O MADMEN

Jeremiah 48:2

"O thou deceitful tongue" Psa. 52:4

"[H]e that regardeth the clouds shall not reap." Eccl. 11:4

Another David whose spiritual adulteries "help the ungodly" (II Chron. 19:2 and II Sam. 12:14) is David Cloud. Like a thundercloud, his critique of the book is more noise than substance--simply another nebulous attempt to obscure the light. His torrential downpour of rhetoric, when examined, is as vaporous as a fog cloud. The KJV's Dedication, written by the translators, identifies the two types of men who hurl "bitter censures and uncharitable imputations."

"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more knowledge unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness,"

"[O]r if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil..."

Cloud has hammered a framed picture of himself--his final authority--above the altar of his opinion, his newsletter.

SAUL SYNDROME
Cloud, like King Saul, has warred against "thousands" of Christ's foes, but God used the little shepherd to kill the giant and go on to thwart "ten thousands" (1 Sam. 18:7). Driven by envy, "Saul sought to smite him" "without a cause" (1 Sam. 19:10).

God commanded Saul to "utterly destroy" the enemy of God "and fight against them until they be utterly consumed" (1 Sam. 15:18). Saul was unwilling to be a part of such "extremism", as Cloud calls it (p. 12). Saul thought certainly God could use "the best of" it "and all that was good and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly" (I Sam. 15:9).

Cloud confessed in a personal letter to me (Letter dated June 12, 1994, p. 6) that in India he had used, "a Westcott-Hort Bible; it was a modern version; yet God used the truth in that Bible...." Like Saul, Cloud thought he could use the "good" in it and discard the vile.

Neither Saul's "stature" (I Sam. 16:7), nor Cloud's boasting (Rom. 1:30) about his "respected" stature (p. 2), can compensate for their lack of childlike obedience. When Saul "wast little in thine own sight" (I Sam. 15:17), he "cut off those that have familiar spirits." However, his envy of David found him finally consorting with such spirits (I Sam. 28:9). Cloud too is now consorting with the spirit of compromise; a spirit he had "cut off" earlier.

He boasted to me that his "Westcott-Hort Bible" was used "to build a solid, self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating New Testament church" (p. 6). Yet in his earlier days he said "this very Bible has been one of the root causes for the great weakness and confusion which exists among many Nepali churches to this hour" (Cloud, Is the English Language Provincial?, p. 22). Was the church it built "solid" or weak? The terms are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

CLOUD'S "MISQUOTING AND POOR DOCUMENTATION"
------ 1 ------
Cloud begins his critique shadow-boxing with his own imagination.

"It would appear from the quote that Palmer is questioning the deity of Christ...Palmer does believe that Jesus Christ is God and Mrs. Riplinger slanders him..."

Cloud joins those few careless readers who mistake their own poor reading comprehension skills for error on the part of the material they are reading. Cloud's claim that "Riplinger slanders him" is preposterous; Cloud was forced to say "It would appear..." because the book doesn't "say" what Cloud is surmising. He must lie about the book to criticize it. Cloud IGNORES the majority of the sentence, "Few clear and decisive texts" and only sees the "Jesus is God" portion. As stated in the book--it is heretical to believe that the Bible only has a few TEXTS relating to Christ's deity. Even John said the reason the New Testament was written was to show who Jesus Christ is.

"But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..." John 20:31

Palmer's NIV omits many of these texts and, as a consequence, he can find only a few. ("Christ" is omitted 43 times; "Son of God" is also omitted many times.)

Furthermore, Cloud used this quote to document alleged "misquotations" in the book. The typographical error (substituting "say" for "that declare") does not affect the meaning of the sentence. BUT Cloud's citation of the quote is a MISQUOTATION that does affect the meaning. Cloud says,

CLOUD'S MISCITATIONACTUAL QUOTE
"It calls John 'Son', whereas it should have called him God." "It calls Jesus 'Son', whereas it should have called him God."

Is Cloud trying to misrepresent Palmer? Does Cloud think John is God? Of course not--all writers, proofreaders, and typesetters are subject to error. But to turn Cloud's reaction back on himself I would have to blather: "But it is also wrong to misquote him and to have him say something that he does not say, particularly when someone puts heresy in his mouth that he does not believe" (Cloud, p. 4).

I put no heresy in Palmer's mouth. Cloud, however, did. Touche.

Cloud has four such transcriptional errors in his 13 page critique. At that rate, if he had written a 700 page book, like New Age Bible Versions, he would have 220 pages with errors--one error every three pages. Would this not fulfill his criterion for "frequent error"?

------ 2 ------
Cloud's second venture into the ring finds him sparring, "as one that beateth the air" (I Cor. 9:27). He tries to pretend the NIV and its editors do not support "non-literal translations in general." To do this he will have to ignore the 6,149 instances in which the NIV completely ignores the Hebrew or Greek word and instead introduces an interpolation. (Webster's: "To alter or corrupt, as a text, by inserting new or foreign matter.") Scholars are very aware of this; the Harvard Theological Review's article, "The New International Version and the Prologue of John" by E.L. Miller (July-October 1979: 310) criticizes the NIV, exactly as I do, for its "interpretational intrusions."

