Is Your Bible the Right Bible?
Pastor Richard Jordan
"For we are not as many,
which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians
2:17)
For over 350
years the Authorized Version,
commonly known as the King James Bible, was used
by the
Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God.
In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has
changed.
Now we are faced with a
variable Babel of
confusion over the various Bible versions and English
translations continuously being introduced on the market.
There is a serious
question which must be faced: Are these
modern versions really reliable - are
they really versions
or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of
God?
Our examination of this important subject will
by no means be
exhaustive, given the space available to us
here, but we hope to give the reader
enough information
that as an informed believer you can make a sound decision as
to which Bible is reliable and which version in
not.
A bit of background
to begin with: In 1881
there was introduced into public circulation a new Bible
text. It came through the work of the Revision Committee
which produced the
(English) Revised Version, 1881, and
the American Standard Version,
1901.
This new Greek
text developed by the Revision Committee, under the
leadership and pressure of Westcott and Hort, is the basis
of modern
translations. It has been used to replace the
Received Text of the KJV and its
predecessors. There is,
however, a growing awareness that this new Greek text is
not reliable-and more and more are returning, we have, to
the KJV.
As we
compare verses, we will see why this
is true. We have objective evidence as the
reliability of
the KJV as opposed to the new bible versions-overwhelming
evidence that new versions are not simply better
translations. Nor are they
simply revisions of the KJV.
Rather they are new and different Bible texts which
often
question, discredit and water down important and vital truths basic to the
Christian faith (cf. Genesis 3:1).
THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE
Let's start by
understanding that there is a great deal of difference
between the KJV and the
modern versions. This difference
is not simply a translations difference. It is
in fact a
basic textual difference: they are translations of two different lines
of Greek texts. A few examples must suffice:
In
Matthew 1:25 the words
"her firstborn son" are
consistently omitted by modern versions. In Matthew 6:13
the ending of "For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever.
Amen" is omitted. This explains
why the Protestant version of this prayer is
more lengthy
than the Roman Catholic rendition. The KJV is the text of the
Protestant Reformation while the new versions embrace the
Roman
reading.
Verses such as Matthew 17:21 and
23:14 are omitted entirely,
while in Matthew 24:36 the
words "nor the Son" are added.
There are
literally
hundreds of these type textual alternations which have nothing to do
with translation. They come because of the difference in
what is being
translated-the Greek texts being used are
substantially different. And the
difference is by no means
insignificant.
In the modern versions numerous
verses have been changed in such a way as to affect truths
basic to the
Christian faith. While many are quite subtle,
they nonetheless provide the type
of objective evidence
which convicts these new versions of perverting God's
Word. Again, space allows only a few examples:
In
John 1:27 the words "is
preferred before me" are omitted,
so that John is made to say only that Christ
came after
him. In John 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath everlasting life" is
changed to read: "he who believes has everlasting life"
(NIV) The words "on me"
are left out [footnote 1]
.
John 6:65, 14:12 and 16:10 , have Christ
calling
to God "the Father instead of "my Father," as in KJV. In Revelation 1:11
the phrase "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,"
referring to
Christ-and an obvious proof that Jesus Christ
is the Jehovah of Isaiah 44:6-is
omitted. Other titles of
Christ which indicate His deity are regularly omitted
or
altered in such a way as to not connote deity (e.g., Matthew 27:64, 9:35; I
Corinthians 15:47, 16:22; Romans 9:6, 14:10; Colossians
1:2; II Timothy 4:22,
etc.).
Other vital truths are
also affected. For examples, in I
Corinthians 5:7 the
words "for us" are omitted, affecting the doctrine of the
vicarious death of Christ by suggesting merely that He was
sacrificed and did
die, but not necessarily "for us" (see
also I Peter 4:1). It isn't surprising
that Hebrews 1:3
omits the words "by Himself" from the phrase: "When He had by
Himself purged our sins." There is also Colossians 1:14
where the clause
"through His blood" is omitted, casting
doubt on the necessity of the shedding
of Christ's blood
for redemption.
Then there is Luke 2:33 where the words
"Joseph and his mother" are changed to read: "The child's
father and mother,"
implying that Christ was not
virgin-born. Not even a note of explanation is
given.
Surely the evidence for such an important change should have been
offered.
In Luke 24:51 the words "And carried up
into heaven," referring
to our Lord's ascension, are
omitted. In John 16:16 the words "because I go to
the
Father" are omitted.
By now it should be obvious that the new
versions are not simply "better translations" or a
revision of KJV. Rather they
are new and different Bible
texts. Nor is it true that they contain only minor
changes
which do not affect basic meanings.
The great number of passages
(we have given only examples) altered or omitted so as to
water down or attack
the very truths the Bible teaches,
especially where the person and work of
Christ are
concerned, is clear evidence that modern versions are dangerous to
spiritual health.
1. We are using the New
International Version for
comparison quotes because of its
present popularity. What is true of it however,
is
consistently true of other versions.
