Tony Nungesser’s response to George Hurd

Tony Nungesser’s response to George Hurd

It pains me to have to expose another brother in Christ who has been caught in the trap of the Adversary and who has himself become “the accusor of the brethren” rather than letting the Adversary do that. We are well aware of our own failings and fall upon the tender mercies of our Lord and Saviour. Calumny was never taken lightly by Paul. In fact, it was so serious, he gave Hymeneus and Alexander over to Satan, that they may be trained not to calumniate (see 1 Tim.1:20).

So we will, by God’s grace, be gracious to George Hurd and hope God delivers him out of this trap of the Adversary (2 Timothy 2:26). Words in brackets [ ] and parenthesis ( ) are added by me to clarify.

Hurd wrote:

Just how true is the Concordant Literal Version to the original languages? Does it demonstrate consistent scholarly integrity, or was it translated in such a manner so as to accommodate unorthodox doctrines, such as we see with the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses?

Tony’s reply:

Hurd is merely using the falacy “guilt by association.”
What also I find interesting is Hurd uses the New King James Version which was translated in such a manner as to accommodate “orthodox” doctrines such as eternal torment. His version is translated to back up many doctrines of demons. The NKJV is translated to make God and Christ abject failures in Their goal to save all mankind which is what They set out to do per 1 Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10; John 3:17 etc. Hurd believes the CLNT correctly translated olam, aion and aionios however.

Hurd wrote:

Other widely accepted literal translations besides the Concordant Literal Version also correctly render these time-words, such as Young’s Literal Translation and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible.

Tony’s reply:

Though the Young’s Translation is a step in the right direction, aionios should not be translated as “age-during.” In Romans 16:26 Young translated αιωνιου θεου as “age-during God.” But that is not the point of αιωνιου θεου. The point is that God, being the eonian God, informs us that He is God pertaining to the eons. He does not endure only as long as the ages endure. Rotherham as “age-abiding God.” Romans 16:26 does not tell us God is abiding for the age. There are other verses which Young and Rotherham got wrong as well as the NKJV. But we are nitpicking here. Once the eons end, God no longer will be the “eonian God” since He will no longer have eons to be God over. He will then be “God All in all” per 1 Corinthians 15:28.

Hurd wrote:

“As I read his writings to see his justifications for his unique renderings, it became evident to me that his primary motive in making his own translation was in order to have a Bible which would substantiate his own particular doctrinal beliefs, just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with their New World Translation.”

Tony’s reply:

Again, Hurd uses the falacy “guilt by association” and “poisoning of the well.” He is also spreading a falsehood concerning why Knoch translated the Concordant Literal New Testament. Knoch used to believe like the Plymouth Brethren. He believed in eternal torment and other wrong theological ideas such as the man-made doctrine of the Trinity and free will. The more Knoch worked on his translation the further from the Brethren’s doctrines he moved. But the reason Knoch himself gave for getting booted out of the Plymouth Brethren was due to fellowshipping with others outside that organization. This is discussed later in this critique.

Here is more proving George Hurd is spreading falsehoods.

This is from Unsearchable Riches, volume 23, page 202:
“The insinuation that the CONCORDANT VERSION was issued to support Universalism or discredit the “personality” of Christ or the Holy Spirit is utterly false, for years of work were done on it while the compilers themselves held the teaching of the so-called “Plymouth Brethren” on these subjects, from whom the Moody Bible Institute also received their theology. Our present teaching on these subjects is the fruit of the many years of patient investigation which were necessary in order to produce it. In repeating this slander, the Moody Bible Institute is seeking to buttress its position by means of statements which it cannot substantiate, of which it has no knowledge, and which is a serious stain on its escutcheon. This weakens the whole article, for it is never necessary to establish truth by means of falsehood. The fact is that the principal compilers of the CONCORDANT VERSION, when the work was commenced, were in hearty sympathy with most of the doctrinal statements of the [Moody Bible] Institute, especially those referred to by our critic, and were forced to abandon them on account of evidence in the Greek text during their labors on the version” (A.E. Knoch).

Speaking of Knoch: Hurd wrote:

“Among other things, [h]e denied the Trinity and taught that the Son of God was a created being, rather than being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.”

Tony’s reply:

That is actually a good thing since the Bible never says anything concerning the man-made doctrine of the so-called “Trinity” and says nothing of Christ being “co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.” Hurd does not prove by the Scriptures the Trinity or Christ’s co-eternalness. There is not one verse in all the Bible that says Christ is co-eternal with the Father. Hurd merely takes verses and reads into them his pre-conceived ideas such as:Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Verily, verily, I am saying to you, Ere Abraham came into being, I am.” However, the “am” in “I am” is an indicative verb and should be thought of as “I am being.” The NKJV improperly translated Exodus 3:14. It should be translated: “Then Elohim spoke to Moses: I shall come to be just as I am coming to be. And He said: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, I-Shall-Come-to-Be has sent me to you.” NKJV has “I AM has sent me to you” as if Christ is the I AM and thus tries to prove Christ’s eternalness.
Hurd wrote of Knoch:Another major unorthodox belief held by Knoch was that, according to him, God created evil in the beginning, even creating Satan as the Adversary and a sinner, rather than him having been created perfect and subsequently becoming a sinner, independently of God.

