|
Can the NIV Be Saved?
Jeffrey Khoo
The New International Version
(NIV) is the bestselling version of the English Bible today according to the
Christian Booksellers’ Association. The venerable King James Version (KJV)
is in second place. Despite the plethora of modern versions out in the
market today that seek to dethrone the KJV, it continues to be highly
esteemed and well used. The KJV has lasted and outlasted others for almost
400 years. How about the NIV, will it last? Perhaps judgement time has come.
NIV Makeover in 2011
In an attempt to save the NIV,
Biblica (formerly International Bible Society) on September 1, 2009
announced that the NIV will receive a makeover by 2011 (http://www.nivbible2011.com).
Moe Girkins, CEO of NIV publisher Zondervan, confesses that “The T-NIV is
very divisive. It’s not a unifying translation. And it was poorly handled in
the marketplace. We need to undo the damage.” The T-NIV (Today’s NIV) which
was published in 2005 in the United States was supposed to be an improved
and better NIV by making it feminist-sensitive and gender-inclusive. It has
been observed that the TNIV deleted from the Bible such words as “man,”
“father,” “son,” “brother” and “he” in no less than 3000 places. These
changes in no small way undermine the doctrine of the family and of male
headship, and many other doctrines in the Bible (see
http://www.genderneutralbibles.com). Since times are a changing and
language evolving, it was thought that a politically correct gender-neutral
version would boost popularity and profits. Wrong!
Can the NIV be saved? It is
well nigh impossible for the NIV to be saved or salvaged. Why? The problems
of the NIV are deeper and deadlier than its egalitarianism. They are its
rotten roots, namely (1) its source text which is the corrupt Westcott-Hort
Text and not the traditional, preserved, and received text (Textus
Receptus), and (2) its dynamic equivalency method of translation which
offers a subjective interpretation over against an objective word-for-word
translation of the verbally and plenarily inspired Word of God. As such, it
is not a “makeover” that the NIV needs, but an “extreme makeover.”
Will the NIV be a more reliable and trustworthy version by 2011? It cannot
and will not be! The cosmetic changes will do no good when the real need is
radical surgery.
The NIV has been and will
continue to be a most unfaithful and untrustworthy version of the Bible. How
so? By employing a corrupt source text and an equally unacceptable method of
translation, the NIV has undermined the Written Word and the Living Word in
a number of places. Here are some instances:
Attacking the Divine
Preservation of Holy Scriptures
Psalm 12:6–7 says, “The words
of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever.” This is a very explicit proof-text on God’s
promise to preserve His Words. How did the NIV translators render this
verse? The NIV reads, “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver
refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us
safe and protect us from such people forever.” Note the change from “keep
them” to “keep us,” and “preserve them” to “protect us.”
They changed the pronouns from third plural (i.e. “them”) to first plural
(i.e. “us”). Is this an accurate or acceptable translation? In the Hebrew,
the first word is tishmerem. The -em suffix is literally
“them” not “us.” He will keep “them” (so KJV) is correct. The second word is
titzrennu. The -ennu suffix (with an energetic nun) is
third singular (i.e. “him”), not first plural (i.e. “us”). The energetic
nun is emphatic (i.e. “every one of them”). So it should be translated
preserve “them” (i.e. every single one of His words) not “us” (i.e. people).
By incorrectly and inaccurately translating Psalm 12:7, the NIV has
completely removed the doctrine of Bible preservation from this text.
The NIV has not only attacked
the Written Word, it has also attacked the Living Word—the Person of
Christ—in at least these three places.
Attacking the Eternal
Generation of God the Son
The eternal generation of the
Second Person of the Holy Trinity (i.e. Jesus Christ is the eternally
begotten Son of God) is an important doctrine of the Christian Faith. The 4th
century Athanasian and Nicene Creeds state that Jesus is both Son and God
“only-begotten, ... of the Father before all the ages.” The Westminster
Confession of Faith (WCF, 1647) likewise followed the ancient creeds in
describing the relationship that exists within the Godhead: “In the unity of
the Godhead, there be three persons, of one substance, power and eternity;
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none,
neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten
of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the
Son” (II:3; emphasis added).
