Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

N.I.V. Bible Perversions Debunked!

Tags: king
  • Defining The Issues:
          -A King James only proponent had sent me a link to an article titled Why You Shouldn't Read The NIV, claiming the New International Version to be corrupt on several points because of alleged factual and doctrinal discrepancies contained within in comparison to the King James Version (which one?). This article aims to address these accusations against the NIV. For further dissection of the King James Only Movement, it would be wise to view my article defending the New King James Version against various criticisms raised by the King James Version Only Movement.

  • Getting To The Detailed Critique Of King James Only Claims Regarding The New International Version:
          -"Gen 7:1 Go into the ark. Where was God when He instructed Moses to Enter the Ark? Was he in the ark as the KJV implies or outside the Ark as this translation implies."

           This objection to using the N.I.V. in personal Bible study is goofy because Genesis 7:1 conveys the exact meaning in both translations. There is no problem, as the author alleges. It is simply imagined. 

          -"Gen 32:25 changes thigh to hip. Different part of the body."  

            Nice try, but this is literally a paragon of a King James Only advocate taking liberties with an archaic English text. The "hollow of his thigh" means the joint of Jacob's hip bone. As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers explains:

            "25) The hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint.—The hollow is in the Hebrew the pan or socket into which the end of the thigh bone is inserted, and the verb more probably signifies that it was sprained from the over-tension of the muscles in the wrestling. But, in spite of his sprained tendons, Jacob still resisted, and could not be thrown down, and the angel, unable to gain any further advantage, at last acknowledges Jacob’s superiority, and at sunrise craves permission to depart." 

          -"38:9 changes seed or it to semen. Not very kid friendly in my opinion."

           I guess that this argument can have some merit, depending on how this is viewed by the individual. But it seems that the only people being dogmatic on translational issues is the King James Version only camp. You do not have to read the New International Version, if you do not like it. Anyway, most people in modern times (unfortunately) would grasp the word "semen" faster than "seed", when used in this particular context. It is technically not inaccurate. However, phrases like "Pisseth against the wall" (1 Kings 16:11, KJV) are definitely considered vulgar in our language. So, if the New International Version is doctrinally corrupt because of a translation rendering, then so is the King James Version.

          -"Exodus 6:3 Replaces JEHOVAH with the lord. (this makes God a liar, because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did indeed call him Lord in Gen 18:27, Gen 27:20). If this passage is correct then the rest of the bible can't be trusted." 

           This quibble is so incoherent, that I do not even have a logical response to contradict the claims of the author. In fact, Jehovah is not even a correct rendering of the Lord's name! As Jewish scholarship has confirmed:

           "JEHOVAH is a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible. The form ‘Jehovah’ is a philological impossibility.” (The Jewish Encyclopedia)

           Gotquestions.org also affirms:

           "The vast majority of Jewish and Christian biblical scholars and linguists do not believe “Jehovah” to be the proper pronunciation of YHWH. There was no true J sound in ancient Hebrew. Even the Hebrew letter vav, which is transliterated as the W in YHWH is said to have originally had a pronunciation closer to W than the Vof JehovahJehovah is essentially a Germanic pronunciation of the Latinized transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH. It is the letters of the tetragrammaton, Latinized into JHVH, with vowels inserted. “Yahweh” or “Yehowah” is far more likely to be the correct pronunciation."  

            Secondly, there is nothing wrong with calling God Lord, as that is exactly who He is. 

            And thirdly, the medieval name "Jehovah" did not even appear in biblical translation until the early fifteen thirties by William Tyndale. So it turns out that the King James Version actually contains a translational error, which refutes any notion of it being a divinely inspired book. 

           -"Josh 22:22 replaces The LORD God of gods with the mighty one" 

             On the contrary, both translations are saying the same thing. Can anybody tell us what makes the King James Version wording of a biblical text superior to that of other translations, without resorting to a circular argument?

             -"Jdg 19:22 bring out the man...so we can have sex. I like the KJV of "know" that way you don't have to explain the birds and the bees to your 5 year old." 

              Well, it is unfortunate that many people in our intellectually degraded culture are not familiar with the archaic English vocabulary. But, if we are going to consistently argue that the New International Version's usage of the word "sex" is a corrupt translation, then we might as well forbid our children from reading scriptural texts such as Proverbs 5 and the Song of Solomon in any translation, which includes the King James Bible, since they all use vivid, keen, and detailed descriptions of a romantic relationship between a husband and wife.

             -"1 sam 13:1 30 years old" 

              Allow the N.I.V. footnotes to speak for themselves:

              "d 1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew."

