|
||
|
||
|
15 | |
|
 |
 |
This pamphlet is the text of a public lecture given under the auspices of the Evangelism Committee of the Southwest Protestant Reformed Church. The lecture was well received and many cassette tapes of the address were distributed. There were, however, requests that the lecture also be printed. Because of the distinct advantages which this format has for consideration of the material presented, the Evangelism Committee has gladly complied with these requests. The matter of which Bible translation is to be accepted by and used among the people of God is a matter of highest priority. For centuries the King James Version was the undisputed version of choice among English-speaking Christians. In the last several decades, however, several other English translations have appeared, all of them vying for acceptance on the ground that they are an improvement over the KJV. One of the most popular of these recent translations is the New International Version. The NIV has gained a wide acceptance among conservative Christians. It, more than any other previous translation, has become a serious competitor of the KJV. But ought this to be? Should we set aside the KJV in deference to the NIV? Does the NIV deserve to be preferred above the KJV? Is the NIV an accurate and trustworthy translation, fit for use in congregational worship and personal devotion? These and other questions are examined in this pamphlet. NIV or KJV? Introduction It has always been a conviction of the Reformed faith that God's people should have the Bible in their own language. One of the great accomplishments of the Reformation was the impetus it gave to the translating of the Scriptures into the language of the common people, whether German, Dutch, English, or whatever other language. The father of the English Bible, William Tyndale, gave expression to this conviction in his well-known retort to an ignorant Roman Catholic Church cleric of his day: 'If God spare my life, ere many years pass I will cause that a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.' 1 It was Tyndale's ambition to translate the Scriptures into English so that the 'ordinary' believer might be able to read and understand Scripture, even the young lads working the fields. Tyndale produced the first printed English New Testament in 1525. In October of 1536 his efforts were rewarded by martyrdom. Well known is Martin Luther's work of translating the Bible into his native German. Much of the work was done while Luther was in hiding at the Wartburg Castle to which he had been spirited for safekeeping after his defense at the Diet of Worms. A. Skevington Wood comments: 'He retired as a fugitive from persecution for the sake of the truth. He emerged with a weapon which would continue to fight the battles of the Lord long after he had been laid to rest.' 2 Few other works in history have been as influential in shaping a people and a language as Luther's German Bible translation. Luther's Bible translation, and the principles he followed in his translating, became, like his work in so many other areas, the model that others would follow. The conviction of the Reformation that God's people should have the Scriptures in their own language is expressed in the Westminster Confession Of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8: 'The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that, the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.'No one can dispute that the dominant English translation of the Bible is the King James Version (KJV), or as it is sometimes called, the Authorized Version. The KJV was not the first English Bible. Neither did it immediately supplant other English versions. When the Pilgrims landed in 1620 at Plymouth Rock, for example, it was not the 1611 King James Bible that they brought with them to the new world, but the Geneva Bible (1560), an outstanding English version in its own right. Nevertheless, in a relatively short time after its publication in 1611, the KJV became the version of English-speaking Christians. For over 250 years, if one read the Bible in English, he read the KJV. It was not until the latter part of the 1800s, with the publication of the Revised Version, that the KJV had any serious competitors. Even then, the KJV remained the best-selling and most used English version. However, in the last several decades the situation has changed. There has been a steady stream of new Bible translations and paraphrases pouring forth from the religious press, seemingly one to suit every fancy. Each one has been well marketed, promoted with the latest in sales techniques and advertising gimmicks. One of the most popular of the recent English Bible versions is the NIV, the New International Version. The NIV has been touted for its freshness, its clarity, its faithfulness, as well as its superiority over the KJV. It is no exaggeration to say that the NIV has become the Bible of Evangelicals. The NIV has been able to supplant the KJV to an extent that no other version had been able up until now to do. Many Christians have begun using the NIV. Many churches have encouraged their members in its use and have removed their KJV Bibles from their pews and replaced them with the NIV. But is this as it ought to be? Does the NIV really have compelling advantages over the KJV? Ought the NIV to displace the KJV as the version of choice among God's people? Has the KJV outlived its usefulness in the church? These are some of the questions we want to examine in this pamphlet. What is the NIV? The history of the NIV begins with an 'Interdenominational Bible Translation Conference' that was held in August of 1965 at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois. Already before this, exploratory study on the need for a new English translation had been done by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. The scholars attending this conference agreed on the need for such a new translation and the Committee On Bible Translation was appointed. This committee consisted of 15 scholars from different denominations and religious affiliations. The Committee On Bible Translation was entrusted with planning the entire project. In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the New York International Bible Society) agreed to sponsor and finance the work on the new translation. This made it possible to enlist the help of scholars from around the English-speaking world: the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Participating in the work were over one hundred Bible scholars, all of whom were reputed to be conservative and to hold to a high view of Scripture. The 'Preface' to the NIV New Testament stated: 'Certain conviction and aims have guided the translators. They are all committed to the full authority and complete trustworthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to be God's Word in written form.' The financial backing of the New York Bible Society also made it possible to hire a full-time executive secretary. Dr. Edwin Palmer, then pastor of the Grandville Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was selected to serve