An ENTIRE chapter was included in The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, to defend the NIV's use of non-literal translation. Its author Herbert Wolf entitled it, "When Literal Is Not Accurate." He admits that "a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV (p. 128). New Age Bible Versions is not alone.

Wolf admits that "at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text...." However he gives as many examples as can fit in his 10 page chapter, of the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of good instances (in his opinion) in which the editor's ideas are substituted for what the text says. (For a detailed list see D.A. Waite's The New International Version: Weighed in the Balance.)

Cloud quotes a small portion of Wolf's article, leading his reader to believe that Wolf only supports non-literal translation in "the book of Proverbs" in certain instances. However Wolf's ENTIRE CHAPTER was written to defend non-literal translations all over the Bible, in instance after instance- -6,000 PLUS.

Cloud defends Wolf's substitution of the word "prosperity" for the Hebrew word for "righteousness." Cloud quotes Wolf as saying "In [Proverbs] 8:18 tsedaqah [righteousness] is linked with riches..."

BUT Wolf and his NIV OMIT THE LINK--"RIGHTEOUSNESS" IS COMPLETELY OMITTED HERE IN THE NIV and Wolf applauds this. Cloud says, "He is correct in what he said."

NIVKJV
With me are riches and honour,
enduring wealth and prosperity
Riches and honour are with me;
yea durable riches and righteousness Prov. 8:18
He who pursues righteousness and love
finds life and prosperity and honor.
He that followeth after righteousness and mercy
findeth life, righteousness, and honour. Prov. 21:21

The Hebrew word occurring 3 times in these texts is tsedaqah. The NIV correctly translates it in the 4th word in verse 21. It means RIGHTEOUSNESS all through the entire Bible and would mean righteousness to any Hebrew to whom it was spoken.

Webster's synonym for "righteousness" is HOLY; its synonym for prosperity is LUCKY. Cloud hopes he's LUCKY and none of his readers actually look up Wolf's article or the verses under discussion. He is certainly not RIGHTEOUS in saying, "it is wrong to put words in a man's mouth that he has not said." He makes this lying assertion--then gives no proof that New Age Bible Versions does this. Cloud will be LUCKY if God doesn't strike him dead. Lying Christians have met this fate before (Acts 5:5,10).

I must commend those, like Cloud, who are not aware that the 'new' Christianity has substituted the prosperity gospel for holiness and righteousness. They must not own a TV.

------ 3 ------
But I will give an 'instant replay' of this gospel for those who have no TV's. Cloud says (p. 5),

"New Versions [plural] do not support such a reading. Only one New Version [singular] I could find has the reading Mrs. Riplinger cites and that is the NASB..."

Au contraire. Note just a few of the following:

"[R]eligion does make a man very rich." Today's English Version

"[R]eligion does yield high dividends." New English Bible

"Religion, of course, does bring large profits." Jerusalem Bible

"Serving God does make us very rich." New Century Version

"A devout life does bring wealth." The Message

There are varying degrees of distortion in the new versions but the KJV reading gives NO room for misinterpretation. How different these are from the KJV's:

"But godliness with contentment is great gain." (I Tim. 6:6)

The KJV says that godliness with contentment is GAIN. The RSV, NASB, JB and NEB move the prepositional phrase, relating to contentment, to the end of the sentence, with "contentment" no longer a modifier and qualifier of godliness.

------ 4 ------
Riplinger says, "NIV editor Larry Walker admits that '[S]ome Bible characters appear to have disappeared from the text.' Is it any wonder since Westcott said, 'David is not a chronological person.' This is an amazingly erroneous connection.

Being an Old Testament scholar, Walker was very aware that the two main O.T. characters, Jehovah and Lucifer, have both been completely omitted in new versions. Pages 48-50 of New Age Bible Versions documents that Lucifer has been omitted because most scholars believe he is "not a chronological person"! New versions cast doubt on the historical accuracy of people and events traditionally held.

New versions, in II Sam. 21:19, deny that David killed Goliath. They read instead, "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregin, a Bethlehemite killed Goliath." The NIV: Weighed in the Balance lists over 37 times in I and II Samuel and I and II Chronicles where the NIV ignores the Hebrew text and omits the mention of David.

Confusion abounds in the NIV as Job becomes Jashub in Gen. 46:13 and Manasseh becomes Moses in Judges 18:30. The work just cited lists over 100 instances in which the names of 50 different Bible characters have been replaced by "he" or "she". The pronoun's antecedent then becomes a guessing game. Who is talking in the NIV in I Sam. 26:10? Is it David or Abishai?

The rude way these vandals handle their 'versions' stands in sharp contrast to the precise and many faceted sublimity of God's true word. For example, the NIV omits Noah's name twice. The name Noah actually occurs 10 times in the KJV between Gen. 5:29 and 6:13. Each occurrence parallels exactly the meaning of that number in the scriptures. (See accompanying chart.)

