Tampering With The Book

Revelation 22:18, 19

Tampering With the Book

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll.  And if any one of you takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from you your share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll [tniv ].[1]

his generation of Christian parents faces an age-old challenge of faith: Will our sons and daughters put their faith in Christ, or will they be a generation that blends invisibly into a world that considers the Bible to be irrelevant?  This was the opening quote of a cover letter included together with a copy of a changed translation which arrived at my home a few days ago.

The binder holding my review copy of what is being sold as Today’s New International Version New Testament carries the following statement on the front cover.  Making sure the faith of our fathers becomes the faith of our children.  Obviously, the International Bible Society and Zondervan Bible Publishers want to put pastors at ease.  The Bible they have just released is the reason a growing number of pastors are becoming ill at ease.  Indeed, it is the release of this new Bible, heralded in the print and electronic media a couple of months past, which serve as the genesis for the homily this day.

For Christians interested in the direction culture proceeds, few issues are more basic than how the Bible gets translated.  The Bible, we believe, is our only ultimate rule of both faith and practise.  It tells us what we are to believe about God, and it reveals to us the rules He has established if we are to live happily and productively with each other.

The Bible is what keeps us from being relativists on all such issues.  The Bible is what tells us that racism is wrong, that treating the poor with compassion is right, and that God has ordained distinctions between male and female for the good of His creation.  It’s from the Bible that we learn that cheating and adultery and drunkenness are destructive, and that a servant spirit, honouring your parents, and thriftiness will be rewarded.

Any Bible that purports to tell you all those things had better be accurate and consistent.  It can’t take one position on a theological or cultural or social issue this year, and then do an about face on the same matter in the next edition.

Five years ago, WORLD magazine grabbed the attention of the evangelical world with a series of major articles about the New International Version of the Bible.  WORLD made three major points: (1) Plans were afoot to publish a revised niv that would make a point of using “gender-neutral” language; (2) the language in mind was strongly influenced not just by translation principles, but by feminist ideology; and (3) the effort was being clothed in secrecy.[2]

Immediately, the translating committee and the publisher behind the new translation denied all three assertions.  But within two months, all three assertions were proven true.  The publishers publicly withdrew their plans, and publicly announced that all such plans were cancelled.

Now, amazingly, they have gone there again.  And incredibly, this Bible story freshly issued this year has the same three points: (1) The International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House are indeed publishing a gender-inclusive Bible; (2) the changes betray a strong feminist bias; and (3) the project has been carried out in secret.

In effect, the message this morning is a statement of my disturbing doubts concerning what should be a source of confidence for a pastor.  I ask you to carefully listen as I detail my concerns, for ultimately they must have an impact, not only on my choice of a Bible for devotions and preaching, but also on the direction of the congregation in days to come.

Profits, Lies and Bible Translation — Years ago, the Zondervan brothers began a ministry of providing books to the Evangelical world.  Their work grew to become Zondervan Publishers, which was bought out by Harper and Row in 1988.  Today, HarperCollins owns Zondervan Bible Publishers and all the Zondervan Book Stores.  This information is important to us as Christians, because it would lead to the conclusion that decisions at Zondervan are not necessarily based upon Christian principle, but rather that the ability to gain market presence and promote sales drive decisions.

We must grieve at the decline of publishers that once did great work.  Five years ago, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family hosted in Colorado Springs a meeting of Bible scholars and leaders of various evangelical organisations with representatives of IBS, Zondervan, and the Committee on Bible Translation.  In that meeting, those individuals hammered out guidelines requiring Bible translators to stick as closely as possible to the language of the original Bible texts, regardless of the demands of current pressure groups.  As result of those meetings, the IBS board announced that it had “abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions” of the niv.

What’s clear now is that IBS agreed to these particular guidelines and this particular action not because of any change of heart, but because many Christian groups threatened to boycott its products, following WORLD’s disclosure in March 1997 that IBS planned to move the niv in a unisex direction.  Among those alarmed at the decision to rewrite the Bible to make it acceptable to contemporary culture was LifeWay Publishers (representing the Southern Baptist Convention) and Focus on the Family.  Together with other conservative Bible believers, they stated their intention to review their use of the niv if this gender-neutral Bible were produced in North America.

