According to “Bible scholars” promoting the recently released New Revised Standard Version-Update Edition (NRSVue), there was a need to make 20,000 changes to the Bible. Religious scholar and writer Hal Taussig claims the effort was implemented to bring “new meanings to biblical texts” to allow “overall textual meanings to spin out in many directions and broaden dialogue” so “some need in the culture at that moment” could be addressed. It’s a four-year effort released on the market last month by the National Council of Churches and the Society of Biblical Literature, two liberal organizations, who brought together scholars from Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic religious camps.
While Taussig claims “these revisions are not … fine-tuning of doctrine” as if to deny doctrine is being tampered with in this version, the NRSVue does indeed mess with Bible doctrine. It reflects an infusion of the social justice, woke mentality that is being forced on our society. These scholars swear up and down that they are using the oldest and most reliable majority of the manuscripts, but God’s word was already settled and complete centuries ago. That’s how the Majority Text was used to render the Authorised Version (the King James Version) in English (see Edward F. Hill’s “The King James Defended”, 1973). The NRSVue, like other newer versions, uses manuscripts that contradict the Majority Text for the sake of hidden agendas. Those hidden agendas include making big bucks and spreading false doctrines to comply with the ungodly principles of the world system.
To prove I’m not just making much ado about nothing, below are a few samples demonstrating the subtleties they use to add to, take away from, or change the meaning of God’s word, with the changes in italics. Their deceptions are very much like the serpent’s deceptions in the Garden of Eden when he spoke the infamous words, “Yea, hath God said … ?” Or when the devil changed the meaning of Psalm 91:11-12 when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, trying to get Christ to jump off the pinnacle of the temple.
1 Kings 8:16
KJV: Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.
NRSVue: Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, nor did I choose anyone to be a ruler over my people Israel. But I have chosen Jerusalem in order that my name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.
(Claiming the Lord said he didn’t choose anyone to be ruler over Israel is a contradiction within this verse and contradicts other scriptures. God would not say he didn’t choose a ruler then also say he chose David to rule. We also know Ruth 1:1 implies that judges were chosen by God to rule over Israel. In 2 Samuel 7:11, God himself says outright that he chose judges to be over his people Israel. In my opinion, the phrase in the NRSVue version above was put in to cast doubts over Israel’s claims as God’s chosen and to question their claim to their God-given land in the Middle East. This is a typical view of liberals who are Christian in name only and of Catholics.)
KJV: And he shall take off from it all the fat of the bullock for the sin offering;
NRSVue: He shall remove all the fat from the bull of purification offering;
(Taussig states, ‘With this revision, the 21st century Bible now joins the many world cultures in which “purifying” is a regular practice but is less entangled in “sin” considerations.’ The true context of God’s word makes clear this is about atonement for sin, but revisionists wish to deny man’s sin for the sake of acceptance to the world so their Bible can be palatable for the future one world religion. Furthermore, the word sin is in this verse in the manuscripts, not the word for purification.)
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
KJV: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
NRSVue: Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
(The word changes here diminish from the broad range of actions that can be called sin. For example, a fornicator can be anyone who has sex outside of marriage, whereas “sexually immoral” may exclude any person having sex with one “committed” partner outside of marriage. “Male prostitutes” and “men who engage in illicit sex” attempts to exclude men who have sex with one male sex partner they’re “committed” to and seeks to vilify only homosexuals who sell themselves, commit homosexual rape, or are pedophiles. Not to mention the words illicit sex are added in to replace the words that are actually there in the manuscripts.)
KJV: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
NRSVue: None of the daughters of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine; none of the sons of Israel shall serve in an illicit shrine.
(This verse is done the opposite way of 1 Corinthians 6 above. They seek to hide the specific sins Moses is talking about. “Serve in an illicit shrine” is such a vague term it’s ambiguous, whereas the KJV specifically mentions female and male prostitution and can include anyone who engages in behavior typical of female and male prostitutes. And as in the other verses they changed, the words “serve in an illicit shrine” are nowhere in the Majority Text for this scripture.)
KJV: And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
NRSVue: So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought to him all the sick, those who were afflicted with various diseases and pains, people possessed by demons or having epilepsy or afflicted with paralysis, and he cured them.
(The “scholars” claim that they wanted modern sensibilities to be shown “that an illness or symptom is something a person has, not who they are” so as not to “identify people in terms of a disability.” Their explanation is really a smokescreen since the KJV and the Majority Text it came from has already expressed those sentiments in the story of the leper, Naaman the Syrian, who had a high position in government and was healed by God of his leprosy. Or when Jesus healed the man possessed by Legion, then sent him to be an evangelist. Or how Jacob continued to be blessed by God and remained a role model even after he became physically disabled with a bad hip when wrestling with our preincarnate Lord. What these “scholars” are hiding is that they took out the word “lunatick” in their version because they don’t want the mentally ill to know the Lord Jesus can heal mental illness. It’s a move to preserve liberals’ and Big Pharma’s control over the mental health industry.)
I find all of this disturbing. This new version, just like the others, will sow even more confusion and division in the church. It will also cause a lot of weak-minded individuals attending church with no spiritual discernment to question the authenticity and reliability of God’s word and of Christian doctrine. Despite the fact God stated concretely in Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, and Revelation 22:18 that no one should add to or take away from his word and implied that anyone or anything that does should be rejected, for some reason so many people are clueless to the fact new versions like the NRSVue violate those commands. Just because someone slaps the word “Bible” on a book doesn’t mean it’s automatically authentic. The NRSVue is proof of that.
Source: Hal Taussig, A new edition of the Bible, with 20,000 revisions, should spark 20,000 thoughtful conversations, The Press of Atlantic City, reprinted from the December 24, 2021 LA Times on January 3, 2022.