Special Edition

REVIEW OFTHE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

The original words used by the Holy Spirit in reveal-ing the word of God to mankind were spoken in ancientor "Biblical" Hebrew. The universal language of manwas confounded and various tongues and dialects cameinto being from the time of the tower of Babel, 1775years after creation (Genesis 11:6-9). The descendantsof Shem developed the Semitic language from whichcame the language known as "Hebrew," and it was inthis language that the first revelation from God wasmade.

When the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receivedthat law at Sinai, it was revealed in the Hebrew lan-guage. Afterward the laws and statutes were also re-ceived in the Hebrew tongue.

After the reign of Saul, David and Solomon, the na-tion of Israel was divided into ten tribes to the north,under the rule of Jeroboam, and the tribes of Judah andBenjamin known as "Judah" under the rule of Reho-boam. Nineteen kings ruled for 254 years over Israel,which ended in Assyrian captivity. During this captiv-ity the nation of Israel lost its identity as a separatepeople. Their language took the characteristics of theAssyrians, and later developed a mixed dialect spokenin Samaria during the time of Christ.

Nineteen kings ruled Judah in Jerusalem from Reho-boam to Zedekiah for a period of 390 years. This periodended in Babylonian captivity (606 B. C. to 536 B.C.), aperiod of seventy years. Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehe-miah returned with a decree from Cyrus to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the temple worship. They re-turned to Jerusalem with a mixture of dialects of the Chaldeans, but the Hebrew was used in the worship.

About three centuries before Christ, Alexander theGreat had conquered the known world. The Greek influ-ence, especially the Greek language, had permeatedmost of the world around Palestine. Nearly two centu-ries before Christ, the Roman Empire began its rise topower, and the Latin language was growing because ofthe influence of Rome, but the Greek language was stilluniversally spoken when Christ was born. This explainswhy Pilate had the sign put above the cross of Christ inthree languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin (John 19:20).

The Greek language of Christ's day is no longer aliving language. By that I mean it does not change; it isnot used by any people today as a common language. Inthe good providence of God His eternal word is lockedinto a language that will not be modified in any way byany people as time goes by. We may glean the kernels oftruth from the words of a "dead" language frozen intime for all eternity.

The Basis Of A Translation

The earliest translation of any part of the Bible wasthe Old Testament Hebrew, from 284 B. C. to 132 B. C.when it was translated into the Greek from Hebrew. Seventy of the best Hebrew scholars were commis-sioned to make a translation of the Hebrew scripturesinto the Greek language. This was known as the Septua-gint, a Latin term for "seventy." It was also known asthe Alexandrian Version because it was made near Al-exandria.

Some standard text of the original language of theBible had to be established as a basis to aid in makingtranslations into other languages. This standard textwas the product of the science we call TEXTUALCRITICISM. By accumulating all the evidence fromthe ancient manuscripts, previous translations from the original tongue, and from quotations of early Chris-tian writers, an accurate and complete text of the Biblecan be obtained.

The formation of a standard Greek text of the New Testament began early in the 16th century. The first began in Complutum, Spain in 1514, but was not pub-lished until 1522. Several followed as new manuscriptswere discovered.

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, two professors atCambridge University, worked 28 years on their workfor a Greek text of the New Testament, and completed itMay 17, 1881. Their work is one of the most accurateand accepted standard Greek texts known. Not oneacceptable Greek text published since Westcott andHort Text has materially differed from it.

Why Do We Need A Translation?

Most people know only their native tongue, and with-out a translation of the Greek and Hebrew into that tongue, they would not be able to read the word of God.Very few today among the common people can speakthe language which the apostles and Christ spoke.

Literally the word translation is from two words: trans which means "across," and fere which means "tobear; carry." The word translation means "to carryacross." In reference to the scriptures it means to takethe meaning of each word in the original language andcarry it across into another language EXACTLY!

Words are means of conveying thoughts from onemind to another. In the case of inspired writings it is themind of God being conveyed to man. Each word spokenby the Holy Spirit is given for a purpose. That exactword must be carried across in another language or wedo not have the word of God, but the word of men.

Some speak of "revision" of a certain translation. Just what is the difference between a "translation" and a "revision"? A translation is that which carries across from the original language of the Holy Spirit into an-other by a "word-by-word" transfer of substance. A"revision" differs in that it is a SECOND edition after the same pattern, but containing such changes as arenecessary to correct the first. A revision is the sametongue as the translation which it revises.

That is NOT a revision which intends to update,change doctrine, delete material, add new substancearbitrarily, all in the interest of CHANGES for what-ever purpose. This is equal to a PARAPHRASE.

Some Guidelines For A Translation

It is important to know how translations are made inorder to determine whether they are accurate and reli-able or not.

Some basic rules must be followed to provide an accu-rate translation from one language to another. Thereare three main rules:

1. Words by any writer have but one meaning in each

When should a translation be made? Manytranslations have been made that served no purpose atall but to enhance the bank account of the translator or stuff his ego. A translation should be made only:

1. When there is no complete translation of the wordof God in that language. Such was the case when mencame to America and found the Indians without the Bible in their language. They needed a translation.
2. When a translation is outdated because of the change in that language, and the people do not under-stand the translation they have. A living languagechanges in that new words are added, and other wordsare losing their meaning. After a few generations aliving language may change so much that the old trans-lation does not express the original in the commontongue of that day. They need a new translation or a"revision" of their old translation.
3. When a translation in some tongue is not an accu-rate one. It has happened that some theological systemhas kept a true translation from coming to a people forgenerations, and in such cases those people need atranslation.

Who should make a translation?

Some translations have been made by individualsupon their own authority. Some have been made by thedecrees of kings and emperors. Some have been madeby ecclesiastical organizations. Some have been im-provements over former ones, and some have been farinferior.

No translation should be made from a translation. That was the mistake of many translations before theKing James Version. The Latin Vulgate served as abasis for most of those translations, and it was a trans-lation itself. All translations should be made from the original language of the inspired men.

Why do we have a number of translations in the En-glish language? It is confusing to many people, andsome reasonable explanation must be made. At least four explanations may be given:

1. A living language undergoes continual changefrom generation to generation. Certain English wordsin my lifetime have completely lost their meaning, andothers have come into existence because of inventions and new ideas. A hundred years ago the English lan- guage did not have the words to express many of themedical terms used today, the electronic devices andtheir functions, forms of transportation that we haveand many games and forms of recreation. But the factthat a new translation is made will not automaticallyeliminate the old one from use. Consequently, we wouldhave two translations in use at the same time.
2. Some words have no meaning in current usage ofEnglish. Several words in the King James Version are derived from the Latin which were used in the Latin versions. The word Calvary is from the Latin "Cal- varia." The Greek is "the place called the skull" (Luke23:33). Many such corrections need to be made.
3. Translations made for commercial value. Unfortu-nately many translations are made for capital gain. Thevariations and changes are unnecessary and often erro-neous. The average reader has no knowledge of Greek,

or at the most, very little. These changes for commercialpurposes are confusing to him. Such translations areusually copyrighted to keep others from using their terminology. Most modern versions are of this type.