              "e 1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text."

              So it turns out that the text of 1 Samuel 13:1 is a bit obscure for Bible translators. The footnotes of the New American Bible spell this issue out more clearly than I can:

              "13, 1: A formula like that of 2 Sm 5, 4 was introduced here at some time; but the age of Saul when he became king remains a blank, and the two years assigned for his reign in the recieved text cannot be correct. Tradition (Acts 13, 21) offers the round number,  forty years."

             -"2 Sam 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath  (1 chronicles 20:5) Obvious Error! he actually killed Lahmi Goliath's brother. This passage would be a contradiction because David slew Goliath." 

              Firstly, it is widely known that 2 Samuel 21:19 contains a copyist error, and that the correct answer as to who killed Goliath (i.e. David) is found in 1 Samuel 17:50 and 1 Chronicles 20:5. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. Secondly, attributing an accomplishment to two different people does not necessarily constitute a contradiction. And thirdly, there is no manuscript evidence for the phrase "the brother of" belonging in the text of 2 Samuel 21:19. Modern translations of the Bible do not occupy italicized phrases, as they are translations. King James only advocates simply do not want to engage in hard work, namely in that they persistently maintain their circular argument of the King James Version being the fully preserved Word of God. They will ignore historical, textual or any other forms of evidence at all costs. Consider this excerpt from the book titled When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe:

              "The 2 Samuel text is probably a scribal error in copying the manuscript and should read, "Elhanan...slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." This conclusion is supported by a parallel report of the story in 1 Chronicles 20:5 which has the missing highlighted [italicized] phrase."

             -"Isa 14:12 Changes Lucifer with morning star(see 2 Pe 1:19Rev 22:16). This Passage removes the only time Lucifer is mentioned in scripture and blasphemly puts Jesus' name in this condemning passage of scripture. We know this passage is refering to the devil because Pride was his condemnation 1 Tim 3:6. Another title for the devil is Leviathan who is described as having multiple heads, a sea serpent and being a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34Psa 74:14Isa 27:1Rev 12:3,:9)" 

              Okay, this is an obvious translation error of the King James Version, since the devil's name was never Lucifer to begin with. Most translations now use "Morning Star" or "Day-Star". The context of Isaiah 14:12 is plainly about the King of Babylon, who falsely boasted of being like God Almighty. He claimed that the power of his throne would transcend the solar system (v. 13-14), but God had promised the destruction of that throne (v. 11). Quite simply, the name "Lucifer" was only a Roman concoction ascribed to the planet that we now understand to be Venus. St. Jerome, in his translating of the Hebrew Isaiah into the Latin Vulgate, was uncertain as to what the word "Helel" meant--something in the lines of "shining one". This is vital to note, considering that the King James Version translators relied heavily upon the Latin Vulgate for their work, and retained the same rendering of Isaiah 14:12. The English Poet John Milton, in 1667, authored a book titled Paradise Lost, which radically popularized the notion that Satan was once named Lucifer. But the King James Version rendering of Isaiah 14:12 nevertheless remains terribly inaccurate. Neither is there any need to spiritualize the meaning of a literal, historical context. Now this, in my opinion, demonstrates the King James Only Movement to be all the more vacuous, dishonest, speculative, and irrational.

             -"Dan 3:25 Changes Son of God to a son of the gods. Removes a reference to Jesus Christ."

              No, rather, it needs to be understood that this quote was spoken from a pagan perspective (view article). There is nothing even remotely Trinitarian about this verse.

             -"Mic 5:2 changes everlasting to Ancient times. (Attacks Christ's Divinity)." 

              Different renderings indeed, but the meaning nevertheless remains the same. What I find ironic about all this is that while King Jame Version only advocates vehemently oppose textual criticism, they have invented their own standard, though poorly developed, of modern textual criticism. 

             -"Matt 1:25 removes firstborn. To Help the Catholic doctrine that Mary never had kids after Jesus." 

              Yikes! Um, no, we're sorry, but such an argument is so logically fallacious, that it is not even worthy of any commentary. The assertions of King James only apologists are always devoid of evidence. This verse, along with the context, clearly states that Jesus Christ was the firstborn child of Mary and Joseph. See also Luke 2:7.  

               Oh, I bet that those same Roman Catholic scholars purposely took the King James Version rendering of 1 John 5:7 out of our modern translations because they wanted to steer people away from believing in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, right? 

               And what's with the four gospel account authors having the title "saint" written before their names in the original King James Version, when such an inscription was utterly foreign in the Greek renderings of their names? I think this proves that this translation did indeed have some Catholic influence upon the text, which, according to the very logic of King James Version only advocates, would disqualify their own favorite translation from being read!  

