I recommend reading the entire article, then the brief reply,
and then the line-by-line analysis of the article (see below).
I Timothy 3:16 -- The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Version (KJV) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." The King James says, plainly, "God was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "He appeared in a body". The NIV twists "God" to "He". "He appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"! "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does not make sense! The NIV subtlty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
Philippians 2:6 -- The KJV, again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The NIV reads, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". The NIV again subtly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!
The NIV perverts the virgin birth!
Luke 2:33 -- The King James Version reads, "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV reads, "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "child's father"? Was Joseph Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! A subtle perversion of the virgin birth. See also Luke 2:43.
The NIV removes the blood of Jesus Christ!
Colossians 1:14 -- The KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins." The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV rips out the precious words "through his blood"! Friend, redemption is ONLY "through his blood". Hebrews 9:22 reads, "...without shedding of blood is no remission." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus!"
The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a lie!
John 3:16 -- The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" -- Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2 -- but Jesus was the "only begotten son"! By removing the critical word "begotten" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a lie! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.
The NIV perverts truth into lies!
The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a lie! The NIV reads, "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way -- a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is not written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS ..." A better translation! Easier to read - by a lie!
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is true ..." John 17:17 says, "... thy word is truth." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "... God that cannot lie." How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in the NIV!? It is impossible! For Hebrews 6:18 clearly declares, "... it was impossible for God to lie." It is impossible for the lies in the NIV to be the words of God! Whose words are they? I'll give you a hint - Jesus Christ calls him "A liar, and the father of it" in John 8:44!
The NIV again openly lies in 2 Samuel 21:19, "... Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." What 8-year-old doesn't know that David killed Goliath?
Romans 1:18-32 describes the "path to perversion" and verse 25, describes their decline, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie ..."! Not surprisingly, The NIV perverts Romans 1:25 from "CHANGED the truth of God INTO a lie" to "EXCHANGED the truth of God FOR a lie"!
The NIV and sexual perversion!
Romans 1:26-32 also shows the "fruits" of "sowing" "...the truth of God into a lie." Verses 26-27 says, "For this cause [vs 25 for "changing the truth of God into a lie"], God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly."
The last few years homosexuality and sexual perversion have "exploded" into the mainstream. Legislation is now pending making same-sex marriages legal. Books such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate," promoting homosexuality, are in our schools. According to The Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality, are the 'in thing' in our public schools. And even churches are now welcoming homosexuals and are even ordaining them in the ministry!
A literary critic on the NIV translation was homosexual author Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. In Episcopal Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My *******ism has ALWAYS been a part of me." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7). And of course, I Cor. 6:9, "... effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ..." is replaced with the non-offensive "... nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" -- but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS".
The NIV & Zondervan
A little known fact: In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as "Making Out, The Book of ******* *** and Sexuality," described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography, ... Making Out is the complete illustrated guide to ******* sexuality and relationships ... the intricacies of love play ..." and many other pro-homosexual books!
HarperCollins is a subsidiary of the global media empire, The News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdock. The News Corporation empire includes Fox Broadcasting, Twentieth Century Fox, and more than 128 newspapers. Fox Broadcasting produces some of the most sexually lewd shows on television. Murdock also publishes the British newspaper, the Sun, notorious for its nude pin-ups.
Now where is Don Wildmon when we really need him? Don was quick to boycott Kmart because its subsidiary, Waldenbooks, sold Playboy and Penthouse. Kmart can't hold a candle to the filth spewed by The News Corporation. Why isn't Don boycotting Zondervan and the NIV? Friend, every time you purchase the NIV you are giving to people who produce pro-homosexuality, and pornographic material. "Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?" Amos 3:3.
Now you know why Bill and Al read only from the NIV.
Jesus Christ plainly said in Matthew 7:17-18: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
Do you think Jesus Christ was lying?
Do you really believe God would allow His holy word to be owned by that group? "... for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2 Cor. 6:14. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," 1 Peter 1:23.
Isn't it equally amazing that the King James Version is the only Bible that is not owned by men? That's right! The King James Version has no copyright ownership! It's copyright is the crown copyright which allows it to be published by anyone, anytime! Without asking anybody for permission!
"... but the word of God is NOT BOUND," 2 Timothy 2:9.
The NIV robs Jesus Christ of worship!
In Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, Mark 5:6, 15:19 "worshipped him" is removed in the NIV! Why doesn't the NIV want Jesus Christ to be worshipped? Hint: see Luke 4:7, Matt. 4:9.
The NIV completely "taketh away" 17 verses!
Wonderful and precious verses like: MATTHEW 18:11 -- "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
ACTS 8:37 -- "And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'"
The NIV perversion completely "taketh away" Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7!
After Mark 16:8 the NIV says, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses! And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20 that has never been refuted, nor ever will!
After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." ZAP-There goes another 12 verses!
Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!
That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!
So tell me, what do you think of your "up-to-date", "easy to understand" "bible" now?
It has 10 translations of the Bible in English (and lots more in other languages). When you look up a verse or search on a phrase, you can tell it which versions you'd like to use. Once you have displayed a verse, you can easily switch to another version by clicking on the appropriate abbreviation at the top of the page. This can be a little tedious if you are comparing many verses, however, so they made a special search that puts the translations you want on the same page:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?interface=x
This lets you put in the passage (book, chapter, and verse) and which of the 10 versions you'd like to compare (including three KJV versions!). I've found this site particularly helpful because those parallel Bibles are so cumbersome.
Now I'm no Bible scholar, and I've never claimed to be one, but most of the comments in that article you sent can be broken into the following categories:
Now, I've taken the time to look up those references and I'd like to discuss them individually with you, but first I'd like to comment on the categories above.
But let me ask you this:
If we have several different ancient manuscripts of a particular passage and they disagree, what criteria should we use to compare them? Some manuscripts have been discovered recently (last couple hundred years) that can be dated to the first century church. Now, when these older versions are consistently different from some later manuscripts, we have to wonder about the change. God's Word is perfect and immutable but the human caretakers are liable to err from time to time. This is why I feel it is very important to view multiple translations so that you can see how several different scholars interpreted the verses. But the most important step is to ask the Holy Spirit for the guidance that Christ promised.
God's original words were written down in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Seeing as much of the population at the time was completely illiterate, I do not think that God expected everyone to learn these three languages. I also do not believe that God meant for only peoples with these native languages to be saved. So that leaves us with the problem of translating the Holy Word of God into another language.
Now, I think that the original manuscripts should be held in highest esteem, whenever found, and that they should be considered the standard to which all others should be compared. Creating a version by translating a previous translation into a new language is tricky and can lead to lots of problems. The King James Version was written as a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which in turn was a tranlation of the original texts. You can see how this is a problem.
There are several issues to consider when translating any text into another language:
a. Idioms in the original language -- "He kicked the can" may be translated word-for-word into Japanese, but the meaning that the fellow died would not be clear because it is a figure of speech only in English. Knowing the idioms in an ancient language is even harder but as the body of text grows (both scriptural and secular) we have a greater understanding of the situations in which certain phrases were used.
b. Idioms in the target language -- We have to be very careful when translating into English because a phrase common in one region may be completely unheardof in another. English is particularly frustrating because so many people from so many different cultures consider it to be their language. Does this mean that we should take out any English phrases that can possibly be misunderstood? If we do this, we end up with what sounds like "legalese", which doesn't flow and which isn't easily understood by anyone. No, we have to accommodate the idioms of the target language but also recognize that the version we create will age and become less useful as the language continues to grow and change. This gets back to the reverence for the oldest manuscripts.
| The Article | My Reply |
|---|---|