THE
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.
This version is a
translation of considerable merit and as a result of this and perhaps partly
because of the skill with which it has been promoted it has received wide
acceptance in certain circles of Evangelical Christianity. Nevertheless it has
serious flaws on matters where the conduct and even the faith of Christians may
be misdirected. For this reason in spite of its good qualities Christians must
be warned that unless it is corrected in certain key passages it should not be
used as a rule of faith and practice.
This version (abbreviated as
NIV) manifests such a predilection to the beverage use of alcohol that its
translators actually have not hesitated to add to Scripture to twist the meaning
of Micah 2:11 to indicate that to recommend the use of alcoholic beverages in
moderation would not be what a false teacher would do. The implication of this
corrupt translation is that to advise the use of these beverages in moderation
is acceptable to God and is sound Biblical ethics. The NIV makes it appear that
it is only because the prophet speaks of “plenty” of these substances that
he is a liar and deceiver. God's pure, unadulterated word says that to recommend
these beverages in any amount is the work of a liar and deceiver. How this must
have wounded the sensitivity of people who teach that the drinking of alcoholic
beverages in moderation is a liberty God allows to His people! The solution? It
is easy, merely put the words “plenty of” in the text. Never mind that God
says, "Add not to his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a
liar" (Prov. 30:6).
It is true that good
translators sometimes insert words into their translation when the original is
so concise as to be incomprehensible in English without the addition.. 1n such
cases the fact that a word or words are supplied is indicated by putting them in
italic type or in smaller type than the rest of the text. In the case of Micah
2:11 the original makes perfectly good sense, but a sense the NIV translators
apparently did not like. When asked to correct this error one important NIV
authority responded with an unbelievable answer, but the fact is there is no
believable defense of the bad translation of this passage. It is not the
practice of the NIV to put added words in distinctive type, and this in itself
proves the translators do not have proper reverence for the inerrant text in the
original languages. The King James Version and the New King James Version do use
italic type for added words and this speaks well of them Few modem translations
do respect the original text in this way.
In James 2:21 there is
another flagrant example of where the NIV translators add to God's true
revelation in a way to change the meaning. Here as well as in Micah 2:11 they
stand alone among translators in their peculiarly offensive error. Besides
sinning against Proverbs 23:31 they break their own good rule set forth in their
"Position Paper" which states that the translation shall reflect
clearly the unity and harmony of the Spirit-inspired writings and shall
not be given to unnecessary paraphrasing or to the theological biases of the
translators.1
This passage correctly
translated as in the New King James Version (the original KJV being almost the
same) is "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered
Isaac his son on the altar?" This is God's revealed truth.
The NIV renders this verse:
"Was not Abraham our ancestor considered righteous for what he did when he
offered Isaac on the altar?"
The word "considered" is added to God's word in
an offensive way suggesting a bias on the part of the translators. These
translators may have thought they were using a proper equivalent, called a
"dynamic equivalent." The fact is that this is not an equivalent at
all for what James under inspiration had written.
The great Reformed
theologian, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, understood that in this passage James is not
saying that Abraham was considered
righteous, but that Abraham was
justified by works. He wrote: "The difference, then, between Paul and
James is a difference in terminology, not in meaning.”2 This
must mean that in this particular verse James by the word works means precisely what Paul means by the word faith
in Romans 3:28 where he says, “We conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law."
When Paul spoke of faith in
connection with justification we must define it carefully with what James says
about Abraham's justification in view. It must have as part of its essence some
of the works James speaks about in this connection with Abraham's justification.
When James speaks of Abraham being justified by works these works must have as
part of their essence some of the faith Paul says justifies a believer.
Some may wrongly suppose
that this is a denial of the essential doctrine that the elect are saved by
grace alone and they receive justification by faith alone. The answer to the
apparent contradiction is not to agree with the NIV that Abraham was merely considered
righteous because of his works. He was truly justified by works but they
were not mere works of the law performed without faith and the faith Paul says
saves is not mere assent to the truth. It may be called works.
Bible students ought not to
find this hard to understand. It is to obey Paul's command to Timothy to rightly
divide the word of truth (II Tim 2:15). We must see two meanings in the Biblical
words for faith and works.
