This exchange was published in Searching the Scriptures several years ago. It consists of three articles by each disputant. First is the article by the Raders, followed by a negative by Dudley Ross Spears. The discussion was amiable and informative. The disputants remain friends and brothers while dealing with the issue of the NIV from two opposite views.
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
(OR PSEUDO-VERSION)Dorris V. Rader and Donnie V. Rader
Solomon said, "of making many books there is no end" (Ecc. 12:12). This was not said as a flat condemnation of making many books. New translations are appearing so rapidly that we may also observe that "of making new translations there is no end." They have been coming off the press at an average of one new version, or revision per year since 1881 (The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, p. 127). Neither is this said as a flat condemnation of new translations. However, even a novice must know that all the new translations cannot be the true word of God since conflicting doctrines can be "proven" depending on the particular translation one chooses for his Bible.
Imagine the confusion in a Bible class if you had about six or eight different modern versions. Suppose the teacher assigns each student to read and make a short talk on some favorite passage. One student, using the Living Bible Paraphrased, selects 2 Tim. 4:1-2 which teaches that when Christ comes it will be "to set up His kingdom." He elaborates on the establishment of the kingdom at the second coming of Christ. He clinches it from the same "Bible" by reading Isa. 2:2-4. "For in those days the world will be ruled from Jerusalem. The Lord will settle international disputes; all nations will convert their weapons of war to implements of peace. Then at last all wars will stop and all military training will end." He had read it all from his "Bible." Then another student, using the Amplified Bible walks to the podium and takes his text from Eph. 5:19. His text speaks of "offering praise with voices [and instruments]." From his Bible he urges that we all fully praise our God, not just with voice but with instruments as well. When the third speaker walks to the stand he is carrying Today’s English Version as his Bible. He reads from Acts 2:1-4 how that it was "all believers" who received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He shows how all believers spoke in other languages as the Spirit enabled them. Now let us just suppose that the final speaker brings his Cotton Patch Version and reads of Paul’s defense before the council in Acts 23. In his "Bible" he reads that Paul seeing that part of them were Unitarians and part were Baptists took sides with "the Baptists" and confessed that he was himself a "Baptist, the son of a Baptist." He urges that we also be imitators of Paul who was himself a Baptist. Surely, things would be quite interesting in class that day. We’d like to see some of the defenders of these modern versions unravel the ball of yarn that day!
Has it reached the point that one can have the translation of his choice just like many believe that one can have the church of his choice? One who believes in the doctrine of grace only would find comfort in the New English Bible (Rom. 3:24). If one believes the doctrine of faith only, he would delight in Today’s English Version (Good News For Modern Man) (Rom. 1:17; 3:27-28) or the Living Bible Paraphrased (Rom. 4:12). If one was in sympathy with the doctrine of Premillennialism, he would like the Living Bible Paraphrased (2 Tim 4:1). If one had rather observe the Lord’s supper on Saturday than Sunday, the Good News Bible (Acts 20:7) or the New English Bible (Acts 20:7) would certainly give some comfort. If you like the use of instrumental music in worship, the Amplified Bible (Eph. 5:19) would "justify" it. If one liked the doctrines of John Calvin, he would certainly rejoice in the Living Bible Paraphrased (Psa. 51:5; Eph. 2:3,8; Rom. 8:3) or the Amplified Bible (Eph. 2:3). If you want to believe that Peter is the "rock" of Matt. 16:18, then you will like the New English Bible and the New Testament in Modern English (Phillips). If one would like to hold to the old law as being effective today, he would like the New English Bible which says that Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law (Matt. 5:17). Our Pentecostal friends will no doubt be pleased with the Good News Bible as it would indicate that Holy Spirit Baptism is for all believers (Acts 2:1). If you wanted to doubt the fact that Jesus is Deity, then a number of translations could be found to support that thought. For example, The New World Translation (John 1:1) and the Revised Standard Version (John 3:16). It has even got to the point that if one likes cursing and gutter language you can have a Bible that uses such terms. One might be shocked to read the Good News For Modern Man (Acts 8:20) or the Living Bible Paraphrased (1 Sam. 20:30; Gen. 19:5; 2 Sam. 11:4; John 9:34).
The real problems in this area are not something which we have just imagined. We have discussed this with knowledgeable men among both "conservative" and "liberal" brethren. Many of these pseudo-versions are a direct challenge to fundamental truths which have been held dear throughout the entire history of the Lord’s church. We are witnessing a new and bold thrust at undermining the faith with denominational dogmas, as the latter gradually make their way within the lids of the Bible by way of paraphrases, deletions, insertions, mistranslations, footnotes and commentaries within the text. Denominational creeds are subtle and dangerous even when they exist under their own banner. But they are infinitely more insidious when they are slipped in under the pretext of "translations" and palmed off as being actually the word of God. The devil, you remember, operates as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).
Aid To The Atheist
Lest some think, after reading this article, that we have overstated the case and cried "wolf" where no wolf exists, let us cite you what the American Association for Advancement of Atheism had to say in one of their annual meetings about matters of this kind. "They are saving the ship of Christianity by throwing the cargo overboard .... the virgin birth, atonement, and the resurrection. How long will men sail the sea in an empty ship? They will go ashore and enjoy life with the Atheists. We welcome the aid of the modernists and pledge them our fullest cooperation in ridding the world of any serious acceptance of Christian theology." (As quoted by A. G. Hobbs, Contending for the Faith, April 1983, p. 7).
What Are We Saying?
Before someone misunderstands, let us state in simple terms what we are saying. But first it may help to state what we are not saying. We are not saying that the KJV is the only acceptable translation. We are not saying that the KJV, ASV or the NKJV are flawless. We are not saying that there is any inspired translation. We are not saying that it is wrong for the Bible to be translated into modern speech. We are not saying that there is no need for revision and new translations. Neither are we saying that it is wrong to use modern translations for comparative study.
However we are saying that the New International Version (NIV) and many other modern translations are perversions (pseudo-versions) rather than versions. We are saying that the NIV and many others are mistranslations. They are not the word of God. Hence the NIV and many others should not be used as one’s main study Bible.
Principles For Choosing A Translation
One problem that we find is that many people choose a translation on the wrong basis. The problem is that they don’t know how to go about determining which translations are good and which are not. Many people pull a new translation off the self and throw it open at any verse and read a few lines to see if it is very readable and understandable. If it is much easier to understand than the KJV or the ASV they buy it and use it. However this assumes that most translations are good and accurate and thus the one easiest understood is the best. While we need to be concerned about simple and understandable English, we must not overlook the need is the for an accurate translation. What good would a translation do us if it is clear and understandable, but not accurate? What do we want with a translation that teaches error in simple terms? To illustrate the point, would you rather someone tell you a lie (in simple and understandable terms) or tell you the truth (in understandable yet not so simple terms)?
Obviously there is more to determining which translations are good and bad than just checking to see if they are clear and understandable. Let us consider some important principles that we should use in examining a translation. (1) Realize that no translation is inspired. (2) Is this the work of one man or a group of men? (3) Who were the translators? Were they qualified to do this work? (4) Have verses or parts of verses been omitted? (5) Is it a paraphrase or a commentary? (6) Has the truth been lost in the process of obtaining clear and understandable English? (7) Is it an accurate translation? (8) Check some principle verses that are so often mistranslated. Check what you find in the translation you are examining with the same verse in the ASV, KJV or the NKJV. (The translators of a number of the new versions are on record acknowledging the accuracy and reliability of these versions.) Check such verses as Psa. 51:5; Isa. 7:14; John 3:16 ("begotten" sometimes left out); Matt. 5:17 (if translated "abolish" then we have Jesus not coming to do what Paul said he did in Eph. 2:15); Luke 1:3; Mark 16:9-20 Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph, 2:1-3; Matt. 16:18; Jas. 2:24; Rom. 1: 1 6-17; 3:27-8; etc. This is just a beginning of the list of passages that are so often mistranslated. Questions For The Reader
1. Do you want to use a translation that has many perverted and mistranslated passages?
2. If we could show that the NIV is not an accurate translation, would you continue to use it?
3. If we could show that the NIV is a pseudo-version (a perversion) teaching doctrinal error, would you continue to use it? If so, why?
4. Do you believe that all translations are acceptable?
A Dangerous Translation
The NIV, along with several other translations, is a danger to the body of Christ. This translation is far more dangerous to members of the Lord’s church than the more far out translations like the Good News, Reader’s Digest and Cotton Patch Versions. Because the NIV is a little more subtle than these just mentioned, it is more dangerous. To illustrate, if a Baptist preacher teaches his doctrine of Calvinism, he will not influence as many Christians as a "gospel" preacher would who occasionally throws out some Calvinistic thoughts. We have long known and warned that a little error interwoven with a considerable amount of truth is best suited to infiltrate the hearts of men and women.
