In my last BLOG, I asserted that the manuscripts behind all of the modern versions, which I call perversions, owe their antiquity to their corruption.
To begin, I shall relate my own testimony on this subject. I graduated from an independent Baptist Bible college which was promoting the New American Standard version. The professors said it was a better version because it was translated from a better text because it was formulated from the oldest extant manuscripts. They date to the 4th century A.D.
I was young and naive. Since they were the ones with master's and doctor's degrees and I was just working on my bachelor's degree, I simply believed what they said. I even bought my wife, Judy, an NASV. Judy was the wife of my youth. (Proverbs 5;18). She went to be with Jesus in October of 1995.
I attended an ordination council for a friend of mine. I was not on the council but went as an observer. I brought my wife's NASV with me. A very dear friend of mine, Pastor Jud Riley was on the council. At the conclusion of the council, Brother Riley asked me why I was packing that thing, referring to the NASV. I responded by parroting my professors stating that it was a better translation. I went through the tripe taught by my professors that is outlined above. Bro. Riley then told me that those manuscripts, although being the oldest extant, were also lost for fifteen hundred years, approximately forty-one generations which would be in violation of God's own Word. (Psalm 12:6-7, KJV-1611) He said if that NASV is better, then what he held in his hand, the KJV-1611 is an imposter. This means that for fifteen hundred years God's people did not have the true Word of God and that the entire reformation was based and built upon an imposter. That hit me like a ton of bricks. I thought that's not the Sovereign God whom I Worship. So, I went home and began to delve into that subject. I will continue to elaborate on this subject in subsequent blogs.
Respectfully submitted,
Chaplain Daryl E. Sell
Purchase Dr. David Otis Fuller's book here!
Comments