New Inaccurate Perversion

THE GNOSTICS

2008-07-02T14:21:00.000+01:00

NIV BIBLE QUIZ

2007-04-08T12:27:00.000+01:00

Using the New International Version Bible (NIV), answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:

7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"

Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible"? If these 25 questions haven't served to show you that the NIV is a very inferior Bible, based on a very inferior Greek text, write me and I'll make up another quiz with 25 more questions, or 250, if you wish; but you will still flunk the text. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible .

NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to... tell God, OUT LOUD, that the NIV is correct in deleting these words & phrases?

If not, you need to get a King James Bible so you can have some confidence.

THE GNOSTIC NIV VERSION

2007-01-08T14:16:00.000Z

A look At Gnosticism And The NIV

By Alfred Chompff

This article is titled, “The Gnostics”. One criticism that has been leveled at my sermons is this. They say: People are turned off from listening to my sermons because I dare to mention names of churches and names of denominations. They say: I should not have to mention names. I should just preach the truth, and after a while people will be able to recognize a false gospel because they have been hearing the truth so many times. They say: It is like a bank teller who can feel a false 10 dollar bill because they know what a real 10 dollar bill feels like, because they have felt it so frequently. Now, is that really so? For example, take:

The Gnostics

Have you heard about the Gnostics?

Most of you have probably heard the name “Gnostics”. Many of you have read in a commentary that the Epistle to the Colossians an the First Epistle of John were written to refute the teachings of the Gnostics.

But what do you know about the Gnostics?

What did they teach?

And here you probably will say: “Nothing”. I have searched in my personal library, but I found almost nothing about the Gnostics. Bible dictionaries and commentaries and books about Systematic Theology do not give any summary of what the Gnostics were. This subject is passed over as unimportant. It is only in the last 10 years or so that you can find a lot of information about the Gnostics on the Internet. But most of it is presented as a curiosity, only from a historical perspective, and not much of a threat to today’s churches. We don’t do those childish things any more. We are now much wiser.

Well, is that really so?

Are we much wiser, or are we ignorant about the dangers of Gnosticism?

Today I will show you that the warning against the Gnostics is not much of a warning without mentioning names. The warning is real, and the danger of falling into it is very great.

The word “Gnostic” comes from the Greek verb “ginosko”, which means “to know, or to be taking in knowledge”. Or you can derive it from the noun “gnosis”, which means “knowledge, or a seeking to know”. The Gnostics were a group of individuals who considered themselves as “an elite group that knows it all”. Their headquarters was in Alexandria, Egypt, where they had collected an enormous library.

What doctrines did the Gnostics teach?

They claimed to understand God and Salvation perfectly. They believed that they themselves were spirit, while all other people were soul and body. They believed that all matter was evil, and therefore the world produced from evil matter and possessed by evil demons cannot be a creation of a good God. Therefore they were willing for Christ to be the creator as long as it was agreed that He was an inferior god. Therefore they denied the reality and the necessity of the Atonement of Christ, and they claimed that Christ’s body was an illusion. They did not believe that Christ really came in the flesh. They rejected the Old Testament and its God Jehovah.

They were obsessed with a cult of angels, from which they derived the concept of guardian angels. They were obsessed with the concept of man, and of God, and of the world through religious experiences. They allegorized all the teachings of Scripture in order to achieve a strange conformity between Gnosticism and Christianity. The Gnostics worked hard on destroying the Person of Christ as coequal to God, and as having both a human nature and a Divine nature. Therefore we recognize that the Apostles in their letters were warning the churches against the influence of the Gnostics. We read that in 1 John 2:22, from which we can see their struggle against the Gnostics of the 1st century.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (Which means “the anointed One”, spoken of in the Old Testament.) He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:2-3
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Is this a dire prediction that the spirit of Gnosticism will prevail until the end of time?

I believe so, and I will show you that in this article.

1 John 5:1
¶ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Now turn to the right to 2 John 1:7

2 John 1:7
¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

And let me quote to you one verse from the Epistle to the Colossians 2:18

Colossians 2:18
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Proud Gnostics, worshipping angels.

Does that ring a bell for these days?
In my summary of what the Gnostics believe have you recognized some of the things that are going on today in the church and in the world?

Baal worship in the Old Testament days was almost impossible to stamp out. Amazingly, the worship of Baal persisted for more than 1500 years. God showed this as a warning how the Gnostics are almost impossible to stamp out in the New Testament period of time. For example, the 19th century German writer and philosopher Goethe was strongly influenced by Gnostic ideas.

But can we also see Gnostic ideas in the church today?

1. The Promised Seed

In this Epistle to the Galatians God shows us that we need to read the Bible very carefully. Each word and each letter of each word is significant.

Who is the Seed of Abraham?
Are these all the descendants of Abraham?

