|
Untrustworthiness of the NIV
Jeffrey Khoo
The NIV is an untrustworthy version. Here are three doctrinal reasons
why we should reject the NIV:
NIV Undermines the Virgin Birth of Christ
In Luke 2:33 we read, “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things
which were spoken of him” (KJV). In the NIV, it is like this, “The child’s
father and mother marveled at what was said about him.” Do you see the
problem here with the NIV? The NIV makes Joseph the father of Jesus! The
NIV rendering of this verse is totally out of line for the following
reasons: (1) the word “child” is not in the preserved Greek text, (2) the
word “father” is not in the Greek, (2) the possessive pronoun “his” is
connected to Mary alone and does not include Joseph. Those who do not know
better would probably come to the conclusion that Joseph was the direct,
natural father of Jesus. The NIV has caused Luke to contradict the virgin
birth. Jesus has only one Father, and that is the First Person of the Holy
Trinity. Joseph was neither biologically nor spiritually the father of
Jesus.
However, NIV advocates will point to verse 41 which calls Joseph and Mary
“his parents” (so KJV as in NIV). The fact that Joseph and Mary were
indeed parents of Jesus—Joseph being legally a “parent” and not naturally
“father” of Jesus—would prove the point that the biblical writers were
careful not to attribute the title “father” to Joseph, for Jesus only has
one Father, and that is His Father in Heaven—the First Person of the Holy
Trinity. In verse 43, we again see the biblical writers carefully
distinguishing Joseph’s actual relationship with Jesus by the words
“Joseph and his mother,” again purposely avoiding calling Joseph Jesus’
“father.” Jesus Himself refused to call Joseph his “father,” and gently
corrected his mother when she said, “thy father and I have sought thee”
which drew this response from the Lord, “How is it that ye sought me? wist
ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” Why did not Jesus use
“God,” or “the Lord,” but “Father” at this juncture. I believe it was to
correct any misconception that Joseph was in any way His father for God
alone was His Father.
NIV Opposes a Strictly Messianic Fulfillment of Isa 7:14 in its Study
Bible
I have argued strenuously that Jesus Christ is the only one who fulfilled
the precious prophecy of Isa 7:14 which concerns His virgin birth (see
“The Sign of the Virgin Birth: The Exegetical Validity of a Strictly
Messianic Fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14,” Master of Divinity thesis, Grace
Theological Seminary, 1991. An edited version may be found in the January
1995 issue of The Burning Bush).
The following critique of the NIV’s treatment of Isa 7:14 is taken from
Radmacher and Hodges’ The NIV Reconsidered, 52-4.
The NIV translated ha’ almah
in Isa 7:14 as “the virgin.” According to
Radmacher and Hodges, “the use of the definite article ‘the’ with
‘virgin,’ the NIV has laid the groundwork for a quasi-liberal view of
Isaiah 7:14.
“This becomes obvious when we read The NIV Study Bible note. The note
states: ‘7:14 sign. A sign was normally fulfilled within a few years (see
20:3; 37:30; cf. 8:18).’ This statement leads to the legitimate inference
that we should not look for a distant (that is, Messianic) fulfillment of
7:14 during the New Testament period! The flawed NIV view of Messianic
prophecy is once again in evidence.
“The note continues: ‘virgin. May refer to a young woman betrothed to
Isaiah (8:3), who was to become his second wife (his first wife presumably
having died after Shear-jashub was born). In Gen. 24:43 the same Hebrew
word (‘almah) refers to a woman about to be married (see also Pr. 30:19).
Mt. 1:23 apparently understood the woman mentioned here to be a type
(foreshadowing) of the Virgin Mary.’ So now the cat is out of the bag! In
the NIV, ‘the virgin’ apparently is intended to refer to a specific
individual who, though not previously named, is very much a part of the
larger context of this announcement. To put it briefly, ‘the virgin’
refers to ‘the woman’ Isaiah is about to marry. Only if the prediction is
viewed typologically, so we are told, can we find any validity to
Matthew’s use of this text in reference to the Virgin Mary.
“Despite the finely honed statements of the NIV study note, what the note
really means is this: Isaiah 7:14 is not a direct prophecy about the
virgin birth at all. Indeed, the woman to whom it did really apply gave
birth in a perfectly normal way! But nobody could deduce such a conclusion
from Matthew’s use of the text.
Haven’t we been through all this before? What about the long-running
debate in the 19th and early 20th centuries, between liberals and
conservatives, over whether Isaiah 7:14 truly predicts the virgin birth or
not? Is not the Christian public ready for an evangelical translation that
concedes the basic case to liberal theology and then clings to the slender
reed of typology to preserve its weakened conservative credentials? We
hope not.