in this position. The work was undertaken by scholars not only from around the English-speaking world, but '... from many different denominations — including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches...' (NIV, 'Preface,' p. 7). The work of translating was done interdenominationally, according to the translators, in order '... to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias' (NIV, 'Preface,' p. 7). The printing of the new translation was entrusted to Zondervan Publishing. Zondervan has sole rights to the printing of the NIV. There are many different editions of the NIV. Every one of them is printed by Zondervan. Given the popularity of the NIV, Zondervan has tapped into a veritable gold mine. The New Testament was released in September of 1973, with the name changed from the earlier projected name of A Contemporary Translation to the New International Version. In the meantime, work on the Old Testament continued. Isaiah was issued in 1975; Daniel in 1976; Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in 1977. The completed Bible was finally published in October of 1978. The total cost of the project is estimated to have been approximately two and a half million dollars. From the beginning, the NIV was met with great enthusiasm. By December of 1978 over 1,200,000 copies had been sold. Since then, the NIV has undergone numerous reprintings, and many different specialized editions have been released. Two Noteworthy Features of the NIV When one considers what the NIV is, at least two noteworthy features of it must be pointed out. In the first place, the NIV New Testament purports to be based on an older and better text than the text that was the basis for the translation of the KJV. The 'Preface' of the NIV begins: 'The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made ... directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.' By the time work was begun on the NIV, the thinking had become widespread that the Greek text of the KJV was a late and an inferior text, and that a couple of recently discovered, quite old, Greek manuscripts represented a much better text, a text much closer to the autographa (the originally inspired writings of the apostles). There was no dispute then, as there is no dispute today, that the text behind the KJV is the text of the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. For this reason this text is often referred to as the Majority Text (also the Received Text, or the Byzantine Text, or the Western Text). But the notion promoted by a number of Biblical scholars was that this other text was to be preferred. Jack P. Lewis in his book, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, is representative of those who criticize the KJV on this score. He writes, 'It is unfortunate in Bible transmission that the KJV was based on a late text rather than upon an early one.... To state that the text now available is superior to that of 1611 is to repeat a truism.' 3 The report of the Bible Translation Committee of the Christian Reformed Church to its Synod of 1980 echoed these same sentiments. 'But by now most persons have learned that there is no reason for using the KJV as the basis for comparison; the KJV was itself based on inferior manuscripts of the Bible. Without detracting from its beauty, and the significant impact it has had on the English-speaking world, the judgment must be made that the Hebrew and the Greek text used by the KJV is not as accurate as the text available today.' 4And later: According to this theory of translating, the work of the translator is not so much to render the very words inspired by the Holy Spirit, in the form in which He inspired them, into the 'receptor' language. Rather, it is his work to discover the 'meaning' of the words, and then to convey that meaning in freely chosen words of his own and in the idiom of the day. That this principle was followed by the NIV translators, they make clear in their 'Preface.' 'The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought (notice that, not 'words' but 'thought', R.C.) of the biblical writers' (p. viii). Again, '... they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning (not 'words' but 'meaning,' R.C.) of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modification in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words' (p. viii). The translators have aimed, we are told, at '... convey(ing) the sense...' of the text (p. ix). In 1974 Burton L. Goddard, Chairman of the NIV translation project, was interviewed in Eternity magazine. 'Question: What were your goals in translating?The report of the Bible Translation Committee to the 1980 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church explains the use of dynamic equivalence in the translating of NIV. 'It is interesting to note how the standards of accuracy have changed in the last several decades. When the principle of dynamic equivalence is adopted, accuracy no longer requires word-for-word translation. Whether or not certain words are omitted is determined primarily by what constitutes good English style. 7How Ought We To Evaluate the NIV? This is what the NIV is, its history and the two noteworthy features of its translation. How, now, ought we to evaluate the NIV? The Reformed Christian, in evaluating the NIV, cannot but conclude that it is weighed and found wanting. This is true, first of all, in the matter of the allegedly older and better text on which the NIV is based. The presupposition is that older is necessarily better. But is this presupposition correct? Was it not the case that from the very beginning of the new dispensation there were those who corrupted the truth of the Word of God? Was it not true that the early church was involved in a fierce struggle for the truth of God's Word, especially for the truths of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ? Was it not true that the heretics and various heretical groups produced their own translations of the Scriptures that were perverted to support their pet teachings, much like the Bible versions today of the Roman Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses? We know, for example, that this was precisely what the heretic Marcion did. What evidence is there to support the notion that a few manuscripts, chiefly two, lately discovered, contain a much more faithful text, a text much closer to the original? How can the vast majority of manuscripts, which have been preserved and up until recent times have been the basis of all the translations coming out of the Reformation, be so easily set aside? This is the height of presumption! This is not scholarship, but scholarly conceit! More than this, it is a fundamental denial of the work of the Holy Spirit. Let me explain. The Bible is the product of the work of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter writes in IIPeter 1:20, 21: 'Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' There are many outstanding works of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Bible. Certainly there is the great work of the Spirit to inspire the human writers, so that what they wrote