God says, “NO!” Pay attention! The word Seed is not plural, but singular. Do not replace the word Seed by “descendants”, because that is wrong.

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Is it not clear that God intended the word “seed” to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, and not to anyone else?

The singular word “seed” occurs many times in the Bible. It occurs 57 times in Genesis.

Is it not clear that God wanted us to see the relationship between Galatians 3:16 and many of the verses in Genesis?

Is it not clear that we are forbidden to change the word “seed” into the word “descendants”, because that is not what it means?

For example, let quote two verses, Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 21:12,

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy Seed be called.

Is it not clear that in these two verses Christ is in view, because Gal 3:16 says so?

And yet, when we open the NIV, which is the most popular Bible these days, we read there in Genesis 3:15 & Genesis 21:12

Genesis 3:15 (NIV),
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 21:12 (NIV),
But God said to him, Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned

In both verses the word “seed” is left out. In Genesis 21:12 seven words have been left out and ten words have been added. And yet, the NIV does show the word “seed” in Galatians 3:16. The authors of the NIV have deliberately changed the Old Testament prophecies in such a way that they cannot be connected with the Holy Spirit’s announcement of the fulfillment of the promise and the prophecies. By not translating the word “seed” in Genesis 3:15 and in Genesis 21:12, and instead thrusting in this place the word “offspring”, the NIV erases all the relationships between Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 21:12 with Galatians 3:16.

God the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, declares the original promise was in the singular “Seed”. Those using the word “offspring” are using a word that refers to children, which is considered to be plural. By using deliberately the word “offspring” is to misrepresent what God said, By this action they have destroyed entirely the statement here that this was not of many, but of one Seed, in the singular.

God the Holy Spirit carefully preserved the original prophecy, writing in all three verses the word “seed”, not seeds. And God the Holy Spirit was preserving those Scriptures through the centuries so that it was still written in the singular when the Apostle Paul was to refer to it, for the Holy Spirit knew that He would announce the fulfillment of the prophecy through the Apostle Paul in the 1st century AD. In the face of this marvellous Divine preservation, now these bold authors of the NIV carelessly or deliberately make it impossible for their readers to recognize and rejoice over God’s care for this precious prophecy and its fulfillment.

Were not these learned men aware of the words in Gal 3:16, and that the basic meaning in all three places was “seed”?

Of course they were aware of this. You will recognize their work as a Gnostic perversion. Remember, the Gnostics rejected, or belittled the OT prophecies for the purpose of attacking the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. They had no need for a Jesus who was also God Himself. For example, let me bring up one more verse to this accusation. Matthew 1:25,

Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The people who produced the NIV also doubted the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Therefore the NIV says,

Matthew 1:25
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son, and he gave him the name Jesus.

Was Jesus Mary’s “firstborn son”?

From the NIV you would not know if Jesus was the firstborn. What mountain of evidence must have been piled up against the word “firstborn” that it must be excluded from this verse! But the facts are that in every Greek manuscript the words “firstborn son” are found, except in the ancient manuscripts originating from Alexandria. It shows the evil work of the Gnostics in Egypt, who desired to remove any word that would imply the Deity of Jesus Christ. So they changed it to “a son”, as if His was only a common birth. The willfully blind textual critics would have us believe that the word “firstborn” has been sinfully added to every Greek, Syriac and Latin manuscript in all places in the inhabitable world. And at the same time they would have us believe that God has chosen the Gnostic heretics to preserve His precious words.

How ridiculous!

However, I want you all to be aware that in almost all the new versions of the Bible:

Words Identifying Christ as God Are Stolen Away

I am focusing on the NIV, because it is by far the most popular these days. But these attacks on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are permeating most other versions that have been produced in the 20th century. The amazing thing is that so many have jumped on the bandwagon of the NIV, discrediting the King James Bible and discrediting the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus said in:

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This is literally what the Greek Textus Receptus says. But according to the NIV this verse reads:

John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will die in your sins.

Jesus is telling the Jews that He is God, the great I AM, the only one who can save them from their sins. Yet the NIV goes so far as to make it only a claim in saying, “the one I claim to be”. You can see what adding a few words can do to rob the Scriptures of their power and to rob Christ of His Deity. We now go to John 9:35. The Lord Jesus has healed the blindness of a man who was blind from birth. This man has been examined again and again by the Pharisees, because they did not believe that he was blind from birth. But the man did not want to discredit Jesus. Therefore the man was cast out of the synagogue. He was now an outcast, having no church where he can go to. Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and Jesus found him again. Then He said,

John 9:35
Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

Notice that Jesus said, “the Son of God”. Why would the authors of the NIV write this as:

John 9:35
Do you believe in the Son of Man?

What is so bad about calling Christ “the Son of Man”?
Did not Jesus repeatedly refer to Himself as “the Son of Man”?