One could easily wonder about IBS’s honesty ever since WORLD discovered in 1999 a letter from Eugene Rugingh, IBS vice president for translations, stating that the goal of a gender-revised translation remained, with the matter only “one of timing, of finding the appropriate hour to move ahead.”  That time is apparently now.  Sales beckon, even though, as Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler notes, those who deliberately translated in accordance with their biases “insult the very character of the Bible as the eternal, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God.[3]

This time, at least, there’s no debate over whether such a project is in the works.  The International Bible Society and Zondervan have made clear their intentions; the New Testament of Today’s NIV has now been released, and the whole Bible will be released in a year or two.  The publisher is forthright in admitting that one of the distinctives of the new edition is its gender-inclusive language.

I confess that I am uncomfortable depending upon Zondervan Publishers and the International Bible Society, to say nothing of the Committee on Bible Translation.  It is clear that they gave their word concerning this new translation, and at the very least, they have now intentionally broken their word.  This is sufficiently problematic to make me cautious about relying upon their promises in the future.  However, the damage is compounded by the fact that it is now apparent that they never intended to cease producing and promoting a gender-neutral version of the Bible.  In other words, these Bible translators, Bible publishers and Bible society members deliberately lied to the evangelical community in order to continue their work secretly.

Witnessing this nefarious seduction of God’s people through deliberate lies and intentional distortions, I am reminded of the words of Jude, the half-brother of our Lord.  Jude wrote: Dear friends, although I was eager to write you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all.  For certain men who were designated for this judgement have come in by stealth; they are ungodly, turning the grace of our God into promiscuity and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ [Jude 3, 4 hcsv].

People upon whom the evangelical community depend for honest, forthright handling of the Word of God have deliberately deceived the Bible-reading public through insinuating themselves surreptitiously into a position of responsibility and authority and then twisting their own promises until they can convince themselves that they have kept their word.  All the while they have deceived Christians.

Their furtive work brings to mind Peter’s warning.  There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.  They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.  Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.  In their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words.  Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep [2 Peter 2:1-3 hcsv].

The first question to be answered is, Should we trust the International Bible Society?  The former president of the IBS, together with its translating committee, signed a document affirming agreement with guidelines for translating gender-related language in Scripture.  Members of its own translation committee helped draft those guidelines.  Now, it is clear that all the while they continued their work of “regenderising” the Bible, violating the 1997 guidelines which they themselves helped draft.

Before issuing the press notices of the release of the tniv, Peter Bradley, current IBS president, said the IBS as a matter of “integrity” was withdrawing its endorsement of the 1997 agreement.  Those guidelines, he argued, conflict with those of the IBS’s Committee for Bible Translation.  Thus, he announced that IBS was withdrawing from the agreement in order to resolve its dilemma.  He did not explain why IBS had waited years to come clean with evangelical Christians.[4]

All the preparation for release of this new Bible has been done in extraordinary secrecy.  Given the disagreements over the issue five years ago, why should it have been so difficult of IBS and Zondervan to approach some of those they knew were most troubled by the earlier effort, saying, “We still think such a contemporary version is important.  Would you help us find the best and most balanced approach?”  Instead, the sponsors of the effort have behaved as if the Bible were their proprietary possession.  This seems a strange way to build the trust of the Bible buying public.

Trust is perhaps the biggest asset the vendor of any product or service can bring to the customer.  If that product or service happens to be the Bible and the translation process shaping that Bible, then trust becomes a paramount issue.  Some of us find it hard to comprehend how the publishers of the TNIV would—for the second time in five years—play so fast and so loose with the trust it took a whole generation to build.[5]

Cultural Influence in Translating — Bible translators have always struggled to ensure that the Bible communicates to readers.  A word-for-word translation, known as formal equivalence, tends to read rather woodenly and often misses the goal of communicating because meaning is not always communicated precisely by the words.  An English colloquialism, such as the common invitation, Make yourself at home, communicates quite well to people raised within North American culture.  The invitation puts a guest at ease.  Translated into another language, it could communicate something entirely different.  Translated literally into Spanish, the invitation would be rather strange, though Spanish does have the invitation, Mi casa es su casa.

In order to address this translation difficulty, Bible translators may move toward what is referred to as a dynamic equivalent.  In other words, they attempt to communicate the meaning of the writer instead of the words of the writer.  Of necessity, this effort involves a degree of interpretation.  Most translators agree that there must be a balance between the two extremes in order to ensure the highest degree of accuracy in translation.