was the very Word of God without any error. Not only was there a work of the Holy Spirit in moving the human writers, but a work prior to that, preparing them to be the writers of the Word of God. There was the work of the Holy Spirit to cause the church to recognize the writings of Scripture as the Word of God, discerning between writings which were genuinely Holy Scripture and writings which were not genuine but in some instances claimed to be. There is the work of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures in the individual Christian to cause him to understand the Scriptures and believe them. But one very important work of the Holy Spirit was also to preserve the Scriptures in copying, in transmission, so that in every age and down to the present the church has had the Word of God. In the words of the Westminster Confession Of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8: 'The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.' The late David Otis Fuller, distinguished champion of the KJV, writes in the book of which he is the editor, Which Bible?: 'These are the true Word of God, and through His gracious providence and infinite wisdom the stream of the life-giving water of God's inspired Word has come to us crystal clear.... the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative Word of God and there has been a gracious exercise of the Divine providence in its preservation and transmission.' 9This important aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit is denied by the notion that the text underlying the KJV, the Majority Text, is an inferior text and that the text underlying the NIV is far and away superior. We repudiate this contention! What of the Principle of 'Dynamic Equivalence'? What about the principle of 'dynamic equivalence'? This principle of translation is a fundamental sellout of the doctrine of Scripture's inspiration verbal, plenary inspiration. All of the translators' assurances that they hold to a high view of Scripture, that they believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, fully authoritative and completely trustworthy, belie the facts. It simply is not so. They do not believe that the Bible, word-for-word, is the very Word of God. If they did, they could never have utilized the principle of dynamic equivalence in translating. Out of their own mouths they are condemned. A concern to convey the 'meaning' of Scripture rather than the very words of Scripture in translation? Avoiding stress on the original languages? Referring to the original writers as only 'trying' to communicate the Word of God to men? Characterizing a translation that seeks to be faithful to the original words of Scriptures as 'mechanical'? Aiming at understanding by the reader instead of faithfulness to the very words and form of the text? This raises the fundamental question, 'What is it that is to be translated? What is the task of the translator?' Is it to convey the 'meaning' of Scripture, as he, the translator, understands that meaning? Or is it his task to transmit the very words of Scripture? This raises the even more fundamental question, 'What was it that the Holy Spirit inspired?' Did the Holy Spirit inspire only certain thoughts, concepts, Biblical-theological ideas? Or did the Holy Spirit inspire the very words and text of Holy Scripture? For a Reformed Christian to ask these questions ought to be to answer them. The translators of the NIV did not tremble at God's Word as they should have trembled (Is. 66:2). It simply is not the business of translators to interpret. Interpretation needs to be done. That work is very important in the life of the Christian and in the life of the church. But that is not the calling of those who are supposed to be translating the Scriptures. The translators of the NIV would have done well to have assumed the attitude of Martin Luther in his work of translation. In a little treatise entitled, 'On Translating: An Open Letter,' Luther writes, explaining his work of translating the Bible into the German language: 'But I preferred to do violence to the German language rather than depart from the words.' 10 Specific Criticisms of the NIV Now I want to take our evaluation of the NIV one step further and point out some specific instances of bad translation. This list is by no means exhaustive, but is illustrative. First, the NIV seriously weakens Scripture's testimony to the deity of Christ. In the Gospel according to John and in John's epistles, rather than refer to Christ as the 'only begotten Son' of God, the NIV describes Him as the 'one and only' Son of God, dropping the significant word 'begotten.' Not only is it not true that Jesus is the 'one and only' Son of God, since we are also the sons of God, but this is not faithful to the Greek text which uses the word 'only begotten.' This is a weakening of the truth of Christ's deity, since, as the Heidelberg Catechism points out in Lord's Day 13, the whole truth of the deity of Christ is implied in the description of Him as the 'only begotten Son of God,' in distinction from us men who are sons of God, not by nature, not out of the very Being of God, but by adoption. This weakening of the deity of Christ is seen in the translation of ITimothy 3:16. Rather than read 'God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory,' the NIV reads simply 'he was manifest....' In Romans9:5 another outstanding testimony to Jesus' deity is weakened by the footnote in the NIV. The KJV reads, 'Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.' Christ is 'God blessed for ever.' The NIV footnote suggests alternatives: 'Christ, who is over all. God be for ever praised!'; or, 'Christ, God who is over all be for ever praised!' In both of these alternatives 'God blessed forever' is separated from 'Christ' and forms a separate doxology. Neither of the alternatives preserves the powerful assertion with respect to the deity of Christ. In Micah5:2 the KJV translation 'goings forth' is changed to 'origins.' The NIV reads: 'But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.' But Christ's divine nature has no 'origin.' The very thing that Micah5:2, the deity of Christ, that Christ is eternal, is denied in the translation. Besides a weakening of the Bible's testimony to Christ's deity, the NIV is not faithful in its translation of key passages that set forth the propitiatory work of Christ. One such passage is Romans3:25, where the NIV changes 'propitiation' to merely 'sacrifice of atonement': 'God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.' But this confuses atonement, which is the result of the work of Christ, with propitiation, which is what Christ does to accomplish atonement. And thus, the whole doctrine of 'satisfaction,' so thoroughly explained by the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord's Day 5, is lost. The doctrine of Scripture is also weakened in the NIV. This is done, not so much in those passages which deal directly with Scripture's inspiration, such as IITimothy 3 and II Peter 1. But this is done especially when the Old Testament Scripture is being referred to or quoted in the New Testament. In Acts3:18 and 21, for example, the NIV drops entirely the phrase 'by the mouth of the prophets,' a powerful testimony to divine inspiration that is lost to the reader. In Acts7:38, 'oracles' (that is, a distinctly Divine utterance) is reduced simply to 'words.' The 'for' is dropped at the beginning of Acts2:25. Lost is the important point that Jesus could not be held in the grave because Scripture had to be fulfilled. What is given as a reason for the resurrection is reduced to an unconnected fact. There is a weakening of the doctrine of predestination in the NIV. Objectionable is the substitution in many place of 'chosen' for 'elect' and 'election.' 