Yes He did. But the Lord Jesus Christ never told anyone to believe in “the Son of Man”. This is very important here, because the NIV and the other new versions are depending on Egyptian manuscripts for their evidence. They rely on 6 corrupt manuscripts from Alexandria, against 99.9% of all the evidence. They are denying that there is a systematic attempt to alter the Scriptures in the early centuries AD by the Gnostics, to do away with the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been known by the abounding array of historical references in the patristic literature. And did you know that the Devil and his demons never refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of Man? But men who believe that Christ was a created being are quick to seize the opportunity to portray Him as man, rather than God. Now we will consider:

2. Attributes of God

We read here in the beginning of John’s Gospel these words,

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The NIV translators have totally mangled this verse. There we read in the NIV Bible,

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

The patristic fathers were insistent on calling Jesus God. The Gnostic opponents were insistent on calling Jesus a created being, or at best an inferior god. John chapter 1 became the battleground, because it contains so many references to Christ as God. Valentinus, a 2nd century Gnostic, devised the clever theory that the Word and the Son of God were not the same person. The Gnostics referred to Christ as “the Beginning”, the first of God’s creation, and Valentinus referred to Him as “the Only begotten God”. In their lexicon the Word was a god. Gnostic lies never die. The Mormons and the Jehovah’s witnesses still refer to Christ as a god. But the fact is that only 7 Egyptian manuscripts have “the Only begotten God”, whereas 2000 manuscripts have “the Only begotten Son”.

The critics of the King James Bible have put their trust in Egypt. Is it not more logical to put your trust in the rest of Christendom where “the Only begotten Son” appears in every manuscript all over the inhabitable world? They should have done so especially after knowing that Alexandria was the center of the Gnostic movement. It is logical, from the common use of language, that God is eternal, and therefore God cannot be begotten. But if they trust the 7 manuscripts created in Egypt more than the thousands of manuscripts throughout the world, then you know that there is something wrong here. They trust the words preferred by the Gnostics, and the Unitarians, the Mormons, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am not exaggerating the facts. The United Bible Society, which is the organization that produced the NIV, listed as their authorities: Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, all three of them Gnostics who believed Christ was a created being.

In John 4:50 the Lord Jesus healed the sick son of a nobleman. Jesus was at Cana of Galilee, the son was sick at Capernaum. Then we read in Verse 50,

John 4:50
Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.

How did the translator of the NIV mishandle this verse?

John 4:50
Jesus replied, “You may go. Your son will live. The man took Jesus at His word and departed.

When Jesus said, “your son lives” He said it in the present indicative case. Right at that moment the son was alive, and the man believed that his son was alive at that moment. To put into Jesus’ mouth, “your son will live” changes the meaning altogether, for this means that the man must go and see if what Jesus said was true. Jesus knew all, being both omniscient as well as omnipotent, He could and did make the son well. And the man believed that Jesus could and did do this at that moment. This is not a case of “seeing is believing”, but of having faith in things not seen. We have here also a demonstration of changing the present for the future changes what God wrote. When the NIV writers say, “your son will live” they are denying the omniscience of Jesus when He declared at that moment, “your son lives”. This subtle change in the tense takes away both the omniscience and the omnipotence of Jesus, and also denies that Jesus can create faith in a man before the man can see whether or not what Jesus said is true.
The Bible teaches of itself the:

3. Plenary and Verbal Inspiration

Plenary means “full”. The Bible says of itself that it is the FULL and verbal inspiration of God.

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Literally, “holy men of God spake, having been borne along by the Holy Ghost”. In other words, when the Apostles and Prophets wrote Scripture their hands were moved by God the Holy Spirit. The words we read in the original Hebrew and Greek were the words God wrote. Moreover, God told us that these words were given by the inspiration of God, for He said in:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is profitable like that. But when we have a Bible that has been adulterated by the Gnostics then the doctrine of the Plenary and Verbal Inspiration of God cannot be taught. That Bible

is not FULL, and it is certainly not inspired by God. God is not pleased when we use a cursed book. Why would it be a cursed book? It is because God spoke in the Bible about the sin of:

Adding and Taking Away Words (Revelation 22:18-19)

We have seen in several verses how the Gnostics focused on destroying the image of Christ as coequal God. How successful they have been in their evil design to dethrone Christ in the Scriptures. Even if Satan planned it, and the Gnostics executed his plan, it is doubtful that they would believe that one day in the 21st century those same adulterated, corrupted manuscripts would be elevated to such a height that Bible version after Bible version would appear with their falsified scriptures intact in many places of the new Bible versions of the 21st century. They were no dummies, those Gnostics. By introducing just small changes here and there, by leaving out a word and adding a few words here and there, they were able to have Christians doubt the Virgin Birth of Christ, or His sinlessness, or His omnipresence, and so on. And most of all, the Deity of Christ has been put in question.

