These editions, labelled “Holy Bible” claim to be translated from the original texts,\u00a0 and all that, but they are actually based on the corrupt Greek texts dug out of the trash and invented out of thin air since the 1800’s.\u00a0 Even where there is no controversy in the text, the translators manage some subtle tweak that undermines the meaning in some way.\u00a0 In some cases they just pretend that good words are out of style, and substitute poor words in their place.\u00a0 This is the case with almost all the verses in view.<\/p>\n
In 2011 the NIV people (a bunch of liberals pretending to be conservative) dropped the act, along with the 1984 edition, and published the “TNIV” as the NIV (NIV 2011).\u00a0 The main difference was “gender inclusive” language and bad grammar to accommodate the same: apparently gender inclusiveness is so very important that the publishers were required to embarass themselves immediately, and to mock the KJV 1611 with a 400-year after the fact contradiction of its doctrine.<\/p>\n
Here is what the NIV does to the Romans road plan of salvation.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Romans 3:10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Romans 3:10\u00a0As it is written: \u201cThere is no one righteous, not even one;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The \u201cno\u201d is missing, contradicting the argument that there might be one.\u00a0 While “none” does include the concept of “no”, it is just a number.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Romans 3:23\u00a0for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u201cFall short\u201d indicates a sudden and somewhat permanent failure (falling), whereas \u201ccome short\u201d indicates a simple lack of achievement (you simply don\u2019t measure up). \u201cFall short\u201d would tend to support the idea that was one specific sin that sent you over the edge, one slip-up that led to the fall. It dilutes the condition of the sinner from not making it to glory. Instead of being a thousand miles away and out of fuel, it suggests you have stumbled at the gates of glory.<\/p>\n
However, in previous verse, Romans 3:22, which is rendered as part of the sentence, the NIV 2011 flatly denies salvation by faith, saying \u201cThis righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile [h][Or through the faithfulness of]\u201d.<\/em> The text is good enough, but the footnote says you\u2019re right to have doubts: They say it is not your faith, but the faithfulness of Jesus that saves, and then in case that is not enough, they throw in more confusion by the unnecessary repetition of \u201cJew and Gentile\u201d.<\/p>\n
What is the NIV teaching here? While it is somewhat teaching you are a sinner, by comparison with the real Bible, it is casting distracting shade on the seriousness of your predicament and raising questions. Never mind that it says that faith does not save.<\/p>\n
2. Sinners deserve death and hell<\/h1>\n
KJV 1611 Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[w] Christ Jesus our Lord. [w] or through<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Romans 6:23\u00a0For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord. [a] or through<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Changing from \u201cthrough\u201d to \u201cin\u201d eliminates the observation that the gift is not through our works, but through the work of Christ. Yes, we do have our life in Christ, but it is through<\/i> what he has done. Because \u201cthrough\u201d is mangled, the \u201cbut\u201d also makes no sense \u2013 as if we being asked to compare concepts that have no relation to each other: You\u2019re getting a bonus this month, but your cousin Fred got a bike for his birthday.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Revelation 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Revelation 20:14\u00a0Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hell is gone. The Greek god is being cast about instead. Again, questions arise, like \u201cwho is Hades?\u201d The only point that needed explanation before the translation was mangled was, \u201cwhat is the lake of fire?\u201d<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Revelation 20:15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Revelation 20:15\u00a0Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There might be an error here, but it\u2019s hard to see. However, it is amusing that the NIV 1984 went from gender-neutral to male, and then the NIV 2011 corrected it. Oh wait, there it is: \u201cWhosoever\u201d is not quite the same as \u201canyone\u201d: anyone is about choosing the one out of many, whereas whosever is about choosing all (that meet the condition) without distinction.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Revelation 21:8\u00a0But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars\u2014they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This verse is horribly mangled: Fearful? Nay, Cowardly (a specially bad display of fear is required). Abominable? Nay, Vile (because abomination is a nasty word). Whoremongers? Nay, Sexually immoral (don\u2019t identify the specific sin, but rather just vaguely identify the area in which the sin is found). Their part? Nay, Their place, no wait, their consignment (because it\u2019s not as if there\u2019s a specific place in hell for each sinner, it\u2019s just that hell is the place for them all – according to the NIV).<\/p>\n
What is being burned in this lake? According to the NIV, sulphur is being burned. According to the KJV, the lake is doing the burning.\u00a0 People are being cast into this lake, and people are being burned.<\/p>\n