4. Translations for the purpose of supporting theo-logical and doctrinal views. Some denominations havegone to considerable trouble and expense because itseems the only way to secure their cause. These will allperish as impure and faulty attempts at translating theword of God.

The Bible is a "best seller" every year, and every newtranslation that can hold the market for a few years is a sure winner financially for some publisher. These arehard, cold facts with which we must reckon as we con-sider the examination of any translation.

THE NEED FOR RELIABLE TRANSLATIONS

The Bible claims to be the revelation of God's mind

for the guidance of man. The Old Testament writers

repeatedly stated that the "word of the Lord" came

unto them. We read of "the word that came to Jeremiah

from the Lord" (Jer. 7:1). In the book of Exodus alone,

the claim is made 161 times that "God spake these

words." The whole nation of Israel was witness to the

fact that God spoke to Moses in preparation for the

giving of the law. That account plus what God gave to

Moses on the mount was written in a book and read

periodically to the entire nation. See Exo. 24: 4, 7; Deut.

31:9-12 and Deut. 17:18-20.

Not only did the prophets claim inspiration from the

Lord, they also recognized the works of other prophets

as inspired. Daniel consulted Jeremiah's prophecy

about the duration of the captivity (Dan. 9:2). Zechariah

considered what "former prophets" had written (Zech.

7:12). New Testament writers also affirmed the divine

origin of the Old Testament. Peter said "holy men of old

spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet.

1:19-21). Peter said "the Holy Ghost by the mouth of

David" spake concerning Judas (Acts 1:16).

Paul spoke of the Old Testament which Timothy had

known from a child, plus the sacred writings of his day

as "inspired of God" and "profitable" to completely

furnish the man of God to every good work (2 Tim. 3:14

17). Peter said that what "brother Paul" wrote consti

tuted "scripture" and warned that the unstable "wrest"

what he said "as they do also the other scriptures, unto

their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16). Paul argued that

the Holy Spirit chose the words he used. "Which things

we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom

teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; compar

ing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13).

The Original Languages

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the

New Testament in Koine Greek. There are a few sec

tions in the Old Testament in Aramaic and some words

in the New Testament are preserved in that language.

The Old Testament was translated into Greek about

200 B. C. in what was called The Septuagint. This was

the text used by Jesus and his apostles thus placing

their approval upon it.

But readers of this paper, with very few exceptions,are not conversant with Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Weare dependent on reliable translations into English for our understanding of what God said.

Abundant Textual Evidence

We do not have the original documents. It is ourcontention that these original documents were inspiredof God and that no error was contained in them. But if we do not have the original documents now, how can weknow that we really have the text of what God said? Itis important to understand that we have a great abun-dant of textual sources from which to establish this.

There are now over 5,000 Greek manuscripts rangingfrom small fragments to whole books, to the whole Bi-ble. In 1902 the German scholar Von Soden catalogued 2,328 New Testament manuscripts, 40 of which con-tained in whole or in part all books of the New Testa-ment. 1,716 contained certain portions of the gospels,581 were of Acts, 628 of Paul's epistles and 219 of thebook of Revelation. The earlier of them were uncials (written in capital letters without punctuation) and 100of them were before the 4th century. The three mostimportant uncial manuscripts are the Vaticanus andSinaitic from the 4th century A. D. and the Alexandrianfrom the 5th century. The latter is the principle text onwhich the King James Version rested. I have personallyseen all three of these manuscripts. The Vaticanus is inthe Vatican Library in Rome and the Sinaitic and Alex-andrian are both in the British Museum in London. Since the days of Von Soden other significant manu-scripts have been found, all confirming the text on which most English versions rest.

In addition to the vast array of manuscripts, scholarsalso have at their disposal numerous versions (transla-tions of the New Testament into other languages). TheSyriac, for instance, is dated about 400 but is a copy of atranslation made into Syriac about 150, within 50 yearsof the apostolic age. Tatian's Diatessaron dates to 170 and the Old Syriac Version dates from the 2nd century. We also have Coptic (Egyptian) versions which go backto about 200 A. D. There are also Latin versions, chief ofwhich was Jerome's Vulgate in the latter part of the 4thcentury. By translating from these languages back intoKoine Greek, the scholars can determine what was thetext underlying these versions.

In addition to manuscripts and versions, we have theadded evidence of the Patristic writings. These were theworks of influential Christians in the first 300 yearsafter Christ. Some of their writings were in Greek andsome in Latin and consisted of letters written to churches or individuals dealing with spiritual issues ofthe times. As they wrote in defense of the faith andagainst heresies of one kind or another, they quotedfreely from the New Testament to support their affirma-tions and contentions. With the exception of a very fewverses, all of the New Testament is quoted by these menas scripture. Their works are now contained in 10 largevolumes called THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. Sev-eral years ago I personally checked these works forquotations from the books of Philippians, Colossians,Titus and Philemon. Others in the same class I was taking were assigned the rest of the New Testament.Between all of us working on the project, we were ableto find all of the New Testament quoted or cited with the exception of a very few verses. What does that prove? Itproves that they recognized the same New Testament scriptures which we have now and that they consideredthem authoritative in settling religious issues.

History of English Translations

The first English translation was by John Wyclif in1382. He worked from the Latin Vulgate rather than theHebrew and Greek manuscripts. Since this was beforethe invention of printing, copies were expensive and difficult to obtain, although it still reached the people ofEngland and was opposed by the Catholic Church. Thenext important translation in English was in 1526 by William Tyndale. It was the first English translation tocome directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts and also the first to be printed.

The most popular English translation was the King James Version of 1611, so named because it was com-missioned by King James. Forty-eight Greek and He-brew scholars were chosen and divided into six workinggroups. Each group was assigned selected books totranslate and the work of each company was sent to andreviewed by the others. For over 350 years it has beenthe household Bible for the English speaking world. Itis the author's opinion that the English languagereached it zenith in fulness of expression, dignity andgrace in the time of Shakespeare and has decayed sincethat time. In spite of all the criticism which some haveheaped upon the King James Version, the expandingarray of textual evidences make it look better all thetime. It is a fact that some words and phrases arearchaic now. This author still prefers it, has alwayspreached from it and thinks the explanation of archa-isms a minor problem in teaching people the word ofGod. The New King James Version has preserved theform and dignity of the earlier work while eliminatingthe obsolete language.

The American Standard Version of 1901 (and itsEnglish counterpart of 1888) was done by 101 of thefinest scholars of the time, both British and American.Its language is still not out of date though it is getting difficult to find this translation. Those who have pub-lished modern versions have justified their work byinsisting that both the King James and the AmericanStandard Versions are too mechanically exact. Whileintended as a slur, such a charge in reality stands as acompliment to these versions. We need to know exactlywhat God said. In efforts to make the text flow more smoothly and to produce better "literature", some ofthe newer versions have omitted whole phrases whichappeared in the text in the original and have often be-come commentators on the text instead of translators. What the text means is a matter of commentary. That isnot the proper business of translators. They must giveus in our language what the text says.

