BRUCE MANNING METZGER (1914- ) is another of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. He is Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and serves on the board of the American Bible Society (St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 2, 1982, p. 5). Metzger served on the heretical committee which produced the Revised Standard Version. When it first appeard in 1952, the RSV was rightly condemned for its modernism. Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A.

Metzger was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19. The Preface claims that:

"Dr. Metzger was actively involved at every stage of the work, from the initial studies on each of the sixty-six books through all the subsequent editorial reviews. The finished condensation has received his full approval."

Metzger wrote the introductions to each of the books of the Reader’s Digest Bible, and questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter. He reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses." (Introduction to Genesis).

Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Introduction to Exodus).

Deuteronomy: "It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time." (Introduction to Deuteronomy)

Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes." (Introduction to Daniel).

John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus’ ministry given by the other evangelists." (Introduction to John).

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul’s other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul." (Introduction to 1 Timothy).

James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord’s brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date." (Introduction to James).

1 Peter: "According to tradition, the apostle Peter wrote the letter from Rome, perhaps after the outbreak of persecution by the emperor Nero in A.D. 64. But this is questioned by some modern scholars, who prefer to date the letter nearer A.D. 100, with authorship unknown" (Introduction to 1 Peter).

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as ‘scripture,’ a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul’s death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter’s name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150." (Introduction to 2 Peter).

Metzger co-edited the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973), with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts (see also Cushings promotion of Billy Graham). Metzger wrote many of the notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider the folowing from the notes to this version:


"The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."


"[Genesis] 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."


"The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."


"22:12-13: ... the meaning of the third line [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure."


"Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiah’s time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ... The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later."


"The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."


"Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter. This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke."


"The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ... Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master’s name early in the second century."


"The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history ... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements. ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and not with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind."

All this is modernistic foolishness. While it is true that Metzger did not write all of the notes in the New Oxford Bible, his stamp of editorship is upon the whole work.

The Pentateuch was written by the hand of God and Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation.

It is evident that Bruce Metzger is a liberal who denies the very Word of God he translates. He piously claims on one hand that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies. He denies its history, its miracles, and its authorship, and in true liberal style, he claims that this denial does not do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind" (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, edited by Herbert May and Bruce Metzger, Oxford University Press, 1973)

In The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, 1965, Metzger claims that:

"the discipline of form criticism has enlarged our understanding of the conditions which prevailed during the years when the gospel materials circulated by word of mouth" (p. 86).

Form criticism is an unbelieving discipline which claims that the Gospels were gradually formed out a matrix of tradition and myth. Form critics hold a wide variety of views (reflecting the unsettled and relativistic nature of the rationalism upon which they stand), but all of them deny that the Gospels are the perfect, verbally inspired, divinely-given, absolutely infallible Word of God. Metzger says,

"What each evangelist has preserved, therefore, is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church" (Ibid.).

Metzger completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are the product of divine revelation.

He is a false teacher, an apostate, a heretic. While it is true that in 1953, he wrote a pamphlet refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses and defending the full and absolute deity of Christ. A man can defend the deity of Christ and still be a false teacher. Even the Pope defends the full and absolute deity of Christ. A man who denies the written Word also denies the Living Word. They stand or fall together. If the Bible contains error, Christ was a liar. If Christ is perfect Truth, so is the Bible.


The preface to the First Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament tells us that:

"the project was initiated, organized, and administered by Eugene A. Nida, who also took part in Committee discussions, especially those relating to major decisions of policy and method."

Eugene Nida (1914- ) is a key promoter of the method of Bible translation known as "dynamic equivalency". This is the loose paraphrasing method popularized in such English translations as the Living Bible and the Today's English Version.

"Dr. Nida served as Executive Secretary of the Translations Department from 1946 to December 1980. ... This work has taken him to more than 85 countries, where he has conferred with scores of translators on linguistic problems involving more than 200 different languages. Dr. Nida was also Translation Research Coordinator for the United Bible Societies from 1970 to 1980. While now retired, he retains his relationship with the ABS and UBS as a Special Consultant for Translations, and is active in research, writing and lecturing." (Record, American Bible Society, Mar. 1986, p. 17)

In 1979, Dr. Eugene Nida who headed the translation department, admitted that Roman Catholics had begun participating and called it a "very important development."