One of the meanings for faith is the same as one of the meanings for works.
This is not the same as saying we are saved by faith plus works. That is false.
We are saved by faith rightly defined to which nothing is added. Abraham was
justified by works rightly defined to which nothing is added.
If we can't accept more than
one meaning of a word we must be terribly confused when reading Job 1:5,11;
2:5,9 in the Hebrew. The normal meaning of the verb %reB
is bless, but
here it means curse. God demands that
we divide rightly the meaning of words and apply the different meanings
correctly in their context.
Such errors as these in
which the NIV stands alone need to be corrected. Other errors include the
failure to distinguish between words which in the original mean either an
alcoholic beverage or a nonalcoholic one. These are all rendered without
discrimination with words in English meaning alcoholic beverages exclusively.
This error leads to great confusion as to what God wants people to do about
beverages.3
Other errors about which the
editor intends to publish articles in subsequent issues of this journal and
ultimately to publish the correct translation in the planned A Purified Bible
are found in I Corinthians 5:8, I Corinthians 7:14 and I Corinthians 10:29
of the NIV translation. It will also be proposed that there is an error in II
Kings 8:10.
The NIV has a number of good
to excellent translations. A place where the NIV is an improvement on previous
translations is Mark 7:3. The passage tells of a Pharisaic custom about hand
washing before meals, a peculiar practice to which Jesus and his disciples did
not conform. Mark of course being Jewish knew exactly what this practice was,
but translators not being Jewish and not being well informed about Jewish
practices had great difficulty in stating what the Pharisees' rule was. Mark
merely said "the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their
hands pugmh/
eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." pugmh/
is the dative singular of the Greek word for fist. Since most New Testament
scholars are not Jewish it is not strange that they missed what Mark was writing
about. He was not saying that Jesus and the disciples were indifferent to
sanitary practices in eating. They no doubt made sure their hands were clean
before eating, but to the Pharisees they were eating with unwashed hands, that
is hands not washed by fist. The lady after whom this Foundation was named noticed this
Jewish practice still carried on in the Twentieth Century and called attention
to it. As a result an article was published in the Journal of Biblical
Literature,4 and a scholar working on Mark for the NIV
read it and explained that he use it to render the expression "unless they
give their hands a ceremonial washing." This is a paraphrase and in a true
translation paraphrases must be avoided. Truth in translation demands that the
Purified Bible translate the passage "by pouring on the clenched fist." "Pouring on the
clenched" should be printed in italics or in smaller type to indicate that
these words are supplied by the translators.
Lydia Buksbazen, a member of
a family converted from Judaism to a living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, used
that term in describing a practice of three orphan Jewish sisters living
together in Warsaw before conversion. "The girls, their prayers ended,
their hands washed according to the law of their ancestors, by pouring from a
quart jug three times on a clenched fist, first on the left hand and then on the
right, would wipe their hands, say the appointed prayer and sit down at the
table, and drink the kiddush wine, the wine of consecration. Then they would
proceed with the meal."5
In defense of this rendering
of the passage, which is surely legitimate in an English Bible, the following
facts may be cited. First, the article in the Journal of Biblical Literature was
approved by scholars many of whom were very familiar with this practice of
observant Jews of the 20th Century and were convinced it was of great antiquity.
Second, the translation of the King James Version, which is that the Pharisees
did not eat except they wash "oft," does not make sense. It would be
absurd to suppose that they did not eat a single meal unless they washed many
times. This is what the word "oft" implies. Third, the rendering of
modern versions such as that of the NIV which speaks of a ceremonial washing,
while correct in a vague and general way, does not represent what Mark intended
his first readers to understand. Mark did write that this was "the
tradition of the elders," but he was also more precise and wrote pugmh/ (by fist).
This fact should be preserved. The only way to do it properly is to add the
extra words from Lydia Buksbazen which are proposed above. It is true this is a
paraphrase but it is a necessary one. This custom, known only to observant Jews,
should be explained. The words “pouring
on a clenched” should be in special type [italics or small letters] so
that the reader will know that they are added for the sake of clarity. Placing
added words in special type is a merit of the King James Version and the New
King James Version which many modem translations do not have. The Bible to be
produced by the Foundation must be faithful to the original and not make people
think that words which modern translators have added are part of the inspired
and inerrant original.