The New American Standard Version leaves much to be desired. While it made a serious effort to give anexact translation on verb tenses, it has been careless inmany instances and those who insist on using it need toexercise caution.

Caution Needed

The market has been flooded in recent years with newversions and paraphrases. We have had the RevisedStandard Version, the New English Bible, Good NewsFor Modern Man, The Living Bible Paraphrase, theNew International Version, the Reader's Digest Con-densed Bible and a host of others. While there may besome value in comparing readings in these, it is danger-ous to limit your Bible study to one of the newer effortswhich have not followed the safer guidelines of the KingJames and American Standard Versions. Both of those were serious efforts to put into English just exactlywhat the equivalent words said in Hebrew and Greek.When it was necessary to supply a word, or severalwords to complete a sentence, these translators indi-cated such by the use of italics. Modern speech effortshave taken great liberties with the text without any indication that they have done so. The danger of this isthat we are going to have a generation of Biblical illiter-ates who do not know the word of God at all.

In my travels over the country in the last few years, Ihave seen many come to Bible class and other serviceswith all kinds of excuses for translations. I have heard some of these used for readings in the worship assemblyand at the Lord's Table that were so far-fetched it was difficult to tell what passage they were actually read-ing. Some preachers, elders and Bible class teacherswho have not done their homework, have, with all good intentions, encouraged Christians to purchase and useversions which are not reliable. We need to have the good judgment to know the difference between what isa good translation and what is simply a successful,money-making scheme to sell books!

This issue of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES is designed to alert readers especially concerning the NewInternational Version which is being used more and more these days and increasingly by Christians. Webelieve Dorris V. Rader of Tullahoma, Tennessee and hisson, Donnie V. Rader of Louisville, Kentucky have donetheir work well and we are grateful to them. DorrisRadar has preached the gospel for at least 35 years. Hiswork has always been true to the book and his mannerof life beyond reproach. He is a careful student. DonnieRader is a young man of great ability and sterling char-acter who works now with the Manslick Road church in Louisville. If you appreciate their work, or even if youdisagree with what they said, they would be pleased tohear from you.

* *********

EXTRA COPIES OF THIS EDITION

For as long as they last, extra copies of this editionmay be purchased for $40 a hundred or $25 for 50. Youmay order these from: SEARCHING THE SCRIPT-URES, P. O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109-0069.

Solomon said, "of making many books there is noend" (Ecc. 12:12). This was not said as a flat condemna-tion of making many books. New translations are ap-pearing so rapidly that we may also observe that "ofmaking new translations there is no end." They havebeen coming off the press at an average of one newversion, or revision per year since 1881 (The New Testa-ment Student and Bible Translation, p. 127). Neither is this said as a flat condemnation of new translations. However, even a novice must know thatall the new translations cannot be the true word of God since conflicting doctrines can be "proven"depending on the particular translation one choosesfor his Bible.

Imagine the confusion in a Bible class if you hadabout six or eight different modern versions. Supposethe teacher assigns each student to read and make ashort 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 establishmentof the kingdom at the second coming of Christ. Heclinches it from the same "Bible" by reading Isa. 2:2-4."For in those days the world will be ruled from Jerusa-lem. The Lord will settle international disputes; all na-tions will convert their weapons of war to implements ofpeace. Then at last all wars will stop and all militarytraining will end." He had read it all from his "Bible."Then another student, using the Amplified Bible walksto the podium and takes his text from Eph. 5:19. Histext speaks of "offering praise with voices [and instru-ments]." From his Bible he urges that we all fully praiseour God, not just with voice but with instruments aswell. When the third speaker walks to the stand he iscarrying Today's English Version as his Bible. He readsfrom Acts 2:1-4 how that it was "all believers" who received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He shows howall believers spoke in other languages as the Spirit en-abled them. Now let us just suppose that the finalspeaker brings his Cotton Patch Version and reads ofPaul's defence before the council in Acts 23. In his "Bible" he reads that Paul seeing that part of them wereUnitarians and part were Baptists took sides with "theBaptists" 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 wouldbe 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 transla-tion of his choice just like many believe that one canhave the church of his choice? One who believes in the doctrine of grace only would find comfort in the NewEnglish Bible (Rom. 3:24). If one believes the doctrine offaith only, he would delight in Today's English Version(Good News For Modern Man) (Rom. 1:17; 3:27-28) orthe Living Bible Paraphrased (Rom. 4:12). If one was insympathy with the doctrine of Premillennialism, hewould like the Living Bible Paraphrased (2 Tim 4:1). If one had rather observe the Lord's supper on Saturdaythan Sunday, the Good News Bible (Acts 2.0:7) or theNew English Bible (Acts 20:7) would certainly givesome comfort. If you like the use of instrumental musicin worship, the Amplified Bible (Eph. 5:19) would "jus-tify" it. If one liked the doctrines of John Calvin, hewould 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 En-glish Bible and the New Testament in Modern English(Phillips). If one would like to hold to the old law asbeing effective today, he would like the New EnglishBible which says that Jesus didn't come to abolish thelaw (Matt. 5:17). Our Pentecostal friends will no doubtbe pleased with the Good News Bible as it would indi-cate that Holy Spirit Baptism is for all believers (Acts2:1). If you wanted to doubt the fact that Jesus is Deity,then a number of translations could be found to supportthat 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 likescursing and gutter language you can have a Bible thatuses such terms. One might be shocked to read theGood News For Modern Man (Acts 8:20) or the LivingBible Paraphrased (1 Sam. 20:30; Gen. 19:5; 2 Sam.11:4; John 9:34).

The real problems in this area are not somethingwhich we have just imagined. We have discussed thiswith knowledgeable men among both "conservative" and "liberal" brethren. Many of these pseudo-versionsare a direct challenge to fundamental truths which havebeen held dear throughout the entire history of theLord's church. We are witnessing a new and bold thrustat undermining the faith with denominational dogmas,as the latter gradually make their way within the lids ofthe Bible by way of paraphrases, deletions, insertions,mistranslations, footnotes and commentaries withinthe text. Denominational creeds are subtle and danger-ous even when they exist under their own banner. Butthey are infinitely more insidious when they are slippedin under the pretext of "translations" and palmed off asbeing actually the word of God. The devil, you remem-ber, operates as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).

Aid To The Atheist

Lest some think, after reading this article, that wehave overstated the case and cried "wolf" where no wolf exists, let us cite you what the American Associationfor Advancement of Atheism had to say in one of their annual meetings about matters of this kind. "They aresaving the ship of Christianity by throwing the cargooverboard . . . . the virgin birth, atonement, and theresurrection. How long will men sail the sea in an empty ship? They will go ashore and enjoy life with the Athe-ists. We welcome the aid of the modernists and pledgethem our fullest cooperation in ridding the world of any serious acceptance of Christian theology." (As quotedby A. G. Hobbs, Contending for the Faith, April 1983,

p. 7).

What Are We Saying?

