IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Evangelist]

Brother, you are sounding more and more like a good, old-fashioned country preacher that folks in my neck of the woods would latch onto and keep. However, your grammar is far too refined.

Sorry, BEP....I weren't on my stump when I started talkin'.


   

Have I thanked you recently for your web site?  If not, THANKS!. I have received a blessing there and many ideas for my personal Bible study.

Why, thanky, son....thanky.

I'll hire an English teacher to help you with your grammar. Her name is "Bubba Sue".

I think I done met her....she was my teecher in third grade, and evertime I said "I'm not" she whomped me with her peach tree limb and said "AIN'T.....WON'T YOU EVER GIT IT? IT'S AIN'T!!"  I 'member she used to ride bulls on the weekend, too.

[Evangelist]

HEY, a sermon in a minute or less.......got anymore of these
My kids might acctualy hear these.
musicllover

Ahhhh, yup....got a few.

From Mat. 24:

Goats do goat things.
Sheep do sheep things.
Goats go in the barbeque.
Sheep sleep in the house.

What do you want to be? Goat, or Sheep? Make up your mind, the coals are just right.

[bluelake]

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to which Bible is reliable and which version in not.

A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard Version, 1901.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable-and more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.

As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew 24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.

There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is being translated-the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the difference is by no means insignificant.

In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1].

John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).

Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for redemption.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are omitted.

By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply "better translations" or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect basic meanings.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

We are using the New International Version for comparison quotes because of its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of other versions.

------------------------------------------------------------

Rely not on your own understanding. I'm paraphrasing that passage. I believe that God is watching over his Word.
I've got about eight Bibles plus study guides. I check the
most difficult passages out, don't you? I don't doubt the Word of God, however. There isn't that much difference from one version to another.

God bless you,
bluelake

[Brother Love]

CROSSROADS GRACE FELLOWSHIP
REFLECTIONS


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Your Problem Is That Bible Of Yours"

I would like to take a moment to share with you a personal thought. A thought about my search for the truth. By truth I am referring to the word of God. By the grace of God and the use of technology, I am able to discuss with you some thoughts that are on my mind, as I study the truth in the written word of God (II Tim. 3:15-17). Technology can be a wonderful thing. It gives someone like me the ability to get information out to an unlimited number of people by the use of the Internet. I am an average guy, trying to do my part for my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I do not hold a degree from a college or a seminary. My only qualification is that I am a serious student of the Bible saved by God's grace (I Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 3:24). I have a personal co-interest in maintaining this web site, which helps.

As a lost man, it was hard for me to understand why men and women could make such a fuss over a book. The book of course is the Bible. I rarely read the Bible in my younger years, except when I attended church or when I got together with a few family members, who always seemed to have a copy with them. One thing is certain, the words never really made much sense to me. The sad truth about the matter is that I didn't care. But now as a saved man (Eph. 1:14; & 2:8,9), with some study, the Bible simply and straightforwardly states the reason why, (John 8:47; and II Cor. 4:3,4). Being a new Christian, I wanted to learn about the God of the Bible, my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. However, it never occurred to me that those who claimed to be saved would not take the word of God seriously. Now, before you get upset, just realize that there is work involved in studying the word of God (II Tim. 2:15). The fact is, not everyone will put forth the effort needed to be firmly grounded in truth (I Cor.3:1,2).

To all of you who are content with daily devotionals, or maybe weekly Bible studies, or just an annual visit to your local church, the Bible version issue will probably seem like a waste of time. You might ask, what is the Bible version issue? It is quite possible that you are completely unaware that there is something called a Bible version issue. Some of you might wish it would go away, while others just ignore the whole discussion, believing that all will eventually work itself out. Some people might believe this creates unnecessary divisions among the body of Christ. I felt the same way at one time, but by studying the word, it has come to my attention that Jesus Christ did not compromise doctrine for the sake of unity, (John 6:22-71). Something else to think about is that people have been corrupting the word of God throughout time. We have been warned of this in scripture, (II Cor. 2:17; II Cor 4:2). So for everyone that believes this is something new, guess what, it isn't.

