Agreement on the NKJV - E-mail Exchange

Agreement on the NKJV
and other Comments on Bible Versions

Below are several e-mails from the same person commenting on articles listed at Bible Versions Controversy, along with my replies. The e-mailer’s comments are in black and and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.

>Hello, I've just finished reading your Web site and was highly impressed. I also operate a Web site with apologetics materials, and have recently come to the same convictions as you regarding Bible versions.<

It’s so nice to have someone agree with me for a change!

>But aren't our convictions -- modern language, Majority Text -- awfully rare?<

The last time I say a "sales" chart, the New International Version [NIV] was the best-selling version in the USA, the King James Version [KJV], number two, and the New King James Version [NKJV] number three. Its been a while since I have seen such a chart so the positions may have changed. Also, I’m not sure by how much the NIV and KJV outsell the NKJV. But still, out of the dozens of Bible versions out there, number three is significant whatever the exact figures are.

>I go to two churches, depending on what city I'm in; on occasional visits to see my parents, I go to a church that is basically KJV-Only. When I'm at home, my church uses the NIV, although my poor pastor frequently has to say, "Now, our translation is not very accurate here..." (although he's a firm CT ["Critical Text"] proponent). I honestly can't decide which position is worse -- KJV-Only or CT.<

Fortunately, we do not have to choose. There are alternatives, the NKJV, along with the Modern King James Version [MKJV] and Literal Translation of the Bible [LITV for "Literal Version"].

>I have to wonder if your home church agrees with your views, and if not, what is there to do about it?<

My church is Christ Community Fellowship. Its pastor is Jeff Youell. Jeff and I agree on many things. But we also have our disagreements. One is in the area of Bible versions. He uses the New American Standard Bible [NASB]. In fact, the edition he uses is the exact burgundy, slim-line, leather-back version that I used to use, as mentioned in my "experiences" page.

As I also mention on that page and elsewhere on my site, I do think the NASB is a basically accurate version as far as the translation goes; but, of course, I disagree with the "Critical Text" that it translates from. Also, the NASB’s textual footnotes are rather sparse, and misleading at times. Moreover, it does not really uses modern-day English with all those "thee’s" and thou’s" in it.

On the other hand, Jeff does realize that the NIV and similar versions are not reliable. He used to use the NIV but switched to the NASB years ago. There was a couple of Sundays a while back when he did use his old NIV - he "misplaced" his NASB. It ended up being under his car seat!

In any case, I guess you could say my pastor and I partially agree on this subject. As for what to do about it, I have talked to Jeff and he simply does not think there is that big of a difference between the Critical Text and Textus Receptus/ Majority Text to make a fuss about it.

As for me, when I used to teach Bible studies (my poor health forbids teaching now) I would use my NKJV. Sooner-or later a textual variant or mis-translation in the NIV (which someone in the study inevitably would be using) would come up. This would give me an occasion to explain the differences in translations principles or Greek text types, whichever was appropriate, between the NIV and NKJV.

And, of course, I published my book and set-up my Web site to try to "get the word out" about the inaccuracies of most modern-day versions and the fallacies of the "KJV Only" position. There is not much else that can be done than to make such information available and let each person decide for themselves.

>I became a Christian while reading the NKJV. Unfortunately, years before, I found myself unable to interpret the KJV, and when nice people came to my door offering a modern English Bible version, I accepted one -- a New World Translation. Needless to say, after I had completed the NWT, I was more confused than before. I contacted a strong Christian friend who recommended the NKJV, and while reading that wonderful translation cover-to-cover, I realized the Trinity doctrine was true, which to me marks the point at which I became a true Christian.<

Interesting testimony! Thank God for your "strong Christian friend."

>I discovered KJV Onlyism a few years ago, and found that its insanity led me to reconsider the CT. I also have the NIV and NASB as a result of that experience.<

I have always thought there are two main dangers of the "KJV Only" position. First, if people are given only the choice of reading the KJV, they will get frustrated with it and give up on Bible reading altogether.

The second danger could be, when people get frustrated reading the KJV or realize how faulty "KJV Only" arguments are, they might jump to truly unreliable versions like the NIV, or worse. And you cannot get much worse than the "Bible" of Jehovah’s Witnesses!

