Is the NIV the Word of God?
Written by Danny D. Bunn, B.A. (Born Again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ)
There is so much confusion, regarding his holy word, so much
speculation, so-called facts about older and better manuscripts.
A girl that I know bought me a NIV translation. I skimmed it and
I said to myself, "Well it reads pretty easy, smooth, clear"
until I started checking out verses that I knew in my heart and
they didn't line up with the KJV. They were teaching salvation by
works. I couldn't believe what I was reading and the more that I
studied the less that I liked it. And to think that the majority
of the of Body of Christ has been led to believe that the NIV and
other modern versions are the word of God. One of the first
verses that I checked out was Acts 2:38 since so many cults use
that particular verse and sure enough it was wrong. Quoting from
the NIV, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, everyone of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be
forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" I
read that and I said to myself, "That's not true, I did not get
baptized whether in the Spirit or in water so that my sins may be
forgiven." The KJV uses the word, 'for' in Acts 2:38 and not 'so
that' which is used in the NIV. The Greek word is 'EIS'pronounced
'ace' which means 'because of'. I got baptized whether in water
or the Spirit because of remission of sins not to get remission
of sins. The same word is used in Matt. 12:41 and it is
translated 'at'. They repented at the preaching of Jonah. They
didn't repent 'to get' the preaching of Jonah, they repented
'because of' the preaching of Jonah. I have the '78 version of
the NIV and from what I have been checking out, they changed it
again to line up with the KJV. Please check out a few of the
following verses on your own, crossing with the KJV. Based on
Micah 5:2, was Jesus from ancient times or from everlasting? One
shows that he is a pretty old fellow and the other shows that he
has always been. Or using John 6:47, do we just believe or do we
believe on Jesus? I believe that it will rain sometime, does that
mean that I am saved? Check out I Peter 4:1, does it make more
sense with 'for us' in the verse or without it? Read Luke 4:4 in
the NIV. I see from this that I can't live by bread alone , I
probably need a side of potatoes or something. Compare Psalm
12:6,7 in the two versions. One is talking about the Jews and the
other is talking about the word of God. Which do you think is
true?
Quoting from "The Answer Book": "This is an irresponsible and
dishonest translation. The Hebrew word, 'shamar' meaning 'to
keep' which the New International Version translators render,
'you will keep us' is found in the future second person singular
'them' and not the first person plural, 'us' as the New
International Version translators rendered it."
Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.
Commenting on a verse like Ps. 9:17 out of the NIV which
says, "The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that
forget God." The Hebrew word is 'Sheol' and that is not the
'grave' in this verse. So I see from this that the wicked are
judged and sent back to the grave. Doesn't make sense. The KJV
says, "The wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations
that forget God." Which seems right?
Going to Matt. 16:18 to approach this from a different
perspective. It says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on
this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades will not
overcome it." Then they tell you to check the footnote in most
NIV's. The footnote says, "Peter means rock." They are
deliberating fooling the ignorant. They want you to associate
Peter with the rock that Jesus built his church on. Westcott and
Hort, our new Greek buddies enjoyed worshipping Mary as much if
not more than Jesus. And a lot of your pseudo-scholars of today
want a one world religion at all costs. Going back to the verse.
We can discuss the Greek or the context that it is written in to
discover who or what he built his church on. The Greek uses two
different words in this verse. One is 'Petros', a small movable
rock or stone and the other is 'Petra', an unmovable rock like
the Rock of Gilbratar. Jesus says, "And I tell you that you are
'Petros', and on this 'Petra' I will build my church,..." So from
the Greek we see that church isn't going to be built on Peter and
in context we shall see the same thing. Jesus asked Peter who
does he think that he is. Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God." And that is who and what Jesus built his
church on. Jesus build it upon himself and the revelation of who he is brought to
light by Peter who received it from God.
Now I want to show you a couple of scriptures in the book of
Acts. Acts 8:36-38 in the NIV says, "As they traveled along the
road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, 'Look here is
water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?' And he ordered the chariot
to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water
and Philip baptized him." If you compare this with the KJV,
you'll find out some interesting things. The eunuch never
received an answer to his question in the NIV until you look at
the footnote, that is where they put verse 37. Why? Westcott and
Hort were into works for salvation. So confessing Jesus wasn't
where it's at. It's getting baptized. The footnote says, "36 Some
late manuscripts baptized? 37 Philip said, 'If you believe with
all your heart, you may.' The official answered, 'I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'" Of course this verse that they
left out did line up with Romans 10:9-10.
The other verse is in the next chapter- Acts 9:6. But let's
back up to the verse where Jesus just knocked Saul to the ground
with a light from heaven. Verse 4 starts off: "He fell to the
ground and heard a voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why do you
persecute me?' 'Who are you, Lord?' Saul asked. 'I am Jesus whom
you are persecuting,' he replied." Now we come to verse 6,
quoting: "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told
what you must do." A few things need mentioning here. First, Saul
made a very important statement after he found out that it is
Jesus talking to him but the NIV people 'accidently' left it out.
It also lines up with Romans 10:9,10. The verse left out is the
first part of verse 6 which says, "And he trembling and
astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?.." Paul
acknowledged Jesus as Lord after he found out who was talking to
him. That is very important but once again Westcott and Hort and
the new Christians of today wouldn't want that. Somebody might
really get saved and not just wet.