I thank God, a brother in Christ had patience with me, asked questions, and pointed out that the word and Jesus Christ are synonymous. This same gentleman placed an extreme importance on the written word. Now I hear people claim that they have an innerant Bible, then proceed to correct its words. A common phrase I hear is "a better translation would be", or "the Greek says". Through studying, you too, can see for yourselves the two natures between the written and living word. Notice the key is to truly study. Of course the key to studying is to rightly divide the word, (II Tim. 2:15). Compare these verses in regard to the written word, (Heb. 4:12,13; Rev. 19:11)-(Heb. 7:25; James 1:21)-(Acts 17:31; John 12:48)-(John 12:34; I Pet. 1:23)-(John 1:12; Thess. 2:13).

For me, this raised questions, as to the validity of what I was reading. The Bible says that my faith comes from the word of God, (Rom. 10:17). How many different versions of the word of God are available today? Do all the versions say the same thing? If all the versions are not the same, which one is correct? Are the differences worth fighting for? Look at what Paul had to say, (II Tim. 4:1-7). I truly believe that if you're serious about hearing the truth, and are willing to walk by faith, with some prayerful study, you will see this is an absolutely critical issue. The word of God is what we base our salvation on! Nothing else!

It is my experience while witnessing, or studying with a group of people using different versions, at some point there will be a disagreement. I am not suggesting a falling out, I am saying a lack of understanding. A debate over what the verse should say, not what the verse says. The way this is usually resolved is by the individual with the most education or experience answering the question. Now if you are looking for the thought of a passage, and the words on the page are not important, then you will probably never be challenged by this. What can really get things moving is pick up the AV1611, commonly called the King James Bible, and state that it does not have errors. It is quite possible that when you make this statement, you open yourself up to quite a debate.

Most of the time everyone would rather compromise and agree that all versions of the Bibles have errors, and only the originals are inspired anyway. I have an interesting thought for you. What does the Bible say about the originals. I personally have used many different versions, and all of them seem to have the same conclusion on the originals, Nothing. The AV1611 does not have the word original in its pages. The one subject I have been unable to locate in the Bible is the design for God to preserve the originals. You can show in the Bible where God has designed the preservation of His word by a multiplicity of copies, (Jer. 36;1-32; Deut. 31:24,25; Deut. 17:14-20; Prov. 25:1; Dan. 9:2; Acts 12:24; Acts 19:20; II Tim. 3:15 ). The Bible clearly states that it will be preserved without error, (Psalms 112:6,7; Matt. 5:18; I Pet. 1:23-25; Is. 40:. God also stated the priority of His word, (Psalms 138:2).

So what does this mean, you might ask. Absolutely nothing if God can't do what he says he can do. I choose to believe, by faith that God can. I realize that there are many complicated discussions on manuscript evidence. An individual can study for years on the topic of textual criticism, and the amount of information available to us is enormous. There are individuals who have studied the technical side of this all of their lives. The one unmistakable issue, in this whole debate, is there are TWO distinct lines of manuscripts. In these two lines, one represents the majority with 95% of all manuscripts agreeing. This line is where the King James Bible comes from. All new versions of the English Bibles, come from the other line, except the New King James which uses both. For the NKJ reliability, just look at (Heb. 3:16). I can only prayerfully hope that you study the information for yourself.

To the saint that is standing on the word of God, and is catching grief from all sides, we are in the fight together. The next time you have someone try to explain "that your problem is that Bible" you need to know that you are not alone. God said he would preserve it, you just happen to be someone who believes it. As for me, I will continue to fight for the preserved word of God.

Your brother in Christ,

Lee


Posted By Brother Love

<))><

[BFWard]

I do not excusively use the King James, and I do not feel any less Christian than those that do.  I each their own.

[musicllover]

     I use all versions of the Holy Bible, KJV, New King James, NIV, mostly the NIV. I believe that God's Holy word is annoited, and it doesn't not return void, so therefore it will continue to be with out error as the incarned word of God, not matter what versions you are reading. It really annoys me when someone wants to say that its the KJV only, if you want to use that agruement, then the KJV is a transilation itself, we would all need to learn Hebrew, then Latin...... if (for example) the NIV has errors, then so does any scripture that is transilated into Japaneese, German, Russian, Spanish, ect ect ect. The scriptures are For the equiping of the saints, God is NOT going to let his saints go into battle unarmed. Did Jesus tell the disciples to go into all the world.......... YEP, did Jesus know they were going to write the scriptures.....I am sure he did as we warned not to add to or take away from, impling that God knew there would be other books written, and that if anyone added or takes away from his Holy Word will stand in judgement? I KNOW that the transilations ( except those who have taken and rewrote to suit there own rituals) of today remain pure, because John 1:1 tells us a very important point,  In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the Word was GOD. We are also told that God is never chaning the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. John 1:14 The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the word. For this very reason we are warned not to add to or take away from the word Jesus did all that was necessary, and the Holy Bible is all that is necessary.........The reason we have the KJV was for political purpose only not some good devote Christian bringing it about. Eventually It began Christianity in earnest for the America's.  Jesus wanted his word spread, we are commanded to go out to all the world, when the transilations begin it was a good thing for the Kingdom of God and fullfills what he told us to do.

blessings,
musicllover  

[bluelake]

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?