'Election' is the traditional and confessional language of the church. Deliberately this language is avoided. Especially is there a weakening of the doctrine of reprobation. Jude4 is made to refer to wicked men whose condemnation was 'written about long ago,' rather than men 'who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.' In IPeter 2:8 they who stumble at the Word are only 'destined' to this, rather than the much stronger 'whereunto also they were appointed.' And Proverbs16:4 is rendered, 'The Lord works out everything for his own ends — even the wicked for a day of disaster,' whereas the KJV reads, 'The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.' Clear testimony to the great truth of justification is weakened in places in the NIV translation. I refer the reader only to Romans1:16, 17. The KJV reads: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.' The NIV reads: 'I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' ' This is a bewildering translation! 'A' righteousness from God. Is there more than one righteousness? Does the gospel merely set forth one of several possible ways to be righteous before God? And the NIV speaks of this righteousness as being 'from' God, rather than 'of' God, as it is in the original, which the KJV faithfully translates. This is a significant difference! Our righteousness is not only a righteousness 'from' God, having its source in God. But it is a righteousness that is God's own righteousness, the very righteousness 'of' God that is imputed to us. That is the wonder of justification. The NIV makes concessions to Pre-millennialism and Dispensationalism in its translation. This is the case in Acts7:38, part of the speech of Stephen to the Jewish council before his martyrdom. The KJV reads: 'This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sinai.' The NIV reads: 'He was in the assembly in the desert, with our fathers and with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai.' Deliberately the word 'church,' which in the Greek here is the well-known word 'ekklesia,' is changed to 'assembly,' and the repudiation of the Pre-millennial/Dispensational error that separates Old Testament Israel from the New Testament, Gentile church on the basis of Acts7:38 is lost. Concession to the Pre-millennial/Dispensational notion of the 'rapture' is also seen in the NIV rendering of the references to Christ's coming 'quickly' (that is, how He comes), to His coming 'soon' (that is, when He is coming). Key passages that form the basis for the truth of infant baptism are mistranslated so as to weaken their support for this vital teaching of God's Word. This is especially true of the references to the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. Paedobaptists point to the apostolic practice of household baptism in support of the practice of infant baptism. In each instance, the NIV translates in such a way that everyone in these households believes and professes faith before baptism, rather than that the whole household is baptized on the basis of the faith of the head of the house. In line with this, the NIV mistranslates Acts2:39 by omitting the 'for' with which the verse begins. But in verse 39 Peter is giving the ground for the admonition given in verse 38, to repent and be baptized. 'For,' he says, 'the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.' The NIV drops the 'for,' so that verse 39 is simply an unconnected statement of fact: 'The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call.' The NIV seriously weakens the Bible's teaching with respect to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Prof. David Engelsma has pointed this out in an editorial in the Standard Bearer in connection with the NIV translation of ICorinthians 7:15, the changing of the words 'not under bondage' to 'not bound.' 11 But there is more. In the gospel accounts, the Lord Jesus provides the one ground for divorce. That ground is fornication, unrepented-of fornication. Matthew19:9 in the KJV reads correctly: 'And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.' The NIV rendering is: 'I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.' There are two things significant in the NIV rendering. The first is that the last phrase of the text is dropped, '... and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,' a phrase that bears significantly on the issue of the remarriage of the so-called 'innocent party.' But besides that, 'fornication' is changed to 'marital unfaithfulness.' There is a great deal of difference between fornication, sexual immorality, and marital unfaithfulness. It is true that all fornication is marital unfaithfulness, but not all marital unfaithfulness is fornication. Thus is the door opened to divorce on other grounds, many other grounds, than the one ground, fornication. Besides these specific instances of mistranslation, there are a host of examples in the NIV of textual alterations, freewheeling translations that have no basis in the text, insertion of the translators' exegetical opinions, imprecise and ambiguous translation, and grammatical and syntactical changes made in the text. Something must yet be said about the dropping of the pronouns 'thee' and 'thou' by the NIV in favor exclusively of 'you' and 'your.' Two things about this. First, the forms 'thee' and 'thou' ought to be retained out of reverence for God. The NIV caters to the tendency to address God casually. Lost in the NIV is the dignity of the KJV that preserves these forms. In the second place, the dropping of 'thee' and 'thou' sacrifices the accuracy of the translation. In the Hebrew and Greek it is possible to distinguish between 'you,' singular, and 'you,' plural. With the exclusive use of the pronoun 'you,' it is not possible to distinguish singular and plural. This can be illustrated from Luke22:31, 32: 'And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (plural, referring to all the disciples) that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee (singular, referring specifically to Peter), that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' Should We Retain the KJV as the Preferred Translation? This is our evaluation of the NIV. What yet about the question as to whether we should retain the KJV as the preferred translation? My answer to that question is that without doubt the KJV ought today to be the version of choice among God's people in the English-speaking world. We ought to retain the KJV for