All three ancient creeds
describe Christ as only begotten, or eternally begotten. Now every doctrine
must be based on the Bible. Where in the Bible do we find Jesus being
described as the only begotten Son of God? If you have the KJV you will find
it in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. But if you are using the NIV,
you will not find it. The term “only begotten” with reference to Christ has
been conveniently removed by the NIV. It mistranslates the Greek
monogenês as “one and only.” Problem is monogenês does not just
mean “one and only.” The Greek monogenês comes from two words:
monos meaning “only” and gennaô meaning “to beget” or “to
generate.” The KJV translates it literally and accurately as “only
begotten.” The NKJV’s criticism of the NIV’s “dynamic” rendering of
monogenês is worth noting, “Dynamic equivalence, a recent procedure in
Bible translation, commonly results in paraphrasing where a more literal
rendering is needed to reflect a specific and vital sense. For example,
references to Christ in some versions of John 3:16 as ‘only Son’ or ‘one and
only Son’ are doubtless dynamic equivalents of sorts. However, they are not
actual equivalents of the precisely literal ‘only begotten Son,’ especially
in consideration of the historic Nicene statement concerning the person of
Christ, ‘begotten, not made,’ which is a crucial Christian doctrine.”
The NIV goes counter to
Reformed theology. The WCF teaches according to the Scriptures that Jesus
“the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.” But if you are Reformed in
your beliefs, and using the NIV, you should be shocked to know that the
fundamental doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son of God finds no
support whatsoever in the NIV. It is simply not there. The NIV has
subtracted from God’s Word; a very dangerous thing to do (Rev 22:19).
Attacking the Virgin Birth
of Christ
In Luke 2:33 we read, “And
Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him” (KJV).
In the NIV, it reads like this, “The child’s father and mother marvelled at
what was said about him.” Do you see the problem here with the NIV? The NIV
makes Joseph the father of Jesus! It contradicts the virgin birth. The
liberals who deny the virgin birth would say Amen to the NIV.
Know that the NIV’s rendering
of this verse is totally out of line for the following reasons: (1) the word
“child” is not in the traditional Greek text, (2) the word “father” is also
not there, (3) the possessive pronoun “his” is connected to Mary alone (“his
mother”), and does not include Joseph. The NIV has caused Luke to contradict
the virgin birth. Jesus has only one Father, and He is none other than the
First Person of the Holy Trinity. Joseph was neither physically nor
spiritually the father of Jesus.
Now, NIV advocates will point
out verse 41 which called Joseph and Mary “his parents” (so KJV as in NIV).
The fact that Joseph and Mary were indeed parents of Jesus—Joseph being
legally a “parent” and not naturally the “father” of Jesus—would prove the
point that the biblical writer was careful not to attribute the title
“father” to Joseph, for Jesus has only one Father, and that is His Father in
Heaven—the First Person of the Holy Trinity. In verse 43, we again see the
original writer carefully distinguishing Joseph’s actual relationship with
Jesus by the words “Joseph and his mother,” again purposely avoiding calling
Joseph His “father.” Jesus Himself refused to call Joseph “father,” and
gently corrected Mary when she said, “thy father and I have sought thee”
(Luke 2:48), which drew this response, “How is it that ye sought me? wist ye
not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49). Why did
not Jesus use “God,” or “the Lord,” but “Father” at this juncture? It is to
correct any misconception that Joseph was in any way His “father”; God alone
was His Father.
Attacking the Deity and
Humanity of Christ
1 Timothy 3:16 has to be one
of the clearest texts of Scripture proving the full deity and full humanity
of Christ, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God
was manifest in the flesh, ...”. But from the NIV, you would have a
difficult time proving this. Instead of the reading, “God was manifest in
the flesh,” you have “He appeared in a body.” The NIV obscures (1) the deity
of Christ by removing “God” and replacing it with just “He,” and (2) the
humanity of Christ by replacing “the flesh,” with “a body” (a body may not
necessarily be “flesh and blood”). The word in the original is sarx,
“flesh,” not sôma, “body.” It is also interesting and significant to
note that the KJV translators never rendered sarx as “body” and
sôma as “flesh.” The KJV translators recognised the distinction between
the two; something the NIV translators failed to do, having exalted method
over theology.
Since we are at 1 Timothy
3:16, a comment on why the NIV reads “He” and not “God” is appropriate. The
NIV chose to adopt a Westcott-Hort reading of the text. According to
Westcott and Hort, since the Sinai and Vatican codices read “he who,”
instead of “God,” it must be the correct reading. And mind you, this is over
against the majority of the Greek manuscripts which read theos,
“God,” instead of hos, “he who.” Many modern versions like the NIV
happily follow Westcott and Hort in corrupting the Word of God. Lovers of
God’s Word should refrain from using a version which not only wrongly
translates the Bible, but also supports the unbelieving views of Westcott
and Hort.
We thank the Lord for the KJV
which is the most faithful and accurate translation of the Bible in the
English language. Since God has given to us such a good and faithful,
time-tested and time-honoured version of the Bible as the KJV, let us stick
to it, and stay clear of unfaithful and corrupt translations like the NIV.
- Published in
The True Life
BPC's Weekly, Volume 6 Number 50.
Top
/ Back
|