Before someone misunderstands, let us state in sim-ple terms what we are saying. But first it may help tostate what we are not saying. We are not saying that theKJV is the only acceptable translation. We are not say-ing that the KJV, ASV or the NKJV are flawless. Weare not saying that there is any inspired translation. Weare not saying that it is wrong for the Bible to be trans-lated into modern speech. We are not saying that thereis no need for revision and new translations. Neither are we saying that it is wrong to use modern translationsfor comparative study.

However we are saying that the New InternationalVersion (NIV) and many other modern translations areperversions (pseudo-versions) rather than versions. Weare saying that the NIV and many others are mistrans-lations. They are not the word of God. Hence the NIVand 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 choosea translation on the wrong basis. The problem is thatthey don't know how to go about determining which translations are good and which are not. Many peoplepull a new translation off the self and throw it open atany verse and read a few lines to see if it is very readableand understandable. If it is much easier to understand than the KJV or the ASV they buy it and use it. How-ever this assumes that most translations are good andaccurate and thus the one easiest understood is the best. While we need to be concerned about simple andunderstandable English, we must not overlook the needfor an accurate translation. What good would a transla-tion do us if it is clear and understandable, but notaccurate? 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 andunderstandable terms) or tell you the truth (in under-standable yet not so simple terms)?

Obviously there is more to determining which trans-lations are good and bad than just checking to see ifthey are clear and understandable. Let us consider someimportant principles that we should use in examining atranslation. (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 dothis work? (4) Have verses or parts of verses been omit-ted? (5) Is it a paraphrase or a commentary ? (6) Has thetruth been lost in the process of obtaining clear and understandable English? (7) Is it an accurate transla-tion? (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, KJVor the NKJV. (The translators of a number of the newversions are on record acknowledging the accuracy andreliability of these versions.) Check such verses as Psa.51:5; Isa. 7:14; John 3:16 ("begotten" sometimes leftout); Matt. 5:17 (if translated "abolish" then we haveJesus 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. 1:16-17; 3:27-8;etc. This is just a beginning of the list of passages thatare so often mistranslated.

Questions For The Reader

1. Do you want to use a translation that has manyperverted and mistranslated passages?
1. If we could show that the NIV is not an accurate translation, would you continue to use it?
2. If we could show that the NIV is a pseudo-version(a perversion) teaching doctrinal error, would you con-tinue to use it? If so, why?
3. Do you believe that all translations are accept-able?

A Dangerous Translation

The NIV, along with several other translations, is adanger to the body of Christ. This translation is far more dangerous to members of the Lord's church thanthe more far out translations like the Good News, Read-er's Digest and Cotton Patch Versions. Because theNIV is a little more subtle than these just mentioned, itis more dangerous. To illustrate, if a Baptist preacherteaches his doctrine of Calvinism, he will not influenceas many Christians as a "gospel" preacher would whooccasionally throws out some Calvinistic thoughts. Wehave long known and warned that a little error interwo-ven with a considerable amount of truth is best suited to infiltrate the hearts of men and women.

A translator need not mistranslate every passage inorder to accomplish an unholy goal. A word or two here and a passage will much better accomplish the De-stroyer's goals.

Someone may say that the translation is good for themost part. It is only a small portion that is not accurate.Yes, but it is that small portion that is dangerous. It isthat "small" portion that we are concerned about. Takefor example the d-Con mouse-prufe. It has 99.946%inert ingredients. It is the 0.054% active ingredient thatkills. You see, a small portion can be dangerous. Sup-pose you have a plate of food that has one drop of poisonin it. Most of what you would eat would be good. It isthat small portion that is dangerous.

One of the greatest dangers with the NIV and severalother 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 differencewhen there is a mistranslation (which is not a justifica-tion for using a pseudo-version), but do the children?Are the parents going to be able to show them all of theverses that have been mistranslated? Can you imaginegiving your children a Bible and then pointing out sev-eral 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 moreand more members of the church are picking up the NIVand using it for their Bible. In nearly every congrega-tion where we have been in the last year or so there hasbeen someone (in some cases several) who was using theNIV. This version seems to be selling well. In responseto our inquiry, Baker House informed us in February1984, that the NIV is "currently the best seller" withthem. In fact, one of the men who helped produce theNIV said. "The response of the public to the NIV isoverwhelming; about ten million copies have alreadybeen sold" (J. C. Wenger in a letter to Donnie Rader onJanuary 14,1984). Thus it behooves the people of Godto examine this version to see if it is accurate and ac-ceptable.

"But, A Member Of The Church Of Christ Helped In Translating It" __ Church of Christ___ " This was to help safeguardthe 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 NIV—it is still a bad translation. It reallydoesn'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-versionor mistranslation no matter who had part in it!Some, however are impressed with this fact. Theythink it just has to be a good translation since somebrother 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 Reli-gion in Memphis, TN. Our purpose here is not to get thelow-down on Jack Lewis, but suffice it to say thathis

association with the NIV doesn't impress us one bitwith him or the translation. We are not surprised at hisparticipation in producing the NIV and wouldn't besurprised at his participation in any similar project.Actually, he is the same Jack P. Lewis who tried todefend 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 noth-ing to do with the actual translating. He only served inan advisory capacity. And then, his work was only inthe Old Testament.

However, Lewis has received a considerable amountof 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 thetime my mother conceived me" (Psa. 51:5). This is Calvinism to the core! It originated first in the mindof Augustine. Denominational preachers have taughtthat little babies are born totally depraved, whollyinclined to evil, and could not think a good thought ordo a good deal. Out of this teaching grew numerousother false doc- trines: direct operation of the HolySpirit to convict and convert helpless sinners, a denialthat the gospel is the power of God unto salvation,unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and predestination. And now theNIV says that the foundation of all these other falsedoctrines is right. It teaches David was sinful fromhis conception. The word of God teaches no such doctrine! The KJV, ASV and the NKJV have Davidsaying, "in sin did my mother conceive me." There is abig 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 moth-ers to give birth to their babies in the water. But this is alot different from giving birth to a baby with water inthe baby! The NIV is clearly in error. This is a case ofdenominational creeds creeping into the text. It is inex-cusable that it should happen. It is even so that breth-ren who ought to know better should try to look theother way and say nothing. If this were the only case oferror we could point to, it would be enough to reject it asa reliable translation. But there is much more.
2. Luke Not Inspired—The NIV, to say the least, makes inferences against and cast doubts uponthe 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 havecarefully investigated everything . . ." (Lk. 1:3). TheKJV 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 builtupon Peter. "And I tell you that you are Peter.b and on this

rock I will build my church . . ." (Matt. 16:18). Thenwhen you look at the footnote (b) it says, "Peter meansrock." 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 aperversion and distortion to leave the implication thatthey are and that Peter is the foundation of the church.Paul taught that there is but one foundation on whichthe church can be built and that is Christ (1 Cor. 3:11).

