|
Bible Study Resource 5a. A Critical Evaluation of the New International Version (NIV) The NIV is said to be the best-selling Bible version today. Many Christian book shops in Singapore are well-stocked with the NIV but not the KJV. We receive reports that buyers are going for the NIV rather than the KJV. FEBC Bookroom stocks only the KJV. A few distributors here have contacted FEBC to enquire if we would take over their KJV Bibles at a good discount because they are not moving. To me, this is disturbing news. Although the NIV may be written in modern-day English, it is a dangerous version because it is based on an eclectic text with all its inherent corruptions, and on a dynamic equivalence method of translation. Sadly, certain Bible-Presbyterian Churches have thrown out the KJV for the NIV, and have recommended its use for public worship and private devotions. This section seeks to expose the NIV for what it is: a version based on the corrupt Westcott-Hort text and theory, and a skewed translation methodology which renders not a literal, accurate translation but a subjective, opinionated interpretation of the Scriptures. 1b. The NIV is Based on a Corrupt Text 1c. The NIV Preface According to the NIV preface, "The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one." NIV advocates deny that their version is based on the Westcott-Hort text. One local champion of the NIV said, "most if not all versions after the RSV are based on an eclectic text, and not on the UBS or Nestle-Aland text." This statement is inaccurate and incorrect. 2c. UBSGNT and NA The eclectic text is the United Bible Societies” Greek New Testament (UBSGNT), and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA).
1e. The UBSGNT acknowledges that its committee carried out its work "on the basis of Westcott and Hort”s edition of the Greek New Testament" (4th ed, viii). 2e. The NA edition considered the TR to be the "poorest form of the New Testament Text" (so Westcott and Hort). Eberhard Nestle in an attempt to overthrow the traditional text based his critical text "on the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth" (26th ed, 39). What level of influence did the Westcott-Hort text have on the NA edition? The "origin of the text itself was clearly traceable . . . particularly in passages where the special theories of Westcott-Hort had dominant influence in its formation" (Ibid, 41). Although the NA renames itself as an "eclectic" text (Ibid, 42-3), the vestiges of WH remain; it is a stain difficult to remove.
1e. D K Madden wrote, "The translators of the New International Version state on page 8 of the Preface that they have used an eclectic (which according to the Oxford Dictionary implies borrowing freely from various sources) Greek text. This may be so, but an examination of their work clearly indicates that their choice of text has been greatly biased in favour of Nestle”s Greek text which in turn is notorious for its adherence to the Westcott and Hort methods of textual criticism." 2e. Radmacher and Hodges correctly pointed out that "The so called ‘new textus receptus”—the N/A and UBS editions—do not differ a whole lot from the text produced by Westcott-Hort in 1881" (Earl Radmacher and Zane C Hodges, The NIV Reconsidered [Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1990], 142-3). They also said, "The NIV as well as the NASB, NEB, JB, RSV, TEV, etc., simply adopt what is today”s ‘textus receptus”" which is "found in the two most widely printed editions of the Greek New Testament: the 26th edition of the Nestle/Aland text and the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies text" (Ibid, 139). 3e. Anderson and Anderson wrote, "twentieth century scholars have chosen, . . . to abandon the Traditional Text in favour of a text based on these two Alexandrian manuscripts. The newest edition of this text is the United Bible Society”s Third Edition. Although the New International Version translators were free to consider and incorporate readings from other Greek texts (thus rendering the basis of the New International Version New Testament an ‘eclectic” text), it appears that they followed the United Bible Society”s Third Edition for the New Testamentwork" (G W Anderson, and D E Anderson, New International Version [London: Trinitarian Bible Society, nd], 16). 4e. Kenneth Barker, General editor of the NIV, said that the eclectic text is the UBSGNT and NA. 3c. Conclusion There were only 3 printed editions of the Greek New Testament that the NIV translators could use: (1) Textus Receptus (TR) published by the Trinitarian Bible Society which underlies the KJV, (2) UBSGNT, and (3) NA. It is clear that they either used the UBSGNT or the NA. It is thus naive to say that the NIV is not at all based on Westcott and Hort. 2b. The NIV Casts Doubt on God”s Word 1c. The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) The story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is called the pericope de adultera. Modernistic scholars have attempted to remove this whole passage from the Bible. According to Westcott, "This account of a most characteristic incident in the Lord”s life is certainly not a part of John”s narrative." Not only has it been said that the pericope de adultera was not a part of John”s Gospel, both Westcott and Hort insisted that the story "has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels." The Westcott-Hort based NIV has this misleading statement concerning the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11: "[The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11]." What are these so called "earliest" and "most reliable" manuscripts which do not have the pericope de adultera? They are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both 4th century manuscripts. Those who reject the pericope de adultera do so on a presuppositional bias that these 2 codices which omit it are superior manuscripts. Are the above codices really reliable? One will do well to remember that these are the same 2 codices which attacked the doctrine of the Trinity by removing the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7f). According to Dean Burgon, a godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among "the most corrupt copies in existence." Burgon wrote, "I am able to demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than itself" (for a full discussion, refer to John William Burgon”s The Revision Revised [Collingswood NJ: The Bible For Today, 1981 reprint], 548 pp). Although the above two codices may be "earliest" they are by no means "most reliable." There is abundant evidence in support of the authenticity of the pericope de adultera. John 7:53-8:11 is found (1) in many Greek uncials and minuscules mainly of the Majority or Byzantine text-type, (2) in the ancient versions or translations: Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and (3) in the writings of the Church Fathers: Didascalia, Ambrosiaster, Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Jerome (AD 340-420), the translator of the Latin Bible called the Vulgate, said this about the pericope de adultera: ". . . in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord." Jerome considered the pericope genuine, and included it in his Vulgate. Self-styled textual critics who arrogantly say: "This text has no place in Scripture; I will never preach from it!," should rather heed these wise words of Calvin: "it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage." It must be noted that if John 7:53-8:11 is removed from the Gospel, it leaves a vacuum between the words "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet (7:52), and "Then spake Jesus again unto them" (8:12). In 7:40-52, we find the private dialogue and debate among the Jewish populace, and between the temple servants and Pharisees over Jesus” identity; whether He was the Moses-like Prophet (Deut 18:15) or not. Jesus was out of the picture at that time. It is thus quite awkward to introduce Jesus so abruptly in 8:12 where it is recorded that He spoke to them "again." Jesus in verses 12-16 was teaching what is righteous judgment. The pericope de adultera provides the link between the two episodes. Jesus taught them "again" because He had already begun teaching the people before he was interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees (8:2-3). Jesus” "light of the world" discourse clearly fits the context of the pericope de adultera. The Jewish religious leaders had failed to exercise righteous judgment because in condemning the adulteress, they failed to judge themselves for they were equally sinful (8:7-9). Jesus” judicial and yet merciful treatment of the adulteress clearly demonstrates that He alone as the light of the world is the true and perfect Judge (8:12). The divinely inspired account of the woman taken in adultery rightfully belongs to the Gospel of John. Let us not hesitate to use it for our encouragement and comfort. Recommended reading: John William Burgon, "The Woman Taken in Adultery: A Defense of the Authenticity of St John 7:53-8:11," in Unholy Hands on the Bible, ed Jay P Green (Lafayette: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), F1-16; and Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 150-9. 2c. The Last 12 Verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) Are the Last Twelve Verses of Mark Really Mark”s? According to the NIV, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." Its Study Bible goes on to say, "serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, . . ." Here is another NIV attempt at scission. Practically every modern English version would insert this doubt over the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It is only the KJV which accepts it without question. We affirm the authenticity of the last 12 verses of Mark together with Dean J W Burgon who wrote a scholarly 350-page defence of those celebrated verses. Burgon argued that the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are said by many to be "most reliable" are actually "most corrupt." Burgon wrote, "Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these ‘last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. . . . I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. . . . I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,--untrustworthy in every particular. . . . I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds." Furthermore, there is abundant manuscript evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. E F Hills wrote, "They [Mark 16:9-20] are found in all the Greek manuscripts except Aleph [i.e. Sinaiticus], and B [i.e. Vaticanus], . . . And more important, they were quoted as Scripture by early Church Fathers who lived one hundred and fifty years before B and Aleph were written, namely, Justin Martyr (c. 150), Tatian (c. 175), Irenaeus (c. 180), Hyppolytus (c. 200). Thus the earliest extant testimony is on the side of these last twelve verses." How about the allegation that the last twelve verses are non-Marcan because of the difference in literary style? Metzger, for instance, argues against the last twelve verses because there are therein 17 words new to the Gospel of Mark. Such an argument is often fallacious because it wrongly assumes that an author has only one uniform style of writing. In any case, Burgon, after a careful comparison of Mark”s first twelve verses with his last twelve verses, concluded, "It has been proved . . . on the contrary, the style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S. Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, that it is rendered probable by the Style that the Author of the beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end of it. . . . these verses must needs be the work of S. Mark." Recommended Reference: John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Oxford, London: James Parker, 1871, reprinted in 1983 by The Bible For Today); D A Waite, Dean John William Burgon”s Vindication of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible For Today, 1994); Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 159-68; and "The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark," Article #106 (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, nd). 3b. The NIV Scissors Out God”s Word According to Jack Moorman, there are a total of 140,521 Greek words in the traditional Greek New Testament. Now, out of these 140,521 words, 2,886 words are missing in the Critical Text of Nestle-Aland and Westcott and Hort. The amount of words scissored out is equivalent to the size of 1-2 Peter! See Jack A Moorman, Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret (California: Fundamental Evangelistic Association, nd). What are some of these words, verses and passages either omitted or questioned (based on UBSGNT cf NIV)? 1c. Entire Passages Questioned
NIV: "[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]"
NIV: "[The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.]" 2c. Entire Verses Omitted Matt 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Rom 16:24; 1 John 5:7-8. 3c. Portions of Verses Omitted
"without a cause" (5:22), "to those of old" (5:27), "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" (6:13), "to repentance" (9:13), "among the people" (9:35), "Lebbaeus, whose surname was" (10:3), "raise the dead" (10:8), "of his heart" (12:35), "Jesus said to them" (13:51), "draw near to me with their mouth" (15:8), "at his feet" (18:29), "from my youth" (19:20), "and whatever is right you will receive" (20:7), "For many are called, but few chosen" (20:16), "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with" (2x in 20:22,23), "take him away, and" (22:13), "to observe" (23:3), "in which the Son of Man is coming" (25:13), "false witnesses" (26:60b), "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots" (27:35).
