Greek Home

I use the King James Version for preaching and teaching. I do not use it for witnessing unless I am fairly sure that the person has enough education to be able to understand it. This does not mean they must have a college degree or that I think I am smarter than other people. It does mean that they need to be able to understand Elizabethan English. If they say they enjoy Shakespeare's plays than they will probably easily understand the King James Version. If they say they have read the King James Version all their life than that would also be a clue they are likely to understand it, but not always.

I believe the King James is an excellent translation from a good Greek text into Elizabethan English that has become out-of-date. (See the discussion of the word "study" below.) I believe the NASB and NIV are better translations for Modern English but they use an inferior Greek text.

I know of no good English translation using the best Greek texts. There are some that use the Majority or Byzantine text (which I favor) but they are usually done by one or two individuals whose natural prejudices would of course impact the translation or they are done by small groups with some particular axe to grind which is even worse. (For example http://www.dtl.org/alt/main/nt.htm or http://www.esgm.org/ingles/imenu.html)

The best translations are done by large committees of people who have carefully thought out processes that weed out prejudice and inaccuracy - such as the KJV, NASB, and NIV. (I might add the Holman CSB to that list if I get a chance to evaluate it.) I sometimes use the so-called New King James Version (NKJV) if that seems more acceptable to whoever I'm talking to but I don't like it very much. I've never seen any major inaccuracies in it but the English in it seems so ugly next to the KJV that I just don't like it. Plus I have never really researched how it was done so I'm not sure it was translated with unprejudiced hands.

Another huge advantage of the KJV is that in addition to accuracy they also concerned themselves with preserving the beauty of the original text. I know of no other version that does this.

Without a really good translation into Modern English we must use what is available. The KJV, NASB, and NIV fill all the needs I have so I have not done extensive research into other ones. (Except for looking for, and not finding, a Majority Text based translation that was carefully and thoroughly done.) There may be some other good ones. Seems like they come out with a new one every few months. It also seems like too many of these have some particular agenda - feminism, homosexuality, tolerance or whatever. Agenda based translations are repugnant to me.

I have heard the NIV and NASB accused of being this same kind of godless distortion but I can not find evidence of it. (For example: http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html and http://www.ekkcom.com/niv-kjv.htm) Below are some detailed studies I made of some translation differences and associated accusations leveled at the NIV.

KJV: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

NIV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Frequent criticism of NIV: "The word ‘Study’ has been omitted from the NIV and without question changes the meaning of the verse."

Actually the NIV does nothing to change the meaning of the verse. Instead it makes it more understandable. In 1611 the word "study" did not always mean what it does today. The word comes from the Latin studium meaning "to devote oneself." In 1611 it could be taken in the sense that we take it today but it more often retained its older sense of "considered endeavor towards some objects, earnest and reasoned effort, desire, or thought." (Webster's Unabridged 1933)

"spoudason" is the underlying Greek word and is no different in the various Greek versions. (i.e. There is no textual problem causing the difference in translation.) It means, "1. To hasten, make haste, or 2. to exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence." Thayer's 1885.

Clearly, "Do your best" is a much better translation today than "study."

KJV: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

NIV: "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Frequent criticism of NIV: "The question was not which one is most important, but rather which one is first. It’s not necessarily the most important simply because it is first."

It is true that the question Jesus is responding to is "which commandment is first?" The question we have to consider is what does the Greek say? The underlying Greek word for "first" or "most important" is "prote" a form of "protos." It is the same in this verse in all Greek versions. (i.e. There is no textual problem causing the difference in translation.) It is the same word that is translated "chief" by the KJV and "most important" by the NIV, 10 verses later in Mark 12:39. It is the same word that is translated "first" by the KJV and "first one" by the NIV 9 verses earlier in Mark 12:20.

"protos" actually can mean either first in a time or in sequence but it can also mean first in order of importance. I think "foremost" would be a better English word for "prote" because it seems to retain the same ambiguity in the English that is in the Greek. (i.e. foremost can mean either "first" or "most important" See http://dictionary.reference.com/) In fact, the NASB does translate protos foremost for this passage.

However, in this case, the NIV is clearly the superior translation. The scribe was asking which was most important (see Mark 12:32-33.) and that is how Jesus answered him. Furthermore, the commandment Jesus quoted is the most important so what is wrong with the NIV saying so?

KJV - But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

NIV - But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Frequent criticism of NIV: "The NIV leaves out most of the verse."