Occurrence
of Noah's name
Meaning of number
in scripture
Verse
1st.- Gen. 5:29beginning"And begat a son and
called his name Noah"
2nd.- Gen. 5:30division"he begat Noah"
3rd.- Gen. 5:32acompleteness"Noah was 500 years old"
4th.- Gen. 5:32bworld and its people"Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth"
5th.- Gen. 6:8grace"Noah found grace"
6th.- Gen. 6:9aman (or death)"generations of Noah"
7th.- Gen. 6:9bperfection"Noah was a just man and perfect"
8th.- Gen. 6:9bnew beginning"Noah walked with God"
9th.- Gen. 6:10fruit"Noah begat three sons"
10th.- Gen.6:13judgment/law"Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence"

For instance, 7 is the number of perfection. Therefore the seventh time Noah's name is mentioned the Hebrew text and KJV read, "Noah was a just man and perfect." The NIV's omission of instance 4 and 8 crushes God's magnificent mathematical microscope. Their mishandling is merely one of the thousands upon thousands of times where they impose their clouded vision upon their readers.

------ 5 ------
R. Laird Harris' view of hell was already discussed and proven faulty on page 7 of this document [see Riplinger's Blind Guides]. If reporters would do their own research, instead of copying from each other, they would be saved much embarrassment. Readers should read The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, 1986 THEMSELVES if they want to be Bereans. It is available from Zondervan Publishing House, 1415 Lake Dr. S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 (ISBN: 0-310-24181-2).

CLOUD'S ERRORS OF FACT
------ 1 ------
Under Cloud's first section entitled "Misquoting...," Cloud misquotes Edwin Palmer as saying "John" is "God". Now in Cloud's next section entitled "Errors of Fact," Cloud errs saying Pages 127 & 128 of The Making of a Contemporary Translation quote Larry Walker discussing the Ugaritic. In fact, the quote comes from pages 95 and 96 of the work cited. Is Cloud guilty of the "carelessness" (p. 3) he attributes to me but cannot document?

The MAJORITY of copies of New Age Bible Versions in print do not read as Cloud quotes: "a dissenting scholar on the New Greek N.T. committee" (p. 59). This was corrected over a year ago (Nov. 1993 printing).

------ 2 ------
"I have never seen any documentation to prove...new versions promote Catholic theology in hundreds and hundreds of instances."

New Age Bible Versions cites hundreds and hundreds of examples. Between pages 106 and 257, there are 118 specific instances. Over one hundred more are given between pages 259 and 372 (i.e., a lesser Jesus, purgatory, etc.). Finally, their historic anti-semitism and "Kingdom Now" sentiments are evidenced in 30 verses between pages 605 and 612.

Having been a Catholic for twenty-six years--before my salvation--I can recognize the all too familiar face of the Roman church as it looks back at me on the pages of the new versions.

If the NIV, Living Bible, Good News Bible and others did not represent Catholic theology, why would they be available in Catholic Editions with an official imprimatur. The Authorized King James Version has never been available with a Catholic imprimatur.

How is Cloud's lack of familiarity with the day-to-day teachings of a Catholic parish and his shallowness of research in that area (not to mention the hundreds of examples given in New Age Bible Versions), an "Error of Fact" on my part?

Cloud's introductory phrase, "I have never seen" (p. 6), echoed on page 3, "I do not see," and again on page 5, "only one...I could find," expresses Cloud's clouded vision. Jesus described the Laodicean churchmen as "blind" (Rev. 3:17). He diagnosed the "blind leaders" of Matt. 15:14. In their eye was a lumber yard. Their necks and minds and hearts were hard.

Today's blind leaders like Cloud, have a new beam in their eye--the hypnotic beam of light from their TV or computer screen. Cloud's cohorts confess they cannot wean him from his screen long enough to read The Life & Letters of B.F. Westcott. Cloud's "I haven't seen" [on my color screen] is characteristic of this tunnel vision age.

------ 3 ------
Walker's article is entitled "How the NIV Made Use of New Light on the Hebrew Text." Cloud quotes Walker's introductory page, in an attempt to convince his reader that the NIV translators don't step out on their wives very often. (viz. depart from the Hebrew O.T. text). Most readers miss a key word on Walker's introductory page. He said, "IF the present understanding of the text made good sense." One need only compare the KJV and NIV Psalms to conclude that the NIV translators have little spiritual "good sense".

Walker's 11 page article includes 8 pages of examples of instances when the NIV translators depart from the traditional Hebrew text to follow the Ugaritic. Walker whole-heartedly agrees with their decision to do so. Those who visit harlots, do so only occasionally, but such whore-mongering puts the faithful bride in great jeopardy. The Hebrews, even as unbelievers, would never alter one word of the holy scriptures entrusted to them.

O BAAL
I KINGS 18:26
Who needs antique rare book dealers?
We can watch the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Forget about the hand collation.
See what's on the other station.

Hooked on this hypnotic motion?
Need a better plug-in potion?
Try the keyboard key to knowledge.
Log on board computer college.

Hold the thumb key 'til you're numb
And strum the hacker's new anthem:

'The only data we will glean
will come from our computer screen!
All of us computer hacks
will never check the library stacks.
Dump the books and the archives.
They won't fit on our hard drives.
Who needs inter-library loan
with a modem on your phone?'