What kind of death and hell is the NIV warning of? It\u2019s getting death right, but its hell is rather uncertain, and probably cold.<\/p>\n
3. Jesus died for our sins<\/h1>\n
KJV 1611 Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Romans 5:8\u00a0But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
They changed \u201clove\u201d to \u201cown love\u201d – as if the personal pronoun was not enough. \u201cYet sinners\u201d to \u201cstill sinners\u201d that kinda seems the same to me. To nit peck here, the proper problem is the dilution of the bigger sentence to multiple soundbites. The sense in the KJV is that \u201cGod commendeth his love .. in that… Christ died for us\u201d. You cannot get that sense out of the NIV, and then point out under what circumstances it was that he showed his love to us: \u201cwhile we were yet sinners\u201d.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 1 Peter 2:24 \u201cHe himself bore our sins\u201d in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; \u201cby his wounds you have been healed.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Whereas the NIV added \u201cown\u201d to Romans 5:8, they removed it twice here. The tree is gone (\u201cCursed is every one that hangeth on a tree\u201d). The NIV is here teaching works for salvation, and that those saving works are made possible by the cross. Changing \u201cbeing dead\u201d to \u201cmight die\u201d suggests that we are going to do something, but more obviously, hanging \u201clive unto righteousness\u201d into \u201clive for righteousness\u201d says that it is not that we receive righteousness by the resurrection of Christ, but that we work out out own righteousness by our works.<\/p>\n
Changing stripes to wounds is just a stupid dilution of the text.<\/p>\n
If all that were not enough, then the 2011 edition adds quotation marks around part of the verse, as if it’s a just the heading for a talking point, a quote without a speaker that said it, or a hand-written sign in a hand-written scrawl with bad grammar.<\/p>\n
What is the NIV saying? It says that Christ did a down payment for our salvation, and we must achieve the remainder of salvation by our works.<\/p>\n
4. Salvation is by faith<\/h1>\n
KJV 1611 Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Acts 16:30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Acts 16:30\u00a0He then brought them out and asked, \u201cSirs, what must I do to be saved?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So far so good.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.”<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 Acts 16:31\u00a0They replied, \u201cBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved\u2014you and your household.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(2011 is actually an improvement, not incorrectly implying impersonal salvation without faith.) The difference between \u201cbelieve in\u201d and \u201cbelieve on\u201d is much of a muchness.<\/p>\n
But there is a problem: The certainty of \u201cshall\u201d is diluted to the mere future tense \u201cwill\u201d. \u201cIf A, then B shall follow\u201d means that it so determined, and nothing will make it otherwise. \u201cIf A the B will follow\u201d means that after the completion of A, some time later, there will be B. Using \u201cwill\u201d instead of \u201cshall\u201d allows the separation of the cause (believing) and the effect (salvation) by an undetermined amount of time. This leaves room to change salvation from the now of \u201cbe saved\u201d to the indefinite process of \u201cbeing saved\u201d.<\/p>\n
KJV 1611 John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.<\/strong><\/p>\n
NIV 1984 John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[u] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [u][Or his only begotten Son]<\/p>\n
NIV 2011 John 3:16\u00a0For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Oh dear. \u201cBegotten\u201d and \u201cone and only\u201d are rather different concepts. This one and only Son is a little bit of a weird concept, especially since there are other \u201csons of God\u201d all over scripture \u2013 those that believe in Christ.\u00a0 This change was deliberate, as seen by the removal of the truth, which had been related to a footnote, in the 2011 edition.<\/p>\n
Abraham offered up his \u201conly begotten\u201d son (Hebrews 11:17) and in that verse the NIV also says \u201cone and only\u201d even though elsewhere it clearly says that Ishmael was also his son.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhosoever\u201d means \u201ceach and every one (that meets the condition)\u201d, but \u201cwhoever\u201d means just \u201cany one\u201d.<\/p>\n
So what does the NIV do to the Romans road? It\u2019s not completely turned to poo \u2013 it\u2019s just a little bit corrupt: hell is not so bad, salvation might require your works, and Jesus might not be the only begotten Son of God. And a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.<\/p>\n
Speaking of salvation, the Bible says this:<\/p>\n
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Good luck with salvation based on the corrupt NIV: not completely the word of God.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
These editions, labelled “Holy Bible” claim to be translated from the original texts,\u00a0 and all that, but they are actually based on the corrupt Greek texts dug out of the trash and invented out of thin air since the 1800’s.\u00a0 … Continue reading