God and many false gods,

b. there is one true Christ and many false christs,

c. there is one true gospel and many false gospels,

d. there is one true church and many false churches

7. But when it comes to receiving instruction from that one true God, you speak as if there are many words of God. No, Cheryl. Consistent with the list above, there is one true word of God and many false words of God.

8. One of the primary principles of warfare is to disrupt the enemy's communications by way of several tactics including: the adding of false information to messages and/or the removing of key information from messages. When the lines of communication are compromised, then confusion is successfully created. (I Cor 14:33) The bible says that we are to live by every word of God (Luke 4:4), but Satan has corrupted those words by flooding the market with his false bibles. We know that Satan is our enemy. Why is it that such an obvious battle-plan of his is overlooked or ignored?

9. This is not an issue wherein we can pick and choose our own preferences. God is the final authority; we are not. There are only two options and they are literally life and death. God has spoken with one clear, pure and perfect voice in the English language – the King James Bible – and he does not contradict himself. If the King James Bible is the word of God, then none of the new versions can be the word of God. Conversely, if any of the new versions is the word of God, then the King James Bible cannot be the word of God. There can only be ONE final authority.

10. My study on this issue alone is into the thousands of hours now. There is no doubt that Satan has attempted to corrupt the word of God by flooding the market with false words of God – false bibles (II Cor 2:17). I would think you have already been introduced to this issue of the 'bible version debate' at some point, so rather than sending you a stack of research in this email, I will simply ask:

a. "Why is it you appear to believe that other versions are true expressions of God's word," and

b. "If that is what you believe, are you willing to seriously reconsider your thinking regarding that?"

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (I Thess 5:21)

Mike.