The more accurately a Bible is translated, the more it will preserve the very words which the writer set in place.  The more a Bible moves toward a dynamic equivalent, the greater the interpretation introduced into the translation effort.  The niv was more of a dynamic equivalent translation than was the King James Version of an earlier era.  Now, the tniv moves even farther toward including the translators’ interpretation.  It does so in great measure by adapting itself to cultural battles which are even now raging.

The IBS and CBT bristle at the assertion that many of the changes in the tniv spring from a feminist bias.  The publisher argues vigorously that they would never change any masculine references to God or Jesus.  But where John 6:33 in the original niv says quite directly that the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world, the tniv changes a couple of crucial words.  It reads, the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.  A footnote to the words that which explains almost too revealingly: “The Greek for that which can also mean he who.”  So, since the reference is so clearly to Jesus, why the need for eliminating the masculine pronoun?  The evidence is overwhelming.  The editors of this Bible have a preoccupation with doing away with anything masculine.  It happens dozens and even hundreds of times—and you don’t have to be a scholar to see what’s going on.

Thirty years ago, mainline churches were debating whether women should be pastors and whether language should reflect differences between the sexes, but evangelicals weren’t worried about it.  Larry Walker, one of fifteen members of the Committee for Bible Translation, who has been involved with the niv for twenty-five years, remembers, “Way back yonder when it first came up, no one was for [unisex language].  Now at the present time, almost everyone is for it…  The language is shifting underneath our feet.”[6]

Whether language has shifted that much is debatable, but it is true that feminists have agitated for such changes.  Obviously, the agitation has at last paid off.  Pressure for unisex language came from women who felt left out by the traditional language.  It also came from Zondervan and its parent company, HarperCollins.  In no small measure, this decision appears to have been motivated by a desire to reclaim the loss of sales to the New Revised Standard Version, which is a contemporary gender neutral translation, and which has cut into sales of the niv in recent years.

Other gender-neutral translations have also cut into sales among more liberal evangelical believers.  Among those gender neutral Bible translations which have been released within the past fifteen years are the New Living Translation (Tyndale House), the New Century Bible (Word), and God’s Word (World Publishing).  Each purport to correct the language usage of past centuries by eliminating the inclusive masculine pronoun.  Although beyond the scope of this message, a review of each of these Bibles will reveal that they have gone far beyond their purported purpose and promote women, especially in the realm of pastoral service among the churches.

Errant Doctrine Arising from Translation — Before I review some of the areas of doctrinal concern, permit me to review the concerns I have set before you to this point.  First, Zondervan, the International Bible Society and the Committee on Bible Translation have deliberately broken the agreement they signed just five years ago.  They have already demonstrated that they are untrustworthy.  If they will lie about their translation aims concerning gender issues, can I trust them to handle the Word of God in a reverential manner?  The obvious answer is that I cannot.

Christians must be able to count on Bible translators to maintain accuracy as a primary objective.  Instead, those who control the issuance of the niv and now the tniv, have set cultural appeasement as their primary concern.  Unnecessarily changing the words of the biblical text in order to accommodate those who think certain phrases are offensive is dangerous and irresponsible.  The question we must ask is, “What will be next?”[7]

Though I cannot necessarily address all the changes made by this new rewriting of the biblical texts, I will point to several areas of major concern and provide specific examples in other instances.  First, there are many places where the singular generic he is replaced with the plural they or them.  This seemingly innocuous change convolutes the personal nature of the relationship between an individual and Christ.  In other places, the third person is changed to the second person, obscuring intent of the speaker (whether Jesus or the Apostle)

Revelation 3:20, in the niv, reads as follows.  Here I am!  I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.  In the tniv, that same passage reads: Here I am!  I stand at the door and knock.  If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.  By removing he and him and substituting them and they, the passage is left devoid of the individual nature of the relationship between an individual and Christ.

In John 11:25, 26, the tniv has Jesus saying, I am the resurrection and the life.  Anyone who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.  Do you believe this?  That same passage in the niv reads as follows.  I am the resurrection and the life.  He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.  Do you believe this?  Not only does this strain the individual relationship between an individual and Christ, but it betrays the fact that Jesus Himself used the generic he even though he was speaking to a woman (Martha).

In at least thirty-six other instances, the second person masculine singular is morphed into third person with the attendant alteration in meaning.