Tony’s reply:

Well, I guess the Bible is unorthodox then, because, in Isaiah 45:7 Yahweh Himself said:
“Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of Qgood1 and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things .”

Hurd’s NKJV has the above verse:

“I form the light and create darkness,I make peace and create calamity;I, the Lord, do all these things.’
Interesting that the NKJV is inconsistent here. They translated the Hebrew רע “ra” “calamity” here, but translated “ra” as “evil” in Genesis 2:7 regarding “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” There are other verses in the Old Testament where the NKJV translates “ra” as “evil” as well. But here, they had to translate according to their theology that God just can’t be connected in any way with evil so they used a different word. So Hurd accuses Knoch and JW’s of doing the very thing the NKJV folks do, i.e., they translate to back up their theology.
The Sacred Scriptures do not tell us Satan was created perfect and later became a sinner. But Christ did say Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

Hurd wrote:

He (Knoch) also taught the hyperdispensational two-gospel doctrine, also known as Bullingerism, because it first originated with E. W. Bullinger (1837 to 1913).

Tony’s reply:

Hurd loves to spread misinformation. Knoch never taught “hyperdispensationalism.” He taught administrations and dispensations and that there are two distinct evangels. If Hurd was honest with himself, even he would say he is a dispensationalist. The law of Moses was dispensed only to Israel. The apostle Paul dispensed the evangel of Christ, that we of the nations are not under the law of Moses but under grace and not saved by works of law. So that right there is two dispensations to two different sets of people.

Hurd does not know if Knoch got his dispensationalism from Bullinger.

Hurd just makes things up as he goes along. In Unsearchable Riches magazine, volume 28, page 146 Knoch wrote: “We earnestly beg our readers not to confuse concordant teaching with a super-dispensationalism which is based on discordant and unscriptural terms.” This disproves Hurd’s false claim concerning Knoch.

Here, Hurd uses ad hominems to try to make Knoch look bad by lying about him:

“For a time, Knoch was a leading member of a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Oakland California. However, he began to teach his new doctrines which were contrary to those of the Brethren of that congregation. In his zeal, and with his characteristically uncharitable spirit towards those who differ with him evident throughout his writings, he persisted in promoting his contrary doctrines, even after having been removed from his teaching position in the church. This resulted in him eventually being disfellowshipped.”

Tony’s response:

The above is false. This is in Knoch’s own words:”I bought a copy of Griesbach’s Greek testament. This I carried constantly. I made a special cover to keep it from going to pieces. Till this point I had been a loyal “Brethren.” Now trouble began. I soon saw that they were concerned to defend what they called “the truth,” while I wanted God’s Word. I was silenced, and was not even allowed to quote the Scriptures in a Bible reading. Because I had fellowship with others outside their circle, I was put out. It was a great blessing in disguise” (Unsearchable Riches, vol.36, p.247,248).

The reason Knoch was put out of the “Brethren” was due to fellowshipping with others outside the Brethren.

In Hurd’s uncharitable article he then lies about why Knoch translated the way he did:
Hurd wrote:”In this blog, I will briefly point out a few clear examples of the many instances where he (Knoch) intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias.”

The Alteration of Passages related to the Origin of Evil Isaiah 45:7 (NKJV) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace (shalom) and create calamity (ra’) I, the LORD, do (present) all these things.”
(CLV) “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”

Tony’s reply:

If Hurd was honest, he would have seen the letters “Q” and ‘1″ surrounding the word “good.” This represents the Qumran and the ‘1’ represents “cave 1.” In the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) in cave 1 was found that in Isaiah, the word in the text was the word for “good.” The Qumran text is older than the Hebrew text so we went with the Qumran, but put a footnote on the page showing the reader “45:7 Q-1 good: Hb peace.” To let the reader know there are two variants. How is this, as Hurd states, “intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias?” Why didn’t the NKJV not put in the Qumran text? or let their reader know there was a variant?