“Let this be said clearly. The authors of this book hold firmly to the
traditional evangelical view that Isaiah 7:14 directly predicts the virgin
birth of our Lord. No other reading of this text comports with the
inspired use of it made by Matthew.”
NIV Removes the Eternal Generation of God the Son
The eternal generation of the second person of the Holy Trinity (i.e.
Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God) is an important doctrine of
the Christian Faith. The 4th century Athanasian and Nicene Creeds state
that Jesus is both Son and God “only-begotten, . . . of the Father before
all the ages.” The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) likewise followed
the ancient creeds in describing the relationship that exists within the
Godhead: “In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons, of one
substance, power and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the
Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally
proceeding from the Father and the Son” (II.3).
All 3 ancient creeds describe Christ as only begotten, or eternally
begotten. Now you know that every doctrine must be based on the Bible.
Where in the Bible do we find Jesus being described as only begotten Son
of God? If you have the KJV you will find it in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18;
and 1 John 4:9. But if you are using the NIV, you will have a hard time
finding this doctrine in the Bible. The term “only begotten” with
reference to Christ has been conveniently removed by the NIV. It
mistranslates the Greek monogenes as “one and only.” Problem is monogenes
does not just mean “one and only.” The Greek monogenes comes from 2 words:
monos meaning “only” and gennao meaning “to beget” or “to generate.” The
KJV translates it literally and accurately as “only begotten.”
Do you now see why we as Bible-Presbyterians cannot use the NIV? The WCF
teaches according to the Scriptures that Jesus “the Son is eternally
begotten of the Father.” Now if I were to teach a class on the WCF, we
come to this point on the eternal generation of the Son, and one of you
were to ask me this very good question: “In which verse of the Bible is
Jesus described as the only begotten Son of God?” If I have the NIV as my
Bible, I will be dumbstruck. The NIV has removed this important doctrine
on the person of Christ from the Scriptures. It has subtracted from God’s
Word; a very dangerous thing to do (Rev 22:19). That is why we cannot
trust the NIV. Why? Because instead of telling us what God says, it tells
us what man thinks God is saying. The NIV becomes an interpretation, and
not translation of the Bible.
NIV Attacks on the Theanthropic Person of Christ
1 Tim 3:16 has to be one of the clearest texts of Scripture proving the
full deity and full humanity of Christ, “And without controversy great is
the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, . . . .” But if
you had the NIV, you would have a difficult time proving this. Instead of
the reading, “God was manifest in the flesh,” you have “He appeared in a
body.” The NIV obscures (1) the deity of Christ by removing “God” and
replacing it with just “He,” and (2) the humanity of Christ by replacing
“the flesh,” with “a body” (a body may not necessarily be of “flesh and
blood”). The word in the original is sarx meaning “flesh,” not soma
meaning “body.” It is also interesting and significant to note that the KJV translators never rendered
sarx as body and soma as flesh (see Yeong
Shoon Lau, “A Textus Receptus-King James Version Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament,” MDiv thesis, Far Eastern Bible College, 1997, 214,
228). The KJV recognised the proper distinctions between the two;
something the NIV translators obviously failed to do in their
dynamic-equivalence blindness.
Why does the NIV translate 1 Tim 3:16 as “He” and not “God?” It is simply
because they chose to adopt a Westcott-Hort reading of the text. According
to Westcott and Hort, since the Sinai and Vatican codices read “he who,”
instead of “God,” it must be the correct reading. And mind you, this is
over against the majority of the Greek manuscripts including certain
Alexandrian ones which read theos, “God,” instead of hos, “he who.” Many
modern versions like the NIV happily follow Westcott and Hort in
corrupting the Word of God. How can NIV defenders deny that the NIV is
based on Westcott and Hort. How can NIV users who say they love God’s Word
continue to use a version which supports the unbelieving views of those
two enemies of Christ? For more discussion on this verse, see “God was
Manifest in the Flesh (1 Tim 3:16),” Article #103 by Trinitarian Bible
Society.
Conclusion
As you can see, the KJV is a far more faithful, accurate, and reverent
translation of the Scriptures, using the faithful word-for-word method of
translation. The NIV is an untrustworthy version because it uses the
thought-for-thought method which allows man to substitute God’s words with
his own thoughts, ideas or opinions. In the NIV, you might be reading more
of man’s thoughts than God’s words.
We believe the Lord has preserved His Word in the majority text behind the
KJV. There is the corrupt minority text, and the trouble is modern
scholars/translators have used the minority which demote Christ than the
majority which promote Christ. My plea is: Let’s use the version which
promotes Christ, the KJV.
Dr Jeffrey Khoo is the academic dean of Far Eastern Bible College.
Top
/ Back
|