A carpal tunnel syndrome saint
finds real research rather quaint.

------ 4 ------
Cloud seems unaware that since both the NIV and NASB are both copywritten, they cannot legally use the same words. Obviously then, charts with the heading "NIV, NASB et al." cite only one or the other rendering. The heresy occurs in both and other versions too, all using a slightly different word.

For over a year, printings of New Age Bible Versions have addressed this very issue on the copyright page so that readers will be aware of this before they proceed.

The NIV used the term "boast" in II Cor. 1:12 and 1:14, while the NASB used "proud." These words both promote the ungodly 'self-esteem' movement seen in the church today. Neither word choice comes close to the KJV's "rejoice".

------ 5 ------
"One would think that most modern versions have this change, but in fact, it is ONLY the NASB, which adds the words in question."

The 'words in question' are not only added in the NASB. The Message and The Phillips' Modern English Translation add "just," like the NASB. The CEV adds "not please only ourselves." The Everyday Bible says "not please only ourselves."

Cloud's "One would think that most modern versions have this" cries loudly of his inability to read beyond the high school level. Any dictionary will inform its reader that et al. means "and others." If I had meant "most," I would use etc., meaning "and the rest" or et ubique or et passim meaning "everywhere." If Cloud is going to present himself as a scholar or an expert on Bible translation, he needs to visit a garage sale and 1) buy a Webster's Dictionary and 2) get a collection of various Bible translations. He is an embarrassment to his followers.

------ 6 ------
Many liberal denominations try to follow Christ's "example" but do not follow "him." The NIV adds the word "example" twice to the text. We do not "imitate" (NASB) or "follow the example of Christ"; we follow Christ himself. The objects of the prepositions "of" are "me" (Paul) and "Christ." The NIV ignores the Greek grammar and syntax and invents their own object. To drive home their error, the NIV quotes the NASB's "Be imitators of God" in Eph. 5:1.

------ 7 ------
The reading shown for Col. 2:19 ("head") is found in the NASB, NRSV, CEV, NAB, JB, TEV, Phillips, and Everyday Bible. The NIV also errs here in the subject under discussion, viz. the deity of Christ. It ignores the Greek text, introducing the phrase "causes it," thereby fracturing the connection and inter-identity of the "Head" (Christ) and "God." In addition, the NIV's intrusion of "He has lost connection with" (v. 19) and substitution of "Since" for "If" (v. 20), paint a very different theological picture.

The NIV does not read as the KJV or Greek ("pleased God") in Gal. 1:15. It ignores the Greek word order, placed there by God for emphasis, and as stated in New Age Bible Versions "jig-sawed around" the text.

------ 8 ------
"[B]eing deceived" (II Tim. 3:13) characterizes those who believe Cloud's fogging of the facts, without actually looking up the verse references themselves. The NIV does not render Gen. 41:38 "Spirit of God," as Cloud pretends, but "spirit of God" with a footnote identifying it as the "spirit of the gods." The NIV's rendering points to a demon; the KJV identifies the Holy Ghost--quite a difference!

------ 9 & 10 ------
The handling of the words "Man...divine [and] spirit" is the subject of the chart on page 187 (see its first sentence). Contrary to Cloud's misrepresentation of the topic, the NIV uses "spirit" in I Sam. 28:13 and Gen. 41:38. The NASB uses the term "divine." Both replace traditional Judeo- Christian vocabulary with words which can have New Age implications. The NIV omits the KJV word "men" in Rom. 11:4 ignoring every Greek manuscript. The "divine" nature of NIV stylist Virginia Mollencott, as presented in her book, The Divine Feminine, must clear away any non-gender inclusive terms. Cloud's superficial analysis and understanding is characteristic of those who spend little time analyzing "every word of God."

------ 11 ------
"New Versions" such as The Message and The Living Bible omit entirely the crucial words "in him" in II Cor. 5:21. The chart on page 188, to which Cloud refers, was purposely not titled NIV, NASB et al, since these two particular versions retain these words. Yet the dust Cloud raises, as he stomps his feet, blinds him as he misreads the chart's title.

The NIV, NRSV, CEV, AMP, TEV, JB, NEB, RSV, and Phillips DO NOT read "God in him" as the Greek text (or the KJV) do. Instead, they scramble the word order, shifting "in him" to another part of the sentence. In doing this, they are showing their insensitivity to Paul's characteristic usage of this phraseology in the very book under discussion, II Corinthians (II Cor. 1:20, II Cor. 12:19), and in the very immediate context, II Cor. 5:19. This usage is seen again in Gal. 3:17 and Phil. 3:14.

(The new versions often employ the device of retaining the words, yet scrambling their order. Phrases cease to modify the intended object and important theological connections are lost.)

Example:

David went home himself and left the spoon in the bowl.
David went in the bowl himself and left the spoon home.
(All of the same words are there, yet the meaning is changed.)