The NIV leaves out much of that verse because it is not found in the Alexandrian version of the Greek that they used. The missing part is found in the Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated and also in the Byzantine Majority which I generally favor. (See a description of this version at http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html)

The NIV is probably in error in this verse. However, consider the NIV for Luke 6: 27-28 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." If they were in such a rage to willy-nilly take this concept out of the Bible why didn't they remove it from Luke 6:27-28 as well as from Matthew 5:44? Could it be that instead of trying to damage God's word they were faithfully trying to render it accurately? I think so.

Unlike some of the theories that try to defend the Alexandrian text, in this case they at least have a reasonable argument. I don't agree with it but I can see how a good God fearing person could accept it. It goes something like this:

The original Matthew 5:44 did not have the extra two clauses. Someone who was copying Matthew was so familiar with the New Testament Scripture that he inadvertently inserted the clauses by memory from Luke into the obviously similar Matthew 5:44. The most ancient manuscripts do not have it so it must not have been there.

The problem is that the most ancient manuscripts may have survived because they were such bad copies that no one used them and wore them out. The other problem with the "most ancient" manuscripts is that most of them came to us via Alexandria which was a hot bed of the Gnostic heresy which attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ and did not hold the Scriptures in high enough regard.

Any way you cut it, the translators of the NIV can not be accused of intentionally trying to remove these concepts from God's word.

KJV - 20 So Jesus said to them, "Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you. 21 However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

NIV - 20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Frequent criticism of NIV: "NIV completely leaves out verse 21 which is critical to this teaching of Jesus that the only way to have this kind of faith is by prayer and fasting."

As with Matthew 5:44, the NIV leaves out this verse because it is not found in the Alexandrian version of the Greek that they used. It is in Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated and also from the Byzantine Majority which I usually favor.

This one is more difficult however because even in the parallel version of the event in Mark 9:29 where prayer is mentioned by the NIV the fasting is left off. Nor is their argument in support of leaving fasting out in Mark and leaving prayer and fasting out in Luke as credible as the one for Matt 5:44. Here is a quote from http://www.ibs.org/niv/mct/4.php

"In the NIV, Matthew 17:21 (kjv) is entirely missing. Why? To answer that question we should first turn to Mark 9:29. There Jesus is reported as saying to his disciples: "This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting" (kjv). I once heard a godly missionary say, "If you don’t get the answer to your prayer, then fast, and God will have to answer your petition." But that is magic—manipulating God—not true religion. The fact is that "and fasting" is not found in our two fourth-century manuscripts (cf.niv). It apparently was added in the fifth century, when much emphasis was being given to Gnostic asceticism and to monasticism. Then the whole of Mark 9:29 was inserted in Matthew. But Matthew 17:21 is not found in our two earliest manuscripts, as well as in the best ninth-century codex. At best it is doubtful whether these words are genuine, and so they should not be emphasized."

They accuse the Majority text of being corrupted by Gnostics when it came from a place where Gnosticism was not strong while at the same time accepting two "older" documents that were put on paper at a time and in a place where Gnosticism was strong. The NIV is way off here, once again, because of over reliance on the Alexandrian text.

However, the link between prayer and faith remains in the NIV in Mark 9:29 and the link between prayer and fasting remains in Ezra 8:23, Nehemiah 1:4, Psalm 35:13, Daniel 9:3, Luke 2:37, Luke 5:33, Acts 13:3, Acts 14:23 and perhaps more, albeit, not from the mouth of Jesus.

The concepts still remain in the NIV, so, we still have no evidence that the translators of the NIV are trying to distort God's Word. They are simply calling them like they see them. And although I disagree with them I remain convinced that they are good Christian men and well informed about these matters. I still do not see any reason to trust the KJV over the NIV, or vice versa for that matter.

King James Version (KJV)
"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

New International Version (NIV)
"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

Frequent criticism of NIV: "Completely leaves out verse."

Again, the NIV leaves out the verse because it is not in the version of the Greek that they were using.

Again, these exact words appear in Luke 19:10 in both the KJV and NIV. The same arguments mentioned above for Matthew 5:44 apply here. Even though the concept is not in Matthew it still exists, word for word, in Luke.

Again, the NIV translators are guilty of nothing evil.

King James Version (KJV)
"And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

New International Version (NIV)
"When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."

Frequent criticism of NIV: "They are trying to hide the way Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies."

Here the NIV leaves out the quote from Psalm 22:18. Psalm 22:18 itself, which obviously foretells what happens in Matthew 25, is intact in the NIV. The parallel passage in John 19:24 which says virtually the same thing is also left intact in the NIV.