SERIOUS
QUESTIONS
Because of the subtle nature of
the deception used to
corrupt God's Word, we want to offer
three examples of the absolute devastation
caused by these
new versions. The complacent nature of current thinking in
regard to these issues has caused some to pass off as only
a minor irritant the
numerous passages which are altered
so as to eliminate or dilute statements on
the deity of
Christ, the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement, etc. Because of
this, and the emotional allegiance often attached to those
recommending the
modern versions, we ask our readers to
consider the impact of these three
passages on their
faith. These three passages are irrefutable, objective
evidence that modern versions are unsafe.
1.
Matthew 5:22: Often it is
difficult to grasp the impact of
what seems to an innocent omission. Here is a
verse where
this syndrome is demonstrated to be a subtle trap leading to
spiritual destruction. In KJV the verse reads,
"But
I say unto you, That
whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the
judgment: and
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of
the council: but whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be
in danger of hell
fire."
The NIV renders the verse
thus:
"But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with
his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who
says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the
Sanhedrin. But anyone who
says, 'You fool!' will be in
danger of the fire of hell."
Did you catch
the
omission? The phrase "without a cause" is omitted from the statement
"Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall
be in danger of the
judgment." This does not seem to be
too very consequential at first glance. But
for a Bible
student who is serious about believing and honoring the Word of God,
this verse is devastating.
If the reader is
diligent it will not be long
before he comes upon Mark
3:5, were we are told about our Lord:
"And when
he
had LOOKED ROUND ABOUT ON THEM WITH ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE HARDNESS OF
THEIR HEARTS..."
The problem is obvious: If the NIV
reading is to stand,
our lord is condemned by His own
words.
This is no small matter! By this
seemingly
unimportant omission in Matthew 5:22 the modern versions have
destroyed the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ and
established him as a
sinner, condemned for failure to live
by His own declaration.
2. Mark
1:2: This verse
brings up the dementia associated with the use of modern
versions. The following change is so amazing that we doubt
anyone would believe
it if the record was not clear. In
KJV the verse reads,
"As IT IS WRITTEN
IN THE
PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall
prepare thy way before thee."
The NIV rendering is
consistent with other
modern versions:
"IT IS
WRITTEN IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET: I will send my
messenger
ahead of you, who will prepare your way."
Any reference edition
or center column reference will quickly establish the
problem for modern
versions: The quotation in Mark 1:2 is
not from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1.
Mark 1:3 is a
quote from Isaiah 40:3. Thus two prophets are being quoted, not
one. The statement in NIV (and other new versions) is
simply false.
This
is simply a case of the Greek
text and resultant English translation being
wrong. It is
a mistake, plain and simple. No amount of sophistry can argue
around it. Notice the verse does not say, "It was spoken
in Isaiah" (as in the
case of Matthew 27:9's quote of
Jeremiah). No. The quote is clearly said to have
been
"written in Isaiah."
Two possibilities exits: Either Isaiah, as we
have it, is incomplete, omitting the quote (and thus the
Bible itself so not
complete), or Mark is mistaken, having
given the wrong reference (which would
mean that the Holy
Spirit made a mistake writing the Scripture).
These
two choices leave us in the unenviable position of having
to adjust our
understanding of Biblical infallibility. The
doctrine of infallibility will not
stand the test if the
reading of the new versions is accepted.
3. Hebrews
3:16: We add this reference because it too seems to be too
impossible to be
real. Unfortunately it is all too
real-and illustrative of the caliber of modern
versions.
KJV renders the verse this way:
"For some, when they had heard,
did provoke: howbeit NOT ALL THAT CAME OUT OF EGYPT BY
MOSES."
The verses
changed in NIV to
read:
"Who were they who heard and rebelled? WHERE THEY
NOT ALL THOSE MOSES LED OUT OF EGYPT ?"
In others
words, KJV says that
"not all that came out of Egypt by
Moses" rebelled while NIV indicates that "all
those Moses
led out of Egypt " did rebel. Any junior in Sunday School knows
which of the two is right!
After four decades of
wilderness wanderings,
Moses addressed Israel as she
prepares to enter the promised land. Deuteronomy
29:2
tells us,
"And Moses called unto all Israel , and said unto them, Ye
have seen all that the Lord did BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE
LAND OF EGYPT UNTO
PHARAOH..."
(cf. Deuteronomy
1:30).
Obviously some of these who were
in Egypt
and saw with their own eyes what God had done there also entered into
the promised land, having not rebelled in the wilderness.
As we said, any junior
aged boy or girl could name two of
them: Joshua and Caleb! One wonders what the
translators
of the NIV and other versions have been reading.
Why should
we accept a Bible version that is not true-especially when
we have one that is?
Why would we accept a Bible that
openly denies the sinlessness of our Lord and
that makes
the doctrine of Scriptural infallibility a
falsehood?
THE BOOK WILL DEFEND
ITSELF
We do not fear for God's
Word, He'll take care
of it! We fear only for its readers.
These new versions are simply unsafe to
rely on.
We
trust this information will help our readers to understand
this issue more clearly. Compare the verses for yourself
and you will see that
we do have a reliable, dependable
copy of the Word of God in our own language.
God has
preserved His Word and made it available to us in our own language in an
absolutely dependable form, the King James Bible