>The NASB didn't seem so bad, but the NIV even engages in higher criticism in the Old Testament, reducing the numbers of casualties recorded in battle and so forth.<

Given a choice between the NASB and the NIV, I would definitely choose the NASB. But, again, fortunately we do not have to make that choice.

>But I have returned to my first helper, the NKJV, because to leave textual decisions in the hands of often radical liberals and even unbelievers leaves just too much to be desired.<

Agreed.

>No matter what one might say against the NKJV, if you check those anti-NKJV comparison lists the KJV-Onlyists put out, you will find that 95% of the time, the NKJV is in fact the better translation.<

This has been my experience also in studying these list.

>Basing the text on 95% of the manuscripts existent, rather than human wisdom, seems a very intelligent approach to me.<

Agreed again. I discuss this point in my article The Majority Text vs. The Critical Text.

>Here's a thought: In the course of my studies, I read James White's "KJV-Only Controversy"; he is a CT advocate, but from his own book, his position doesn't stand to reason. Very early in his writing, he notes that there was severe consternation among Christians when the Vulgate "changed" the word "gourd" to "castor-oil plant". If that is true -- how come Christians stood still while hundreds of words and even phrases were "added" to the Bible by scribes? It simply does not make sense.<

True, if the scribes were altering the text through the centuries as the CT people claim, there should have been an outcry. There was such an outcry when the heretics tried to alter the texts in the early church, as I discuss the above mentioned article.

>Thank you for having an excellent site, one of a kind to my knowledge. Right now, my own page has links to both KJV-Only and CT proponents to try to balance out the arguments in my readers' minds; I would prefer to link to your page. May I link?

Yours in Christ,
Reese Currie<

Thank you for the kind comments. And yes, you may link to my site. It would be much appreciated.

>Hi Gary, I know you're not compiling e-mail correspondences on the NKJV issue any more, but I just thought I'd drop a note on you to ask how you're doing and also bash the NIV a little.<

I had thought I had covered every aspect of the KJV vs. NKJV controversy in my five-part correspondence with Gregg. But I recently received an e-mail that raised an additional point that was not covered. So I posted the letter and my response. You might be interested in it. It is located at: Translation Consistency.

As for how I am doing, well, my health is as poor as ever. But, by the grace of God I am managing. I just sent out the latest issue of my Darkness to Light newsletter.

Now for your comments on the NIV.

>I was just speaking (via e-mail) with a good friend about the complications of not letting Christ rule in your life. I commented, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads", from Acts 9:5, a verse that had significant impact on me. To me, it is a nice, quick verse for pointing out that Jesus has to take the throne in your life for it to be successful.

It occurred to me that my friend normally uses the NIV, and I looked it up, thoroughly expecting what I found -- the text is omitted in the CT. So, I put (NKJV/Majority Text) in brackets after the quotation. The passage actually barely makes sense in the CT; you can tell something is "missing" just from the choppy way it reads. It also omits a crucial (to me, anyway) act of repentance on Paul's part in verse 6 -- "Lord, what do You want me to do?"<

In my writings I generally "lump" the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Majority Text (MT) together. I do so because they are very similar; but they are not identical. If you read your footnotes in the NKJV carefully you will see many places where it indicates that the TR which the NKJV is based on differs from the Critical Text (CT). In the NKJV footnotes the CT is indicated by "NU" for Nestle-Aland/ United Bible Societies, the two organizations that publish CT-type Greek texts.

But you will also see a few places where the MT differs from the TR. The MT is indicated simply by "M" in the footnotes. Now, the footnotes indicating a difference between the TR and the MT are few and far between. Only in the Revelation are there many such variants. But even then, the differences generally are not that significant.

However, there are two places where there is a significant difference between the TR and the MT. And you have hit upon the first of these in Acts 9:5,6. The other is in 1John 5:7,8. In both of these instances, the CT agrees with the MT.

Bruce Metzger is one of the editors of the UBS Greek text.

Metzger says about Acts 9:5,6:
After diokeis [persecute] (and omitting alla [but] of ver. 6) the Textus Receptus adds ... "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him.'' So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from 26.14 and 22.10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate ....

The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate into Greek and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel 1516) - (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 362).

And so you know that this is not just the ramblings of a CT advocate, J.P. Green (the editor of the MKJV and LITV) has a similar comment in the preface to his interlinear.