In II Cor. 5:21, the NIV further demolishes the congruence created by the phrases, "hath made...(v. 21a) and "might be made" (v. 21b). It substitutes the mishmesh "made" (v. 21a) and "might become" (v. 21b). Of course, such meat (Heb. 5:12-14) might choke a yearling like Cloud who is still trying to figure out how to get the milk out of the bowl.

------ 12 ------
Cloud affirms, "Every modern version I checked, condemns asceticism" in Col. 2:23. The Bible is not talking about asceticism here. (Webster defines asceticism as "self-torture.") Not only do new versions introduce asceticism here; they all say it has the "appearance of wisdom." "Harsh treatment of the body" (NIV) or "severe treatment of the body" (NASB, TEV, NRSV, JB) appear to be good things according to new versions.

The KJV instead says that "neglecting the body" (viz. fasting, not adorning it) seems wise (which it is). IF it flows as a natural "increase" in godliness from a relationship with Christ, not as a result of "will" power or the "fleshly mind" following the "commandments and doctrines of men."

The Bible always defines its own words within the context. The term "neglecting the body" is defined immediately after it appears as not "satisfying" the fleshly desires. New versions ignore the Bible's own definition of "neglecting" and create their own. All new versions (The Message even uses the word ascetic!) say there is the "appearance of wisdom" in actually harming oneself. Our bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost; to harm them would never even "seem" wise. It does seem wise to neglect satisfying fleshly desires. (The NRSV even introduces witchcraft's "elemental spirits" into these verses. All new versions further promote ascetic 'visions' by changing "things which he hath NOT seen" to "what he HAS seen" (v. 18).

------ 13 ------
Cloud does not think it is important that the NIV and other new versions omit an entire verse of the Bible--Mark 11:26--and also omit most of Matt. 5:44.

NIV et al.KJV
OMITBut if you do not
forgive, neither
will your Father which
is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.
Mark 11:26
OMIT Bless them that curse
you, do good to them
that hate you and...
despitefully use you.
Mark 5:44

Cloud claims that new versions teach Christians "to bless, do good to and forgive his enemies." In fact, the NIV and all new versions follow the Jehovah Witness New World Translation in their handling of Mark 11:26, Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27-28 and Matt. 6:15--they OMIT HALF of the references, thereby disqualifying themselves from being called Bibles. The few corrupt MS they follow suffer from homoeoteleuton not harmonization in Mark 11:26. The KJV reading in Matt. 5:44 is clearly the reading seen throughout history, as evidenced by John Burgon in Unholy Hands on the Bible. (New versions ENTIRELY omit the command to "pray for those which despitefully use you.")

Cloud is not concerned about warning parents of the profanity in some new versions. Good News for Modern Man renders Acts 8:20 "go to hell." Due to pressure, the Living Bible may have removed "you...bastard" (John 9:34) and "you son of a bitch" (I Sam. 20:30); however the publisher has not notified parents or recalled the millions of editions still in the hands of children.

The charts on pages 17-22 are immediately preceded by the comment, "Documentation follows in this book." The chart Cloud mentions on p. 22 is discussed in detail on pp. 161, 173, and 211. Evidently Cloud cruised past the introductory sentence and following documentation pages. Cloud gravely misrepresents the book. The errors he perceives are his own, the fault of careless reading.

CLOUD'S FAULTY LOGIC
------ 1 ------
One reviewer of Cloud's article wrote regarding his comments on this point,

"Where on pages 90-91 does she even use the word "Calvinism"? Nowhere. You, sir, endanger your own integrity and reliability by deliberately broaching Calvinism and attempting to "drive home" intents not hers. Planting ideas is not nice either."

Contrary to Cloud's misrepresentation, the word "Calvinism" or the philosophies of John Calvin do not appear anywhere even remotely nearby. The quote under discussion represents the NIV's chief, Edwin Palmer's, move away from the moderate Calvinism of Spurgeon (and the KJV translators), out on to a cliff called supralapsarianism, and headlong down into a chasm to be met by Siddhartha and The Three Fates.

A scriptural parallel may be helpful here. In Matt. 16:23 Jesus made a "connection" between Peter, a believer, and Satan, a non-believer; at the point under discussion, Peter and Satan were in agreement. My book pointed out the point at which Palmer agrees with Blavatsky and Manson (viz. the One "controls the thoughts" of men; sin and evil are part of the "Plan" of God). The critic's elevation of man beyond the critical eye of discernment is not biblical. Since when are professed Christians above having their beliefs scrutinized? Are the NIV translators more 'sanctified' than Peter?

If you are a 'good' person, but you steal something, does that goodness negate the fact that stealing is wrong? If you are caught, will it not put you in the very same jail with others who may steal and murder?

I quote Palmer and Blavatsky from primary sources proving their parallel thinking at this point. I then demonstrate that this thinking has infiltrated the NIV. Cloud, on the other hand, gives no quotes from Calvin, Spurgeon, or any KJV translators, nor does he cite proof that such thinking has affected the KJV. Slovenly scholarship, faulty logic and careless reading skills characterize all of Cloud's article.

------ 2 ------
The New Age leanings of new versions are not without notice in occult circles. Henry Travers Edge, a personal pupil of Luciferian (A.K.A. Theosophist) Mme. Blavatsky, wrote in his book, Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & The Universal Mystery Language of Myth & Symbol.