Also, look at Hurd’s NKJV in Isaiah 45:7 above. They use “calamity” for “ra” rather than “evil” to accommodate their own doctrinal bias. They just couldn’t have God creating evil. But the same Hebrew word “ra” is translated “evil” many other times in the NKJV where “ra” is used! Then Hurd quotes the NKJV of Isaiah 5:20!”Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Tony’s response:

The NKJV translated “ra” as “evil” in Isa.5:20 but they couldn’t put “evil” in “Maker of good and Creator of evil.” No, they had to have it “calamity” in order to buttress their personally theology that God couldn’t create evil.
Hurd then stated:”God did not create evil in any form, be it moral evil or natural evil. In the first place, considering the fact that the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 is between peace (shalom) and ra’, which can mean either moral or natural evil, it is obvious that it is natural evil which is being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity, since the contrast is not between that which is good or evil, as Knoch tries to argue, but between peace and the absence thereof.”

Tony’s reply:

Hurd even concludes that “ra” in Isaiah 45:7 can mean moral or natural evil, but says “it is obvious it is natural evil being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity.” But Hurd is making things up as he goes along. God, (Yahweh) in the text of Isaiah 45:7 does not tell us He is talking about “wartime calamity.” Even Hurd saying the verse “is natural evil being referred to” but not moral evil is his own opinion. God has not told us such. All we know is God is the Creator of evil.

Hurd then states:

If it were not sufficient that he (Knoch) replaced the word peace for good in order to make God out to be the one who originated evil, he also changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah 45:7 from present tense to past tense in order to make it refer to the original creation.

Tony’s reply:

The tense is correct in the current CVOT:“Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of Qgood1 and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh make all of these things.” (Isa.45:7)
It is the same tense used in the NKJV.

Next Hurd quotes Ezekiel 28:15:

Ezekiel 28:15(NKJV) “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.”
(CLV) “Perfect are (aorist in LXX “were”) you in your ways, From the day of your being produced (Heb. bara, κτίζω LXX same as Gen 1:1), till perversity has been found (past perfect) in you.”

Tony’s reply:

However, the current Concordant Version of the Old Testament is:”You walked flawless in your waysfrom the day of your creation,Until iniquity was found in you”

Hurd then says: “The personage that God is here addressing was perfect from the moment of his creation, until iniquity was found in him.”

Tony’s reply:

It is impossible that this ruler of Tyre was “perfect” since we are told “all sin and are wanting of the glory of God.” The only way he could have been perfect is if death was not operating in him. But death passed through into all mankind and it is for that reason, all sin (Romans 5:12). He was relatively “flawless” in relation to others around him but he could not hide his iniquity for it was found in him and made apparent. He just had the appearance of being flawless. The aorist is just a fact verb and has no bearing on time. We use the aorist all the time such as in a court a witness says of the murderer: “That man walks into the bar, he pulls out a gun and he shoots my friend. Then he runs out of the bar, gets in his car and drives away.” I can’t help it the NKJV improperly treats the aorist as a past tense.

Hurd states:”Knoch also changes “from the day you were created,” to “from the day of your being produced,” in an attempt to make it refer to the king of Tyre rather than to Lucifer who was created.”

Tony’s reply:

The current CVOT has “day of your creation.” The chapter is not concerned with a mythological creature called “Lucifer.” The ruler of Tyre was not created before Adam. Rather, he is of the offspring of Adam. In Ezekiel 28:2 God says this person is a human. The NKJV says he is a “man.” Satan is not a human nor a man. He is an evil spirit being.
Isaiah 14:16 also says the person in view is a man, a human. Knoch wrote in Unsearchable Riches, volume 15, page 205:
“Moreover, an examination of the Hebrew text, will convince any one that the evidence for the title “Lucifer” is exceedingly slight. It is precisely the same word as the translators rendered “howl” in Zech.11:2. In the feminine it occurs again in this very chapter, at the beginning of verse 31. In slightly different forms it is found in Isaiah ten times, and it is always rendered howl (13:6; 15:2,3; 16:7,7; 23:1,6,14; 52:5; 65:14). There is no valid reason why Isaiah 14:12 should not be rendered, “Howl!” instead of “Lucifer.” This name is a human invention, and should have no place in the Scriptures.”
Now to the New Testament.George brings up John 1:1-5 and had determined that the Concodant Version is incorrect by translating “word” as “it.”

George Hurd wrote:

He (Knoch) then translates the connective preposition pros in verse 1 as “toward” instead of “with.” He argues that the idea expressed by pros here is not the nearness of the Word to God, but rather the function of directing others towards God. However, in verse 2, it says that in the beginning, before anything had been created, He was with (pros) God. In what sense could he be said to have directed others towards God in eternity before there was anyone for the Word to direct towards Him?