Nida's view of biblical inspiration is that:

"God did not give eternal truths, but granted communication.... God’s revelation involved limitations. ... Biblical revelation is not absolute and all divine revelation is essentially incarnational. ... Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life. Only then does the Word of Life become life to the receptor. The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves. ... the word is void unless related to experience" (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 221-228, New York: Harper & Row, 1960).

"In a time when the Bible was thought to be written in a kind of Holy Ghost language, the only criterion to exegetical accuracy was the pious hope that one's interpretations were in accord with accepted doctrine. At a later period, when grammar was viewed almost exclusively from an historical perspective, one could only hope to arrive at valid conclusions by `historical reconstructs,' but these often proved highly impressionistic. At present, linguistics has provided much more exact tools of analysis based on the dynamic functioning of language, and it is to these that one ought to look for significant developments in the future." (Eugene Nida, Language Structure and Translation, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975, p. 259)

Nida does not believe the Bible's own confession as to its nature:

"the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12).

See also 1 Cor. 2:10-13, where Paul states that the very words of New Testament Revelation were of God.

Nida says no absolutes in Christianity except God:

"The only absolute in Christianity is the triune God. Anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited, and hence relative. Biblical culture relativism is an obligatory feature of our incarnational religion, for without it we would either absolutize human institutions or relativize God." (Eugene Nida, Customs and Cultures, New York: Harper & Row, 1954, p. 282, footnote 22)

Nida apparently would put everything which man has touched in the category of imperfection, in spite of the fact that some of man's things have come down from heaven. This includes the Bible and the institutions of the Bible, such as the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the church.

Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not to be interpreted literally:

" ... wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture." (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 41)

The Bible's accounts of angels has nothing to do with culture. They are true accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ believed in literal angels and interpreted the Old Testament miracles literally.

Nida denies the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ:

"Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commercial transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the ‘two natures of God’ (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the ‘cost,’ in terms of suffering" (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53).

Nida was co-author with Barclay M. Newman of the United Bible Societies' publication A translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans. Commenting on Romans 3:25, which says, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," this commentary states:

"...`blood' is used in this passage in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. ... Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament."

The sacrifice of Christ was not just a figure; it WAS a placation of God, of His holiness and of the righteous demands in His law. Christ’s sacrifice WAS a commercial transaction between Christ and God, and was NOT merely a figure of the cost in terms of suffering.

The sacrifice of Calvary was a true sacrifice, and that sacrifice required the offering of blood—not just a violent death as Nida says. Blood is blood and death is death, and we believe that God is wise enough to know which of these words should be used. Had Christ died, for example, by beating, though it would have been a violent death, it would not have atoned for sin because blood is required. Those, like Nida, who tamper with the blood atonement often claim to believe in justification by grace, but they are rendering the Cross ineffective by reinterpreting its meaning. There is no grace without a true propitiation.

Propitiation means "satisfaction" and refers to the fact that the sin debt was satisfied by the blood atonement of Christ. The great difference between the heathen concept of propitiating God and that of the Bible is this—the God of the Bible paid the propitiation Himself through His own Sacrifice, whereas the heathen thinks that he can propitiate God through his own human labors and offerings. The fact remains, though, that God did have to be propitiated through the bloody death of His own Son.

The fact is that Eugene Nida is a heretic. He is also a clever man, because he does not openly assault the blood atonement and the doctrine of inspiration as his translator friend Robert Bratcher does, (Bratcher, translator of the Today’s English Version, has co-authored books with Nida), rather he uses the same words as the Bible believer, but he reinterprets key words and passages such as those above. This is called Neo-orthodoxy.


The United Bibles Societies' Greek New Testament is produced by apostate men. Trusting a modernist with the translation or proclamation of the Word of God, is like trusting a wolf as a sheep dog. Obviously the men involved were unbelievers and the entire translation was the work of the devil and not of God. The Lord Jesus Christ said that false teachers are of their father the devil (John 8:44). And the Apostle Paul said,

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Is the fact that Martini is a Catholic bishop significant? Does it matter?