John 19:24 (New International Version)
"'Let's not tear it,' they said to one another. 'Let's decide by lot who will get it.' This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, 'They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.' So this is what the soldiers did."

The NIV leaves it out in Matthew 27 because it was not in the Greek version they used. They did include it in a footnote so anyone reading Matthew 27 might still notice that the events are a fulfillment of Psalm 22:18.

In addition, of the other passages I checked where the New Testament specifically mentions fulfilling the Old Testament, I did not find another case where the NIV leaves it out besides this one in Matthew 27:35. I looked at these verses:

Matthew 1:22; Matthew 12:17; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 2:23; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 26:56; Matthew 4:14; Matthew 8:17; Matthew 27:35; John 12:38; John 15:25; John 17:12; John 18:9; John 18:32; John 19:24; John 19:28

The arguments and conclusions on both sides are the same as for Matthew 5:44 and 18:11 above.

No harm - no foul.

KJV - Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy:

NIV - You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy;

Frequent criticism of NIV: "You will notice that the main difference, apart from the rewording of the text, is that the KJV has the word not and the NIV doesn’t. So, the KJV says that God has not increased their joy. The NIV says that God has increased their joy."

Textual problems are rare in the Old Testament but apparently this is a question of one Hebrew letter being present in some ancient versions and not in others. The Septuagint, an Old Testament translated into Greek 300 years before Christ, does not have the "not." The Old Testament translated into English by the Jewish Publication Society of America does not have the "not." As far as arguments from meaning, the immediate context seems to support having no "not" but the prophetic context seems to support having the "not."

I don't know enough about the relative merits of the various texts to be able to form an opinion as to which is right. But I have seen enough to convince me that it is an honest difference between God fearing scholars and not a deliberate attempt to affect any doctrine.

KJV "But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number."

This is different than the NIV but the NIV (and modern translation) detractors never bring this one up. The reason is that everyone knows the KJV is wrong in this case.

NKJV "But you are those who forsake the LORD, Who forget My holy mountain, Who prepare a table for Gad, And who furnish a drink offering for Meni." Gad and Meni are near eastern gods of destiny and fortune.

NIV "But as for you who forsake the LORD and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny," Notice the words Fortune and Destiny are capitalized. In a footnote they are explained as ancient near eastern idols.

In this case the KJV just gets it wrong. It is not a case of Elizabethan English versus Modern English or textual variants. The KJV translators just got it wrong. They did not know enough history of the near east. They did not know what the words meant so they guessed, and they guessed wrong.

The case is not so simple as the above might imply. Although in general I believe the NIV to be an accurate translation and in general I believe the Alexandrian Greek to be inferior there are instances where neither of these propositions is true. For example I John 2:13.

The verb "write" is in bold. Differences in the Greek texts are underlined.

I John 2:12-14 (KJV)

12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

I John 2:12-14 (NIV)

12 I write to you, dear children,
because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13 I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
I write to you, dear children,
because you have known the Father.
14 I write to you, fathers,
because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.

Textus Receptus

12 grafw umin teknia oti afewntai umin ai amartiai dia to onoma autou
13 grafw umin patereV oti egnwkate ton ap archV
grafw umin neaniskoi oti nenikhkate ton ponhron
grafw umin paidia oti egnwkate ton patera
14 egraya umin patereV oti egnwkate ton ap archV
egraya umin neaniskoi oti iscuroi este kai o logoV tou qeou en umin menei kai nenikhkate ton ponhron

Alexandrian

12 grafw umin teknia oti afewntai umin ai amartiai dia to onoma autou 13
grafw umin patereV oti egnwkate ton ap archV
grafw umin neaniskoi oti nenikhkate ton ponhron
egraya umin paidia oti egnwkate ton patera
14 egraya umin patereV oti egnwkate ton ap archV
egraya umin neaniskoi oti iscuroi este kai o logoV tou qeou en umin menei kai nenikhkate ton ponhron

The Alexandrian seems to match the poetical construction of the passage better than the Textus Receptus but why did the translators of the NIV not show the difference in the verb form for the last three instances? I do not know enough about Greek verb tenses to have an informed opinion of what is right here but it does seem as if the Author meant for there to be a noticeable difference.

This is a passage where the King James proves its worth above the modern versions.

King James Version (KJV)
"7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "

New International Version (NIV)
"7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Footnotes: (a) 1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate say "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the" (This is not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.)

Notice how the NIV moves the segment [the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth] into a footnote and then disclaims it? Many other versions do this. For ease of reference I call this passage the "Trinity Passage." (Most scholars call the passage the Comma Johanneum. I find this term prejudicial.)