Green writes:
Although it is admitted that Erasmus has added to his Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate, without Greek manuscript authority (e.g. Acts 9:5,6), and also one from the Complutension Bible has no Greek manuscript authority (1 John 5:7). We have not deleted these from the Greek text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society, though we do not accept them as part of the true deposit of the Holy Scriptures (The Interlinear Bible, Vol. IV, p. xi).

So the evidence for this passage is rather weak, to say the least. As such, it is really not fair to "bash" the NIV in this case (though I can think of many other case where it would be appropriate!).

But, it must be noted, that the words themselves are genuine. As Metzger indicates, part of the words can be found in Acts 22:10 and the rest in 26:14. So you can still use these words to "point out that Jesus has to take the throne in your life" - it just won’t as "quick" to have to go to two places in Scripture rather than just one.

I discuss 1John 5:7,8 in my article Significant Textual Variants - TR vs. MT.

>I've been reading the NIV all the way through because my church uses it. I've read the Bible three prior times (as I've told you before) and each time, I like to read a different version. There are advantages to reading things translated with different wording; it makes you think about the verses afresh (it does for me, anyway). For actual dissertation, however, I *always* use either the NKJV only or an NKJV/KJV mix, because these are the only versions that are both readily available and accurate.<

I agree with you totally here. I have read the Bible in several different versions (KJV, NKJV, NIV, and others). It does help to keep Bible reading "fresh." Also using a different edition of the same version, such a study Bible, is also helpful.

Right now, I am actually reading a couple of commentaries: Andrew Bonar’s commentary on Leviticus and Calvin’s commentary on A Harmony of the Evangelists (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Bonar uses the KJV and Calvin his own translation. Both are excellent commentaries, with a good mix of doctrinal and devotional comments. I like to alternate, reading the Old Testament on odd numbered days and the New Testament on even numbered days.

Despite my recommendation of the MKJV and LITV, I have never actually read the Bible cover-to-cover using either of these (though I have read portions and always use them for comparison purposes). So when I get through these commentaries I will probably use one of these versions for my next trip through the Bible.

>(I have Nelson's Electronic Bible Reference Library. Nice program, but prohibitively expensive if you want to license multiple Bible versions. I only wanted it for the NKJV. Very poor search capability; I generally have to find the verse using my own Bible Search Utility software (KJV), then look it up in NEBRL to get the NKJV rendering.)<

I have never been too thrilled with software programs with "locked" items on them. When I buy something I like to have it bought altogether, and not have to worry about paying more for it later. It’s sad to hear that despite the expensive that NEBRL has poor search capabilities.

BTW, I did download from your site and install your Bible Search Utility. Nifty little program.

>I am very frustrated with the NIV experience. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm even reading the Bible!<

I can understand your frustration here. Though I have read through the NIV before, I doubt very much I would ever waste my time reading through it or a similar version again. As I said, I still have very accurate versions like the MKJV and LITV to read through, plus many commentaries on my shelves. That should keep me reading for a long time to come.

>My latest gripe is with a passage in Jeremiah that actually accuses God of being a deceiver.

Jeremiah 20:7 in the NIV reads, "O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me."

In the NKJV, Jeremiah 20:7 reads, "O Lord, You induced me, and I was persuaded; You are stronger than I, and have prevailed. I am in derision daily; Everyone mocks me."

Thanks to the modern wonder of dynamic equivalency -- God becomes a deceiver and ceases being stronger than Jeremiah. The NASB's translation is functionally identical to that of the NIV. The KJV retains the "God is stronger than Jeremiah" concept, but also uses the word "deceived".

Incidentally, the words "induced" and "persuaded" are from Hebrew pathah which literally means to open or make roomy, but figuratively means to "make simple" mentally. The sinister sense of the word is to "delude", which makes "deceived" a legitimate translation *if* we presume God did something sinister. (This definition is from Strong's; I'm not a Hebrew expert by any stretch of the imagination.)

So, which translation is the most legitimate? KJV, NIV/NASB, or NKJV? I have a feeling the NKJV is the safe bet. Otherwise, it causes problems with Titus 1:2, which says that God cannot lie, and therefore could not have deceived Jeremiah. I'd be curious to know how the LITV and MKJV handle the verse.<

To answer your last question first:
LITV: "O Jehovah, You have deceived me; yea, I was deceived. You are stronger than I, and You have prevailed. I am in derision all the day; everyone laughs at me."