A translator need not mistranslate every passage in order to accomplish an unholy goal. A word or two here and a passage will much better accomplish the Destroyer’s goals.
Someone may say that the translation is good for the most part. It is only a small portion that is not accurate. Yes, but it is that small portion that is dangerous. It is that "small" portion that we are concerned about. Take for example the d-Con mouse-prufe. It has 99.946% inert ingredients. It is the 0.054% active ingredient that kills. You see, a small portion can be dangerous. Suppose you have a plate of food that has one drop of poison in it. Most of what you would eat would be good. It is that small portion that is dangerous.
One of the greatest dangers with the NIV and several other translations is the fact that some members of the church are buying these translations for their children. Some adults may say that they know the difference when there is a translation (which is not a justification for using a pseudo-version), but do the children? Are the parents going to be able to show them all of the verses that have been translated? Can you imagine giving your children a Bible and then pointing out several verses to them which they are not to believe?
The Need For A Study Of The NIV
We have noticed within the last year or two that more and more members of the church are picking up the NIV and using it for their Bible. In nearly every congregation where we have been in the last year or so there has been someone (in some cases several) who was using the NIV. This version seems to be selling well. In response to our inquiry, Baker House informed us in February 1984, that the NIV is "currently the best seller" with them. In fact, one of the men who helped produce the NIV said. "The response of the public to the NIV is overwhelming; about ten million copies have already been sold" (J. C. Wenger in a letter to Donnie Rader on January 14, 1984). Thus it behooves the people of God to examine this version to see if it is accurate and acceptable. "But, A Member Of The Church Of Christ Helped In Translating It"
... Church of Christ...." This was to help safeguard the translation from "sectarian bias." This has caused some members of the church to assume that it is good translation on the basis that some member of the church was connected with it.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter who was connected with producing the -it is still a bad translation. It really doesn’t matter if there were a hundred members of the church on the translation committee. If it is a pseudo-version, a mistranslation, it remains a pseudo-version or mistranslation no matter who had part in it!
Some, however are impressed with this fact. They think it just has to be a good translation since some brother had part in it. Yet, what influence do you think one member of the church would have on a committee of 115?
The member of the Church of Christ was Jack P. Lewis, professor at Harding Graduate School of Religion in Memphis, TN. Our purpose here is not to get the lowdown on Jack Lewis, but suffice it to say that his association with the NIV doesn’t impress us one bit with him or the translation. We are not surprised at his participation in producing the NIV and wouldn’t be surprised at his participation in any similar project. Actually, he is the same Jack P. Lewis who tried to defend the RSV a few years ago. (cf. Ira Y. Rice, Jr., Contending for the Faith, April 1983, p. 2).
As far as we have been able to learn, Lewis had nothing to do with the actual translating. He only served in an advisory capacity. And then, his work was only in the Old Testament.
However, Lewis has received a considerable amount of rebuke from brethren for his association with the NIV. Would that he had done as H. Leo Boles did when he was invited to have part in the work on the RSV. After going to one meeting, Boles washed his hands of the ordeal.
A Conglomerate Of Error In The NIV
1. Original Sin - The NIV teaches that little babies are sinful from the time they are conceived. "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psa. 51:5). This is Calvinism to the core! It originated first in the mind of Augustine. Denominational preachers have taught that little babies are born totally depraved, wholly inclined to evil, and could not think a good thought or do a good deal.
Out of this teaching grew numerous other false doctrines: direct operation of the Holy Spirit to convict and convert helpless sinners, a denial that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and predestination. And now the NIV says that the foundation of all these other false doctrines is right. It teaches David was sinful from his conception. The word of God teaches no such doctrine! The KJV, ASV and the NKJV have David saying, "in sin did my mother conceive me." There is a big difference in being conceived in sin and in being conceived with sin in him. Today, there have been instances in which medical doctors have allowed mothers to give birth to their babies in the water. But this is a lot different from giving birth to a baby with water in the baby! The NIV is clearly in error. This is a case of denominational creeds creeping into the text. It is inexcusable that it should happen. It is even so that brethren who ought to know better should try to look the other way and say nothing. If this were the only case of error we could point to, it would be enough to reject it as a reliable translation. But there is much more.
2. Luke Not Inspired -- The NIV to say the least, makes inferences against and cast doubts upon the inspiration of Luke who wrote approximately one-fifth of the New Testament. It has his writings being produced as a result of his investigations rather than his inspiration. The NIV says, "Since, I myself have carefully investigated everything . . ." (Lk. 1:3). The KJV and NKJV ‘ read that he had "perfect understanding of all things ..."
3. Church Built On Peter -- The NIV teaches by means of the footnotes that the church was built upon Peter. "And I tell you that you are Peter, "And on rock I will build my church . . ." (Matt. 16:18). Then when you look at the footnote (b) it says, "Peter means rock." Now read the text supplying "rock" for Peter. Truly an ecumenical Bible! The Catholics will like that. The word rendered "Peter" and word rendered "rock" are not the same in the original language and it is a perversion and distortion to leave the implication that they are and that Peter is the foundation of the church. Paul taught that there is but one foundation on which the church can be built and that is Christ (1 Cor. 3: 11).
4. Peter Had Two Fathers -- According to the NIV Peter had one more father than the rest of us. He had two fathers. In Matt. 16:17 Peter is correctly referred to as Simon, son of Jonah" as does the KJV, ASV and NKJV. But the NIV has Jesus addressing him at least four times as "Simon, the son of John" in the following passages: John 1:42; 21:15,16,17. Did he have two fathers, or is the NIV just not reliable?
5. Confused On The Prophets -- The first of Mark in the NIV begins like this: "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (emphasis ours). So, it is simply the gospel about Jesus Christ! Then the NIV says in verse 2, "it is written in Isaiah the prophet," but then instead of quoting Isaiah it quotes Malachi 3:1. The text says that it is a quotation from Isaiah while the footnote indicates Malachi. Confusion!
6. To Abolish Or Not To Abolish? -- In Matt. 5:17 the NIV has Jesus saying, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law. . ." But then in Eph. 2:15 they have Paul declaring that Christ did this very thing. Hear Paul, "For he himself is our peace who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" (emphasis ours). Why this confusion when the KJV, ASV and the NKJV rendered the two different Greek verbs with two different English words, "destroy" and "abolish." In fact these three translations never translate the Greek-term kataluo as abolish. The 267 scholars behind these three translations testify that it does not mean abolish in Matt. 5:17. To say the least, the NIV has unnecessarily involved the scriptures in a conflict.
7. Jesus Needed Purifying -- In Luke 2:22, the KJV, ASV and the NKJV in reference to Mary, speak of "the days of her purification" in accordance with the law of Moses. The NIV reads, "when the time of their purification according to the law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem...." (emphasis ours). Did Jesus need purifying? The NIV teaches that he did. If so, how did he come to need purification? Was he born a sinner? We have always been under the impression that Jesus was always sinless. This being true, He never at any time needed purifying. Did the translators just slip up here or did they not regard Him as the sinless Son of God? We may well wonder about this in view of the way they have carelessly and recklessly handled some key passages dealing with Jesus as the " only begotten son of God." In John 1:14 they omit the word "begotten" and render it "one and only" Son. They do the same with John 3:16, omitting again the word "begotten." This is surely without scholarly justification since the Greek term "monogenes" clearly means "only begotten." Mono means one or only. The other part of the word, genes means begotten. They chose to give a double translation to the first syllable of the word, "one and only" and then to just skip over the latter syllable in the word altogether. Someone says, "Well what difference, it still conveys the idea that he was the only Son." It is difference in reverencing divine truth and in gradually cutting away at the vitals of things most fundamental and basic. It is doctrinally in error on that very point. And it doesn’t take a scholar to see it.