Our examination of this important subject will by no means be exhaustive, given the space available to us here, but we hope to give the reader enough information that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as to which Bible is reliable and which version in not.

A bit of background to begin with: In 1881 there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee which produced the (English) Revised Version, 1881, and the American Standard Version, 1901.

This new Greek text developed by the Revision Committee, under the leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis of modern translations. It has been used to replace the Received Text of the KJV and its predecessors. There is, however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is not reliable-and more and more are returning, we have, to the KJV.

As we compare verses, we will see why this is true. We have objective evidence as the reliability of the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming evidence that new versions are not simply better translations. Nor are they simply revisions of the KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts which often question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Let's start by understanding that there is a great deal of difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This difference is not simply a translations difference. It is in fact a basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:

In Matthew 1:25 the words "her firstborn son" are consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13 the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is omitted. This explains why the Protestant version of this prayer is more lengthy than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the Roman reading.

Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and 23:14 are omitted entirely, while in Matthew 24:36 the words "nor the Son" are added.

There are literally hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do with translation. They come because of the difference in what is being translated-the Greek texts being used are substantially different. And the difference is by no means insignificant.

In the modern versions numerous verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths basic to the Christian faith. While many are quite subtle, they nonetheless provide the type of objective evidence which convicts these new versions of perverting God's Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:

In John 1:27 the words "is preferred before me" are omitted, so that John is made to say only that Christ came after him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life" (NIV) The words "on me" are left out [footnote 1].

John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10, have Christ calling to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11 the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last," referring to Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is omitted. Other titles of Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted or altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians 1:2; II Timothy 4:22, etc.).

Other vital truths are also affected. For examples, in I Corinthians 5:7 the words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was sacrificed and did die, but not necessarily "for us" (see also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising that Hebrews 1:3 omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14 where the clause "through His blood" is omitted, casting doubt on the necessity of the shedding of Christ's blood for redemption.

Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words "Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's father and mother," implying that Christ was not virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is given. Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been offered.

In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up into heaven," referring to our Lord's ascension, are omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to the Father" are omitted.

By now it should be obvious that the new versions are not simply "better translations" or a revision of KJV. Rather they are new and different Bible texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor changes which do not affect basic meanings.

The great number of passages (we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to water down or attack the very truths the Bible teaches, especially where the person and work of Christ are concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to spiritual health.

We are using the New International Version for comparison quotes because of its present popularity. What is true of it however, is consistently true of other versions.

------------------------------------------------------------

Your right, the translations do vary a little, but not to the extent that a person can't understand the text.
It's best to have three or four Bibles and put your trust in the Lord.  

God bless,
bluelake

[bluelake]

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

Define accurate.
Translated from the most authentic text?
Closest to the original words (which may make little sense to the current audience, given that idioms have changed)?
Closest to conveying the original meaning, even if that means using significantly different words and idioms?

Aucuracy of translation is a bit of a moving target - different translations are aiming at different things.   Most modern translations are based on similar greek texts, but have different aims, so it is a good idea if using a "paraphrase" translation like the Message or the Good News for ease of reading and understanding, to compare to a more word-for-word translation like the NRSV when closely studying the text.  The NIV is something of a compromise between the two camps, so is a decent "all-rounder" rather than a master of either.

Single-author translations, particularly, can give fresh insight into a passage (especially the "Luke for Everyone", "Matthew for Everyone", etc series by Tom Wright), but you have to bear in mind that ultimately they represents single person's view of how to translate a difficult to translate passage, rather than a consensus.

Yes, All 10 or 12 of them.  

bluelake

[Brother Love]

You may have unwittingly been swept up in this rush to have "A Better Translation." But be aware that that these "New" Bibles have over 5,000 differences in them when compared to the King James Bible.
These "easier to read" Bibles come from a corrupted text. They read differently than the KJV because the manuscripts they come from are not the same as the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken. The issue is NOT translation but TEXT.