Another passage where the
Foundation may, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, accept the understanding
of a note in the NIV is in I Corinthians 11:4-7. Verse 14 of this chapter
suggests strongly that the covering referred to in verses 4-7 refers to long
hair and uncovering to short hair. It is hard to believe that Paul was attacking
as dishonoring a Jewish custom which was surely current in his day that men
should cover their heads at prayer with headgear. Verses 4-7 as translated in
most of our versions indicate that he did not merely say that for a man to pray
with his head covered was a man-made tradition which should be abandoned
by believers in Christ who repudiated traditionalism, but these translations
have it that Paul said it was dishonoring of the head to pray or prophesy with
covered head. Paul made it a practice to go to Jewish synagogues in order to do
evangelistic work. Sometimes he was permitted to preach. It is impossible to
believe that he would offend the observant Jews by refusing to cover his head
with a prayer shawl or other headgear. If he had done so he would have been
expelled from the synagogue. He certainly would not have been permitted to
speak. Where nonessentials were not in view Paul was open to meeting with Jews
and Gentiles at their own level. Headgear, forbidden to men and required of
women, is not an essential in genuine Christianity. Thus it is most reasonable
to believe according to the general consensus of Scripture.
On the other hand Paul,
while fully inspired, declares that it is part of the natural law that men are
committing a shameful act if they have long hair (v. 14) and a woman is
glorified if she has long hair, and that this is given her as a covering (v.
15). After reading verse 15 a thoughtful reader may go back to verses 4 and 5
and conclude that hats or veils are not what Paul is speaking about, but long
hair. What is part of the natural law is not a nonessential. Good men may have
worn their hair quite long and good women have had their hair trimmed quite
short and have not apparently been aware that they are violating a teaching of
nature, but whatever we think of the meaning of covering in verses 4‑7, it
is impossible to avoid the plain meaning of verses 14 and 15. In verse 16 Paul
acknowledges that some Christians may be contentious about this and he ends the
matter by referring to custom ( sunh,qeian) which he
indicates is supportive of his teaching. By using this term we are not to
understand that if custom had not been supportive of his position then natural
law would not have been either. Natural law is with some exceptions forever
binding while custom may change from time to time and is different in different
places.
Studies on the subject of
hair and headgear in prayer and prophesying may be found in a number of places
one of which is an article in The Reformation Review, vol. 21 no. 2
(January, 1974) pp. 65-71. The title is "Hair in Scripture—A
Critique of Two Recent Studies and a Proposed Solution of the Problem."
Since Paul says that nature
teaches that it is shameful for men to have long hair (verse 4) an explanation
must be made for the fact that Samson had long hair by God's command and
Nazirites did so with God's approval in subsequent years. A possible explanation
may be that God who created nature may overrule it in special cases for any
reason. He may have chosen to do so in the case of Samson and male Nazirites,
but that does not mean that every human being may choose to act contrary to what
God inspired Paul to write in I Corinthians 11:4-7. It supports God's rule
in this passage of Corinthians that priests in the Old Testament were forbidden
to have long hair.6
All the above has some
bearing on Christian art. From the Middle Ages Christian artists always show
Christ with long hair. The very earliest pictures show what is supposed to be
Christ with short hair. Of course pictures supposed to be of Christ are not
authentic. They only show what people after His time on earth imagined He looked
like. He never sat for His portrait and inspired writers who knew Him in the
flesh never described His appearance in word.
In suggesting that God may
make void natural law in special cases as in that of the Nazirites, the people
responsible for the Foundation do not mean that a natural law that is also an
express moral law of God may be made void by human law. Homosexual intercourse
has been called a crime against nature. It truly is that, but more importantly
it is a sin against God's moral law which is forever binding. Scripture passages
from the Old and New Testaments can be cited to prove this and if any readers
have questions on this matter they need only state their contention and the
scholars of the Foundation will cite the passages and prove their meaning.