8. Christ Alone Has Immortality -- In 1 Tim. 6:16, the NIV declares that Christ "alone is immortal." This would mean that there is no other who is immortal. Is not our Heavenly Father immortal? Is he not a Spirit being (John 4:24)? Did not Peter affirm that man has what he called the "hidden man of the heart ... which is incorruptible (1 Pet. 3:4-emphasis ours)? The KJV and the ASV translates the passage as follows: "who only hath immortality dwelling in the light which no man hath seen, nor can see.. ." This simply affirms that He has nothing mortal about Him -- only immortality. This is quite different from saying He alone has immortality. And it is in harmony with the truth taught in context and elsewhere that he is reigning in Heaven, having been raised from the dead to die no more. He has, therefore, only immortality. Materialists will like the NIV very much. In the Nichols-Bradley Debate, conducted in Rule, TX in 1906, Bradley affirmed that man is wholly mortal. Citing the Twentieth Century New Testament on this point, Bradley said, "This passage plainly says that man is wholly mortal by saying that God alone has immortality. Certainly we now have the proof of my proposition. Job says that man is mortal, and Paul says that God alone has immortality. If this is true of God, man does not have immortality" (pp. 210-211). The NIV gives aid to the materialist.
More of the materialism in the NIV can be easily seen in reference to Acts 2: 27,31. Their rendering has both the "body" and the "Spirit" of Christ entering the grave. When we compare the KJV, ASV and the NKJV we learn that the body went to the grave (Matt. 27:60) while the Spirit was in hades (Luke 23:43).
9. Sinful Nature -- Attention has already been called to the NIV’s rendering of Psa. 51:5, which teaches inherited sin. Naturally, Calvinists have a different vocabulary from the Bible. They speak of man’s "Adamic nature", or his "sinful nature." They speak of "inherited sin", or "inherited total depravity." Of course, we know that a thing need not be taught in the Bible for Calvinists to teach it. But now, with the NIV rendering of Rom. 8:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 as "sinful nature" instead of "flesh", they have a "Bible" from which to teach their doctrine. It suggests that "flesh" (sarx) is synonomous with "sinful nature."
Now, do we really have a sinful nature? If yes, did we inherit it from Adam? If we did inherit it from Adam, from whom did Adam inherit it?
The truth is that we are the offspring of God, and there is nothing sinful in and of itself about human flesh. If there were something sinful in the flesh itself, Jesus was sinful, for he was man (1 Tim. 2:5). When God created Adam and Eve, they surely had all that belonged to human nature, and that before sin entered as a foreign element. "When Adam and Eve were first created they had all that belonged to human nature. Sin came into their lives as a foreign element. Sin is no more a part of our nature than dust in your eyes is a part of the nature of your eye. Because the desires, appetites, and passions of the flesh often lead to sin, flesh is called sinful." (R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints At Rome, p. 170.) Fleshly desires lead to sin only when gratified in an unlawful manner.
At least the following two scholars connected with the NIV are in agreement with us on the point of the correct rendering of sarx. "The word for flesh in the Greek is sarx. In the NIV the word sarx is translated flesh only thirty times out of 138 Greek uses. The next most frequent translation of the word is sinful nature (twenty five times). But this rendering is more of an interpretation than a translation .... The safest thing to do is to leave the word with its primary meaning (flesh) and relegate the discussion to the commentary rather than write sinful nature into the text. This is carrying free translation too far." (Lewis Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible, p. 70, 1978 edition). "The Greek term sarx, usually translated flesh . . . ." (Raymond Dillard, The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, p. 99).
Additional passages in which the same error is made in the NIV are: Rom. 7:5, 18, 25; Eph. 2:3; 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 5:13, 16, 17, 19, 24; 6:8; Col. 2:11, 13; 2 Pet. 2:10, 18.
10. Premillennialism -- The doctrine of premillennialism is that Christ will establish his kingdom at his second coming. Nearly every denomination advocates this in some form. The church was plagued with a division over premillennialism in the 1930’s. The Kingdom of Christ was in existence and people were being translated into it in Paul’s day (Col. 1: 13). It came with power during the lifetime of some of those who walked personally with the Lord on earth (Mark 9: 1). It did come with the power and Spirit on Pentecost of Acts 2, in 33 A.D. Christ is now reigning as king and priest upon his throne (Zech. 6:12-13; Heb. 7:17-21). At his second coming, Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father (I Cor. 15:25-26). He will not come to set up his kingdom! There are several passages in which the NIV alters and slants a reading in such a way as to accommodate the theory of premillennialism. In Acts 3, we have recorded Peter’s second sermon preached in Jerusalem. In it, as he did in the first sermon recording in Acts 2, Peter makes known the blessings which are for us in this age. He called upon the people to "repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, . . ." (Acts 3:19). He then spoke of Christ, "whom the heavens must receive until the restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). He went on to show that "all the prophets from Samuel and those that followed after, as many as have spoken have likewise foretold of these days" (v. 24). "These days" identify the "times" and "times" of vs. 18 and 21 with the blessing of this, the gospel dispensation. The whole context, bears out this meaning. However, the NIV so renders the passage as to project the fulfillment of "these things" yet into the future. It says that Christ must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." The expression, "the time comes" implies a future time, not the present dispensation. The "times of restitution of all things" are clearly shown in context to be now in process. Christ will remain in heaven until the completion of these times, or until the completion of "these days." But the NIV implies that he will remain in heaven until such begins. Again in Eph. 1:10 the NIV projects into the future the blessings with God purposed in Christ. Accordingly, the NIV says they are "to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ." We know, of course from various passages that we are now in the fulness of time. It was "in the fulness of time" that God sent His Son into the world (Gal. 4:4).
11. Still In Miraculous Age -- Eph. 4:11-13 Paul teaches that there would be certain miraculously endowed men in the church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, . . ." There would no longer be a need for miraculously endowed men when the faith existed as a unit. However, the NIV says that they would last "until we all reach unity in the faith . . ." If you think the brotherhood has been plagued with the charismatic movement, just wait until more NIVs are accepted by brethren!
12. Perverts The Truth of Acts 26:28 -- When Paul spoke before Agrippa in Acts 26, the context shows that Agrippa believed the prophets (v. 27). Jesus said that to believe the prophets was to believe Christ (John 5:46). Agrippa’s reply to Paul as shown in the KJV, ASV and the NKJV has Agrippa almost persuaded to be a Christian. However, the NIV has Agrippa ridiculing the idea that in such a short time Paul would think to make him a Christian. "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" Numerous
Deletions
We have already pointed out examples of false doctrine taught by the NIV.
We did not exhaust the list. This version, even according to Lewis Foster (quoted above)
sometimes got into the business of interpreting rather than translating. But, it is also
guilty of gross deletions from the text. This is due, in part at least to their use of a
faulty Greek text (to be discussed later in this article). Dr. Everett W. Fowler in his
book, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, points out that there are 17
complete verses left out of the NIV and 180 portions of other verses omitted. It is
also pointed out that it omits "Jesus" 38 times, "Christ" 43 times and
"Lord" 35 times.
Space does not permit a complete listing of all the omissions made by the NIV. However, we need to remember the serious consequences of tampering with the word of God (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19).
We list here just a few of the expressions omitted by the NIV.
1. John 17:21 omits "one" in Jesus’ prayer for unity. This destroys the very thought of the prayer. He was praying for unity, not just for men to be "in us."
2. Acts 9:6 omits the question of Saul, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"
3. Mark 13:11 omits "Neither do ye premeditate" which shows the divine guidance of the chosen witnesses of the Lord.
4. Matt. 19:9 omits "and shall marry her which is put away doth commit adultery."
5. Matt. 5:44 omits "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."
6. Mark 10:24 omits "them that trust in riches." Riches are not wrong per se. It is the "trusting" in them that is condemned.
7. John 17:17 omits the expression "through thy truth." The expression shows the means of sanctification, which the NIV omits and says, "truly sanctified." That is a significant difference.
Doubts Planted In Footnotes
One of the most notable examples of doubt and deception concerns the last twelve verses of Mark 16. The NIV, while placing these verses at the end of Mark, raises misgivings about them by drawing a line after v. 8 and inserting the comment-"The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." The two manuscripts referred to are the Vatican and Sinaitic. There is, to put it mildly, considerable dispute concerning the NIV’s appraisal that these are the two most reliable manuscripts. We simply point out that these two manuscripts also differ from each other 3,036 times in the gospels alone, and more than 7,000 times throughout the New Testament. When witnesses are in such disagreement, it would indicate something other than being "the most reliable" witnesses. (cf. Herman Koskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. II, p. 1).
It is significant that the Vatican manuscript contains the New Testament as far as Heb. 9:14. It does not contain the remainder of Hebews, the pastoral epistles, Revelation as well as Philemon. Looking for some footnote in the NIV concerning these missing books from "one of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts", we find nothing. Why the casting of doubts about the ending of Mark? Especially in view of the fact that the scribe evidently knew of the existence of these verses and left a blank space which would indicate that he was uncertain as to whether they should be inserted there or not. The only question about these verses really is where they are to be placed. Should they be ascribed to Mark, or some other inspired writer? For an excellent treatment of the subject involving these last twelve verses we suggest the book by John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses Of Mark.