"[T]he learned body of divines and scholars [Westcott, Hort, et al.] who drew up the 'Revised Version' of 1881 have not endorsed these earlier translations [KJV]. Following the actual Greek text, they have produced a rendering much more in accord with the view a Theosophist takes of the matter" (p. 38).

Cloud may not recognize esoteric "Language", but the esoterics do! The KJV rendering of Acts 22:6-11, with its "man" (v. 7) instead of Mollencott's gender inclusive "One," is only one example.

"If it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for you, huh?" quips KJV critics. Could be true! The retelling of Acts 9 by Paul in Acts 22 (in any version) follows the KJV rendition of Acts 9. It includes Paul's salvation ("What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me) which is omitted in the NIV, NASB and others. I guess Paul picked the KJV, Henry Travers Edge picked the new version, and Cloud straddles the pick-it fence.

------ 3 ------
A reader of New Age Bible Versions wrote to Pastor Cole asking about the book's quote which referred to his inability to identify a verse which forbids premarital sex. The following answer was sent:

"Look up the word 'Fornication' in a concordance. You will see such verses as Gal. 5:19, Eph. 5:5, Col. 3:5, I Thess. 4:3, etc. Hope this is helpful--" C.D. Cole

He finally had to admit that only the KJV's "fornication" forbids premarital sex. The NASB term, "immorality," or the NIV substitute "sexual immorality" DO NOT "condemn premarital sex," according to Webster's Dictionary, Latin etymology, or any 'engaged' college student who is 'really' in love and plans to be married 'soon'. Ask one. Ten years as a Christian professor at a secular university, counseling young single women, brought a realistic understanding of how young people interpret the NIV's phrase "sexual immorality." Believe me, total abstinence is NOT their definition of sexual morality, nor is it Webster's.

------ 4 ------
The word of God is likened to a light and a mirror, whereby we can see ourselves clearly (Ex. 38:18, Jas. 1:23, Ps. 119:104). It only takes a few cracks to render a mirror useless. Each crack brings the image further and further from reality.

"Thy word is a lamp unto me feet and a light unto my path." Ps. 119:104

The word of God is a steady light. All false versions have flashes of light but not consistent enough to keep the sojourner on the right path. Their flicker and sparkle may catch the eye, but do not linger long and steady enough to warm the heart, illuminate deep down into the soul or fully reveal "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Marvelous light (I Peter 2:9) or flickering sparks (Is. 50:10,11)--the choice is yours.

Cloud contends the NIV teaches that man is lost and can only be saved through Jesus Christ. Why then do they completely omit the verse which best summarizes this?

NIVKJV
OMITYe know not manner
of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is
not come to destroy men's
lives but to save them.
Luke 9:55,56

The other verse which expresses similar sentiments is omitted half the time (out in Matt. 18:11; in Luke 19:10).

NIVKJV
OMITFor the Son of man
is come to save
that which was lost.

John 3:17 expresses similar thoughts and is included in the NIV and KJV. In summary, the NIV omits 2 out of 4 of the verses which most succinctly state Cloud's point. Let's look at the manuscript evidence for those 2 omissions. Matt. 18:11 is in every known uncial except 3 corrupt ones and every known cursive except 3. It is vouched for by the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Peschitto, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac, by the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions. Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, Damasus, and Augustine quote it. The entire Greek Orthodox church has always read it near Pentecost.

Luke 9:55,56 has similar attestation from the manuscripts, versions, and fathers from the second century downwards, as Tischendorf admits (see Unholy Hands, p. D-28).

New Age Bible Versions documents scores of other new version verses which omit man's need for salvation, as well as omitting the Saviour himself. "Diminish not a word," warned God in Jer. 26:2. God is not redundant.

In the O.T. there were six cities of refuge; God required that the location of each be no more than ONE day's travel. They were a picture of God's word and a foreshadowing of Christ, to whom we have "fled for refuge" (Heb. 6:18- 20). New versions extend the reader's search beyond God's intended one day. Readers of new versions must travel much farther in their reading journey to reach refuge. We consequently see many weary new version travelers today, stopping at the false rest spot of psychology and heeding false 'signs' along the way.

------ 5 ------
Internationally known astrophysicist Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D, was the first scholar to document evidence that huge clusters of galaxies rotate. He writes regarding the book New Age Bible Versions,

"A monumental piece of research work. I've sent copies to over a dozen skeptics and none have come up with any substantial arguments against Riplinger's work."

Bouw's background makes him familiar with algebra, apriori probability and symbolic logic. Cloud's comment that formulas like the one on p. 149 can be used to prove "anything" clearly reveals that 'variables,' 'aggregation signs', and 'binomials' were not part of the vocabulary in his Bible school curriculum.

Although algebra was discovered by Ahmes (1700 B.C.), the use of letters to represent things was not introduced until Diophantus (AD 200). In the 1500's its value as a symbolic language attracted many scholars. In this century, logicians began using symbols instead of words to stand for logical units. This field of symbolic logic allows deductive logic to become a purely mechanical process like mathematics.