Readers should not suppose
that in this article all the significant and even harmful errors of the NIV have
been cited. There are many which for lack of space in what must be a short
article are not mentioned. Some have been adequately dealt with by others,7
and no doubt still other errors remain undetected. Further work by
qualified Christian scholars is needed.
There are excellent
translations of particular passages in the NIV. This article is largely negative
because it is the duty of a Christian to proclaim the truth no matter whom it
may wound. “Faithful (are) the wounds of a friend" (Prov. 27:6). The
author and all the people of the Foundation are committed to universal love.
Another example of the NIV
translators' failure to obey sound rules of translation is in Hebrews 11 where,
contrary to their own position paper and far more seriously, contrary to the
Bible's own condemnation of adding to Scripture (Prov. 30:6). they have added
the word Abraham in Hebrews 11:11. By
so doing they rob Sarah of the honor due her for her faith in conceiving and
bearing her son Isaac even though she was past the age for having a child.
Abraham's name does not
occur in any Greek manuscript of Heb. 11:11 and it does great violence to the
written Word of God to put it in as though it belonged there. No important Greek
manuscript gives the slightest pretext for supposing that Abraham is the one
whose faith is extolled in verse 11.
The reason for this strange
perversion of the truth may be that in Genesis 18 Sarah is not described as
having faith in God's promise of a son. This is no reason to suppose that she
did not have faith before she actually conceived Isaac. The inspired author of
Hebrews knew that she did and gives her the honor due her. The uninspired
translators of the NIV rudely snatch this honor from her and give it to Abraham
who already is abundantly honored for his faith.
Another error in the NIV
translation is that they transfer the disability to have children to Abraham,
but we know from Genesis 25:1-4 that after Sarah died Abraham married Keturah
and had six children by her. He was able to beget children in extreme old age;
so the miracle of the birth of Isaac was not in making Abraham able to beget
Isaac but in enabling Sarah to conceive him. Men do not necessarily lose the
ability to beget children in old age, but for a woman to have a child in old age
is a miracle.
This is not an isolated
instance in which the NIV is unique in adding a word to Scripture to change the
meaning. These changes, if they supported orthodoxy, would be wrong in
principle, but they do not. They change the sense in the wrong direction. This
is intolerable and all Christians should not be in any way content with the NIV
until they are corrected.
All persons connected in any
way with this Foundation should work, if permitted to do so, with and for those
responsible for any revisions of the NIV. The Founder wishes that his service as
one who in early stages of this translation labored on a portion of it may be
vindicated by God's over‑ruling providence. The personnel of this
Foundation seek not their own glory or material well‑being, but rather
they seek in a humble way to glorify God.
1.
Cited in Burton L. Goddard's The NIV Story, Vantage Press, 1989, p. 32.
2.
What Is Faith, Eerdmans. Grand Rapids, c. 1925, p 205.
3. The book by Robert Paul
Teachout entitled The Use of Wine in the Old Testament will be used
extensively to help determine when a word will be translated wine
and when grape juice This masterful book is published by University
Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106
4. "PUGMHI
(Mark 7:3) as `Cupped Hand,"' Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.
85. Part 1 11966), pp. 87‑88.
5. They Looked for a City
by Lydia Buksbazan, The Friends of Israel, c. 1955, pp. 18-19
6 Ezekiel 44:20. Priest were
not to shave their heads or allow their hair to grow long, "but they are to
keep the hair of their heads trimmed" (so NIV). The verb in the Hebrew
Bible is ~s;K used only here m ,Scripture. Scholars generally agree it means to trim
(the hair.
7. One learned study of the
NIV is cited below. The authors are greatly concerned about stylistic matters
They believe the NIV attempts to remove ambiguities in some places where they
should be allowed to remain. The work in question is The NIV Reconsidered A
Fresh Look at a Popular Translation, by Earl Radmacher and Zane C. Hodges,
1990. Kerugma. Inc. Redencia Viva P.O. Box 141167, Dallas TX 75214. Any serious
student of the NIV should read this carefully. but should be aware that the
criticisms made of the NIV by the Lorine L. Reynolds Foundation are different,
and serious students should also study our work with care. We do not endorse
everything in the Radmacher and Hodges book. We discuss a number of grave
matters which are ignored in this book.