Repeatedly, the male-specific meaning conveyed by the Greek word ajnhvr is removed.  Such mistranslations alter the cultural setting and fail to communicate truth.  In Acts 20:30, Paul says, even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them [niv].  tniv changes this verse to read, Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.  The new Bible text assumes that women may indeed serve as elders and distort the truth.  Though in contemporary churches this is in fact the case, it was not the intent of the speaker.

Acts 17:22 in tniv reads, Paul then stood up in a meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens!  I see that in every way you are very religious.”  The niv translates this passage more accurately.  Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens!  I see that in every way you are very religious.”  Of course, in ancient Athens, women were not permitted to participate in the meetings of the Areopagus.  However, what does it matter that we change history, so long as we maintain our own cultural perspective.

 There are at least twenty-nine other instances where the male-specific ajnhvr is mistranslated.

Throughout the New Testament, the singular brother is replaced by brother or sister on at least fifteen occasions.  An example of this is 1 John 5:16.  In the niv, the text reads: If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life.  I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death.  There is a sin that leads to death.  I am not saying that he should pray about that.  tniv translates the passage in the following manner.  If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life.  I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death.  There is a sin that leads to death.  I am not saying you should pray about that.  In addition to being cumbersome, the new reading makes the offence which affects us a group action instead of individual action.

On at least nineteen occasions, son or sons is eliminated in the text.  Romans 8:14 teaches that those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.  The rewritten text teaches that they are children of God.  The problem with this is that it alters the meaning, speaking as it does of the position of inheriting all that God has to offer.  The same is true in Galatians 3:26 and Galatians 4:6, 7.  The tniv changes in those instances sons of God to children of God, drastically changing the teaching.

In at least sixteen instances, brother is changed in ways differing from that previously described.  2 Thessalonians 3:15, Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother [niv], has been altered to read, Yet do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as fellow believers.  Surely, that was rewritten by a Baptist since it makes it sound as though Paul was suggesting that an individual cannot get along with anybody.  The whole church is smeared.

In multiple other instances, forefathers is changed to ancestors, and fathers is changed to parents.  There are multiple times that this rewriting of Scripture changes the meaning of what was said.  Also, the new version of the Bible does not wish to offend Jews, since at least nineteen times in the Gospel of John, Jews [jIoudai`oi] is changed to Jewish leaders.  One example is found in John 19:12.  The niv read, From then on Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar.”  The rewrite of that passage reads, From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar.”

The changes mentioned are disturbing, if for no other reason then that they are culturally driven.  There is no good reason to rewrite the Bible, for God has spoken concerning His Word.  Listen to the following statements given in the Word of God.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished [Matthew 5:18 niv].

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.  And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book [Revelation 22:18, 19 niv].

I have hidden your word in my heart

that I might not sin against you.

[Psalm 119:11 niv]

Of course, if we are not certain what the Word was, we may sin.

Your word, O LORD, is eternal;

it stands firm in the heavens.

[Psalm 119:89 niv]

Jesus prayed for His disciples—for us, I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them.  I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.  My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.  They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.  Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.  As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.  For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified [John 17:13-19 niv].

His words indicate that the world hates the disciple in part because the disciple has His words!  Moreover, we dare not rush past the affirmation that the Word of God is truth.  Your Word is truth.  If this is so, how dare we alter it!

Perhaps I am overreacting.  I have no doubt that some among my listeners wonder if that is not the case.  After all, does the change of pronouns really alter the meaning that much?  I have pointed to some changed meanings, and I suggest that the history of cults arising from far less insidious wording than those I have mentioned leave no room for comfort.  There is no doubt a serious possibility that errors will be introduced as result of the changes pointed to, and other errors, even now being embraced among the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be given legitimacy through this rewritten book.  Underscore in your mind this truth: you must know what the text says before you can hope to interpret the meaning of the text.

However, there are some serious false doctrines introduced through this misguided effort to be politically correct.  Hebrews 2:6 has historically been understood as referring to Jesus.  What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?  The rewritten Bible asks, What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?  The text as rewritten certainly casts doubt on connecting this to Jesus.  Mere mortals conveys something different from man in reference to the human race.

Hebrews 12:7 has spoken of a relationship between God as Father and His children, but that is now obscured.  The niv translated the verse, Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons.  For what son is not disciplined by his father?  The rewritten version reads, Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children.  For what children are not disciplined by their parents?

I will refer to only one other instance where the teaching of the Word is altered.  James 3:1 reads in the niv: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers.  The altered Bible reads, Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters.  Of course, and sisters is inserted, a change which is not explicit in the Greek text.  The implication is that James approved of women Bible teachers in the early church, something which is simply not witnessed either in the Bible or in history.