"Isaiah the prophet" (1:2), "of the kingdom" (1:14), "to repentance" (2:17), "as whole as the other" (3:5), "to heal sicknesses and" (3:15), "of the air" (4:4), "Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city" (6:11), "bread, for they have nothing to it" (6:36), "they found fault" (7:2), "and fasting" (9:29), "into the fire that shall never be quenched" (9:45), "and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt" (9:49), "for those who trust in riches" (10:24), "in the name of the Lord" (11:10), "and at him they threw stones" (12:4), "This is the first commandment" (12:30), "with all the soul" (12:33), "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (13:14), "And another said, Is it I?" (14:19), "because of me this night" (14:27), "and thy speech agreeth thereto" (14:70).
"blessed art thou among women" (1:28), "when she saw him" (1:29), "hath visited" (1:78), "but by every word of God" (4:4), "Get thee behind me, Satan" (4:8), "to heal the brokenhearted" (4:18), "the Christ" (4:41), "and both are preserved" (5:38), "whole as the other" (6:10), "treasure of his heart" (6:45), "who had been sick" (7:10), "And the Lord said" (7:31), "and those with him" (8:45), "and you say, Who touched me?" (8:45), "and put them all out" (8:54), "even as Elias did" (9:54), "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" (9:55), "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men”s lives, but to save them" (9:56). "when he departed" (10:35), "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" (11:2), "but deliver us from evil" (11:4), "bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask" (11:11), "the prophet" (11:29), "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (11:44), "that they might accuse him" (11:54), "against you" (17:3), "him? I think not" (17:9), "and saw him" (19:5), "Why tempt ye me?" (20:23), "took her to wife, and he died childless" (20:30), "in my kingdom" (22:30), "And the Lord said" (22:31), "struck him on the face and" (22:64), "me, nor let me go" (22:68), "and of the chief priests" (23:23), written and in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew" (23:38), "and certain others with them" (24:1), "and of an honeycomb" (24:42).
"which is in heaven" (3:13), "not perish, but" (3:15), "the Christ" (4:42), "waiting for the moving of the water" (5:3), "and sought to slay him" (5:16), "to the disciples, and the disciples" (6:11), "whereinto his disciples were entered" (6:22), "in me" (6:47), "being convicted by their own conscience" (8:9), "and saw none but the woman" (8:10), "through the midst of them, and so passed by" (8:59), "the pool of" (9:10), "as I said unto you" (10:26), "from the place where the dead was laid" (11:41), "which had been dead" (12:1), "in the world" (17:12), "and led him away" (19:16).
"ye have taken" (2:23), "of the Lord" (7:30), "him shall ye hear" (7:37), "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (9:6), "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do" (10:6), "which were sent unto him from Cornelius" (10:21), "who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee" (10:32), "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law" (15:24), "which believed not" (17:5), "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem" (18:21), "that were of Paul”s company" (21:8), "that they observe no such thing, save only" (21:25), "and were afraid" (22:9), "unto his death" (22:20), "and would have judged according to our law" (24:6), "commanding his accusers to come unto thee" (24:8), "of the dead" (24:15), "that he might loose him" (24:26).
"of Christ" (1:16), "and upon all" (3:22), "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (8:1), "for us" (8:26), "of righteousness" (9:31), "of the law" (9:32), "preach the gospel of peace" (10:15), "But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (11:6), "and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (14:6), "or is offended, or is made weak" (14:21), "I will come to you" (15:24), "of the gospel" (15:29).
"for us" (5:7), "and in your spirit, which are God”s" (6:20), "of Christ" (9:18), "for me" (10:23), "for the earth is the Lord”s, and the fulness thereof" (10:28), "Take, eat" (11:24), "unworthily" (11:29), "the Lord" (15:47).
"that we would receive" (8:4), "in glorying" (12:11), "I write" (13:2).
"that ye should not obey the truth" (3:1), "in Christ" (3:17), "through Christ" (4:7).