There can be no denying the fact that such footnoting and commenting does serve to plant doubts concerning what is and is not the word of God. It has been our experience in trying to reason with some who have accepted the NIV, that they are very skeptical about portions of the scriptures being inspired, where they find these footnotes. One young man, quite zealous, but deficient in knowledge and judgement stated frankly that "yes, I would certainly hold doubts about the inspiration of passages when I learn that they are not found in some of the older manuscripts." This is the very point we are making. The NIV plants doubts by repeatedly placing in the footnotes "not found in some manuscripts." In the case of the passage in Mark 16:9-20, the verses are found in several hundred manuscripts and copies. "With the exception of the two uncial MSS. which have just been named (Codex B and Aleph-DVR) there is not one Codex in existence, uncial or cursive,-(and we are acquainted with, at least eighteen other uncials, and about six hundred cursive Copies of this Gospel,)-which leaves out the last twelve verses of S. Mark." (John W. Burgon, ibid, p. 149).
Another glaring example of sowing distrust and doubt about the word of God is their deletion of Matt. 18:11, with the footnote that there is not enough evidence to include it in the text. The truth is that the verse is "attested to by every known cursive except three." (John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 92). But this is not all. A. G. Hobbs cites Robert W. Flanigan as saying that "eight major and fifteen minor manuscripts include this important verse." (Contending for the Faith, March 1983, p. 6). It can be seen that the NIV does not hesitate to relegate to a mere footnote passages which have overwhelming testimony in their favor.
Again in Matt. 18:15 the key words, "against thee" while being retained in the text of the NIV, are footnoted to say "some manuscripts do not have, against you." Again this would cast doubts as to whether this instruction involves a sin against one personally or just sin period. Does the verse then teach that any sin one commits, requires the steps outlined there? The NIV leaves one in doubt, if he puts any stock in their so-called translation. J. W. McGarvey suggests that it should be rendered, "if thy brother sin against thee." He further points out that "this rule of procedure is given only for cases of personal offense, where one individual has sinned against another." (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, pp. 158-159).
We mention only one more out of a great number of such omissions and footnoting. Luke 22:43-44, "And there appeared an angel unto him, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." The NIV has a footnote saying, "Some early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44." Well, this makes one wonder if they should be accepted or not.
"Our Lord’s agony and bloody sweat; first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D. 150), is found set down in every manuscript in the world except four. It is duly exhibited by every known Version. It is recognized by upwards of forty famous Fathers writing without concert in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore antiquity, -Variety of testimony, -Respectability of witnesses, -or Number, -is considered, the evidence in favor of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming." (John W. Burgon, ibid, (p. 340).
Surely enough evidence has been presented for the thoughtful reader to be convinced that the NIV is not a trustworthy and accurate translation of the word of God. If you want to strengthen one’s faith and confidence in the word of God, do not recommend to him the NIV.
Type of Translation
The type of translating that the scholars behind the NIV did shows that they had a different concept than the men who produced the KJV, ASV and the NKJV. All three of these were intended to be precise and literal translations. These men had a better concept of the job of the translators.
Let us consider what the job of the translator is. (1) Philip Schaff, Chairman of the Committee for the ASV, said, "In one word, the revision is to give, in idiomatic English, the nearest possible equivalent for the original Word of God as it came from the inspired organs of the Holy Spirit" (Bible Revision, p. 16). (2) R. C. Trench, scholar and author, stated, "Clearly the office of the translator is to put the reader of the translation on the same vantage-ground of the reader of the original ... Inspiration is not limited to the Hebrew and Greek words first communicated to men ... it lives in whatever words are a faithful representation of these words the translation must be a perfectly reproduced adequate counterpart of the original and the copy. When words fall short of this adequacy ... when divergence exist between the copy and the original, the copy is less inspired, and to the extent of the divergence it is not inspired at all" (Trench on Bible Revision as quoted by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. in A Review of the New Versions, pp. 44-45). (3) Francis R. Steele, one of the scholars associated with the NIV said, "A translation should convey as much of the original text in as few words as possible, yet preserve the original atmosphere and emphasis. The translator should strive for the nearest approximation in words, concepts, and cadence. He should scrupulously avoid adding words or ideas not demanded by the text. His job is not to expand or to explain, but to translate and preserve the spirit and force of the original-even, if need be, at the expense of modern colloquialisms -- so long as the resultant translation is intelligible" (The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, Vol. 4, p. 69).
The NIV is not that kind of translation and doesn’t even claim to be. In the Preface of the NIV we read, "At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation" (p. viii). The New York International Bible Society, which financially sponsored the translation project, has published a booklet entitled The Story of The New International Version. In this booklet we find them describing the different methods of translation. There is "the concordant one, which ranges from literalism to the comparative freedom of the King James Version.... the paraphrastic one, in which the translator restates the gist of the text in his own words; and the method of equivalence, in which the translator seeks to understand as fully as possible what the biblical writers had to say ... and then tries to find its closest equivalent in contemporary usage. In its more advanced form this is spoken of as dynamic equivalence, in which the translator seeks to express the meaning as the biblical writers would if they were writing in English today" (p. 13-emphasis ours). Then they tell us what the NIV translators did. "As for the NIV its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for the most part on a flexible use of concordance and equivalence, but with a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, or outright dynamic equivalence. In other words, the NIV stands on middle ground by no means the easiest position to occupy" (p. 13).
Raymond Dillard, one of the scholars behind the NIV, has stated his concept of translation, "It must be recognized, however, that every Bible translation, from the very first word, is interpretation; the mere selection of equivalents in the most literal of all translations is still interpretation" (The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, Vol. 4, p. 97). "Yet it is impossible to escape interpretation in translation work" (p. 114). "Interpretation on the part of the preacher and the translator in any event is inescapable" (p. 114). Dillard defends idiomatic (as opposed to literal) translation.
We wrote to the translators and scholars who produced the NIV and asked them some questions about verbal inspiration. In their responses they said some things that reveal a little about their concept of translation. (1) Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. said, "Of course, the fact the Scriptures are verbally inspired does not mean that a ‘literal,’ word-for-word translation is demanded." (2) Roger Nicole wrote, "When a translation is made, a word for word rendering often does not make a clear sense in the new language, and the translators therefore have an obligation to seek to convey in the new language the precise message expressed in the original. They desire to do this without adding to or detracting from the original contents. Some people feel that the best way of doing this is to attempt to have a text which remains as close to the original wording as is at all manageable even though this may mean that the translation will be awkward or sometimes obscure. The translators of the NIV wanted whenever possible to reproduce the language of the original Scripture but desired also in all cases to produce a text that would read fluently in modern, American English, such as would be readily understandable by an average high school graduate. Some people feel that in doing so they have moved too far in the direction of paraphrasing rather than translating the Scriptures. Personally I seldom feel that they have fallen into this defect." (3) Mark Hillmer stated, "Every translation is only an approximation. Or, as it is said, ‘To read any document in translation is like kissing through a veil ... But every translation tries to -- and most do -- reproduce the original sense." (4) Thomas E. McComiskey said, "He must decide whether he will adapt the philosophy of dynamic equivalency or whether he will attempt to reflect each word in Hebrew with an equivalent word in English. Either way, the verbal inspiration of the original is not affected."
Let us consider some of the observations that others who have written about the NIV have made about their approach to translation.
1. Jack P. Lewis -- "The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrase of Phillips, the NEB and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness, rather than in terms of Lightfoot’s translation rule which stated, ‘the same English words to represent the same Greek words’ and ‘as far as possible in the same order’ " (The English Bible/From KJV to NIV, p. 320).
2. Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht -- "But must the translator preserve the form of the original to convey the meaning? Those who answer in the affirmative produce what is known as a ‘formal’ translator. On the contrary, those who maintain that what a translator should do is to grasp the meaning of the original -and express that meaning in the natural form of the receptor language produce what is known as a dynamic translation ... The is a middle-of-the-road version in which a high degree of ‘formal correspondence’ is combined with renderings that are ‘dynamically equivalent" (So Many Versions?, p. 259).