Industry sources suggest that IBS and Zondervan are attempting the difficult feat of trying to retain broad evangelical support while introducing a new version that will largely appeal to liberals.  An advertising line on the tniv website fits that theory: “The niv is an extremely accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 1984.  The tniv is an even slightly more accurate Bible text, the best the CBT could produce as of 2001.”  The words are written by a publicist and not by a translator, I can assure you.  How much more accurate is “slightly more accurate” than “extremely accurate?”

Here is my dilemma.  If I continue using the New International Version, I face an uncertain future.  I purchase a new Bible about every three to four years, as the old ones are worn out.  Since the translators and publishers of the New International Version have demonstrated that they are unreliable in keeping their word, I cannot be certain that future editions will not change references to God the Father to read God the Parent.  I cannot trust these dear souls to avoid changing the term the Son of God to the Child of God.  They have already demonstrated their lack of reliability and their willingness to adapt their promise to whatever social agenda rules the day.

I am even more concerned that new Christians coming into the Faith of Christ the Lord, should they hear me teaching from the New International Version, might not recognise that Today’s New International Version is a significantly different Bible and mistakenly purchase and read that Bible.  What is worse, even were I to continue using the niv and the CBT should change it, how could younger Christians know?

Perhaps these changes are inevitable, but I rather suspect that until Jesus returns, there will be a people seeking to know what God has said and endeavouring to honour Him even in the Bible they read.  As the face of evangelicalism changes, it increasingly reminds me of a West Texas river at flood stage—half a mile wide and ankle deep.  Of modern evangelicals, I can say without fear of contradiction, they are many, but they are not much.

What will I do?  I am determined that I will no longer use the New International Version of the Bible.  I cannot in conscience confuse young Christians coming into the Faith.  I am fortunate to have available a number of fine translations which are reliable and which are faithful to the Greek and Hebrew texts we have received.  Among those translations which are reliable are included, the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, and a translation I have been reading from for some months now, the English Standard Version of the Bible.  The Holman Christian Standard Version of the New Testament has recently been released and the entire Bible is scheduled for release next year.  I will likely use the English Standard Version of the Bible, simply because it is now available and cease immediately using the New International Version.

What of you who have purchased Bibles?  If you have a copy of the New International Version, you have a good translation.  I used it for twenty years in the pulpits of churches throughout Canada.  It is future editions which concern me, and if you must purchase a new Bible in days to come, you, also, have reason for concern.  If you should seek a new Bible at some point in the near future, those I mentioned are certainly excellent translations, perhaps even more accurate than is the niv.

Perhaps we will be forced to buy new pew Bibles one day.  That seems a small matter at this time.  Nevertheless, I must stand firm in opposing that which seems in my estimate to dishonour God, and I shall do so.  I have endeavoured to convey to you my deep concerns.  I cannot speak of this subject without bias, for I confess that I favour the Word of God as a counter to culture.  Unfortunately, the trend in this day is to judge the Bible by culture.

Egalitarianism seems to be rising among evangelicals, and this rewritten Bible is but one evidence that culture dictates to the churches.  It is only a matter of time until those same evangelical Christians so eager to embrace egalitarianism will also approve of the grossest perversions, all in the name of decency and equality.  As that day advances, may God give me courage and grace to stand firm as a rock, opposing evil and speaking the truth in love, until the Lord shall return.

And that is my message to you.  If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.  As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”  For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [Romans 10:9-13 niv].

----

[1] Scripture quotations marked niv are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version Ó 1973, 1978 by the International Bible Society.  Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.  Scripture quotations marked tniv are taken from the Holy Bible, Today’s New International Version™, Ó 2001 by International Bible Society.  All rights reserved.  Scripture quotations marked hcsb are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Ó 2000 by Holman Bible Publishers.  Used by permission.

[2] cf. Joel Belz, Word Games, WORLD, February 16, 2002, 5

[3] see Marvin Olasky, Sad Day, WORLD, February 16, 2002, 38

[4] see Edward E. Plowman, Should we trust IBS? (WORLD, February 23, 2002) 23

[5] see Belz, op. cit.

[6] see Susan Olasky, Femme fatale (World, March 29, 1997)

[7] Randy Stinson, Gender Neutral Bible Controversy Flares Up Once Again (www.cbmw.org/news/niv.html)