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. 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.