"through Jesus Christ" (3:9), "of our Lord Jesus Christ" (3:14), "rest of the" (4:17), "of his flesh, and of his bones" (5:30).
"and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:2), "through his blood" (1:14), "and of the Father and" (2:2), "of the sins" (2:11).
"in Christ" (2:7), "not greedy of filthy lucre" (3:3), "who" instead of "God" (3:16), "in spirit" (4:12), "good and" (5:4), "man or" (5:16), "from such withdraw thyself" (6:5), "and it is certain" (6:7).
"by himself" (1:3), "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" (2:7), "firm unto the end" (3:6), "and their sins" (8:12), "O God" (10:9), "saith the Lord" (10:30), "was delivered of a child" (11:11), "were persuaded of them" (11:13), "or thrust through with a dart" (12:20).
"through the Spirit" (1:22), "for us" (4:1), "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" (4:14).
"from the beginning" (2:7), "Christ is come in the flesh" (4:3), "in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one" (5:7), "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (5:13).
"the beginning and the ending" (1:8), "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and" (1:11), "which are in Asia" (1:11), "him that liveth for ever and ever" (5:14), "and the angel stood" (11:1), "and art to come" (11:17), "here are they" (14:12), "over his mark" (15:2), "O Lord" (16"5), "another out of" (16:7), "of the earth and" (16:4), "the Lord" (19:1), "of them which are saved" (21:24). 1c. The Johannine Comma Removed (1 John 5:7-8) Is There a Clear Biblical Proof Text for the Doctrine of the Trinity? 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV reads, "For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The words underlined constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, "to cut off"). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity—that "There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power, and glory" (WSC Q 6). Why is this verse so seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? The oft-quoted NT texts for the Trinity are Matt 3:16-17, 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14, and Rev 4:8, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will reply, "How can I when my Bible does not have it?" Therein lies the problem; with 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions like the NIV, RSV, and NASB, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of God”s Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century." On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7f is spurious. It is unfortunate that even The King James Study Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers) doubted the authenticity of this verse. Is there not a need for a 21st Century Reformation Study Bible? It is not true that 1 John 5:7f is absent in all pre-16th century Greek manuscripts and NT translations. The text is found in 8 extant Greek manuscripts, and at least 5 of them are dated before the 16th century. Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7f from the Latin translations. There are at least 8,000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin which Church Fathers like Tertullian (AD 155-220), and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the 5th chapter of 1 John, at least 4 of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek NT, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7f has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome”s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which has the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession, and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of 1 John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i.e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F Hills concluded, ". . . it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church." This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate—Bruce Metzger—made this claim which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by anti-KJVists Stewart Custer, D A Carson and James R White. Is this truly what happened? H J de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzger”s view on Erasmus” promise "has no foundation in Erasmus” work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale professor—Roland Bainton—another Erasmian expert agrees with de Jonge furnishing proof from Erasmus” own writing that Erasmus” inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed "the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth! It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the Apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up till this point in time, no one is able to identify this mysterious person who tried to "help" the Church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf John 1:1,14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula—"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "The Word" or "The Logos" of 1 John 5:7f surely points to the Apostle John as its source for it is distinctively John who uses the term "the Word" to mean "Christ" in all his writings. There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly biblical, and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is really no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic, and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Serious students will want to look up these two seminal monographs: (1) Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 209-13; and (2) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (Tempe: Comma Publications, 1995). The latter, by a librarian, in defence of the Johannine Comma is especially thorough and helpful. The onus is now on KJV detractors to address the documents, evidences, and arguments garnered by Maynard. This book is available at the FEBC Bookroom. 