3. Iain Murray -- "And while the New International Version is distinguished from the RSV and the NEB by the thoroughness of the evangelical commitment of its translators, regretfully it still appears to be the case that the NIV has been influenced by the principle of a ‘freer translation’ with a consequent lessening of absolute accuracy. G. Duncan Lowe writes: ‘The NIV does tend to expand beyond a simple translation into the realm of interpretation, when that is not at all really necessary ... Although this habit may be innocent and plausible enough as practised in the NIV the serious student of the English Bible may feel that his mind is being made up for him instead of his being presented with the most faithful mirror of the original text (consonant with good English usage) so that he may draw his own conclusions" (The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, pp. 132-133).
The NIV’s approach to translation is that of paraphrase or commentary. It is not a translation. It doesn’t even claim to be!
Based On A Faulty Greek Text
Some of the errors and omissions we have noted can be accounted for on the basis of a faulty Greek text used. While we do not claim to be scholars or experts in the field of textual criticism, we do believe that we can point out some errors in the kind of text that the translators used. To say the least, we can give some quotes from men who are scholars in that field. We realize that reading quotations about the difference in Greek texts is not the most interesting reading. However, we ask the reader to bear with this section of material, for we believe that it contains some things that need to be said.
One of the basic differences between translations is the kind of Greek text that the translators used. Much of the discussion that we hear and read today over translations is a textual discussion.
"The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one" (Preface of NIV p. ix). This is the kind of text that the RSV, NEB and most other modern translations are based upon. "By ‘eclectic’ they mean in fact free choice among readings" (Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 24). This means that the Greek text they used wasn’t based upon the majority of the manuscripts as was the text used for the KJV and the NKJV. Rather, the eclectic text is based in a number of places upon the reading of very few manuscripts. Pickering stated, "It ignores the over 5,000 Greek MSS now extant, ... Therefore the choice between the variants ultimately depends upon guesswork" (Ibid, p. 25).
The Greek text used was a Westcott-Hort (non-byzantine) type of text. "Basically, the Westcott-Hort text represented a wholesale rejection of mass authorities and an acknowledged dependence on the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, particularly the Vatican" (Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got The Bible, p. 63). These two manuscripts are supposed to be the oldest of the extant manuscripts. It is assumed that oldest means they are the best, but "oldest and best do not necessarily go hand in hand" (David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, p. 2). Speaking of these two MSS, John W. Burgon said, "As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest copying, persevered in for any number of centuries, could by possibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branched off from a common ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences" (Revision Revised, p. 318). Edward F. Hills, who wrote the introduction to Dean Burgon’s The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, said, "Thus the fact that B and Aleph (the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts-DVR) are so old is a point against them, not something in their favor. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them" (P. 23).
A number of witnesses could be given that suggest that the Westcott-Hort type of text is not an accurate test. (1) The Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 Kingston Road, London SW19 3NN, England (an organization of conservative Bible scholars whose efforts go back to the early 1800’s with the stated purpose of giving the widest possible circulation of the inspired word of God) said of the NIV "The text underlying the NIV is not the best documented text, for in many passages, it has the support of only a small minority of manuscripts." (2) The 119 scholars and editors of the NKJV stated that one reason that they chose the Textus Receptus is that "The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of the scripture, based on critical studies of the most recently discovered extant manuscripts" (History of the King James Bible - found in back of the NKJV). (3) Dr. Frank Logsdon (who wrote the preface of the NASV - which was based on the same type of text) saw the errors of this type of Greek text and repented saying, "The NIV is not now the true word of God, and it will never be regardless of the revisions it undergoes as long as it is based on faulty and inaccurate manuscripts" (as quoted by A. G. Hobbs, Contending for the Faith, Oct. 1982, p. 4).
The differences between the Westcott-Hort type of text and the Majority text (Textus Receptus) are not minor and insignificant. They are serious. The differences in many passages concern statements that have to do with the Deity of Christ. One prime example of this is 1 Tim. 3:16 where "God" was changed to "He." More than just minor omissions will be found in the Westcott-Hort type of text. Nestles text omits 31 whole verses and 191 portions of verses. The Bible Society text omits 17 entire verses and 185 parts of verses.
"This is not to blindly endorse the Received Text in the event that it does contain error. But I do suggest that the Westcott and Hort Text contains far more erroneous renderings than does the Textus Receptus" (Luther W. Martin, Truth Magazine, Vol. XXIV, p. 293). "All Versions Have Weaknesses"
Defenders of the modern versions are heard to say, "no version is without flaws or weaknesses. There is no inspired translation." This is readily granted. The question however, is whether the shortcomings and weaknesses are of the same kind in all the versions. We believe that fairness and honesty in addressing this question, will reveal that there are vast differences in the type of weaknesses found in the KJV and ASV with those found in the NIV RSV, LBP, NEB, and other modern speech translations. Now, bear in mind that it is not the "modern speech" that is objected to. It is the false doctrine which is often taught by the modern speech versions.
We believe that the advice given in the Open Forum at Florida College, Feb., 1984, by brethren Clinton Hamilton and Melvin Curry is good concerning modern versions. Bro. Hamilton advised, "Always read either the King James or American Standard so you know what was in the original text. Pick up these others for any elaboration or understanding you may get. But don’t use them as the basic text from which you understand the will of God." Bro. Curry’s advice was "don’t mess with" the modern translators that "jimmy with the text and don’t tell you what they are doing."
Below you will find outlined in chart some of the basic differences between the KJV, ASV and the NIV. ‘We simply ask that you consider them and honestly ask yourself the question, "are these shortcomings are of the same type?" An Appeal
1. To all Christians -- We appeal to all Christians to study the matters of translations. Be careful in choosing a translation. Don’t use the NIV or any other pseudo-version as your main study Bible. Use either the KJV (1611), the ASV (1901) or the NKJV (1982).
2. To preachers -- We appeal to every man who claims to be a gospel preacher to carefully study the translation issues. Warn brethren about the dangers of using such perversions. Take this material, outline it and preach it. Brethren, we have a responsibility to refute the error taught in the translations just as we do to refute error taught in the creeds of men.
3. -To elders -- We appeal to elders to take note of the translations the members of the church are using. Elders need to watch what the flock is consuming. "What one does privately is his own business, but what is done in the services of the church is the responsibility of its elders, and God will not hold us guiltless who permit and tolerate the pseudo-versions as a source of incipient error" (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of The New Versions, p. 222).
We would that all elders would see the New International Version for what it really is -- a real threat to the church of our Lord!
4. To bookstore dealers - We appeal to those who operate bookstores among brethren to be very careful about what Bibles and translations they recommend to their customers. We would grant that any bookstore has the right to sell the NIV and any other version available just like they have a right to sell the Book of Mormon and the Philidelphia Confession of Faith. However it is another matter when brethren who sell these translations recommend the NIV to other brethren or for churches to put them in their pews. These brethren likewise have a right to sell the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, but quite frankly we would become mighty concerned if these brethren began to recommend it for individuals and churches to use. Is It Nothing To You?
"Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by" (Lam. 1:12)? Brethren, does all of this mean nothing to you? Are you not bothered to see the word of God mutilated -- perverted and mistranslated. Does that not upset you a little bit? Not only are we bothered by this, but we are bothered no little when we see brethren who are not bothered at such perversion.
Let us all continue to be set for the defense of the gospel (Phil. 1: 1 7).
See Chart Next Page "All Versions Have Shortcomings" (SAY DEFENDERS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS) QUESTION: ARE THE "SHORTCOMINGS" ALL OF THE SAME TYPE?
| KJV - ASV "TOO MECHANICALLY EXACT" LITERAL WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION" "FOLLOWS THE ORDER OF GREEK WORDS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE" SOME ARCHAIC WORDS SPELLING SYNTAX VERB TENSE - (Which often is readily determined in context.) "BORN OF GOD" WHERE "BEGOTTEN" IS MORE TECHNICALLY CORRECT. "EASTER FOR "PASSOVER" |
|
Modern Sp. Ver. RANK FALSE DOCTRINE "SINFUL NATURE IN MAN" TOTAL DEPRAVITY BABIES ARE SINNERS "FAITH ONLY" SALVATION PREMILLENNIALISM DENIALS OF DEITY ERROR ON BAPTISM DENIAL OF VIRGIN BIRTH LORD’S SUPPER - SATURDAY CHURCH BUILT ON PETER JESUS NEEDED PURIFYING CHRIST DID NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW |
IMAGINE TRYING TO DEBATE A SECTARIAN WHILE YOU USE SOME OF THESE MODERN SPEECH "TRANSLATIONS", CHARACTERIZED BY THINGS ON THE RIGHT SIDE!