1. 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 correctlyreferred 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" inthe following passages: John 1:42; 21:15,16,17. Did hehave two fathers, or is the NIV just not reliable?
2. Confused On The Prophets—The first of Mark in the NIV begins like this: "The beginning of thegospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (emphasisours). 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 aquotation from Isaiah while the footnote indicates Malachi. Confusion!
3. To Abolish Or Not To Abolish?—In Matt. 5:17 the NIV has Jesus saying, "Do not think that I havecome to abolish the law ..." But then in Eph. 2:15 theyhave Paul declaring that Christ did this very thing.Hear Paul, "For he himself is our peace who has madethe two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividingwall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the lawwith its commandments and regulations" (emphasisours). Why this confusion when the KJV, ASV and theNKJV rendered the two different Greek verbs with two different English words, "destroy" and "abolish."In fact these three translations never translate the Greek term kata-luo as abolish. The 267 scholars behind these three translations testify that it doesnot mean abolish in Matt. 5:17. To say the least, theNIV has unnecessarily involved the scriptures in a conflict.
4. Jesus Needed Purifying—In Luke 2:22, the KJV,ASV and the NKJV in reference to Mary, speak of "thedays of her purification" in accordance with the law ofMoses. The NIV reads, "when the time of their purifica-tion according to the law of Moses had been completed,Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem___ " (emphasisours). Did Jesus need purifying? The NIV teaches thathe did. If so, how did he come to need purification? Washe born a sinner? We have always been under the im-pression that Jesus was always sinless. This being true,He never at any time needed purifying. Did the transla-tors just slip up here or did they not regard Him as thesinless Son of God? We may well wonder about this inview of the way they have carelessly and recklesslyhandled some key passages dealing with Jesus as the"only begotten son of God." In John 1:14 they omit theword "begotten" and render it "one and only" Son.They do the same with John 3:16, omitting again theword "begotten." This is surely without scholarly justi-

fication since the Greek term "monogenes" clearlymeans "only begotten." Mono means one or only. Theother part of the word, genes means begotten. Theychose to give a double translation to the first syllable ofthe word, "one and only" and then to just skip over thelatter syllable in the word altogether. Someone says, "Well what difference, it still conveys the idea that hewas the only Son." It is difference in reverencing divinetruth and in gradually cutting away at the vitals ofthings most fundamental and basic. It is doctrinally inerror on that very point. And it doesn't take a scholar tosee 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 henot a Spirit being (John 4:24)? Did not Peter affirmthat man has what he called the "hidden man of the heart... which is incorruptible (1 Pet. 3:4—emphasisours)? The KJV and the ASV translates the passage asfollows: "who only hath immortality dwelling in thelight which no man hath seen, nor can see..." Thissimply affirms that He has nothing mortal about Him—only immortality. This is quite different from saying Healone has immortality. And it is in harmony with thetruth taught in context and elsewhere that he is reigning in Heaven, having been raised from the deadto die no more. He has, there- fore, 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 thispoint, Bradley said, "This passage plainly says thatman is wholly mortal by saying that God alone hasimmortality. Certainly we now have the proof of myproposition. Job says that man is mortal, and Paul saysthat 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 seenin reference to Acts 2: 27,31. Their rendering has boththe "body" and the "Spirit" of Christ entering the grave. When we compare the KJV, ASV and the NKJVwe 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." Theyspeak of "inherited sin", or "inherited total depravity."Of course, we know that a thing need not be taught inthe Bible for Calvin- ists to teach it. But now, withthe 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 synonymous with "sinful nature."

Now, do we really have a sinful nature? If yes, did weinherit 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 Godcreated Adam and Eve, they surely had all that be-longed to human nature, and that before sin entered asa foreign element. "When Adam and Eve were firstcreated they had all that belonged to human nature. Sincame into their lives as a foreign element. Sin is no morea part of our nature than dust in your eyes is a part ofthe nature of your eye. Because the desires, appetites,and passions of the flesh often lead to sin, flesh is calledsinful." (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 anunlawful manner.

At least the following two scholars connected withthe NIV are in agreement with us on the point of thecorrect 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 nextmost frequent translation of the word is sinful nature (twenty five times). But this rendering is more of aninterpretation than a translation .... The safest thingto do is to leave the word with its primary meaning(flesh) and relegate the discussion to the commentaryrather than write sinful nature into the text. This is carrying free translation too far." (Lewis Foster, Select-ing 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 madein 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 Premillennial-ism is that Christ will establish his kingdom at hissecond coming. Nearly every denomination advocatesthis in some form. The church was plagued with a divi-sion over Premillennialism in the 1930's. The Kingdom of Christ was in existence and people were being trans-lated into it in Paul's day (Col. 1:13). It came with power during the lifetime of some of those who walked person-ally with the Lord on earth (Mark 9:1). It did come withthe power and Spirit on Pentecost of Acts 2, in 33 A.D.Christ is now reigning as king and priest upon histhrone (Zech. 6:12-13; Heb. 7:17-21). At his second com-ing, Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God the Fa-ther (1 Cor. 15:25-26). He will not come to set up hiskingdom! There are several passages in which the NIValters and slants a reading in such a way as to accommo-date the theory of Premillennialism. In Acts 3, we haverecorded 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 inthis age. He called upon the people to "repent and beconverted that your sins may be blotted out,..." (Acts3:19). He then spoke of Christ, "whom the heavens mustreceive until the restitution of all things, which God hasspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since theworld began" (Acts 3:21). He went on to show that "allthe 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, thegospel dispensation. The whole context bears out thismeaning. However, the NIV so renders the passage asto project the fulfillment of "these things" yet into the future. It says that Christ must remain in heaven untilthe time comes for God to restore everything, as hepromised long ago through his holy prophets." The ex-pression, "the time comes" implies a future time, notthe present dispensation. The "times of restitution of allthings" are clearly shown in context to be now in proc-ess. Christ will remain in heaven until the completion ofthese times, or until the completion of "these days." Butthe NIV implies that he will remain in heaven until suchbegins. Again in Eph. 1:10 the NIV projects into thefuture the blessings with God purposed in Christ. Ac-cordingly, the NIV says they are "to be put into effectwhen the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together underone head, even Christ." We know, of course from vari-ous passages that we are now in the fulness of time. Itwas "in the fulness of time" that God sent His Son into the world (Gal. 4:4).

1. Still In Miraculous Age—In Eph. 4:11-13 Paulteaches that there would be certain miraculously en-dowed men in the church "till we all come in the unity ofthe faith, . . ." There would no longer be a need formiraculously endowed men when the faith existed as aunit. However, the NIV says that they would last "untilwe all reach unity in the faith . . ." If you think thebrotherhood has been plagued with the charismaticmovement, just wait until more NIVs are accepted bybrethren!
2. Perverts The Truth of Acts 26:28—When Paul spoke before Agrippa in Acts 26, the contextshows that Agrippa believed the prophets (v. 27).Jesus said that to believe the prophets was to believeChrist (John 5:46). Agrippa's reply to Paul as shownin the KJV, ASV and the NKJV has Agrippa almostpersuaded to be a Christian. However, the NIV hasAgrippa ridiculing the idea that in such a short time Paul would think to make him a Christian. "Do youthink that in such a short time you can persuade me tobe a Christian?"