    Douay-Rheims (Catholic)
    King James Version (KJV)
    New Life Version (NLV)
    Noah Webster Bible
    21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
    Worldwide English (WE)

    Amplified Bible (AMP)
    New King James Version (NKJV)
    New Living Translation (NLT)
    Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
    Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

    Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    New International Version (NIV)

    American Standard Version (ASV)
    Bible in Basic English
    Contemporary English Version (CEV)
    Darby Translation (DARBY)
    English Standard Version (ESV)
    New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
    New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)
    The Message (MSG)
    Weymouth New Testament
    World English Bible

In the Greek – Textus Receptus is the only one to include this passage. There is strong evidence that it is only there because of intense pressure by the Roman Catholic church to include it. The only ancient texts to include it are in Latin. To make matters worse, not all the Latin texts include it. The text I prefer, the Byzantine, does not include it either. (To see a strong argument against my point of view see http://www.kjvonly.org/other/wallace_text_prob.htm)

Nevertheless, in this case, I believe the King James/Textus Receptus is correct. The Trinity passage should be included. To understand why I believe this requires a good bit of explanation. First, we need to understand Hebrew poetry. (Be patient. I will eventually come back to the point.)

Hebrew poetry is based on pairs of statements that mean a similar thing said two different ways or opposite meanings said in a similar way. This is called parallelism. The other thing about Hebrew poetry is true of all poetry in any language, it is full of figures of speech that makes the ideas more vivid. Hebrew poetry has a huge advantage over poetry in most languages and that is that it translates more easily into other languages. The poetry in most languages loses much of its punch when translated because it is too dependent on the sounds of the words, the rhythm, etc. Most of Psalms and many other parts of the Bible are this kind of poetry. One of the main reasons I prefer the King James Version is because it does the best job of any version in translating the beauty of the poetic parts of God's Word.

Consider the familiar Psalm 23. Each verse is two clauses or sentences that demonstrate parallelism.

Psalm 23

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. (An introduction to the poem that lets the reader know what kind of imagery is going to be used. You have to read the rest of the poem to understand how these two statements really mean almost the same thing.)

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. (He takes care of my physical needs, he takes care of my physical needs.)

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. (He takes care of my Spirit, He takes care of my Spirit)

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (I have nothing to fear, I have nothing to fear.)

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. (He cares for me beyond what can be expected, He cares for me beyond what can be expected.)

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. (I can count on Him forever, I can count on Him forever.)

Now we can see why having the Lord as your Shepherd is basically the same thing as being free from want.

This kind of poetry is also used in the New Testament. Consider I John 1:5-10. Again the first verse is a kind of introduction that is not well understood until you have completed the poem.

Notice the parallelisms within parallelisms in the first part of verses 5, 6 and 7 and the last part of all six verses.

So, what does all this have to do with I John 5:7-8 and which Greek version is superior?

It is really quite simple. With the Trinity passage included I John 4:21-5:12 is a poem, without the Trinity passage it is a poem with a gaping hole in the middle of it. Just for fun, lets use the NIV to prove the NIV is wrong.

I John 4:21 "And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."

1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that [testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

Lets analyze it for Hebrew poetic parallelism:

For clarity, I will use the column numbers and row letters from the chart above to explain my analysis.

Like I John 1:5-10 (and unlike Psalm 23) the structure is intricate and tends more to triple parallelism rather than double.

In this poem our faith is tied to obedience, victory, and the testimony of God.

To see the parallelism in A, B & C you must look back to Chapter 4. Verse 19 says, "We love him, because he first loved us." Jesus being the Christ is the proof of God's love and our love response follows. So A1 is whoever loves God. B1 is those that respond with love to the Father because of recognizing his love for us through Christ. C1 is whoever loves the Father. Three ways of saying the same thing. Column 2 for A, B, C are three different consequences of our love for God.

The parallelism of D and E is obvious.

F is a transition between the subtopic of obedience to commands showing our faith to the subtopic of overcoming by faith.

The parallelism of G and H is obvious. Notice how G2 and H1 tie back to B1 where the overall theme was introduced.

Now we come to the center of the poem. John has already shown his fondness for triple parallelism in I John 5:5-10. Here it is even more pronounced.

I1 and J1 taken together have water, blood, Spirit and testimony.

K1 has the father, the Word, the Holy Spirit and testimony

L1 has water, blood, Spirit and testimony

In I2 and J2 taken together we have the three being true.

In K2 we have the three being one.

In L2 we have the three in agreement.