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KJV, ASV AND THE MODERN SPEECH VERSIONS ARE NOT MINOR AND INSIGNIFICANT! tHEY ARE FUNDAMENTAL AND VITAL TO TRUTH, WHO CAN DENY IT??
A RESPONSE TO CRITICISM OF THE NIV Dudley Ross Spears
This response is submitted in the interest of truth, correctness and fairness. It is prompted by an article entitled, "The New International Version (or Pseudo-Version)" co-authored by Dorris and Donnie Rader. It is not submitted with either personal feelings against the authors or with wholesale endorsement of the New International Version Bible (NIV). There is simply too much misleading and erroneous information given to allow it to pass without notice. The end of the critical article smacks of pleading for an imprimatur or nihil obstat to be placed on the King James Version (KJV) and the American Standard Version (ASV). I am sure neither the authors nor the editor of Searching the Scriptures intends for that to be the case, however.
The article to which this response is directed had some excellent observations regarding the translation of certain words that appear in the NIV. The objection to the bias that seems to lie beneath the translation of such terms as "sinful nature" is legitimate. Beyond that, however, much that is offered by brethren Raders is simply untrue. Please consider a few of them in the spirit in which this response is submitted. My only interest is in truth, correctness and fairness.
A criticism is offered against the NIV's translation of Luke 1:3. The critics allege that the NIV casts doubt on Luke's inspiration because it is translated, "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning." Elsewhere in the article the ASV is commended as a translation that when read will assure the reader what was in the original text. (They quoted Clinton Hamilton to this effect and endorsed his statement.) Look at the translation given in the ASV. It says, "having traced all things accurately from the first." What is the difference in meaning? If the NIV casts doubt on Luke's inspiration, so does the ASV. They endorse the latter and reject the former and they both say the same thing.
Objection is registered to the NIV’s translation of a passage identifying Simon Peter. They claim that the NIV makes Peter the son of two fathers. True, the NIV says in Matt. 16:17 that Peter was the "son of Jonah. In John 1:42 it says he was the son of John. But look at the recommended ASV. In Matt. 16:17 the ASV says, "Simon, Bar-Jonah" (Bar meaning "son") and in John 1:42, the ASV says, "Simon son of John." If the NIV makes Peter the son of two different fathers, why does not the ASV do the same? Why is one criticized in this passage and the other recommended?
An even greater blunder was made in criticizing the NIV's rendition of Luke 2:22. They say that the NIV makes it appear as if Jesus needed purification, but that the KJV, the ASV and the New King James Version (NKJV) show it was only Mary who needed purification. They object because they say the NIV uses "their" and the others use "her." Either my ASV Testament is a misprint or faulty, or they haven't done their work as well as brother Adams thinks they have. My ASV says, "And when the days of their (my emp. DRS) purification..." Again, the ASV has what the NIV has, but the NIV is criticized and the ASV is endorsed.
The authors rightly warn about the serious consequence of tampering with the word of God. Yet, their remarks about Acts 9:6 are not at all congruous with that sentiment. They claim that the NIV perverts the truth on Acts 9:6 due to the omission of the part that reads, "Lord what wilt thou have me to do." They conclude someone tampers with the word of God by omitting this. The truth of the matter is that there is no Greek text which includes it. It is a translation from Latin back into Greek, likely added by Desiderius Erasmus around 1515 A.D. Consult any textual manual and you will see this. A book advertised on the back of Searching the Scriptures as "The most up-to-date information about newly discovered manuscripts of the New Testament," says:
"Even in other parts of the New Testament Erasmus occasionally introduced into his Greek text material taken from the Latin Vulgate. Thus is Acts ix. 6, the question which Paul asks at the time of his conversion on the Damascus road, 'And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?', was frankly interpolated by Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. This addition, which is found in no Greek manuscript at this passage (though it appears in the parallel account of Acts xxii. 10), became part of the Textus Receptus, from which the King James version was made in 1611."
(The Text of the New Testament, Metzer, B. p. 100)
And there is even more, for the ASV also omits the question Saul is supposed to have asked. If the NIV is at fault, why is not the ASV? Here is a case where the evidence seems to show that the question is an addition to the text rather than a deletion. Which version tampers with the word of God?
The translation of Acts 26:28 is criticized as "perverting the truth," Because the authors of the criticism think the passage teaches that Agrippa was "almost persuaded to be a Christian," and because the NIV says, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?", the NIV is in error. Again, they accuse the ASV of teaching something different from the NIV, but read the ASV. "With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian." That could have as easily been a question, or an expression of surprise, or even disgust, as it could have been a simple statement. There are no punctuation marks in the Greek texts available to us. If Agrippa were indeed on the verge of obeying the Gospel, why did Paul not proceed further to persuade him? (2 Cor. 5:11). Brother J.W. McGarvey has the obvious truth on the matter. He wrote:
"The remark shows that Agrippa saw very clearly the aim of the apostle. It is to his credit, being a Herod, that he did not take offense at an obvious attempt of the kind. It was evidently embarrassing to him but while he turned it off in this cool manner, he evidently regarded Paul with a respect far beyond that ever entertained for an apostle by any of his successors." (New Commentary on Acts, p. 258).
Brother McGarvey also noted in a footnote that the translation of "almost" in the KJV is in error. McGarvey used the ASV as the standard-translation in his commentary. If the NIV perverts the truth, so does the ASV. But the NIV is rejected and the ASV recommended.
Just about all the comments about the footnotes in the NIV can be made about the ASV and NKJV. These notes merely mention the presence or absence of certain words, phrases or passages from certain manuscripts. The manuscripts we have are copies of other manuscripts and some of them are translations of the Latin Vulgate. The absence of a word or a passage from one of the available manuscripts does not argue its absence or presence in the original autograph, the actual letters and writings of inspired men. Please read again Connie Adams' remarks about quotation from the patristic writers, older versions and other textual materials. All of this material must be considered in determining the Greek text of the New Testament.
The charge is made that the NIV is based on a "faulty text" of the original language. One is made to wonder if the authors of the criticism know which Greek text is without fault. If they do, I (for one) would really like to know about it. A blunder is made that indicates that more work needs to be done on textual matters. They equate the "Majority text" with the "Textus Receptus." (See their article, p. 182, 2nd par.) The Majority Text is not the same as the Textus Receptus. The Majority Text is much more. It is also inaccurate to say that the KJV was translated out of the Textus Receptus. As a matter of historical record, the Textus Receptus came to its current form in 1633. It got the title from the preface of the text from the Latin expression, "Textum ergo habes nunc ab onmibus receptum." That means, "You have, thus, a text now received by all." Some twenty years after the KJV was published, the Textus Receptus was finalized. For a full story, we must consider tills man named Erasmus a bit more.
In 1502, a Catholic Cardinal named Gonzales Ximenes de Cisneros, later known simply as Cardinal Ximenes, prepared a polyglot (many tongued) Bible. He had the New Testament prepared in Latin and Greek. In 1515 he had it all ready for publication but could not get endorsement from the Catholic Church. He died before endorsement and approval came. In the mean time, some scholars in Switzerland learned of his work. A publisher named Froben planned to publish it. He secured the services of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, Holland. In seven months, Erasmus got a Greek text together of the New Testament. When he came to Revelation, he could find no Greek text that was complete. So, he went to the old Latin Vulgate, translated the missing text from Latin back to Greek (along with Acts 9:6) and had his Greek text.
With the use of the Erasmus text, the Beza text, the Latin Vulgate, and other available manuscripts, the forty-eight translators of the KJV began their work. They selected the best possible textual materials and used them all in their translation. This was the eclectic method. The charge was made against the NIV that it is based on an eclectic text. The same is true with the KJV and ASV. Incidentally, the Erasmus text was slightly modified by two scholars named Stephanus and Elzivir to be part of the Textus Receptus. This became the basis of the KJV and Martin Luther's German translation. To criticize the NIV as having been translated from a faulty text by the eclectic method and not say the same about the KJV is unreasonable and wrong.
Eclectic means selecting the best from all available sources. That is what was done when the ASV was translated. It was done by the NKJV scholars. In fact, that is what the Majority Text is -- an eclectic text. The haphazard way in which the KJV text was formulated cannot happen today. Many more manuscripts have been located in the interim time period from 1607 to the present. There is not a better system of selecting a more accurate text. If anything is true, the Majority text, and the Westcott-Hort text are based on much more accurate research than was possible in the 1500-1600 period of time. But again, which is the text that today exists without faults?