Numerous Deletions

We have already pointed out examples of false doc-trine taught by the NIV. We did not exhaust the list.This version, even according to Lewis Foster (quotedabove) sometimes got into the business of interpretingrather than translating. But, it is also guilty of grossdeletions from the text. This is due, in part at least totheir use of a faulty Greek text (to be discussed later inthis article). Dr. Everett W. Fowler in his book, Evaluat-ing Versions of the New Testament, points out thatthere are 17 complete verses left out of the NIV and 180portions of other verses omitted. It is also pointed outthat it omits "Jesus" 38 times, "Christ" 43 times and "Lord" 35 times.

Space does not permit a complete listing of all theomissions made by the NIV. However, we need to re-member the serious consequences of tampering withthe word of God (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Rev. 22:18-19).

We list here just a few of the expressions omitted bythe NIV.

1. John 17:21 omits "one" in Jesus' prayer for unity.This destroys the very thought of the prayer. He waspraying for unity, not just for men to be "in us."
2. Acts 9:6 omits the question of Saul, "Lord, whatwilt thou have me to do?"
3. Mark 13:11 omits "Neither do ye premeditate"which shows the divine guidance of the chosen wit-nesses of the Lord.
4. Matt. 19:9 omits "and shall marry her which is putaway 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 themthat is condemned.
7. John 17:17 omits the expression "through thytruth." The expression shows the means of sanctifica-tion, 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 decep-tion 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 reliableearly manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." The twomanuscripts referred to are the Vatican and Sinaitic.There is, to put it mildly, considerable dispute concern-ing the NIV's appraisal that these are the two mostreliable manuscripts. We simply point out that thesetwo manuscripts also differ from each other 3,036 timesin the gospels alone, and more than 7,000 timesthroughout the New Testament. When witnesses are insuch disagreement, it would indicate something otherthan being "the most reliable" witnesses, (cf. HermanKoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. II, p. 1).

It is significant that the Vatican manuscript containsthe New Testament as far as Heb. 9:14. It does not contain the remainder of Hebrews, 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", wefind nothing. Why the casting of doubts about the end-ing of Mark? Especially in view of the fact that thescribe evidently knew of the existence of these versesand left a blank space which would indicate that he wasuncertain as to whether they should be inserted there ornot. The only question about these verses really iswhere they are to be placed. Should they be ascribed toMark, or some other inspired writer ? For an excellenttreatment 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 footnotingand commenting does serve to plant doubts concerningwhat is and is not the word of God. It has been our experience in trying to reason with some who have ac-cepted the NIV, that they are very skeptical aboutportions of the scriptures being inspired, where theyfind these footnotes. One young man, quite zealous, butdeficient in knowledge and judgement stated franklythat "yes, I would certainly hold doubts about the inspi-ration of passages when I learn that they are not found insome 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 manu-scripts." In the case of the passage in Mark 16:9-20, theverses are found in several hundred manuscripts andcopies. "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 orcursive,—(and we are acquainted with, at least eighteenother uncials, and about six hundred cursive Copies ofthis 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 evi-dence 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 isnot all. A. G. Hobbs cites Robert W. Flanigan as sayingthat "eight major and fifteen minor manuscripts includethis important verse." (Contending for the Faith, March 1983, p. 6). It can be seen that the NIV does nothesitate to relegate to a mere footnote pas-sages whichhave 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 footno-ted to say "some manuscripts do not have, againstyou." Again this would cast doubts as to whether thisinstruction involves a sin against one personally or justsin period. Does the verse then teach that any sin onecommits, requires the steps outlined there? The NIVleaves 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." Hefurther points out that "this rule of procedure is givenonly for cases of personal offense, where one individualhas sinned against another." (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, pp. 158-159).

We mention only one more out of a great number ofsuch omissions and footnoting. Luke 22:43-44, "Andthere appeared an angel unto him, strengthening him.And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and hissweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down tothe ground." The NIV has a footnote saying, "Someearly 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 dulyexhibited by every known Version. It is recognized byupwards of forty famous Fathers writing without concert in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore antiquity,—Variety of testimony,—respectability of witnesses,—orNumber,—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 thethoughtful reader to be convinced that the NIV is not atrustworthy and accurate translation of the word ofGod. If you want to strengthen one's faith and confi-dence in the word of God, do not recommend to him theNIV.

Type of Translation

The type of translating that the scholars behind theNIV did shows that they had a different concept thanthe men who produced the KJV, ASV and the NKJV.All three of these were intended to be precise and literaltranslations. These men had a better concept of the jobof 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 idiomaticEnglish, the nearest possible equivalent for the originalWord of God as it came from the inspired organs of theHoly Spirit" (Bible Revision, p. 16). (2) R. C. Trench,scholar and author, stated, "Clearly the office of thetranslator is to put the reader of the translation on thesame vantage-ground of the reader of the original....Inspiration is not limited to the Hebrew and Greekwords first communicated to men ... it lives in what-ever words are a faithful representation of these words.. . the translation must be a perfectly reproduced ade-quate counterpart of the original and the copy. Whenwords fall short of this adequacy . . . when divergenceexist between the copy and the original, the copy is lessinspired, and to the extent of the divergence it is notinspired at all" (Trench on Bible Revision as quoted byFoy E. Wallace, Jr. in A Review of the New Versions,pp. 44-45). (3) Francis R. Steele, one of the scholarsassociated with the NIV, said, "A translation shouldconvey as much of the original text in as few words aspossible, yet preserve the original atmosphere and em-phasis. The translator should strive for the nearest ap-proximation in words, concepts, and cadence. He should scrupulously avoid adding words or ideas notdemanded by the text. His job is not to expand or toexplain, 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 trans-lation 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 Interna-tional Bible Society, which financially sponsored thetranslation project, has published a booklet entitledThe Story of The New International Version. In this booklet we find them describing the different methodsof translation. There is "the concordant one, whichranges from literalism to the comparative freedom ofthe King James Version. . . . the paraphrastic one, inwhich the translator restates the gist of the text in hisown words; and the method of equivalence, in which the translator seeks to understand as fully as possible whatthe biblical writers had to say ... and then tries to findits closest equivalent in contemporary usage. In its more advanced form this is spoken of as dynamic equiv-alence, in which the translator seeks to express themeaning as the biblical writers would if they were writ-ing in English today" (p. 13—emphasis ours). Then theytell us what the NIV translators did. "As for the NIV,its method is an eclectic one with the emphasis for themost part on a flexible use of concordance and equiva-lence, but with a minimum of literalism, paraphrase, oroutright dynamic equivalence. In other words, the NIVstands on middle ground—by no means the easiest posi-tion to occupy" (p. 13).

Raymond Dillard, one of the scholars behind the NIV,has stated his concept of translation, "It must be recog-nized, however, that every Bible translation, from thevery first word, is interpretation; the mere selection ofequivalents in the most literal of all translations is stillinterpretation" (The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, Vol. 4, p. 97). "Yet it is impossible toescape interpretation in translation work" (p. 114). "Interpretation on the part of the preacher and thetranslator in any event is inescapable" (p. 114). Dillarddefends idiomatic (as opposed to literal) translation.