Probability, in statistics, is the measurement of the likelihood of events in numerical terms. A priori probability would suggest that the likelihood of the formula on page 149 working out as it does is infinitely small. The critical factor is the extremely limiting givens (viz. NIV, NASV, AV: the subject of the book). A solution generated from an unlimited alphabet soup of variable, like that used in the formula in Cornerstone Magazine (Vol. 23, Issue 104), is meaningless.

The acrostic technique was used by God himself in the Bible. The book of Lamentations uses it extensively; note that the sentences begin with the 22 successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

The mathematical formulas and models in Dr. Bouw's recent book and articles for The Biblical Astronomer lead me to trust his opinion regarding page 149. Perhaps some would rather trust Cloud's calculations for the next moon shot. Clouds have always been a deterrent to astronomers and those hoping to catch a glimpse of the heavenly city.

CLOUD'S UNPROVEN STATEMENTS
Cloud contends that the dozens of changes or omissions in modern versions, listed on pages 190-192, do not obscure man's sinful likeness. Jesus spoke of those like Cloud, "That seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand." Mark 4:12

With the new versions' omissions in Luke 22:67,68, the statement by Jesus "nor let me go," is completely banished from the entire Bible. Cloud's opinions and assertions are just that--opinions; they are not proofs and are clearly contrary to the facts. Why doesn't he prove his point by taking one example and analyzing the English semantics, etymology, doctrinal implications, Greek grammar or manuscript evidence?

He says "new versions DO plainly show man's mistreatment of Jesus Christ and DO condemn man's "love of self". So does the Jehovah Witness version, but that doesn't make it a Bible. Let's look closely at his example given from Matt. 27:28-30. To begin with, he didn't quote the passage down far enough to show that the NIV omits 25 words from verse 35. Also, if he is going to enter the ring as a new version contender, he's got to get a current NIV; Matt. 27 in the NIV hasn't read like that for 10 years! He seems to think Matt. 27 could replace Luke 22:64,68, which is omitted in new versions. It cannot. Matt. 27 is about the smiting of Christ by the ROMAN SOLDIERS after Pilate retained Jesus. Luke 22:64,68 takes place before Jesus was taken to Pilate and tells of the physical abuse Jesus suffered at the hands of the RELIGIOUS LEADERS. (New versions often omit the reference to the smiting of his "face," a fulfillment of O.T. prophecies, such as Is. 50:6 and Is. 52:14). The 'religious leaders' on the new version committees do not mind pointing to 'cruel' Roman soldiers; they also don't mind skipping over Luke's account of the scribes' beating of our Saviour. (They also omitted portions of Luke 11:54 which reveals abuse Christ suffered at the hands of religious leaders. The pattern is evident.)

These 'New' ASV's (Ananias & Sapphira Versions) are like their namesakes-- they claim to give All of the truth, but keep back Some. The new versions' habit of watering down the Bible, that is, including a doctrine 'somewhere,' just not everywhere God put it, is characteristic of ALL CULTS. The power of heresy is its truth diluted and mixed with error. William Gurnall noted this in the 1600's; the devil has not changed his tactics. Gurnall said,

"The Pharisees [and scribes] do not make their bread all of leaven, for none would eat of it; among many truths they mix their errors."

The new version mix of seeds/weeds, hot/cold, spiritual/carnal makes poor soul food.

"Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned." Hos. 7:8

The hireling's half-baked bibles have just enough leaven to leaven the whole lump--it only takes a little (Gal. 5:9). There is no need to contend for the NIV's crumbs, the master's table is laden with the children's bread in the banqueting house (Song of Sol. 2:4).

------ 2 ------
The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ tells its readers to worship "the God of Forces"--THE EXACT SAME WORDS used by the KJV to describe the false god of the last days. New versions do not use these words or words referring to the popular 'force' seen in Star Wars et al. Consequently new versions OMIT COMPLETELY the Bible's ONLY warning about this god. The lack of logic rests with Cloud.

The nation's foremost experts on prophecy and the New Age movement, Texe Marrs, Noah Hutchings, Mary Pride, John Barela, Salem Kirban, and David Hocking, ALL have recommended New Age Bible Versions. If Cloud thinks new versions do not leave their readers open to Hinduism, he should read the thankful letters I've received from readers who have experienced just that. One such letter came from Vijayanagara, Bangalore (India). Its Bible Society's President wrote,

"My dear sirs, this book has opened the eyes of thousands. Even I myself did not know that there were so many omissions and corruptions in other translations of the Bible...this book is worth millions of dollars."

Cloud would replace the Holy Bible with a Holey Bible, with 1000's of spiritual loopholes through which to fall. Did the NIV editors consider it some new form of tithing when they offered up 10% of the scripture text to the sacred cow of 'textual criticism'? (Gordon Fee provides this percentage of omissions.) A "swept and garnished" bible, like the [devil] possessed man in Matt. 12:44, is opening itself up to worse devils. New Age books are always filled with scriptures (always new versions) taken out of context and used to PROVE their false teaching. This year's bestselling book, The Celestine Prophecy, begins with a new version quote from Daniel--then presents the New Age grab bag: nature religion, the occult, channeling, bad 'church' people and a search for ancient manuscripts that will explain human destiny. (The public is being conditioned to look for the antichrist's final bible.)