According to Romanism, the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and is to receive homage as such; the pope can make or change doctrine through his official pronouncements, and such pronouncements are to be considered infallible by all Christians; Mary is to be worshipped as the Mother of God and as the Queen of Heaven; she is a perpetual virgin, is sinless, and can hear and answer prayer, having ascended bodily into heaven; most Christians must go to a place called purgatory, a place of fiery judgment, for some time after death before they can enter heaven; at the Catholic mass the bread and wine actually become the literal body and blood of Christ through the power of the Roman priest and the consecrated bread is to be worshipped following the mass; Catholic priests are ordained to the order of Melchisedec and have the power to forgive sins and to impart spiritual blessings through the Roman sacraments; Catholic tradition is just as truthful and important as the Scriptures; salvation is achieved through faith in Christ PLUS baptism AND the sacraments of the Catholic church. Every one of these heresies taught by the Roman Catholic Church was reaffirmed during the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

Surely it is more than a coincidence that since the days of the production of the English Revised Version (with its preference for Catholic manuscripts), the reversal of the Protestant Reformation has grown with amazing rapidity.

The apostate Roman Catholic Church which kept the Word of God bound from men for so many centuries, probably has more wealth than any organization on earth, yet the United Bible Societies are using money given to them by Protestant Christians to subsidize the Vatican's activities.

As far as the Vatican is concerned, the ecumenical movement is a one-way street, one that leads straight to Rome. The Roman Catholic leaders are very clever, in these interconfessional translations, the United Bible Societies provide money and personnel for the publication of Catholic Bibles which promote Roman traditions.

One tradition that is continually reinforced concerns the role of the virgin Mary. Paragraphs 282-303 of the conference [the 1979 Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopacy, opened by Pope John Paul II and attended by representatives of the United Bible Societies] document are entitled "Mary, the Mother and model of the Church," and concern Mary's role in "evangelization"; the document does not fail to mention the Catholic doctrine of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" and "Assumption." (Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Apr.-Jun. 1981, pgs. 14-15)

The United Bible Societies even helped finance the Scripture portions which the pope gives away in his endless "papal audiences," during which he deceives the blinded people who come for his blessing and advice. The pope is deadly serious when he calls himself the vicar of Christ and sits upon a throne as primate of the whole earth. As he courts the kings, diplomats, and religious leaders who slavishly bow and scrape before him, his one desire, like the Roman pope's before him has been to rule the world.

The Bible indicates that a Roman Pope will one day have his wish as a co-ruler with the antichrist for a brief time. In Revelation 17 the harlot, the apostate world religion, is seen sitting upon the beast, which is the antichrist and his world government. The attitude of the United Bible Societies toward the Roman Catholic Church is summed up in the policy of the Canadian Bible Society. Of this member of the United Bible Societies we read, "THE CANADIAN BIBLE SOCIETY CONSIDERS ITSELF TOTALLY AT THE SERVICE OF CATHOLIC BIBLE WORK." (Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record, Jul.-Sep. 1978, pgs. 6-8.)

The Bible warns that if we affiliate with those who are apostate and disobedient we will be partaker of their evil deeds. Faithful Christians must have nothing whatsoever to do with apostate organizations such as the United Bible Societies. The Bible warns us about men who `handle the word of God deceitfully' (2 Corinthians 4:2)

If a born again Christian is in a church which fellowships with or supports the Bible societies, part of your tithes and offerings are going to support the evil we have been considering in this study. In 2 John and Revelation 18:4 we are warned that to do so means we will be partakers of the evil deeds of those we are fellowshipping with and/or aiding.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4)

Tampering with the Word of God has not ceased since that terrible day in the Garden of Eden. God's exact command was:

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17).

Notice how Eve corrupted God's Word by adding to it her own thought about not touching the tree. To change God's Word in any way is to corrupt it. If one takes away from God's Word, or adds to it, or changes the meaning he corrupts it. To make any change whatsoever in that which God has said, be it ever so slight or seemingly insignificant, is a corruption of the Word of God.

In the days of the prophets in Israel we are told that the false prophets:

"perverted the words of the living God" (Jer. 23:36)

The devil and his servents have been busy corrupting the Word of God throughout history.

Return to Top

Go To Previous Page

Return to From Their Own Mouths Contents

Return to King James Controversy Contents

Return to Home Page

se are the same old arguments those who oppose the Authorized King James Bible have always used. You can ask, "Which edition of the KJV do you have, the 1611 or the 1769?" And like White, you can cite what you view as "Problems in the KJV." This is nothing new and the question still remains unanswered, "Where is the inerrant Bible you speak of?"

White argues that those who can answer the above question by producing a Bible which can be seen, read, and tested have become cultis