Brother Clinton Hamilton is quoted as saying, "Always read either the King James or American Standard so you know what was in the original." Brother Hamilton may have made that statement, but from the view this writer has had of him over thirty years, it sure doesn't sound like the Clinton Hamilton I know. But even if he said it, it is not true. I believe he would want to define some things in that sentence. It is not possible by reading any version to be sure of what was in the original. We believe the truth, based on what information is available. In fact, it is a matter of faith. A God powerful enough to reveal Himself, is equally competent to preserve what He reveals (1 Pet. 1:25). Our faith should not be in some translation, some version of the Bible, but in an infallible God (1 Cor. 2:5). There are too many weaknesses in any work of fallible man to think otherwise.
If one can read the KJV and realize that when Luke reports the intention of Herod to keep Peter in jail until "after Easter," and recognize here an obvious error -- yet endorse the KJV -- surely the same thing could be done with any translation. The fact is, that even though there are variations in many translations, the same message of truth prevails. This is not to endorse the wide use of the NIV. These few comments have been made solely in the interest in correcting some errors. If there are errors in this response, like the Raders, would also appreciating hearing from the readers of this paper.
A REPLY TO DUDLEY ROSS SPEARS Dorris V. Rader Donnie V. Rader
Elsewhere in this issue you will find an article by Dudley Ross Spears in response to our material on the New International Version which appeared in the August special issue. Please read his article before reading this one.
We certainly cannot object to someone criticizing our material, since we recognize that we are subject to making mistakes as well as anyone else. This gives us an opportunity to reconsider some points and recognize our weaknesses. We have no disposition to simply win a point or justify a stand simply because we have taken it.
Let it be understood that we were not trying to speak for the brotherhood. Nor were we speaking for Searching The Scriptures. We were simply speaking for ourselves. Each reader has the responsibility to weigh the evidence and accept or reject the points accordingly.
Don't Overlook The Main Point
Let us appeal to the readers of this paper that you not overlook the main thrust of our article. It was to alert readers to some real dangers in the NIV. Even with some legitimate objections made by brother Spears (and he does have some), our material as a whole still stands. Where we believe that brother Spears is right, we do not hesitate to say so. Where we believe he is wrong, we will do the same. Even if our brother should be right in every criticism that he made, the reader should not conclude that the NIV is then a good translation. The reader will recall that we exposed the NIV on original sin, premillennialism, "sinful nature" and other fundamental points. Brother Spears' article is surely not to be taken to justify these.
We Were Not Reviewing The ASV
Brother Spears repeatedly asked why we criticized the NIV and recommended the ASV when the latter has some of the same renderings as the former. The article was not reviewing the ASV. The translation under examination was the NIV. Although the influence of Westcott and Hort is seen in the ASV, it is not flavored with Calvinism, premillennialism and other sectarian biases as is the NIV.
Spears Has Recommended The NIV
Though our brother says, "It is not submitted ... with wholesale endorsement of the New International Version Bible (NIV)" and "This is not to endorse the wide use of the NIV", this does not mean that he hasn't recommended it as a good translation. It seems that he places the NIV equal with the ASV and equal with or above the KJV.
Brother Spears has given the NIV his approval in time past. In the January 31, 1980 issue of Truth Magazine he listed the NIV as one of the translations that he recommended "because they are reliable in translation (as far as my limited knowledge of the original languages go)." He further said that one could read these without fearing they are "some ridiculous perversion of God's word." He classifies some translations as "completely unreliable and need exposure as outright error." He does not put the NIV in this class. However, in all fairness to brother Spears, he does object to the NIV’s rendering of "sinful nature" in the same article. Imprimatur Or Nihil Obstat Placed On The KJV And ASV?
Brother Spears claimed that "The end of the critical article smacks of pleading for an imprimatur or nihil obstat to be placed on the King James Version (KJV) and the American Standard Version (ASV)." That is simply not true. We in fact urged brethren to use other translations for comparative study. We said, "Neither are we saying that it is wrong to use modern translations for comparative study" (Special Edition, p. 175). We did say that "the NIV and many others should not be used as one's main study Bible" (ibid. pp. 175, 182).
Was brother Spears seeking to put an "imprimatur or nihil obstat" on the NKJV, NASB, TBV and the NIV when he recommended them as reliable translations (Truth Magazine, January 31, 1980)?
Then he says, "I am sure neither the authors nor the editor of Searching the Scriptures intends for that to be the case, however." Well, if brother Spears could see that, why does he not give others the credit for seeing it also? We feel that the average reader could see that as well as he did. Errors, Deletions And Footnotes
With further study of Luke 1:3 we realize that our use of it against the NIV was weak and invalid. Concerning Peter having two fathers there appears to be a difference in the Greek texts as noted in the New King James Version footnote on John 1:42. The ASV does footnote an explanation of the apparent difficulty here. On neither of these alone would we have built a case against the NIV. Brother Spears is right in saying that this is not a legitimate argument against the NIV.
Concerning Luke 2:22 the question was whether this should be rendered "her" or "their" purification. We were in error in listing the ASV as agreeing with the KJV and NIV in rendering this "her." One possible explanation of this problem offered by some brethren has been that this passage could have reference to "ceremonial cleansing" and not any moral cleansing. In this they may be correct.
We merely listed Acts 9:6 among several deletions in the NIV. This involved Saul's question, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Brother Spears quotes Bruce Metzger as saying that the question in the verse was not found in any Greek manuscript "at this passage." This may be true. However, there is no disputing that the question was asked at this point in the narrative as a parallel passage shows (Acts 22:10), if indeed it isn't in any Greek manuscript at this verse, then there is no problem with it being omitted at this verse.
We respectfully disagree with brother Spears concerning Acts 26:28. He suggested that there is no difference in the NIV and the ASV regarding this verse. He quoted the NIV, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" Then he quotes the ASV, "With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian." Surely he can see the difference in a statement and a question. We ask you to go back and consider our argument based the context itself.
Brother Spears observed that he feels that J.W. McGarvey "has the obvious truth on the matter." Then he quotes brother, McGarvey to support his view. However, we contend that nothing can make the truth more "obvious" than the context in this case.
The reviewer of this material apparently missed our point with regard to the footnoting. We were not objecting merely to a footnote. What we do object to is the way the NIV seeks to evaluate the manuscripts as it does in the footnote of Mark 16:9-20. "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." Please read again our section on footnotes. Greek Text
Our brother says that "The Majority Text is not the same as the Textus Receptus." We are well aware that there are some differences in these texts. However they are the same type of texts. The Textus Receptus was the majority text at the time of the KJV.
Brother Spears said, "It is also inaccurate to say that the KJV was translated out of the Textus Receptus." He has already quoted Bruce Metzger as saying," ... Textus Receptus, from which the King James version was made in 1611." Not only that, but brother Spears said himself that the Textus Receptus was behind the KJV and the NIV. Hear him, "The same Greek text from which the King James Version of 1611 was translated was used for the NIV. Thus, the continuing debate over the ‘Textus Receptus' and the Westcott-Hort Text, will be preserved, at least in part, by the presence of the NKJV" (Truth Magazine, January 31, 1980). To get technical about it, it could be said that the KJV was translated from the same family of manuscripts out of which the Textus Receptus was When we mentioned that the NIV was based upon an "eclectic text" we had reference to the fact that the underlying text was based primarily upon two manuscripts as opposed to the majority of manuscripts behind the KJV and NIV. Notice our quotations from Wilbur Pickering and Neil R. Lightfoot. In this sense it is certainly incorrect to say that the KJV was based on an eclectic text.
Brother Spears also observed that "The haphazard way in which the KJV text was formulated cannot happen today." We think that this is another example of a careless statement. No explanation or examples were given.
He asked us if we knew what text was without fault. We never claimed that there was any text without fault. We gave this quote, "This is not to blindly endorse the Received Text in the event that it does contain error. But I do suggest that the Westcott and Hort text contains far more erroneous renderings than does the Textus Receptus" (Luther W. Martin, Truth Magazine, Vol. VVIV, p. 293). One may or may not agree with his appraisal of the matter, but that is what we had reference to by "a faulty Greek text." His Closing Remarks
In his last two paragraphs, brother Spears makes some very interesting statements. Concerning our quotations from brother Clinton Hamilton, brother Spears raises some doubts as to our accuracy in this matter. We feel that rather than raise such doubts in the minds of the readers brother Spears should have availed himself of tapes of the Open Forum. In this way he could have been sure. Let it be understood that we did not quote either brother Hamilton or brother Curry as an indication of their endorsement of our article, but rather of our endorsement of statements we used from them. If he doesn't endorse their statement, let him take that up with them.