If you want to know if you have one of these corrupted Bibles turn to Colossians 1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.


Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.

[Pastor Roger]

You may have unwittingly been swept up in this rush to have "A Better Translation." But be aware that that these "New" Bibles have over 5,000 differences in them when compared to the King James Bible.
These "easier to read" Bibles come from a corrupted text. They read differently than the KJV because the manuscripts they come from are not the same as the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken. The issue is NOT translation but TEXT.

If you want to know if you have one of these corrupted Bibles turn to Colossians 1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.


Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.

Amen Brother, I agree totally. "You cannot translate what is not there", but it can be made more corrupt with each new version that comes out.


 Isaiah 34: 14

NRSV
14Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest.


KJV

Isa 34:14  The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.


Do you know who "Lilith" is!

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, if I remember correctly, "Lilith" is a mythical queen of demons. I only know that because of trying to investigate some messages of a recently banned user named "Ha Lilith".

WOW!, the differences you just quoted between two different versions are worlds apart.

I have used a few other versions for study, but my Bible is the Old KJV.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Pastor Roger]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, if I remember correctly, "Lilith" is a mythical queen of demons. I only know that because of trying to investigate some messages of a recently banned user named "Ha Lilith".

WOW!, the differences you just quoted between two different versions are worlds apart.

I have used a few other versions for study, but my Bible is the Old KJV.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Lilith originated with an outcast sect of Hebrews. She was supposedly an evil goddess, a fallen angel and the first wife of Adam. Talk about blasphemy! Putting her name in the Word of God is definitely that! The NSRV (New Standard Revised Version)is used by some pagans. Definitely a book (I refuse to call it a Bible) to stay clear of.

[joelkaki]

You may have unwittingly been swept up in this rush to have "A Better Translation." But be aware that that these "New" Bibles have over 5,000 differences in them when compared to the King James Bible.

And this is a problem because???  It is not as if some major, fundamental Bible doctrine is changed because of it.

These "easier to read" Bibles come from a corrupted text. They read differently than the KJV because the manuscripts they come from are not the same as the manuscripts from which the KJV is taken. The issue is NOT translation but TEXT.

Prove that the Critical Text is corrupted, and that the TR is the only viable alternative.  And if the issue is indeed text and NOT translation, then I can translate from the TR, get a different translation than the KJV, and that's ok?

If you want to know if you have one of these corrupted Bibles turn to Colossians 1:14. If this verse does not include the phrase "through his blood" then you have a bible that has been translated from a corrupt text.  

If that was not originally in the text, then why is that a problem?  Just because THAT PARTICULAR TEXT does not contain "through his blood" does not mean that the translation is somehow changing the doctrine of the atonement.

Remember, you cannot translate what is not there.

Very true, which is why we should strive for textual accuracy, whether that leads us away from the TR or not.

Joel

[nChrist]

Pastor Roger Said:

Lilith originated with an outcast sect of Hebrews. She was supposedly an evil goddess, a fallen angel and the first wife of Adam. Talk about blasphemy! Putting her name in the Word of God is definitely that! The NSRV (New Standard Revised Version)is used by some pagans. Definitely a book (I refuse to call it a Bible) to stay clear of.

Brother, that's sick and disgusting. I'm not familiar with the NSRV, but I won't bother. I do have several versions that I use for side-by-side comparisons from time to time. Some are fairly good part of the time, and some are bad quite often.

I really don't like the idea that lost people and babes in Christs many times get terribly confused with some of the newer translations. Some might say that it's OK if it helps to bring someone to Christ. I'll be happy to be called an old square, but I firmly believe what's called a Bible matters greatly. An older and stronger Christian might easily recognize distorted or omitted text, but the same would not be true for the lost and the babes. Men already create enough confusion without corrupt texts.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Brother Love]

Pastor Roger,

Brother, if I remember correctly, "Lilith" is a mythical queen of demons. I only know that because of trying to investigate some messages of a recently banned user named "Ha Lilith".

WOW!, the differences you just quoted between two different versions are worlds apart.

I have used a few other versions for study, but my Bible is the Old KJV.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Lilith originated with an outcast sect of Hebrews. She was supposedly an evil goddess, a fallen angel and the first wife of Adam. Talk about blasphemy! Putting her name in the Word of God is definitely that! The NSRV (New Standard Revised Version)is used by some pagans. Definitely a book (I refuse to call it a Bible) to stay clear of.

Thanks Pastor, for the good info