personal use, in our own reading, study, and meditating on the Word of God as individual believers. It is the version we ought to use in our families, both for family worship and as parents in the instruction of our children. And this is the version that ought to be used by the church in her official preaching and teaching, and in worship. We ought not to replace the KJV by another version, the NIV or any other. We ought not to use another version alongside the KJV, a thing confusing for instruction and worship. There are many reasons why the KJV ought to remain the preferred version. First, and this chiefly, it is a faithful translation. It is a translation based solidly on the original text of Scripture. And it is a translation that faithfully renders into the English language the words of the text of Scripture. No one need doubt that when he holds in his hand the KJV, he holds in his hand the Word of God. Secondly, the KJV is clear. All the critics of the KJV to the contrary notwithstanding, the KJV is characterized by clarity. Even Jack P. Lewis, a severe critic of the KJV, concedes this, undoubtedly in a weaker moment: the '... major portion of the KJV is understandable to any person who reads English....' 12 Certainly our own experience bears this out. Our children are able to read and to understand the KJV. And over the years the KJV has proven its clarity by its use in missions among those who are able to understand English, in our own country and abroad. Third, the KJV is eminently readable — not only understandable but readable. There is a dignified, eloquent, free-flowing style about the KJV that makes it readable, in distinction, on the one hand, from the stiffness of some of the modern version, and, on the other hand, from the jerky slang of the paraphrases. There is a beauty about the KJV that puts it in a class by itself. Fourth, besides being understandable and readable, the KJV is, more than any other version, suited for memorization. We must be able to read it and understand it; but we must also be able to retain it. Christians have always placed a premium on memorizing the Scriptures and portions of the Scripture. More than any other version, the KJV is suited for memorization. Recently Christian History magazine sang the praises of the KJV in this regard: 'There is a cadence, a sentence rhythm in the KJV that has never been matched in other English Bibles. If this beauty has detracted some readers from hearing the message (a judgment with which we take issue, R.C.), it has nevertheless been incredibly memorable and, therefore, memorizable. If learning Scripture is important, then committing it to memory is paramount, and we know that poetry — or poetic prose — is easier to memorize than flat prose. Today, almost four hundred years later, most people who can quote the Bible quote a version published in 1611.' 13Let us retain the KJV. Let us retain it in such a way that we use it. Let us use it ourselves in our personal study of and searching of the Scriptures. Let us use it in our homes, for our family devotions and for the teaching of our children. Let us use it in the Christian schools, in the instruction given there. Let us use it in our worship, in the preaching and teaching of the church. Let us use it in the seminary and on the mission field. And using it, let us continue to enjoy the blessed fruit of its use enjoyed by the church now for nearly four centuries. ENDNOTES Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, Theology Of The English Reformers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), p. 13. A. Skevington Wood, Captive To The Word (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969), p. 98. Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV To NIV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), p. 41. ACTS 1980 Of The Synod Of The CRC, p. 254. Ibid. 'Why Burton L. Goddard Calls NIV Unique,' Eternity, March, 1974, p. 62. ACTS 1980 Of The Synod Of The CRC, p. 258. Ibid. David Otis Fuller, ed., Which Bible? (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1980), p. 4. Martin Luther, 'On Translating: An Open Letter,' in Works Of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), p. 10. Prof. David Engelsma, 'The Bible Version Of The Churches,' in The Standard Bearer, Feb. 15, 1994, p. 222. Ibid., p. 53. Christian History, Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), p. 43. ALSO OF INTEREST: Back to Top  Excellent Article! Posted By: Danielle - San Diego, CA Excellent article! I was online researching differences between KJV and NIV, and I came across this article. I follow only KJV but I am in a Bible study with my friends who use NIV. I was looking for something to show them the errors of NIV and this article covers everything very succinctly. Thank you. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment 
NKJV vs KJV Posted By: Mark Sanders - Indianapolis IN There is no doubt allot of truth in the facts presented here. My question is, as far as easier reading for a new christian (my wife) would the NKJV be better. We memorize from KJV but we read from NIV. I am starting to doubt this being a good choice. I am thinking about switching to NKJV for casual reading and light study. I have studied mostly from the KJV for devotions, but looking for something easier for my wife. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
KJV issues Posted By: Dribblit! Greetings, I really appreciate the effort you have made to put this article together. Praise the Lord! I think though, in order for it to be just that more a comprehensive and all-encompassing read...[i haven't read every paragraph in the entire article]...i think that you could possibly outline the alleged difficulties with respect to translation of the KJV...I think I remember reading at ibs.org or zondervan.com that there are copying errors in the KJV..is this true? are there more of these slight mispellings and little wrong words that you are aware of? what are your thoughts? Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Are we done yet? Posted By: Matthew - MI What a marvelous article. I do appreciate a good read. I found your passion and articulation to be on the mark. The debate marches on, however. You must relize that textual criticism will remain far after our converstions and debates. The most significant reason is this...Zondervan, Tyndale and Martin Luther DID NOT produce the original manuscripts...they TRANSLATED them or already TRANSLATED versions of them. Examine the English language for a moment. From the time you were a child, ask the question - Have the meanings of words changed? Does the context in which they are spoken prove to be dynamically significant? God inspires the word...inside of men. Go back and read from "How ought we to evaluate the NIV". Your very own presupposition is too prevalent to deny. KJV vs. NIV - Couldn't tell you how this one ends. As for me, Matthew Jarrell, I know Christ. I love Him. He is my savior. When I get to Heaven, I'm confident He will not inquire as to which translation I prefer. I do hope, however, that He asks me to be a "fourth" for a round of golf on the lush, lush fairways of Paradise! Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Flawed Comparison Posted By: Steve Your article, while well-written and interesting, uses a flawed comparison in its analysis. You cannot prove NIV wrong by contrasting the differences between the KJV and NIV. That would be like taking two German translations of the Declaration of Independence then arguing which is correct by comparing one to the other. You provided only one example of a difference in interpretation (Greek ekklesia: church vs. assembly). I need more references to the original languages to be convinced that any version is better than another. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Typical Posted By: Chris - Houston, TX This article is unfortunately typical of the KJV only crowd. The KJV and NIV are compared, and wherever they disagree, the NIV is simply declared wrong without any analysis of the original language. There are places where the NIV is wrong; there are also places where the KJV is wrong (unicorns anyone?). Also, the KJV is declared to be the translation of choice w/o consideration of any other modern versions. How about the NKJ -- very literal and also translated from the received text (while also mentioning the majority text and critical texts in footnotes)? And what is so evil about dynamic equivalence? ALL translations do it to some degree. This piece is dogma, not scholarship. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
NIV is Here to Stay Posted By: Mary Oxendine Let me preface the comments I am about to make by noting that I am a lay person. I have read commentary about the New International Version of the bible. I have spoken to ministers and friends about it also. Of the commentary I have read that does not support the NIV, the common theme seems to be that it distorts the “True Word of God”. The KJV is purported to be the “True Word of God” and any other version is basically sacrilegious. There is even a notion that the devil himself had a hand in the NIV translation because there were homosexuals on the committee. I won’t argue whether the NIV is a superior translation to the KJV. I believe that they can both stand alone in their accuracy. I believe they are equally as viable in teaching, preaching and learning the Word of God. It ultimately comes down to preference. When the KJV was written, it was written it what was the common day vernacular. Sure it has a certain flow about it just as Shakespeare does. I think the longevity of the KJV, meaning the fact that it has been around so long has lead people to think that this is the only true English translation that should be recognized now or ever. This is simply not the case as I see it. The NIV has proven its worthiness by trained theologians, ministers and pastors alike. We know that there are other modern versions of the bible on the market. The fact that the NIV stands out so supremely among them is a testament to it. The fact that churches (mine included) are now putting NIV bibles in the pews speaks volumes to the confidence that this version is a true translation that from which can be both preached and learned. It’s alright to hold onto the KJV because of preference because most people over the age of 20 learned from the KJV. But to puff up the KJV by putting down the NIV is not something that will sway the masses. Obviously if this were the case then churches would not be putting them in the pews. Just accept the fact that the NIV is here to stay. It is fine to voice your concerns but the fact is that the NIV is a very accurate and true translation that is easy to read and understand. Isn’t understanding the Word of God what it’s all about anyway? The NIV does that accurately and easily. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
I commend you on your article. It is excellent. Posted By: Van Fox - Ft. Worth,Texas There are other references to be addressed. Some can be read and or purchased by contacting" www.swrc.com " . Gail Riplinger has some perspectives on the King James Version (which parallel your article) and there are others who have books published and available for modest prices. I cotton to Mr. Floyd Jones who I think has the most ambitious and discerning investigations scrupulously scraping together all bits and pieces retrieved from antiquity that are esteemed as valid. I do believe he has turned over most of the rocks to bring the light to us. Thank you for allowing me to contact you. Look forward to your return comments. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
The KJV "is" the Word of God! Enough said! Posted By: Van Fox - Ft. Worth,Texas When I preached in a county prison here in Texas I would pose a premise to my audience to this end. "If any one of you were to write a book of your life and I were priviliged to read it...would it be reasonable for me to feel that I had the freedom to critique your book without your express permission? Could you be so tolerant that you would give me license to change or alter your sentences or the phrasing of your words? If I indeed did alter your words would you not have the right to take me to task? Would you not be indignant and rightfully so? After all whose life are you writing about, my life or yours? Consider that Jesus is writing about His life and who He is in our life. He states "I am the way , the truth and the life: no man comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) Now, as you and I perceive His Word we know that to alter or add to His Word is to become a recipient of various plagues as referred to in the book of Revelations. He is the Judge of our very souls and for us to even consider changing His Word is tantamount to compromising our next breath and insuring our defining days in the lake of fire. Stick to the KJV and remain in the good graces of His Ominous Grace and Power and Mercies. Amen! Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
The Truth Posted By: Troy Jenkins - Chesapeake, Va I agree that the NIV is wrong in the eyes sight of God simply because not only the ones who wrote it, left scriptures out that were written in KJV but also they switch them around. God said in Revelations 22:19~And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. The NKJV is correct because they keep all scriptures. The only thing that changes is certain words that are hard to understand and words like thou,thy,and ye. KJV was written in the british language so NKJV is in english. NIV is out of the picture. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Blasphemy in NIV Posted By: Rob Buffington - California I have been looking at this topic a little myself, and I have found a line on pure blasphemy in the NIV. It will help to have both versions of the bible handy to compare, I like www.biblegateway.com, it's a wonderful reference tool, and free. Or you can download e-sword from www.e-sword.org which is also free and amazing. But the text I found was Isaiah 14:12. In the NIV the text reads as such: "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" In the KJV it reads "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" Ignoring the vernacular, you notice one very important detail. The NIV is saying that the morning star is the one who will be brought down to the pit, while the KJV says that Lucifer will be. Now Rev 22:16 tells us from Christ's own words that he is the morning star. THE NIV CLAIMS THAT CHRIST WILL FALL! THIS IS NOT THE CASE. It is blasphemy, pure and simple. There are many interpretations on why this is in there, and I don't have a decent answer, but I choose to use the KJV for myself, and I would advise against the NIV. Questions or Comments? Feel free to email me at careodomus@yahoo.com. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Comment on 'KJV vs. NIV - Which Bible?' Pamphlet Posted By: Bryan Madonna - Warren, MI, USA Mr. Cammenga, Thank you for first putting together the information in this article and then publishing it for, I believe, the benefit of others and the glory of Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. I am passing along this article to others and pray that it will open their eyes to the Truth. God bless you! Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
King James Bible Posted By: Martha Lane - Vancouver, WA I am unable to find a local church which utilizes the King James Bible. I am uncomfortable listening to sermons based on verses in the NIV. I want to go to church but am disheartened when sitting in the mega churches where everyone comes in late with mochas and lattes to finally settle down for the entertainment. I am a sinner who is very worried by the lack of conern regarding additions and deletions from the most wonderful book in history. Do you have any recommendations? Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Bible KJV Posted By: Lloyd W. Haase - St. Paul North Ellsworth . Ks. I don't know what our church's are coming too ?? Why are there so many different versions of the Bible ?? The KJV was written by holy men of God inspired by the Holy Ghost , why would anyone want to change this , everytime something is translated something is lost , why does there even have to be a second Bible ?? KJV is the word of God , the way it looks to me people are tryiny to change it from what God say's to there way of thinking and make there own rules to live by , so they can go and live the way they want and won't be nothing wrong with it !! excuse I hear they can't understand the KJV , and I've heard said people are so much smarter these day's then the older generations , something wrong here !! I feel the ones before us were a lot smarter , was taught when going to Parochial school for eight yrs. , memorized the small Martin Luther Catechism from front to back , told us what you don't understand , believe it and go on !! no one will ever understand it all no matter who you are !! people yrs. ago had more faith , built church's the hard way , by hand , took yrs. , would like to see people do that this day and age . Don't hear hear the word's Thee , Thou , Thy , Ye , Shall , anymore !! These have meaning !!! putting in you , your , will ?? To Martha Lane in Vancouver , Wa. , if you hurry you can still come to St. Pauls North Ellsworth on a hill in the country north of Ellsworth , the KJV. is still being used , we have a young minister now trying to get away from it , guess that's what they teach in school now day's ?? This and other things have been tried to change , to many of us older ones won't let them get by with it but are running out of old members , when I was growing up I looked up to my elders , young don't do that anymore , they don't go along with our way's , they have their own !! don't like to hear or go along with us !! I could elaborate on this forever !! Question !! Are all these people that paved the way for us lying in the cemetery going to hell because they had the KJV ??? Way to many changes being made , to much chatter while sitting in church befor it starts , was taught you come in sit down and think why you are there , now everyone has to visit and disturb others , have to be entertained !! Dress Code !! Another subject , old jeans , shorts , holes in clothes , women dressed like men , show no respect when coming to the Lords House , I feel like the Lady in Wa. one of these I won't find a church either like the one I was brought up in ??? Not ashamed to put my e-mail address in here , if you don't agree with me !! you are not changing my way's !! lwhemh@classicnet.net was born and raised on a farm and went through the dirty thirty's , you don't have to tell me how rough of a life you've had trying to have food on the table and clothes to wear! Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
KJV vs NIV Posted By: Jim Foster - Grand Prairie, TX I came to the conclusion a few years ago that NIV means "Not Inspired Version". Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
NIV vs. KJV Posted By: A.H. Hello. I was wondering what the big deal is over the KJV and the NIV. If I am not mistaken, the NIV was written according to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The KJV was written, as well as spiced-up a bit by people that lived 400 years ago. Now, I have no problem with the KJV. In fact, I love the KJV. I just don't know why people are fumbling over this subject. The important question is this: will people go to Hell for reading the NIV? Or will people go to Hell for not telling others who can't understand the KJV that no other translation is correct, so they don't read any other? How do people know that the KJV is the only correct version? How do we know that the English translators did not make more mistakes in the KJV than the NIV? Where in the Bible does it say that the King James Version is the only correct one? After my time of Bible study, I have yet to find anything about that. Like I said, I do not dislike the KJV: I read it too. I feel that it was inspired by God. What about the NIV and the NKJV: were they not inspired by God? I feel that I am called by God for the purpose of taking down this curtain. Does it matter what version we read, as long as we get what God wants us to out of it? Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Thank you and may God bless you Posted By: Devlin - Korea ...for helping many people understand this grave issue and I pray more will come to find the truth. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