We wrote to the translators and scholars who pro-duced the NIV and asked them some questions aboutverbal inspiration. In their responses they said somethings that reveal a little about their concept of transla-tion. (1) Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. said, "Of course, the factthe 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 thereforehave an obligation to seek to convey in the new lan-guage 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 whichremains as close to the original wording as is at all manageable, even though this may mean that the trans-lation will be awkward or sometimes obscure. The translators of the NIV wanted whenever possible toreproduce the language of the original Scripture but desired also in all cases to produce a text that wouldread fluently in modern American English, such aswould be readily understandable by an average highschool graduate. Some people feel that in doing so theyhave moved too far in the direction of paraphrasingrather than translating the Scriptures. Personally I sel-dom feel that they have fallen into this defect." (3) MarkHillmer stated, "Every translation is only an approxi-mation. Or, as it is said, 'To read any document intranslation is like kissing through a veil.'___ But everytranslation tries to—and most do—reproduce the origi-nal sense." (4) Thomas E. McComiskey said, "He mustdecide whether he will adapt the philosophy of dynamicequivalency or whether he will attempt to reflect eachword 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 amiddle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrase ofPhillips, the NEB and Taylor on the other. Loyalty tothe text has been defined in terms of a compromisebetween the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literal-ness, rather than in terms of Lightfoot's translation rule which stated, 'the same English words to representthe 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 thetranslator preserve the form of the original to conveythe meaning? Those who answer in the affirmative pro-duce what is known as a 'formal' translator. On the contrary, those who maintain that what a translatorshould do is to grasp the meaning of the original and express that meaning in the natural form of the receptorlanguage produce what is known as a dynamic transla-tion ... The NIV 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 InternationalVersion is distinguished from the RSV and the NEB bythe thoroughness of the evangelical commitment of itstranslators, regretfully it still appears to be the casethat the NIV has been influenced by the principle of a'freer translation' with a consequent lessening of abso-lute accuracy. G. Duncan Lowe writes: 'The NIV doestend to expand beyond a simple translation into therealm of interpretation, when that is not at all reallynecessary . .. Although this habit may be innocent andplausible enough as practised in the NIV, the seriousstudent of the English Bible may feel that his mind isbeing made up for him instead of his being presentedwith the most faithful mirror of the original text (conso-nant with good English usage) so that he may draw hisown conclusions" (The New Testament Student and Bi-ble 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 thefield of textual criticism, we do believe that we canpoint out some errors in the kind of text that the trans-lators used. To say the least, we can give some quotesfrom men who are scholars in that field. We realize that reading quotations about the difference in Greek textsis not the most interesting reading. However, we askthe reader to bear with this section of material, for webelieve 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 Testa-ment was an eclectic one" (Preface of NIV, p. ix). This isthe kind of text that the RSV, NEB and most othermodern translations are based upon. "By 'eclectic' theymean 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 aswas the text used for the KJV and the NKJV. Rather,the eclectic text is based in a number of places upon thereading of very few manuscripts. Pickering stated, "Itignores the over 5,000 Greek MSS now extant, ....Therefore the choice between the variants ultimatelydepends upon guesswork" (Ibid, p. 25).

The Greek text used was a Westcott—Hort (non-byzantine) type of text. "Basically, the Westcott—Horttext represented a wholesale rejection of mass authori-ties and an acknowledged dependence on the Sinaiticand Vatican Manuscripts, particularly the Vatican"(Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got The Bible, p. 63).These two manuscripts are supposed to be the oldestof the extant manuscripts. It is assumed that oldestmeans they are the best, but "oldest and best do notnecessarily 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 theircontents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest copying,—persevered in for any number of centuries,— could bypossibility have resulted in two such documents. Separated from one another in actual date by 50,perhaps by 100 years, they must needs have branchedoff from a common ancestor, and straightway becomeexposed continuously to fresh depraving influences"(Revision Revised, p. 318). Edward F. Hills, who wrotethe 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) areso old is a point against them, not something in theirfavor. It shows that the Church rejected them and didnot read them" (p. 23). A number of witnesses couldbe given that suggest

that the Westcott—Hort type of text is not an accuratetest. (1) The Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 KingstonRoad, London SW19 3NN, England (an organization ofconservative Bible scholars whose efforts go back to theearly 1800's with the stated purpose of giving the wid-est possible circulation of the inspired word of God) saidof the NIV, "The text underlying the NIV is not thebest documented text, for in many passages, it has thesupport 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 removewords and phrases from the text of the scripture, basedon critical studies of the most recently discovered ex-tant manuscripts" (History of the King James Bible—found in back of the NKJV). (3) Dr. Frank Logsdon (whowrote the preface of the NASV—which was based onthe same type of text) saw the errors of this type ofGreek text and repented saying, "The NIV is not nowthe true word of God, and it will never be regardless ofthe revisions it undergoes as long as it is based on faultyand inaccurate manuscripts" (as quoted by A. G. Hobbs, Contending for the Faith, Oct. 1982, p. 4).

The differences between the Westcott—Hort type oftext and the Majority text (Textus Receptus) are notminor and insignificant. They are serious. The differ-ences in many passages concern statements that haveto do with the Deity of Christ. One prime example ofthis is 1 Tim. 3:16 where "God" was changed to "He."More than just minor omissions will be found in theWestcott—Hort type of text. Nestles text omits 31 whole verses and 191 portions of verses. The Bible Soci-ety text omits 17 entire verses and 185 parts of verses.

"This is not to blindly endorse the Received Text inthe event that it does contain error. But I do suggestthat 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 ques-tion however, is whether the shortcomings and weak-nesses are of the same kind in all the versions. We believe that fairness and honesty in addressing thisquestion, will reveal that there are vast differences inthe type of weaknesses found in the KJV and ASV withthose found in the NIV, RSV, LBP, NEB, and othermodern speech translations. Now, bear in mind that it isnot the "modern speech" that is objected to. It is the false doctrine which is often taught by the modernspeech versions.

We believe that the advice given in the Open Forumat Florida College, Feb., 1984, by brethren ClintonHamilton and Melvin Curry is good concerning modernversions. Bro. Hamilton advised, "Always read eitherthe King James or American Standard so you knowwhat was in the original text. Pick up these others forany elaboration or understanding you may get. Butdon'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 withthe text and don't tell you what they are doing."

Below you will find outlined in chart some of the basicdifferences between the KJV, ASV and the NIV. Wesimply ask that you consider them and honestly ask yourself the question, "are these shortcomings all of thesame type?"