MKJV: "O LORD, You have deceived me, and I was deceived. You are stronger than I, and You have prevailed. I am in derision all the day; everyone laughs at me."

So it appears both of these follow the KJV/ NASB/ NIV in using "deceived." But they follow the KJV and NKJV in the rendering, "You are stronger than I."

To look at the second point first, the Hebrew word is hazaq. It is in the "Qal" verbal pattern (technically called its "binyan") and in the "perfect" tense or "mood."

In the "Qal" pattern it can mean "Be or grow strong, overpower, be stronger than, too strong for, prevail against" (The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, p.304).

Second, the "perfect" in Hebrew refers to "a completed action" or "the present state of the subject (s)" - (from my Hebrew class notes).

So the NIV/ NASB rendering is lexically possible. The word can have the sense of "overpowered." The idea would be that God "overpowered" Jeremiah’s resistance. I do not think this necessarily implies that God needed to become stronger than Jeremiah, though it could be taken in that manner.

So, if it was up to me, to avoid this possible confusion, I would render it in the manner the NKJV and others do: "You are stronger than I" indicating the "present state" of the subject (i.e. God) leading to the inevitable result that God would "prevail" over Jeremiah's resistance.

Now for the first point, does God "deceive" Jeremiah or does He simply "induce" or "persuade" Jeremiah. Which of these renderings is best? This question is not easily answered.

As you say, the Heberw word is pathah. It appears 28 times in the OT. In the KJV pathah is various translated as: entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1 (copied from the Online Bible). So the KJV uses various terms to translate the word, inducing both "deceived" and "persuaded" in different contexts.

If you check the textual footnote in your NKJV, you will see it gives the alternate translations for "induced" of "enticed or persuaded."

But still, context is the final determiner of meaning when a word has more than one meaning. In this case, you are right that to call God a "deceiver" seems rather suspect.

But the Theological Workbook of the Old Testament explains this rendering as follows, "Jeremiah in the depths of despair complained that God had deceived him when his ministry was so fruitless. The Lord was gracious with him (as he is with all who serve him), for Jeremiah could not escape the commission (20:7-9)" (Vol. II, pp. 742-3).

So in this line of thought, Jeremiah is simply expressing his heart-felt feelings. But still, calling God a "deceiver" seems rather strong.

Charles L. Feinberg wrote the commentary on Jeremiah for The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. This commentary set is very good, despite being based on the NIV.

In any case, Feinberg comments on this passage:
The verb "deceived" is so bold and offensive to religious sensibilities that some have tried to soften it by translating it "persuaded" or "enticed" so that the verse does not seem to verge on blasphemy. In its intensive form (as here), the verb pathah means "to seduce," as a virgin is seduced (cf. Exod 22:16; 1Kings 22:20-22). To be sure, Jeremiah is not accusing God of lying or misrepresentation; but what he calls seduction is the divine compulsion on his spirit. He is claiming that the Lord overpersuaded him to become a prophet….

As the doom of the nation approached, he felt the Lord had overpersuaded him in calling him to the prophetic office when he did not realize all it involved. So he clearly speaks like a man overtaxed and overwrought. Who of us can feel justified in ensuring him for what he said here? (Vol. 6, pp. 502-3).

Now, by "intensive form" Feinberg is referring to the fact the first use of pathah in this verse is in the "Piel" verb pattern. This verb pattern "intensifies" the action of the "Qal" or normal meaning of the verb.

So this is the reason most translations have "deceived" rather than just "persuaded" here. Deceived seems like a "stronger" term. But it also alters the connotation of the word. Hence why Feinberg uses "overpersuaded" instead.

On the other hand, the second use of pathah is in the "Niphal" form. This is simply the passive of the "Qal" form. So it is sometimes translated differently, sometimes not (same word, different binyan so it could go either way).

Somewhat different from the above comments is that by Keil and Delitzsch (K&D) in their Commentary on the Old Testament.

First, K&D translate the verse as, "Thou hast persuaded me, Jahveh, and I let myself be persuaded; thou hast laid hold on me and hast prevailed." Note, the "let myself" is due to the word being a Niphal binyan. The Niphal can also have a reflexive connotation.