NIV Posted By: Donna Shinton - Leesport, Pennsylvania The NIV is more understandable by the most Deaf Christian Community. I notice they are growing in the Lord more than any Deaf who grows up in the strict Christian church who controls women and deaf. There are more Deaf leaders with NIV than others. English is the Deaf's second language. The Deaf's Understanding the God's Word in NIV is more blessed. It is important to understand what salvation really mean and the clear Gospel in their own language, period. For an example, some still do not understand what ART is in KJV like are in English. They thought ART means drawings instead of are. The KJV is very frustrated for the Deaf. In a true fact, 98 percent of the Deaf Community do not know the Lord as a personnel Saviour and 95 percents of the Deaf never have Christian education. I have an article written by the Deaf Missionary's article to the Hearing Christian Community somewhere. They are sinning against the Deaf for denying the Deaf's rights of understanding the God's Word in their own language. The Jehovah Witness is aware of the harvest to draw the Deaf more easier because American Sign language and social in hearing and deaf people in their worship instituiton are offered to the Deaf Community. In my home area, I never met one hearing male Christian befriend any Deaf male Christian or unbeliever. The male unbeliever and deaf male are more easier to be friends by going out for fishing, camping, golfing, going to the Bar. It is very sad. Helen Keller, famous deaf and blind once said, "Blindness cuts things off from people and Deafness cuts people off from people". Unfortunely, it is a long way to educate the Christian Community to be aware that the Deaf Community has its own language and culture. Be aware that they can serve the Lord in the Deaf ministry or church and also have the interpreter if only one or two deaf persons are in the worship service. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Even a German prefers it Posted By: Bastian - Germany Excellent article. I am German, but for years I have been using my German (Luther) Bible and the KJV together. When I sit down to read the Bible I always have these two versions at hand. Believe it or not, even with English not being my native language I have never had any problems understanding the KJV. Today I even prefer it over my German Luther Bible for its more consistent use of words. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
kjv/niv Posted By: lois m lane - florida I am 49 years old and I was raised on the KJV. I have memorized much of it. I love the "poetry" of the KJV, and don't think it should be burned, or ripped apart or done away with at all (as many KJV people think the NIV and other translations should be). My father was saved at 15 reading his mother's KJV and he has preached from it since that time (74 years of age)He, however is not KJV only. Because he is not, even though he only preaches and teaches from it (along with his Gr. New Testament, as he has his doctorate in biblical languages), he has been branded a heretic. The reason he preaches from that is that he committed vast portions to memory in his earlier years when learning in schools was far different than it is today. (It is not our job as Christians to teach people a classical language, but the truth of scripture. We cannot change the itellect, but should be interested in their soul). He has written a paper on this whole issue years ago, so I of couse have been interested in this issue for years. It strikes me as how intellectually dishonest the KJV movement can be. First of all, saying that you use the 1611 version is totally dishonest and would be challenged even by non-Christian scholars. It is laughable and brings cause for derision among those who think we don't know what we are talking about anyway, because we so often let our hearts lead our minds. The 1611 has been "revised" several times. I think everyone who claims to use it, should use it so that they can at least be honest. You disagree with the very KJV translators themselves who did not believe that there would be one and only one translation that could be used by English-speaking people. That would have been the height of arrogance, and going beyond what is written in the scriptures. To say that the manuscripts that many Jews had to use for years who lived in Egypt were corrupt is also blasphemous. God never intended for the sole responsibility of preserving scripture to depend on man, just as salvation does not depend on man!!!! If so, do you think we would have anything at all? Preachers translate scripture every Sunday when they have to explain the meaning of archaic English words to their audience. Amazingly, when I happen to have my ESV or another version with me he usually uses the precise word that is already translated in that version. The sentence structure itself is not to today's standards. If I wanted to use the Bible to help teach my children English (I homeschooled), I would have to be forever correcting their syntax. It does not even fit the "1611" syntax, because they tried too hard to stick with word-for-word, rather than make sense of it. There is nothing theologically wrong with the KJV, so any "criticism" is meant only in honesty about language structure, etc. (unless you count baptism as a theological error, since many of the translators would have been sprinklers and didn't want to actually translate the word baptize, so just made up a new word, which has caused much confusion). I tell you what, instead of making the KJV the golden calf that you worship around, the rudiment and tradition that Christ so vehemently opposed in the Pharisees, why don't all the KJV only people get together and come up with a translation in today's language. Not everyone was raised reading the KJV. We work with student/athletes at the University of South Florida who don't even know who David and Goliath are, and can hardly pass a class in the English language without help. So, because we love the "poetry" of the "not 1611" KVJ, are we to sacrifice them on our altar of arrogance? Please, I beg you, translate the KJV into the American English language of this century so that you can put your stamp of approval on it, and we can all go about the business that Christ wants us to be about and stop fighting over stupid things like people being able to read the Bible in their own language. We already had people die for us to have this privilege. Don't make their sacrifice a mockery! You need to be very careful about criticizing people who have such a burden for men that they want them to be able to understand the most important piece of literature ever written! If we were just here to sit in our pews and discuss our differences as Christians, well and fine. You're excused. But there's a whole, lost and dying world out there that needs to be able to pick up a Bible and read it, and then have someone explain to them the theology that they have just read, not the words and syntax. We have to spend too much time translating before we begin doing what is important. Don't make a version your "god". Instead, with God's help, make a version that would be suitable for Americans and that would meet with your approval. Otherwise, don't criticize!! There have been many translations, including English translations over the centuries. The KJV is not authorized by God, but by King James. It was a wonderful version for the English (British-English) speaking people of that time. Let's move on and quit hanging on to tradition, and get out there with a version for the "plough-boy" of today. Thank you. Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
Please check... Posted By: Johann Kotact Consider changing the phrase "the father of English Bible", please! Post New Comment :: Reply to this Comment
|
|
||||||||||
 |
|
| © Copyright 2001-2010 Grace Online Library | Copyright Information | Learn more about Web Design Services |