2c. Removal of Whole Verses Eg: Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom 16:24. (See above for complete list of verses and words removed.) Do note that these verses are also missing in the UBSGNT and NA. Coincidence? One outspoken B-P pastor of an NIV-using church in an attempt to refute me wrote, "I am amazed that Jeffrey Khoo is so ignorant as to say modern versions are based on the W-H Theory. He should know that most if not all versions after the RSV are based on an eclectic text, and not on the UBS or Nestle-Aland text." If the NIV is not based on the UBS or NA Greek text, then "I am amazed" over the striking similarities between those Greek texts and the NIV in omitting the exact same verses of NT Scripture! James R White himself, the most recent opponent of the KJV only position, would largely agree with me, "There are two main modern texts, the United Bible Societies 4th Edition, and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, both of which have the same text but differ in other matters such as punctuation, textual apparatus, etc. These texts are more ‘Alexandrian” in character than the Textus Receptus, which was based upon Byzantine manuscripts, but less Alexandrian than the text produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881" (The King James Only Controversy [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995], 45). It must be said that although the modern critical Greek NTs are "less Alexandrian" they are still very Alexandrian by the amount of verses removed and passages questioned as we have discussed earlier and shall see later. Now who is the one that is really "so ignorant?" 3b. The NIV Attacks Vital Doctrines of the Christian Faith 1c. Attack on the Eternal Generation of God the Son The eternal generation of the second person of the Holy Trinity (i.e. Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God) is an important doctrine of the Christian Faith. The 4th century Athanasian and Nicene Creeds state that Jesus is both Son and God "only-begotten, . . . of the Father before all the ages." The Westminster Confession of Faith (1648) likewise followed the ancient creeds in describing the relationship that exists within the Godhead: "In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son" (II.3). All 3 ancient creeds describe Christ as only begotten, or eternally begotten. Now you know that every doctrine must be based on the Bible. Where in the Bible do we find Jesus being described as only begotten Son of God? If you have the KJV you will find it in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. But if you are using the NIV, you will have a hard time finding this doctrine in the Bible. The term "only begotten" with reference to Christ has been conveniently removed by the NIV. It mistranslates the Greek monogenes as "one and only." Problem is monogenes does not just mean "one and only." The Greek monogenes comes from 2 words: monos meaning "only" and gennao meaning "to beget" or "to generate." The KJV translates it literally and accurately as "only begotten." Do you now see why we as Bible-Presbyterians cannot use the NIV? The WCF teaches according to the Scriptures that Jesus "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father." Now if I were to teach a class on the WCF, we come to this point on the eternal generation of the Son, and one of you were to ask me this very good question: "In which verse of the Bible is Jesus described as the only begotten Son of God?" If I have the NIV as my Bible, I will be dumbstruck. The NIV has removed this important doctrine on the person of Christ from the Scriptures. It has subtracted from God”s Word; a very dangerous thing to do (Rev 22:19). That is why we cannot trust the NIV. Why? Because instead of telling us what God says, it tells us what man thinks God is saying. The NIV is an interpretation, and not translation of the Bible. 2c. Attack on the Virgin Birth of Christ In Luke 2:33 we read, "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him" (KJV). In the NIV, it is like this, "The child”s father and mother marveled at what was said about him." Do you see the problem here with the NIV? The NIV makes Joseph the father of Jesus! The NIV rendering of this verse is totally out of line for the following reasons: (1) the word "child" is not in the traditional Greek text, (2) the word "father" is not in the Greek, (2) the possessive pronoun "his" is connected to Mary alone (hê mêtêr autou), and does not include Joseph. Those who do not know better would probably come to the conclusion that Joseph was the direct, natural father of Jesus. The NIV has caused Luke to contradict the virgin birth. Jesus has only one Father, and that is the First Person of the Holy Trinity. Joseph was neither physically nor spiritually the father of Jesus. However, NIV advocates will point out verse 41 which called Joseph and Mary "his parents" (so KJV as in NIV). The fact that Joseph and Mary were indeed parents of Jesus—Joseph being legally a "parent" and not naturally the "father" of Jesus—would prove the point that the biblical writers were careful not to attribute the title "father" to Joseph, for Jesus only has one Father, and that is His Father in Heaven—the First Person of the Holy Trinity. In verse 43, we again see the inspired writers carefully distinguishing Joseph”s actual relationship with Jesus by the words "Joseph and his mother," again purposely avoiding calling Joseph Jesus” "father." Jesus Himself refused calling Joseph his "father," and gently corrected his mother when she said, "thy father and I have sought thee" which drew this response from the Lord, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father”s business?" Why did not Jesus use "God," or "the Lord," but "Father" at this juncture? I believe it is to correct any misconception that Joseph was in any way His father. God alone was His Father. 