In any case, K&D then comment:
The complaint, vers. 7-13, is an outpouring of the heart to God, a prayer that begins with a complaint, passes into confidence in the Lord’s protection, and ends in a triumph of hope. In vers. 7 and 8 Jeremiah complains of the evil consequences of his labours. God has persuaded him to undertake the office of prophet, so that he has yielded to the call of God. The words of ver. 7a are not an upbraiding, nor are they given in an upbraiding tone; for pathah does not mean befool, but persuade, induced by words to do a thing (Vol. 8, pp. 316-7).

So K&D specifically deny the idea of "deception" in this verse. They prefer "persuade" or "induce."

One last point, pathah is again used in Jer 20:10, "For I heard many mocking: ‘Fear on every side!’ ‘Report,’ they say, ‘and we will report it!’ All my acquaintances watched for my stumbling, saying, ‘Perhaps he can be induced; then we will prevail against him, and we will take our revenge on him’" (NKJV).

Here, "induced" is pathah which is also in the "Piel" binyan. So for consistency sake, it would probably be best to translate it the same as the Piel form in verse 7.

So putting all of the above together, which translation of this word do I think is best? I don’t think the rendering of "deceived" is appropriate. Even in his heartbreak, I do not think Jeremiah would be charging God with deceiving him. God had warned him that his prophetic duty would be difficult; but God had promised that He would cause His word to prevail (Jer 1:4-19).

The succeeding context of the verse shows that what Jeremiah’s complaint entailed was his desire to cease speaking God’s words so that he could end his persecution. But God would not let him stop (vv. 7-10). Jeremiah declared that "His word was in my heart like a burning fire" (v.9). So God was influencing Jeremiah from within to speak even when he did not want to. I see no deception here.

The only question then would be which English word better expresses how God was influencing Jeremiah here, "persuade" or "induce?" The words are basically synonyms; but there is a slight difference of connotation.

"Persuade" means, "To induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty: to make children fit to live in a society by persuading them to learn and accept its codes."

"Induce" means, "1. To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion. 2. To bring about or stimulate the occurrence of; cause: a drug used to induce labor.’"

The words can be compared as follows: "Persuade means to win someone over, as by reasons, advice, urging, or personal forcefulness: Nothing can persuade her to change her mind once it is made up. To induce is to lead, as to a course of action, by means of influence or persuasion: Pray what could induce him to commit so rash an action?" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved).

So "persuade" seems to have more the connotation of using outward words to influence someone, whereas "induce" can refer to a wider range of influence. Since God’s influence on Jeremiah was from within him, I think "induce" would probably be better in this context.

So I basically agree with the NKJV, "O Lord, You induced me, and I was persuaded." Although if I was translating the verse I might want to render "pathah" similarly in both occurrences and in such a way as to bring out the force of the binyan for each.

So my translation would read, "O LORD, You strongly induced me, and I was induced" (or maybe, "I let myself be induced" - there are so many decisions for a translator. Not an easy job!).

>In Christ,
Reese Currie<

Lastly, I did receive your short e-mail telling me I didn’t need to spend much time on this. Thank you for your concern as I don’t always have the time or energy to respond to every e-mail I receive in detail. But once I get digging in the Word, sometimes I just cannot stop! And you raised interesting points on these verses that I had to study out.

>Hi, Gary, ... I really appreciate you taking this time for me.... My NKJV is a "cheap one" without footnotes, so if you get the occasional dumb question from me, please remember I'm just a touch blind here. If I get another study Bible, it will be NKJV. (Besides, my poor NKJV is just about read to death. The binding is cracking and it is only a matter of time before I start losing pages.)<

May I suggest the New Geneva Study Bible? It is the best study Bible I have seen. It is edited by R.C. Sproul and provides a Reformed perspective. Although, you don’t need a full study Bible to get the textual footnote; my compact Reference Bible also has them. The only study aids it has are center-cross references and a mini-concordance in the back (both very helpful aids when I am away from my PC).