New version editors have nailed the historic doctrine of divine preservation to the cross and have placed textual criticism on the throne. This dangerous sacred cow has bullied its way into Zion's green pastures. Though destitute of heaven's brand, the Laodicean church has awarded it her blue ribbon. It is truly more bovine than divine. Its milk feeds a colicky Christianity crying for psychological burps. It brings "leanness unto their soul," just as Israel experienced when they wanted something 'new' (Ps. 106:15). Only schizophrenic followers would "pluck off" palm branches on Sunday morning then pluck out Christ's beard days later--or carry a bible which praises Jesus in Luke 24:44, then plucks out his ascension in verse 51. Like all hybrids this sacred cow, a cross between Christianity and humanism, is sterile; it cannot reproduce life. All new versions die out when their copyright owner dies; the KJV "liveth and abideth" from generation to generation.

------ 3 ------
Cloud's inability to see the "proof given" may be attributed to that head- shaped shadow he saw on pages 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 182, 183, 188, 269, and Matt. 17:60--right below the quote Cloud gives. Big heads tend to cast big obscuring shadows when they are trying to stand between truth and the light. One could add reams of verse citations where new versions give voice to the phony faith movement, but four more will fit here.

NEW VERSIONSKJV
"your faith has healed you"
(NIV, NASB)
"thy faith hath saved thee"
Luke 18:42
"do not bring us to the time of trial"
(NRSV, REB)
"lead us not into temptation"
Matt. 6:13
"the aggressive gain riches"
(NRSV)
"strong men retain riches"
Prov. 11:16
"make him prosperous"
(NIV)
"turned the captivity of Job"
Job 42:10

CLOUD'S AMAZING STATEMENTS
Cloud finds "frightful" the use of rhetorical devices such as rhyme (stage and page), double-entendre, pun, alliteration (close 'the cover'), and acrostic metaphor (G.A. & God and). Experienced readers can identify when style is being emphasized, at the expense of precise thought, to create word pictures. Only a Pharisee would take literally, what was written metaphorically.

Cloud is very facile himself, however, at using the technique of propaganda writers, that is, inserting words like "frightful" to 'frighten' readers, when no frightening information, other than the word "frightful," is given.

Cloud cleverly OMITS the very next sentence in his quote from "End Times." It read, "My soul shall make her boast in the LORD: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad" (Ps. 34:2). The humble, the meek, and the weak rejoice when God is glorified. It is crystal clear to "the weak things of the world," of whom I am one, that as Jesus said, "without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). Why does God choose little Davids to slay big Goliaths, young Gideons to conquer the multiplied Midians, weak Jaels to kill strong Siseras, a feeble woman to deck Abimelech? He does it so "that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us" (II Cor. 4:7) and so "that no flesh should glory in his presence."

The meek are being edged off the pew with a push from new versions. In Isaiah 61:1, "good tidings to the meek" has been replaced with "good news to the poor" in the NIV and NKJV.

Cloud's five "I" statements, about his accomplishments, are reminiscent of Lucifer (Is. 14). He fell through pride. Pride holds Satan captive and inadvertently traps others with him and his cause.

LIES WHICH ARE LIES
The LORD said, "With lies ye have...strengthened the hand of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way." Ez. 13:22

May God have mercy on David Cloud for his conscious attempt to DECEIVE his reader. He quotes from a letter from Henry Morris dated Feb. 28, 1994. The letter actually said, "I did provide an endorsement...Her purpose was honest and honorable..." Cloud picks excerpts out to pretend Morris did not give the endorsement on p. v of the book. Cloud's section title, 'Endorsements Which Are Not Endorsement,' would be his ruin in a court of law, were I not a Christian.

Morris' request to be omitted in future printings rose from outside pressure. He wrote in Jan. 1994, "We have had a number of supporters call and write objecting to my endorsement of your book...I hate to ask you to do this since I do think you have done a great job on the book and it is very important...your book seems to be selling extremely well. I am glad for that and trust it will have a great ministry." In July 1994, he wrote again saying, "I still tell people that you have a great deal of valuable material in your book and that they ought to read it."

Cloud has misrepresented Dr. Morris, one of this generation's most gracious giants of the faith.

Cloud conveniently neglected to point out to his readers that I inserted the name of the then President of Moody Bible Institute into the Logsdon quote TO DATE IT FOR THE READER and ensure that it was clearly a "comment" about the KJV, not my book.

Clouds constantly change their shape depending on how much 'heat' comes their way. Pilots know that Clouds are dense and full of hot air; consequently, they detour around them when they can. I'd recommend the same course.

"These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest." II Pet. 2:17

Sleeping saints need buglers, though they are seldom praised. When detractors wake from their sleep--as Jacob did--they will say,

"Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not." -- Genesis 28:16b

G.A. Riplinger's Response to David Cloud's Criticism of New Age Bible Versions

A.V. Publications
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053