3c. Attack on the Theanthropic Person of Christ 1 Tim 3:16 has to be one of the clearest texts of Scripture proving the full deity and full humanity of Christ, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, . . . ." But if you had the NIV, you would have a difficult time proving this. Instead of the reading, "God was manifest in the flesh," you have "He appeared in a body." The NIV obscures (1) the deity of Christ by removing "God" and replacing it with just "He," and (2) the humanity of Christ by replacing " the flesh," with "a body" (a body may not necessarily be of "flesh and blood"). The word in the original is sarx meaning "flesh," not soma meaning "body." It is also interesting and significant to note that the KJV translators never rendered sarx as body and soma as flesh (see Yeong Shoon Lau, A Textus Receptus-King James Version Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, MDiv thesis, Far Eastern Bible College, 1997, 214, 228). The KJV recognised the proper distinctions between the two; something the NIV translators obviously failed to do in their dynamic-equivalence blindness. Why does the NIV translate 1 Tim 3:16 as "He" and not "God?" It is simply because they chose to adopt a Westcott-Hort reading of the text. According to Westcott and Hort, since the Sinai and Vatican codices read "he who," instead of "God," it must be the correct reading. And mind you, this is over against the majority of the Greek manuscripts including certain Alexandrian ones which read theos "God," instead of hos "he who." Many modern versions like the NIV happily follow Westcott and Hort in corrupting the Word of God. How can NIV defenders deny that the NIV is based on Westcott and Hort? How can NIV users who say they love God”s Word continue to use a version which supports the unbelieving views of those two enemies of Christ? For more discussion on this verse, see "God was Manifest in the Flesh (1 Tim 3:16)," Article #103 (London, Trinitarian Bible Society, nd). 4c. Attack on the Eternal Punishment of Sinners in Hell The NIV has a habit of removing words that are not easily understood by the modern reader. In so doing, proof texts for certain important doctrines have also been removed. One example is the Hebrew word lwav (Sheol) where the KJV sometimes translates as "the grave," and other times as "hell." The NIV removes the concept of "hell" (ie a place of eternal punishment) when it refuses to translate sheol as hell. Thus, in Ps 9:17, "the wicked shall be turned into hell" is changed to "the wicked return to the grave." Even Lucifer (ie Satan) will not be "brought down to hell," but "brought down to the grave" (Isa 14:15). By never translating sheol as hell, the NIV has effectively made our Bible poorer on the teaching of eternal punishment. It is no surprise that today more and more Christians are rejecting the traditional doctrine that there is a place of eternal conscious torment called hell where all reprobates will finally be consigned. So-called evangelicals like Clark Pinnock, and John Stott are nowadays espousing the annihilation doctrine of the Jehovah”s Witnesses. Did they influence the NIV, or did the NIV influence them? 5c. Attack on Christ as the Judge who is God In Rom 14:10,12 we are told, "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." In the NIV, the deity of Christ is denied. It reads, "For we will all stand before God”s judgment seat . . . so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God." In the KJV, all men are to stand before Christ, giving account to God. The equation is clear, Christ is God. But the NIV changes "Christ" in verse 10 to "God," and by so doing, renders verse 12 a simple restatement of verse 10, without affirming the deity of Christ. Anderson and Anderson correctly comment, "Here a wonderful verse which plainly declares our Saviour”s deity is done away with without the average Christian even knowing it. The deity of Christ is attested in this passage in some Alexandrian manuscripts, the majority of other manuscripts, many ancient versions, and at least ten church fathers. It is missing from only a handful of manuscripts (seven), which unfortunately for the church includes the two considered to the best by modern scholars: the Vatican manuscript and . . . the Sinai manuscript. The New International Version, by this omission, does more than delete a few words; it reflects the high handed approach to textual criticism threatening the Church today" (New International Version, 18). 4b. The NIV Mistranslates God”s Word 1c. Mistranslation of Ps 12:7 on the Preservation of God”s Word The NIV reads, "And the words of the LORD are flawless like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever" (Ps 12:6-7). Note the change from "keep them" to "keep us," and "preserve them" to "protect us." They changed the pronouns from third plural (ie "them") to first plural (ie "us"). Is this a correct or accurate translation? In the Hebrew, the first word is tishmerem. The -em suffix means "them" not "us." He will keep "them" (so KJV) is correct. The second word is titzrennu. The -ennu suffix (with an energetic nun) is third singular (ie "him"), not first plural (ie "us). The energetic nun is emphatic (ie "every one of them"). So it should be translated preserve "them" (ie "every single word of His words") not "us" (ie "every single person of His people"). By incorrectly and inaccurately translating Ps 12:7, the NIV has effectively removed the doctrine of Bible preservation from this text. Suggested thesis topic for FEBC students: "God”s Promise to Preserve His Word: An Exegetical Study of Psalm 12." 