>I just love working with the NKJV text, and there are translations in there I find startlingly better than other Bible versions. For another example, Acts 2:43 is a better translation than the KJV or NIV (but equal with the NASB). It says that great signs and wonders were performed "through" the apostles, while the KJV and NIV say signs and wonders were performed "by" the apostles. I looked it up in Strong's, and "through" seems right on the money.<

You are very correct here. The Greek word is dia. Dana and Mantey say about the use of dia to mean "through" - "This usage is very common." Meanwhile, "by" is said to be one of the "Remote meanings." Moreover, since "the apostles" is of the genitive case, Dana and Mantey say that "through" is the preferred translation (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament - pp. 101-2; This was the grammar I used at seminary to learn intermediate Greek).

BTW, the MKJV and LITV also have "through" here.

>Calvin's own version -- isn't that the Geneva Bible?<

Maybe, I’m not sure.

>Thanks for the comments on the Bible Search Utility. I'm working on a 32 bit version right now that will give it the ability to change fonts and a much larger editor buffer....

I'm also prototyping a BSU New Testament that will fit on a single floppy; I think it would be ideal for college/seminary students, perhaps missionaries in developed/semi-developed countries, maybe others. I get some e-mail from Eastern Asia, and perhaps a tiny portable disk-based NT would be good in parts of that region.<

A good idea. A lot of portables, and especially the new mini-notebooks, don’t have a CD ROM drive. So installing most Bible programs would be impossible. But even the mini-notebooks have a floppy.

>Thanks again for all your work on this, Gary.

In Christ,
Reese Currie<

You’re welcome.

>Gary, I'm happy to help you point out anything that shows how good the NKJV is, as I believe it is the best readily available Bible version.<

I like the way you put that, "the best readily available Bible version." I do, or course, also recommend the MKJV and LITV version; but, unfortunately, they are not too "readily available." I did, however, see a copy of Green’s "Interlinear Bible" (with the LITV in the margin) at my local Christian bookstore.

>Whenever I read KJV-Onlyist stuff, I shudder and think how many people have stumbled over this stumbling-block, never reading the Bible or never understanding what they read.

Last year, I conducted a Bible study with a fellow who wanted to read the Bible but was exasperated trying. Of course, he was into the KJV. He rejoiced greatly that there were acceptable modern English versions, and we read the New Testament together. On his own (I have moved since, but we keep in touch) he has been reading the Old Testament. He never would have read any of it if he hadn't read a modern version.<

I have learned that whenever someone says that they tried to read the Bible but found it too difficult, that the first question to ask is, "What version are you reading?" Almost always the reply is the KJV.

>At my Bible study, there are a lot of people who carry the King James Version because it is the "right one"; the church uses the NIV, as I've pointed out to you before, and most of the real Bible students realize it is seriously flawed.<

"real Bible students realize the NIV is seriously flawed." I like that!

>We read the Bible aloud, and it is sad to listen to people trying to read the KJV aloud. I of course take my NKJV, and sometimes my NASB which is a study Bible and has some very good footnotes.<

You are right, I always cringe when I hear someone struggling to read the KJV. It also sounds rather awkward. I mean, I often feel like saying, "Can’t you just speak normal English?"

A friend from church asked me about the NKJV, and I told her it was based on the exact same text as the KJV, but was much easier to read and even more accurate. I asked her if she'd like one. "Well, I can't afford a Bible right now," she said. (She really can't, by the way; I think her dentist has walked off with her life savings.) I said to her, "That isn't the question; the question is, would you like one? I'll buy it for you." So I bought one for her. She had some trepidation taking it to Bible study until she had it completely checked out to her satisfaction, and now she comes with it every time. The strain and difficulty of reading God's word is gone for her. To me, that's a real victory.

Amen. And nice gesture.

>Sorry to hear your health situation is so bad. I hope you don't let it discourage you, because you're doing a lot of good; as I point out on my links page, you certainly lend a lot of light to the Bible version issue that is absent in most other sites addressing it. The good news is, you have the Lord to lean on in these trying times. I don't know how non-Christians make it through a normal day, let alone a long spell of illness.

In Christ,
Reese Currie<

Thanks for the kind comments above and on your links page. I often wonder where I would be today if I hadn’t become a Christian. A good chance I might not even be here. But, with God’s help, I do manage. And kind comments like yours help me to keep going also.

In any case, God bless.

Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

The first e-mail exchange above was posted on this Web site November 1997.
The other exchanges were posted January 1998.

Bible Versions Controversy: General Comments
Bible Versions Controversy

Text Search Alphabetical List of Pages Subject Index
General Information on Articles Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian

Books and eBooks by the Director