The testimony of two or three witnesses confirms the truth if, and only if, they agree.
(Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28)

M is a transition drawing together the themes of the testimony of the Christian life (faith, obedience, and victory) and the testimony of God.

N and O are an obvious contrast.

P is the introduction of the conclusion. The testimony of God is that the Christian life is a gift from his Son and it will never end.

Q and R parallel P by contrasting each other.

To take out the Trinity passage is to rip the heart out of this beautiful poem.

I believe the Holy Spirit wrote much of the Bible as poetry for a reason, or really several reasons. One reason was to make it beautiful. Everything God does is beautiful. Its part of the way we can recognize it for what it is.

Another reason was to help people remember it word for word. Poetry is easier to memorize than prose.

Another reason is to communicate the emotional component of the message. Emotions are communicated better by poetry.

Finally, I believe He wrote much of it as poetry to help preserve it. When someone accidentally leaves out a word of prose it might not be noticed. But if someone leaves out part of a poem it is obvious.

Consider this simple verse by Ogden Nash:

Beneath tile or thatch
That man is rich
Who has a scratch
For every itch.

and a prose paraphrase of it, "A man may be considered wealthy, regardless of his circumstances, if he has all his needs and wants met."

Now suppose that due to an error by a copyist "Beneath tile or thatch" was left out of some copies of Ogden Nash's poems. It would be quite easy to see that the versions that had it were correct and the ones that did not were incorrect. It does not rhyme or have the right meter without the phrase so the phrase should be there.

On the other hand if the middle phrase, "regardless of his circumstances," were left out of some copies of the prose paraphrase one would have to know a great deal more about the history of the various copies to have any idea which was really correct. Both sentences, the one with the phrase and the one without, make perfect sense, even almost the same sense. Was the longer version accidentally shortened or did someone insert the extra phrase later? It may be impossible to ever know for sure.

In the same way, it is easy to see the KJV is right about I John 5:7-8 and all the others are wrong. No knowledge of Greek is required because the Hebrew style of poetry translates from one language to another even if it was originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew.

Although this passage is translated quite differently and it has important doctrinal significance (i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity) it is not evidence of evil intent by anyone who translated the NIV. The same doctrine of the Trinity can still be shown from the NIV, albeit with a little more difficulty, so it is still not evidence of deliberate distortion by the translators.

In no case has it been shown that the NIV translators were up to no good or that any doctrinal position is effected by the differences between the versions.

An excerpt from http://www.tcarden.com/coursework/Criticizing.htm:
"The necessity for lower or textual criticism is forced on us by reality. There are many ancient manuscripts of the Bible and they do not all agree. It is therefore required that we make decisions regarding which variant is closest to the original. Textual criticism "is preliminary, and fundamental to all further investigation - hence its designation as 'lower'"(Payne, 1980, p. 86) The best way to decide which is the best text is far from a settled matter. One criteria, the age of the manuscript, may be disputed. Another criteria for text selection, the skill of the copyist, might be a matter of opinion. It has even been suggested that older manuscripts may be less reliable because the ones that were considered to be "good" copies at the time were probably used more and became worn out. (McCain, 1988) There is a case of an accusation against the Catholic church that they deliberately altered Codex Vaticanus. (McCain, 1988, p. 36) It is a gift from God that few passages are enough different to be in dispute and fewer still, of those that are different, are of any doctrinal significance. (Balnsen, 1980, p. 187)"

You can either take someone else's opinion, such as the translators of the various versions, or you can study enough to form your own opinion. Just as not everyone is called to preach, not everyone is called to study these issues in detail. However, someone needs to.

The translators of the NASB and NIV were not out to attack the divinity of Christ or any other Christian doctrine. I know people who are friends with these people and they are, for the most part, conservative, evangelical, scholars who selected the Greek text based on their best understanding of the textual issues involved, not to push some religious/doctrinal agenda. Of course, they were certainly influenced by their views, as anyone would be. In my opinion they made a mistake when they selected as their basic Greek text an Alexandrian version which I believe is tainted by people who did not believe Jesus is Lord. There is a big difference between an agenda and a mistake. I can not speak knowledgeably about the attitudes of any of the translators of the other versions but I believe I'll hold off on making any accusations until I have some information on which to base it.

While it would be stupid in the extreme to hold up making any rational decisions about doctrine until all this was sorted out it does make sense to learn enough about it so you can understand the issues involved and determine to what extent the various versions can be relied upon.

(See http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/english.htm for links to dozens of English versions and essays regarding the relative merits of the various versions.)

Thor Carden
June, 2005

Greek Home