2c. Mistranslation of Isa 49:12 on God”s Promise to the Chinese The following is taken from Timothy Tow, "NIV Turns ‘Land of Sinim” into ‘Region of Aswan” by a Twist of the Ball-Pen!" The Burning Bush 2 (1996): 73-5. "The translation of KJV of Isaiah 49:12, "Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim" from the Hebrew text, hnh 'lh mrhvq yb'v vhnh 'lh mtsplh mtspvn vmym v'lh m'rts synym is correct. How does the NIV differ to translate m'rts synym "from the region of Aswan"? "The word "Sinim" in Hebrew is synym. And the word for "Aswan" according to the NIV in Ezekiel 29:10 and 30:6 is svnh. Now synym is pronounced "Sinim" but svnh which is pronounced "Seveneh" is translated "Aswan." But why is synym at Isaiah 49:12 by a twist of the NIV”s ball-pen also become "Aswan?" Even the non-Hebrew reader can see that Sinim (synym) and Aswan (svnh) are two different words. Perhaps the NIV translators think they can palm off their ware to the unwary non-Hebrew English reader. "Another difference between the KJV and NIV translations is the NIV rendering of 'rts into "region" whereas 'rts has almost always been translated "land," "earth," or "ground." Now if the NIV translates "the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali from the word 'rts (Isa 9:1) and Zebulon and Naphtali are small tribes, why does not NIV use the word "region" here? The right word for "region" in Hebrew is hbl according to the Hebrew lexicon (BDB, 286). There is no valid reason to translate 'rts as "region" except for the sinister purpose of demoting the Land of Sinim into some Egyptian outback. "The land of Sinim, according to Hastings” Dictionary of the Bible, from the context, must have been the extreme south or east of the known world (Dictionary of the Bible, ed James Hastings, sv "Sinim"). The LXX favours the view that a country in the east is intended, and some modern commentators have identified Sinim with China, the land of the Sinae. The ancients” view that Sinim refers to China is attested overwhelmingly by continuing modern Hebrew usage. My English-Hebrew, Hebrew-English lexicon by Prof M Segal and Prof M B Dagut, says China is syn (Sin) and Chinese is syny (mlvn 'ngy 'bry English-Hebrew Dictionary, sv "China," "Chinese"). The root of "Sinim" is "Sin," so "Sinim" points most assuredly to China and not to Aswan, which is translated from a different word svnh as stated above. Thus, one who is well-versed in Chinese is called a sinologue and sinology is the study of Chinese language, history, customs, etc; and the war between China and Japan was called the Sino-Japanese war. "Let me quote from Dr Allan A MacRae my teacher on the above subject under discussion. In his Studies in Isaiah, Dr MacRae says as a matter of fact: In verse 12 the remarkable extent of the work of the servant is clearly indicated with people coming to his light from the north and from the west and even from the land of Sinim (China). What a marvelous prediction of the extension of the gospel of deliverance from sin through the servant of the Lord to the very ends of the world! How wonderfully it has been fulfilled in these days when groups of believers have come to the Savior from so many sections of the earth, even including this very land of China, which must have seemed in the days of Isaiah to be the utmost fringe of civilization. Truly He has become "a light to the Gentiles. [Allan A MacRae, Studies in Isaiah (Hatfield PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1995), 237. Edward J Young wrote likewise, "In any attempt to identify the land of Sinim we must look for a place far from Palestine. An ancient interpretation would identify it with China, . . ." (The Book of Isaiah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1972], 3:282, 294).] "Furthermore, let us see how the translators of the Chinese Bible treat the Hebrew text. They translate the land of Sinim as the Kingdom or Country of Chin, and "Chin" is a root word for China, verily, as it was Chin Shih Hwang Ti the first Emperor who united the many ancient states into one China. This is a good translation in the tradition of the LXX, and in line with time-honoured Hebrew usage to this day. "Speaking from my experience as a Certified Chinese Interpreter of the Supreme Court, Singapore in my young days, whenever there was any doubt in the translation of a Chinese document into English, the Judge would know exactly and objectively what the original says, and not some dynamic equivalent, the subjective NIV style. The KJV renders the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible without subtraction or addition, least by juggling, when m'rts synym can be twisted to read "from the region of Aswan." Let us have an answer from the learned NIV translators." 3c. Mistranslation of 2 Thess 3:6 on Secondary Separation The following is taken from Charles Seet, "The Principle of Secondary Separation (2 Thess 3:6-15)," The Burning Bush 2 (1996): 41-2. "Paul wrote this passage because some in the church refused to work. But the scope of the sin is not limited to slothfulness. The loafers are referred to in 3:6 as pas adelphos autaktôs peripatountos ("every brother walking disorderly.") Why did the apostle choose to use this unspecific phrase rather than something more convenient, like pas mê ergazomenos ("everyone who is not working")? The word autaktôs is a hapax legomenon (i.e. a word occuring only once in the scriptures) and is the adverbial form of the word ataktos, which itself occurs in 1 Thess 5:14, and is also a hapax legomenon. The verb form, atakteô, occurs significantly in the same context (in v.7) as the adverb, and it also is a hapax legomenon. It therefore becomes difficult to attach any meaning more specific than what is known from the common usage of this word ("not in proper order", as found in 3 Macc 1:19; Philo, Josephus, Bel and the Dragon, etc.). "Therefore the word "disorderly" used in 2 Thess 3:6 need not necessarily be referring only to people who are not working. Unfortunately, English translations like the NIV have paraphrased the Greek in rendering the passage: We command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle... This obscures the principle and limits the passage to only one application of the principle, namely -- the problem of loafers. "After using this phrase, the apostle Paul goes on to use another equally non-specific phrase: mê kata tên paradosin ên parelabon par' hêmôn ("not according to the tradition which they received from us"). The word at issue here is tradition (paradosis). This