Another example that I could use is the last chapter of
Mark. The note in the NIV says, "The two most reliable early
manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." What they are saying in
reality is the two most corrupt manuscripts. The two manuscripts
are the Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus). Many scholars say
they are, "depraved, most corrupt, largest amount of fabricated
and intentional perversions of truth, disfigured, copied from
altered papyrus, their respectability quotient hovers near zero,
old corrupt manuscripts which have been discarded." That is just
a few of the comments made, books have been written showing just
how corrupt these manuscripts really are. (Check the chapter
regarding the 1% manuscripts in "New Age Bible Versions".)
I already told you that the NIV and the other modern
versions, which are hand me downs from Westcott and Hort, have a
works' salvation. Let's read the 'good news' in Mark 10:24 and
compare it with the KJV. "The disciples were amazed at his words.
But Jesus said again, 'Children, how hard it is(f) to enter the
kingdom of God!'" Once again, let's go with the context. We can
even use the NIV in context in this particular verse. It said,
"But Jesus said again,.." So I see that it is something that he
just said and he is repeating or enlarging on it. Backing up to
verse 23 in the NIV, it says, "Jesus looked around and said to
his disciples, 'How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom
of God!'" So based on verse 24, He isn't repeating himself or
making it any clearer. He is saying something entirely new from
what he just said. If they used their footnote it would have
helped. Jesus was emphasizing that those who trust in their
wealth won't get to heaven. You can't take it with you or reserve
a place with all the money in the world. The NIV footnote says,
"f24 Some manuscripts is for those who trust in riches". The
Bible records Jesus as saying, "Suffer little children, and
forbid them not, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of
heaven. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."
(Mark 10:14,15) Does that sound hard? I think not! I agree that
it is hard for so-called intellectual grown-ups to humble
themselves and ask a poor, itinerant preacher to forgive, cleanse
and come into their lives as Savior and Lord. But if they only
knew that the great God of the universe became a man and died in
their place. Check out some information on Westcott and Hort
at the library. Since they are the ones who came up with the 'new
Greek' manuscripts. They were Mary worshippers, spiritualists,
necromancers, and they started a couple of clubs called the
'Hermes' and the 'Ghostly Guild'. Their main goal was to replace
the 'accursed' King James Version. They hated it and they didn't
think too much of Christians either, to put it lightly.
I will now use I Tim 3:16 which says, "And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the
flesh.."KJV The NASB says, "And by common confession great is
the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh.."
Then using the NIV which says, "Beyond all question, the mystery
of godliness is great: He appeared in a body.." The NWT put out
by the Jehovah's Witnesses says, "..He was made manifest in the
flesh.."
[Comments] "1. Of the 300 Greek manuscripts containing I Timothy
3:16, only five late manuscripts omit "God." The uncials, ALeph
and especially A and C, have been altered here so that either
"God" or "who" can be deduced.
2. The earliest witnesses support the inclusion of "God":
Dionysius of Alexandria A.D. 265, Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 394, and
Didymus A.D. 398. In addition, Ignatious A.D. 110, Barnabas and
Hippolytus A.D. 235, and Diodorus of Tarsus A.D. 370 allude to
the inclusion of "God." Of writers before A.D. 400, Origen, the
exiled heretic, stands alone in omitting "God".
3. Versions used around the world, such as the Italian Diodati,
the French Osterwald, the Spanish Valera, the Portuguese Almeida,
and Luther's German Bible, all attest to "God was manifest in the
flesh."
4. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts say, "God." The NIV
and NASB footnote stating, "some later mss read God," should read
"some later manuscripts read who." Those few copies that have
'who' in the place of 'God,' do not have a complete sentence.
There is no subject without 'God.' In addition, a neuter noun
'mystery' cannot be followed by a masculine pronoun 'who.' To
avoid having a clause with no subject, the NIV and J.W. bible
arbitrarily drop the word 'who' and invent a new word, 'He.' The
NASB retains 'who' and adds 'He.' By making these additions and
subtractions, the new versions, in I Timothy 3:16, follows no
Greek manuscripts at all, not even the five late uncials.
5. The omission of 'God' in the new versions is based on its
deletion in 1881 by Westcott and Hort revision which Metzer says,
'was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies'
edition.'(137) Its omission resulted from the doctrinal stance of
the 1881 committee, not from any overwhelming manuscript
evidence. Of the committee's two Unitarian members, Smith and
Thayer, the former reveals why the revisors dropped 'God'.
The old reading [God'] has been pronounced untenable by the
revisors...a reading that was the natural result of the
growing tendency in early Christian times to look upon the
humble Teacher as the incarnate word and therefore as God
manifest in the flesh. (138)
It was simple for the Unitarians of the 1881 committee to find a
manuscript or two to support their denial of the deity of Christ.
The Arians of the fourth century, became the Nestorians of the
fifth century. These were later followed by the Socinians of the
sixteenth century and the Jehovah's Witnesses of today. Dr.
George Bishop summarizes:
'[H]e who was manifest in the flesh' [is] the precise rendering
for which the Unitarians have been contending for the last 1800
years.'(139)
(137) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.xviii.
(138) The Revision Revised, p. 515
(139) Which Bible, p. 108
(New Age Bible Versions by G.A. Riplinger)
There are many, many more verses that could be discussed but
enough for now. What we need to do is study, not take some man's
word for something especially as important as this is. Your
salvation is of the utmost importance and in turn so is your
growth in the Christian life. If we have a book that isn't God's
word but contains some of it then where is his word and who
determines if it is his word or not? The NIV most certainly is
not the word of God. Get a book called 'New Age Bible Versions'
by G.A. Riplinger. It is excellent! Much of the information came
from that book.