A rather shocking statement of his is that, "It is not possible by reading any version to be sure of what was in the original." This is truly a disturbing situation to be in, if this indeed be the case. We are left to flounder in a sea of doubt! Brother Spears goes on to observe that it is a matter "of faith" and that a God powerful enough to reveal himself, is equally competent to preserve what he reveals (1 Pet. 1:25). We agree with this last statement. But if we can't be sure about any version, just where is his word preserved? This is going to make a lot of people wonder, brother Spears! We understand that faith comes by hearing the word of God, but if it is not possible to be sure by reading any version that we have the original, we wonder how we could have faith? Truly, some of these statements give an uncertain sound. What about a person that doesn't know the Greek language? Can we be sure about the plan of salvation, worship of the church from the versions we have?
We read and reread with amazement his statement in the last paragraph concerning "Easter" which is an obvious error in the KJV. He says that if anyone can endorse the KJV with this error "surely the same thing could be done with any translation." We find it hard to believe that he thought that statement through. Would this work with the New World Translation?
He affirms that the same message of truth prevails despite the many variations in many translations. Yet he says, "This is not to endorse the wide use of the NIV." We wonder why not, if the same message of truth is there? Does he think that a translation conveys the same message of truth when the translators (to quote Spears on the NIV) "flavored their translation with their Calvinistic backgrounds" (Guardian of Truth, June 17, 1982)?
Again we appeal to the readers to consider that our main objective was to simply alert the readers to some dangers and problems with the NIV. We have had no reluctance to acknowledge points wherein we felt brother Spears had just criticism of our original article. At the same time we felt that in his response that he made some careless and misleading statements. It was our duty to point these out as it was his duty regarding ours. As he has indicated, this is not a matter of personal victory for anyone.
A BRIEF STATEMENT IN REPLY ... Dudley Ross Spears
It is indeed refreshing to engage in this type of exchange and also to see such frank honesty on the part of brethren Dorris and Donnie Rader. I hope to be as frankly honest in this reply.
I would like to retract the observation I made regarding the appearance of a nihil obstat or imprimatur in the article to which I responded. That was based on some of the recommendations near the end of their article, and it really served no good purpose. I tried to convey my confidence that neither of the authors of the article nor the editor of Searching the Scriptures intended such.
The difference we have seems to fall into the category of understanding facts rather than what is factual. The misinformation given regarding the text is cleared up. I would only urge the readers of these exchanges to read once more my efforts to explain what I meant by the statement that it is impossible to know for sure about the original text by reading any version of the Bible. We could debate that for ages, I suppose, with little or no advantage. Versions are not inspired of God and all of them are infected with human fallibility. That was the only point I wanted to make.
I do firmly believe the word of God is fully inspired and that we have it complete today. When it is transmitted through fallible men it is subject to the errors that creep in. With more and more ancient documents being uncovered we are able to check and recheck manuscripts and in so doing learn that any variant or omission is usually very insignificant. I do not have a perfect yard stick. I have a copy of one that, through manufacturing processes, may not be identical to the one kept in the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, D.C. But, I have no reluctance to use what I have as a reliable means of measurement. I have no original copy of the Bible. I have a copy of a copy, but also have no reluctance in using it as a reliable means for spiritual measurements. My confidence is in the author of it.
The quotation from me out of Truth Magazine is probably worthy of some comment. I said that the translators of the NIV. "flavored their translation with their Calvinistic backgrounds." I believe that is true in a number of cases. Not only must I recognize it in the NIV, but in any version of the Bible. The KJV has long been criticized for the same thing. The reader is urged to consider the criticisms of Calvinistic influence in the following instances.
1. Acts 2:47 -- "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." The KJV translation fits the Calvinistic view that God determined who "should be saved" and then added them to the church. E.H. Plumptre criticized their work, saying, "The verse takes its place among the few passages in which the translators have, perhaps, been influenced by a Calvinistic bias." The ASV and NIV both correct this to, "the Lord added to them (their number, NIV) day by day (daily NIV) those who were being saved."
2. Acts 3:19 -- "Repent and be converted." The KJV uses a passive form here in translation from a Greek verb that is active in the original. The ASV and the NIV both correct this. The KJV and NIV suggest that the sinner is passive in turning to the Lord -- a Calvinistic view.
3. Gal. 5:17 -- "... and the Spirit lusteth against the flesh, for these are contrary the one to the other: that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The KJV suggests that a sinner is totally unable to do what is right -- a Calvinistic concept. The NKJV changes it to, "so that you do not do the things that you wish." The NIV does the same. There is no textual basis for translating "cannot do" in this passage.
4. Heb. 6:6 -- "and if they shall fall away." There is no "if" in any Greek text. Brother Milligan observed, "Nevertheless, our translators followed Beza, who, without any authority from ancient MSS, hath inserted the word si (if), ..." Both the NIV and NIV follow the KJV and the ASV corrects it to "and then fell away." But, if Calvinism is seen in the addition of "if", then the KJV is guilty.
My personal view is that the KJV translators were somewhat Calvinistic in these four instances. This does not discredit the entire KJV of the Bible. Understanding such matters in the KJV demands that we do the same with any version of the Bible. I know of no version of the Bible that is beyond criticism in some respect, including the KJV and the ASV. Selecting a right translation is not easy, and I have no quick and easy formula by which to recommend one. I try to read as many as I regard to be the work of men who publicly commit themselves to faith in the fully inspired word of God which is an inerrant and infallible supernatural revelation from God.
With these things said, I again say I admire brethren Dorris and Donnie Rader and hope nothing has been done to damage our relationship in Christ and that readers of these exchanges will not assume that difference makes us enemies.
A SHORT REPLY TO BROTHER SPEARS Dorris V. Rader and Donnie V. Rader
We appreciate very much the kind way that brother Spears has treated us in this exchange. When such discussions are conducted in a brotherly fashion it is certainly wholesome and refreshing.
We must observe that brother Spears didn't deny all of the points that we made in the November issue. Rather, it seems that he has shifted gears on us. Our discussion concerned the NIV. That was the subject of the August Special Edition. Most of what was said in the November issue concerned the NIV. Yet now brother Spears turns to talk about the weakness of the KJV.
We agreed in our first article that there is some weakness in the KJV. We would not try to defend the KJV as a flawless translation. Though these four points that brother Spears mentions are examples of weaknesses in the KJV, they are not really parallel with Psa. 51:5 (NIV) teaching that David was born in sin or passages that translate sarx as "sinful nature." We have never noticed that brethren who used the KJV in debate with the Calvinists ever had any problem. However, you can imagine the problems you would have using the NIV.
1. Acts 2:47 -- Brother Spears claims that the KJV rendering to this verse teaches that God chose who should be saved then added them to the church. It is true that there is no textual justification for "should be." It is certainly better translated in the ASV and NKJV. While it is incorrect, we fail to see that it blatantly teaches Calvinism like the NIV does.
2. Acts 3:19 -- Brother Spears in correct in pointing out that "be converted" is passive in the KJV, but it is active in the original. This teaches Calvinism, he says, because the sinner is passive in turning to the Lord.
While we grant him the point that this should be active as in the ASV, we fail to see where this lends a hand to the Calvinist. Just because there is something passive in the sinner turning to the Lord that doesn't suggest Calvinism. The sinner is commanded to "be baptized" (Acts 2:38) that is in the passive voice. We fail to see Calvinism in that.
3. Gal. 5:17 -- Our brother says that the KJV suggests that the sinner is totally unable to do what is right. We would agree that there is no textual basis for "cannot do" and that the NKJV better translates it.
However, even with this word "cannot" it doesn't necessarily suggest an impossibility (cf.- Exo. 19:23; Mark 11:33).
4. -- Heb.6:6-It is true that there is no justification for the word "if" being inserted into the text. Again, we fail to see that this implies Calvinism. Even with the word "if" in our KJV it teaches the possibility of apostasy. "If" doesn't deny the possibility of that happening, but shows that when it does then it is impossible to renew them to repentance.
The word "if" does not suggest that what follows is untrue or impossible. When brother Spears says, "But, if Calvinism is seen in the addition of 'if', then the KJV is guilty" we are not to conclude that he does not believe it is guilty, for he had already said that there was "Calvinistic influence in the following instances."
Again we appreciate the kind way that brother Spears has treated us. We consider him a friend, not an enemy. We also appreciate brother Adams allowing us the space for our original article and this exchange.
May God bless us all as we continue to study the matters of text and translation.