An Appeal

1. To all Christians—We appeal to all Christians to study the matters of translations. Be careful in choos- ing a translation. Don't use the NIV or anyother 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 claimsto be a gospel preacher to carefully study the transla-tion issues. Warn brethren about the dangers of using such perversions. Take this material, outline it andpreach it. Brethren, we have a responsibility to refute the error taught in the translations just as we do torefute error taught in the creeds of men.
1. To elders—We appeal to elders to take note of thetranslations the members of the church are using. El-ders need to watch what the flock is consuming. "Whatone does privately is his own business, but what is donein the services of the church is the responsibility of itselders, and God will not hold us guiltless who permitand tolerate the pseudo-versions as a source of incipienterror" (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of The New Ver-sions, p. 222).
2. We would that all elders would see the New Interna-tional Version for what it really is—a real threat to thechurch of our Lord!
3. To bookstore dealers—We appeal to those who operate bookstores among brethren to be very careful about what Bibles and translations theyrecommend 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 tosell the Book of Mormon and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. How- ever it is another matter when brethren who sell these translations recommend the NIV to other brethren or for churches to put themin their pews. These brethren likewise have a right tosell the Reader's Digest Con-densed Bible, but quite frankly we would become mighty concernedif 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 alittle bit? Not only are we bothered by this, but we arebothered 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. 1:17).

See Chart—Next Page

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

THAYER STREET LECTURES CHECK IT OUT! ELDERS, Church of Christ, 640 Thayer Street, Akron, Ohio 44310— P. J. CASEBOLT, 2803 4th St., Moundsville, WV 26041—A more We have set Sept. 17-20 for our fall lecture program. We invite you to complete report of my 1984 trip to the Philippines will appear underarrange your schedule so as to be present with us during this period.another heading, but many (like myself), sometimes read the NewsSubjects and speakers follow: Difficult Passages—discussed by Lewis Column first. There are still many Filipino preachers worthy of sup-Willis, Aubrey Belue and Bill Feist; Religions of the World—port, and needing support, but a word of caution is in order. JustIslam— Hiram Hutto; Situations Christians Face—Dale Smelser; because you receive a letter from some Filipino preacher stating thatMountains of the Bible—J. B. Patton, Rick Hubartt, John Gibson. he has attended a certain meeting conducted by an American Morris Norman will speak each night (Mon., Tues. and Thurs.) onpreacher, or has had his picture taken with an American preacher,Worldliness. Congregational singing nightly led by Wayne Walker. don't jump to the conclusion that the American preacher automati-

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17

cally endorses that brother for support. Check it out before you act.Also, as I have emphasized before, be cautious about sending large lump sums at one time, and register your letter. I would advise foldingyour check in the letter, or stapling the check to the letter, A separate letter may even be wise in some cases, giving the number and amount of the check, and asking for a confirmation of its receipt. A little extra expense or inconvenience may be worth it, when protecting a larger investment.

JAMES H. DEASON, 1200 Nashville Hwy., Columbia, TN 38401— In the last three years the Jackson Heights church has seen52 bap-tized into Christ and 41 have repented of sins and beenrestored to their first love. Considering those who have moved away,passed away and fallen away, this still reflects an attendance increaseof about 40. We presently average around 270 on Sunday mornings.Three good men serve as elders. They are: Rufus Clifford, Jr., ReedyNicholson and Myron Thomas. We are also served by eight deacons.The work of these men has produced the fruit of an active, thrivingcongregation living at peace as we work to spread the gospel. In this time I have engaged in two debates and moderated for twomore. I am to meet Jerry Hayes, a Oneness Pentecostal, in Nashville(July 16-20) on the subject of Godhead. These debates have accomplished good in the community and among brethren. The church here conducts a daily call-in radio program, an active program of home Bible studies, a gospel meeting and a vacationBible school each year, as well as a planned program of Bible studyfor our members. We mail a monthly eight-page bulletin called SEARCH to all who want it. All of this keeps us busy. If you are inour area, come by and visit with us. Our building is easily andconveniently located off I-65 about 40 miles south of Nashville.

NEW CONGREGATION TOLEDO BEND, LOUISIANA—A new congregation began here three years ago with one family. Now we have an average attendance of 20 on Lord's day. Since this is a vacation resort area, our attendance is larger during vacation times. We have moved our meeting place out on the highway and growth potential lookspromising. We are 200 yards south of the intersection of Highway 6West and Highway 191 South, 12 miles west of Many, Louisiana. Ifyou know someone in this area we may contact please let us know.Contact Andrew A. Addison, 2743 Nolan Trace, Leesvill, LA 71446. Phone (318) 239-3005.

ROGER HILLIS, R.R. 4, Olney, Illinois 62450—Several monthsago the Olney church began a weekly newspaper column in the Olney Daily Mail. The response has been extremely good. Twocouples from the Olney church, at their own expense, decided to printthe articles in the nearby Sumner, IL weekly newspaper. Theresponse there was even greater. The articles were in question andanswer format and dealt with such questions as: Is it right forwomen to be preachers? Are the 10 Commandments still bindingtoday? What about tithing? What about calling preachers"Reverend"? Why do the wicked pros-

per? Due to the public response in Sumner, the elders of the church inOlney decided to rent the local Rotarian club building, announcements were put in the newspaper and over 100 personal letters were writtento area residents. Then the Saturday before the meeting, membersfrom Olney went door to door handing out printed announcements. I did the preaching and the meeting ran for three days. Sermon topicswere: What is our Religious Standard?, Two Great Covenants, andThe Bible Basis for Unity. In addition to members who came fromOlney, we had 24 visitors, all of whom have been contacted since themeeting. Some were not interested in home Bible studies but othershave shown greater interest and we are still working with them. Wecontinue to pray that the seed sown will produce fruit.

FROM OTHER LANDS RODY C. GUMPAD, Tanza, Tuguegarao, Cagayan 1101. Philippines—I am happy to inform you of our meeting May 23-27 inwhich Diosdado P. Menor of Calapan, Mindoro preached. Though he isan elderly man, his work was effective among us. 23 precious soulsobeyed the gospel. We hope to have him here with us again in August.Brother Gady Castres led singing. He knows well the rules of musicand taught us in the mornings how to sing better. We learned muchfrom him. Two of the 23 baptized were preachers, one from a Pentecos-tal Church and one from a Christian Church. Some of these baptizedare from different municipalities and they are inviting us to come totheir places to preach the gospel.

RAY VOTAW, Box 801, Springs 1560, Republic of South Africa—Among the Pedi people one custom is to consider all young people as not accountable until marriage. This works havoc in teaching young people the truth that they might early in life become Christians.During April I began a series of lessons among them on the "states ofman" in time and eternity. As I expected, questions came thick andfast in talking about the transition from innocence to accountability.After many rather heated sessions the "penny finally dropped." Sincethat time there have been about 20 baptisms of older teenagers among these people. They are relishing this new found truth and the youngpeople have achieved very needed elevated status—real people.

A recent sortie into northern Lebowa resulted in 18 baptisms. Sincethat has been a liberal stronghold, the news spread on the bush tele-graph that the "Chief of Anti-Christs" was coming. This dubious notoriety brought good crowds from several villages which had beendominated by the liberals __ Five family men from the local townshipof Natalspruit were baptized. Brethren Cass and Lovell of Natal and

Leslie Maydell of Pretoria aided in this effort.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMSRESTORATIONS(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor;	278 91