word is found only five times in Paul”s epistles (1 Cor 11:2, Gal 1:14, Col 2:8) and twice in 2 Thessalonians: here, and in 2:15. In none of these other occurrences, is the word ever employed in the sense of one particular teaching or commandment alone. It stands for all Christian teaching, oral or written. "Since both of these non-specific phrases are found in the very first verse of the paragraph in which Paul proceeds to address the issue of errant non-working brethren, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that he deliberately chose to begin his instruction by stating a general principle, before dealing specifically with the problem itself. This pattern can be demonstrated in many other Pauline passages (Rom 13:1,6; 1 Cor 6:12,13-20; Gal 5:1ff). The whole of v.6, is therefore a general principle, that believers ought to separate themselves from every one in their midst who was deliberately disobeying any part of the whole body of inspired instruction. Thus, the main issue this paragraph addresses is disobedience."5b. The NIV Opposes a Strictly Messianic Fulfillment of Isa 7:14 in its Study Bible I have argued strenuously that Jesus Christ is the only one who fulfilled the precious prophecy of Isa 7:14 which concerns His virgin birth (see "The Sign of the Virgin Birth: The Exegetical Validity of a Strictly Messianic Fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14," Master of Divinity thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1991. An edited version may be found in the January 1995 issue of The Burning Bush. Both are available at the FEBC Library). The RSV made a blatant attack against the virgin birth by rendering the Hebrew almah as "young woman" (Isa 7:14). The Virgin Birth of Christ was meant to be a miraculous sign to the house of David. If a young woman conceives, how then can it be a sign? It is God-given miracle only if a virgin conceives. It is something supernatural and unique. The angel Gabriel quoting Isa 7:14 said that the prophecy of the Virgin Birth is fulfilled in Jesus who came from the womb of Mary, a parthenos, "a virgin." Was the angel wrong when he told us that this is the meaning of the word almah in Isa 7:14? No, these so-called scholars of the RSV were in error, not the angel. The angel surely knew Hebrew and Greek much better than they! Matt 1:18 and 25 tell us in no uncertain terms that Mary was a virgin from the time she conceived Jesus till the time she gave birth to Him. It is no wonder that Rabbi Israel Bettan criticised the RSV. He said of the RSV, "The Revised Standard Version is not a faithful translation, and in some places the revisers do violence to the original Hebrew. It is a good book on the Bible, but it is not the Bible. When asked to compare the King James Version with various other translations, the rabbi said that of the English versions mentioned the King James Version was, in his opinion, the most faithful to the original" (The Brethren Missionary Herald [Feb 1958]). The same is said by Dr Robert Alter (BA, Columbia University, MA, PhD, Harvard University) who was professor of Hebrew at the University of California, Berkeley, "Modern English versions put readers at a grotesque distance from the Hebrew Bible. To this day, the Authorized Version of 1611 (the "King James Bible") . . . for all its archaisms . . . remains the closest we have . . . of the original." The following critique of the NIV”s treatment of Isa 7:14 is taken from Radmacher and Hodges” The NIV Reconsidered, 52-4. The NIV translated ha” almah in Isa 7:14 as "the virgin." According to Radmacher and Hodges, "the use of the definite article ‘the” with ‘virgin,” the NIV has laid the groundwork for a quasi-liberal view of Isaiah 7:14. "This becomes obvious when we read The NIV Study Bible note. The note states: ‘7:14 sign. A sign was normally fulfilled within a few years (see 20:3; 37:30; cf. 8:18).” This statement leads to the legitimate inference that we should not look for a distant (that is, Messianic) fulfillment of 7:14 during the New Testament period! The flawed NIV view of Messianic prophecy is once again in evidence. "The note continues: ‘virgin. May refer to a young woman betrothed to Isaiah (8:3), who was to become his second wife (his first wife presumably having died after Shear-jashub was born). In Gen. 24:43 the same Hebrew word (‘almah) refers to a woman about to be married (see also Pr. 30:19). Mt. 1:23 apparently understood the woman mentioned here to be a type (foreshadowing) of the Virgin Mary.” So now the cat is out of the bag! In the NIV, ‘the virgin” apparently is intended to refer to a specific individual who, though not previously named, is very much a part of the larger context of this announcement. To put it briefly, ‘the virgin” refers to ‘the woman” Isaiah is about to marry. Only if the prediction is viewed typologically, so we are told, can we find any validity to Matthew”s use of this text in reference to the Virgin Mary. "Despite the finely honed statements of the NIV study note, what the note really means is this: Isaiah 7:14 is not a direct prophecy about the virgin birth at all. Indeed, the woman to whom it did really apply gave birth in a perfectly normal way! But nobody could deduce such a conclusion from Matthew”s use of the text. Haven”t we been through all this before? What about the long-running debate in the 19th and early 20th centuries, between liberals and conservatives, over whether Isaiah 7:14 truly predicts the virgin birth or not? Is not the Christian public ready for an evangelical translation that concedes the basic case to liberal theology and then clings to the slender reed of typology to preserve its weakened conservative credentials? We hope not. "Let this be said clearly. The authors of this book hold firmly to the traditional evangelical view that Isaiah 7:14 directly predicts the virgin birth of our Lord. No other reading of this text comports with the inspired use of it made by Matthew." |