               If the King James Bible is inerrant, then surely, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory must necessarily be true, since the original 1611 edition included 2 Maccabees. But these King James only folks adamantly deny the inspiration of the Roman Catholic apocrypha. Why not declare the New King James Version to be inspired, as well, since it is also based on the Textus Receptus? 

               Thus, it turns out that they are just being logically inconsistent with their own worldview. We must express areas of disagreement with the Church of Rome in a responsible manner.   

             -"Matt 5:22 removes without a cause" 

              Is not the context of Matthew 5:22 about unjustified anger and hatred, all of which stem from a sinful heart? How come the author never even mentions the footnotes, which do contain the omitted phrase along with the reason for omission?

             -"Makes Jesus a sinner (Mar 3:5)"

               This is just a faulty argument, built on another argument that had a poorly developed premise. Of course, Jesus never sinned, and anger is not intrinsically evil.

             -"Matt 5:44 omits do good to them that hate you"

               The phrase is redundant, knowing that the context is about Christians doing good for all, including enemies. The very definition of love is self-sacrifice. Who's to say that the phrase was not added at some point in time? 

             -"Matt 9:13 removes to repentance."

              Matthew 9:13 is a quotation of Hosea 6:6, and the meaning of this verse is only reinforced by the N.I.V. rendering. 

             -"Matt 28:20 changes world to age" 

              The verse still means the same thing, though.

             -"Mar 1:2, 3 Changes prophets to Isaiah. (it is written also in Malachi 3 not just Isa. 40)" 

              This is not a difference in doctrine, but rather is a minor difference in manuscript rendering. Consider the words of John MacArthur's Commentary on the New King James Version:

              "the better Greek manuscripts read 'Isaiah the prophet.' Mark's quote is actually from two O.T. passages (Is.40:3; and Mal. 3:1), which probably explains that reading 'the prophets' found in some manuscripts."

              The question should not so much be why there are many different translations, but rather, why these people get to proclaim the King James Version to be the perfect Word of God? Minor renderings like these do not really make a difference, nor do they endanger any article of the Christian faith. 

             -"Mar 10:21 Removed take up the cross"

               False. Try Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 of the New International Version.

             -"Mar 10:24 removes for them that trust in riches"

              The context serves as a condemnation of greed. Also see 1 Timothy 6:17.

             -"Luk 2:33 changes Joseph with father. Joseph wasn't Jesus actual Father, it was God." 

              Oh my goodness, Joseph can rightly be called the "father" of Jesus Christ because he was the husband of the household. He was the male figure of the household. Never forget to throw common sense out the door.

             -"Luk 3:14 omits Do violence to no man."

              Where is the evidence suggesting that the supposedly omitted phrase belongs in the original manuscripts, or that the K.J.V. rendering is more faithful to the Greek than the N.I.V. rendering? It is not as though Jesus taught people to act violently.

             -"Luk 4:4 removes but by every word of God. Undermines the necessity to have ALL of Gods word Today."

              For starters, this text is a quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3, and the same rendering is found in Matthew 4:4 of the New International Version. What I find somewhat comical about this type of argumentation is that most of the time the tables can be turned against the King James Only Movement--it occupies a lot of double standards against other reputable translations.

             -"Joh 1:18 Changes Son to god. Christ Godhood wasn't begotten, he has always been God."

              The fact that King James Version only people can see so much in a verse rendering of a modern translation that is simply not there is just incredible. In fact, it is quite dangerous. Their imaginations are so colorful. Furthermore, we know that our Lord Jesus Christ was never King James only because the Old Testament that He cited from contained many recognizable textual differences from the one of the King James Version Old Testament (view article).  

             -"Joh 6:47 removes on me. This passage says everyone will be saved, because everyone believes in Something whether is Allah, Buddha, or even the big bang. You must believe on Jesus to be saved." 

              Well, the only person whom our Lord Jesus Christ ever pointed to for salvation was Himself, and such is obviously the case with John 6. Does CONTEXT mean anything to these people? There is no point on obsessing with the most infinitesimal details. 

              Is Mark 16:15-16 of the King James Version corrupt when it says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?" After all, it does not specifically mention the name of Christ (it should, according to the argument being addressed), and the contextual data of the quotation has been excluded. 

             -"Joh 19:29-30 wine vinegar contradicts Matthew 26:29. Again if


This post first appeared on Rational Christian Discernment, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

N.I.V. Bible Perversions Debunked!

×

Subscribe to Rational Christian Discernment

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×