Tony’s reply:

George is confused. In both places where “pros” is used, it is “toward” in the CLV:Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. ” 2 This was in the beginning toward God.”Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance says “pros” “a preposition of direction” and can be “toward” or “with.” As a preposition pros here in verses 1,2 are of direction toward God.The NKJV also says of John 1:1 “In the beginning” but the definite article “the” is missing. This is not talking about the beginning of creation but can be thought of as beginning a treatise “In beginning, (of this treatise) the word was and the word was toward God.”George wrote:Whenever pros is used to speak of nearness or association between persons, it always means “with.” Knoch himself follows this rule in every other instance, except when it would imply Christ’s deity. The following are examples from the CLV, showing his inconsistency in rendering pros here in John 1:1 as toward instead of with: “And I came to be with (pros) you in weakness” (1 Cor 2:3); “I am expecting to stay some time with (pros) you” (1 Cor 16:7); he should be with (pros) you fearlessly” (1 Cor 16:10); “And, being present with (pros) you and in want” (2 Cor 11:9); “I stay (aorist, ‘stayed’) with (pros) him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18); “not only in my presence with (pros) you” (Gal 4:18); “Yet I wanted to be present with (pros) you just now” (Gal 4:20) and, “Do you not remember that, still being with (pros) you” (2 Thess 2:5).

Tony’s reply:

It is too bad Hurd does not read the Concordant Literal New Testament in its printed form. For instance, where “pros” is used in each of the above verses Hurd mentions the CLV has: tdwith showing the superscript td represents “toward” in the Greek. In the CLV Interesting that the KJV translates “pros” as “to,” “unto,” “against,” “with,” “because,” “at,” “among,” “about,” “by,” “before,” “within,” etc.Even the NKJV translates “pros” many different ways as “to” and “at” and “against,” “with,” “because,” etc. etc. How can anyone know God’s truth by using such a discordant version as the NKJV?

In the Keyword Concordance in the back of the CLV we have this: toward (td)*, the characteristic connective of the accusative case, denoting direction toward, usually translated tod Jn.2010. To distinguish this from to (dative), a small d isaffixed. When otherwise rendered the substitute is preceded by td, as Mat Mk22, tdagainst Lu411 tdamong Lu205, tdfor Lu8l3, tdin Lu123,tdso 2C313, tdwith Mt1356, etc. The KJV translates pros as: about1, atl2, according to3, against24, among 20, for25 tol76, – answer1, – be prepared with1,

give1, toward10, unto338, which belong unto1,

pertain to1, with42, etc.

George Hurd wrote:

“Knoch uses a different and more radical approach, turning the alteration of the text up a notch. First, he renders the masculine personal pronouns referring to the Word as “it” instead of “He” or “Him,” until he gets to verse 10, where he then correctly renders the masculine pronoun as “Him.” I have noticed that he often is not even consistent in his mistranslations.”

Tony’s response:

Let’s see how the NKJV uses a more “radical approach”.

In George’s NKJV they too translate the male gender as “it” in Matthew 5:15:
Mat 5:15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
In Matthew 5:15 “lamp” is male gender and is called “it” which also is male gender. Should Lamp be called “him”?
In Matt.7:14 “life” is female gender but “autos” is translated “it” rather than “her” in the NKJV.
In Matt.7:27 “house” is female but “autes” is translated “it” rather than “her” in the NKJV.
Matt.10:11 “village” is female but “aute” is “it” in the NKJV.
Matt.10:13 “house” is female but “aute” is female but rendered “aute” as “it” in the NKJV.
Matt.10:39 “soul of him” where “soul” is female gender and “auten” is “female” gender but the NKJV renders auten as “it.”
Matt.11:12 “kingdom” is female but NKJV render the female “autos” as “it.”
The King James translated Matthew 12:33 as:

Mat 12:33  Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 
Where “tree” is neuter gender and “autos” is neuter but the KJV translated “autos” as “his” thrice in this verse. The NKJV changed “his” to “it” in this verse.
Matt.12:39 “generation” is female and autos is female but the NKJV rendered aute as “it.”
+++++++++++++Matt.13:20 “word” is male and “autos” is rendered as “it” in the NKJV rather than “him.”++++++++ Oops

+++Mark 4:16 NKJVs “word” is male gender and autos is male gender but the NKJV rendered auton as “it” “16 These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness;” Oops.
Also Mark 4:19,20,33 NKJV has “word” as male gender and autos (male) as “it.”
In Luke 20:3 the NKJV translated “logos” which is “word” in a properly translated bible like the CLV but NKJV translated “logos” as “thing” rather than “word.” Oops.
Acts 13:46 “word” is male gender and autos is male gender but NKJV rendered autos as “it.”

As to how Knoch translated John 1:1

Coverdale translated it this way too:


In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.

Tyndale Bible of 1526, John 1:1-4:

1In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men 5and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.

The Bishop’s Bible 1568, John 1:1-4:

1In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, 5And the lyght shyneth in darkenesse: and the darknesse comprehended it not.

Geneva Bible of 1587

1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2This same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4In it was life, and that life was the light of men. 5And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

Concordant Literal New Testament:

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not.” (John 1:1-5 CLV)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s