God’s words are precious, and especially precious are those verses which assure us that Christ is coequal God, ever existing, without beginning or end. Because of this it is important that that every lover of Christ and His Word must be alerted to what is being done in the new versions, each new one being more corrupt than those that went before. And having been informed, it is essential that all true believers spread the message that the Scriptures are being stolen away from them, under the guise of having a new version in the language of the people. Especially the NIV is the great offender in this case. What we see in practice is an application of adding and taking away from the Word of God. We read in

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God did us a big favor by giving us this warning. God said it because God knew that there would be many people who would try to draw attention to themselves by adding or by taking away from God’s words. The sad part is that those who follow their leaders into error are themselves subject as well to the plagues written in this Book. What are those plagues written in this Book? “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever”. Why would God assign such a stiff penalty for something that we might call a misdemeanor? It works this way. The Bible is given to us by God, and it portrays a word-image of Christ. The moment we add to the Bible, or we take away from the Bible, we have changed the image of Christ, and we have produced another god, an idol that cannot save. And so, it leaves people unsaved, who are instructing other people, who also remain unsaved, and so on. It is in this way that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation of them that hate Him. It is a fact of Scripture that unsaved people hate God, and God hates them.

When did it all start?
When was the beginning of this avalanche of new Bible versions, and critics of the KJ Bible?

Well it really started in 1881 when the Gnostic manuscripts were revived by two Roman Catholic Professors from Cambridge, by the names of Westcott and Hort. These two disbelieved the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and created the Revised Version of 1881, which was not a revised version, but a completely new translation from the Gnostic manuscripts from Alexandria. So when your Pastor stands up in front of the congregation and touts the NIV as being the best translation, he is being an intellectual idiot because he is using a cursed book. If you have been duped by your seminary trained Pastor into using a Gnostic Bible, then you need to change back to the KJ Bible, or else you will be using a book from Hell.

And when you have changed back to the KJ Bible you can enjoy:

God’s Great Gift to Us

Think on these verses and meditate on these. When we are tempted and are troubled by earthly troubles, we look to Jesus for help. When the Lord Jesus was tempted in the wilderness He said these words to our comfort:

Matthew 4:4
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

What is the effect of those words from the mouth of God?

Paraphrased God says they are for our benefit, so that we may overcome our troubles and may grow in the faith. God says in:

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

This is a fundamental principle, so let us be careful in handling the Word of God. Let us remember to speak the Word of God honestly.

2 Corinthians 4:2
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

This is how we must speak and handle the Word of God, with meekness and fear. Therefore we give thanks to God that He has given us so great a gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, and has given unto us the ministry of reconciliation among those whom He intended to save. We read in:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift, and pray that the Holy Spirit of Truth will guide us into all truth. AMEN.

2006-10-19T14:48:00.000+01:00

The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation

by Pastor Richard Bacon

NIV Examples [1]

These are examples of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS found in a single reading of the NIV. Here we will compare it with the earlier NASV just to demonstrate that the NIV is bad in comparison even with its modern siblings.
Romans 4:1, NIV: "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?"

NASV (text option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?"

NASV (margin option): "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh?"

First of all, notice that the NIV ELIMINATES the term "flesh," which is one of the most important theological terms in the entire Bible. The "flesh theology" begins in Genesis 2-3, and continues throughout the Scriptures. It is extremely significant in the Pauline understanding, especially in the book of Romans. This is NOT "concept by concept" or "dynamic equivalence" -- it is an unwarranted reduction of the text by those who simply did not want to include the idea in the English. The NASV, with a far greater scholarship, included the term while acknowledging they were not certain about what the phrase "according to the flesh" modified.

Hebrews 11:11, NIV (text option): "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

NIV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah, who was past age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who made the promise."

NASV (text option): "By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised;"

NASV (margin option): "By faith even Sarah herself received power for the laying down of seed, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered him faithful who had promised;"
The second NASV reading is a literal reading (so much despised by "the majority" according to James White) and points us to the mighty and important "seed theology" that runs throughout the Scripture, from Genesis onward. In fact, the first mention of the seed theology refers to the WOMAN'S seed. Thus Hebrews 11:11 has a very important place in the seed theology of Scripture. Yet, the NIV mentions it NOT AT ALL, and the NASV mentions it only in the margin. How convenient for a translation that translates "concept by concept" simply to leave out one of the MOST IMPORTANT concepts in the entire Scripture from its translation here. But this is not paraphrastic -- RIGHT! Neither is it an issue of textual criticism -- the UBS text does not vary from the TR at this point in Hebrews 11:11 -- both read "kataboleen spermatos elaben." The problem is not with the eclectic text -- the problem is with the NIV (and the NASV text option). The NASV text option is *slightly* paraphrastic and does away somewhat with a proper understanding of the seed theology of Scripture in this place. But it is not as paraphrastic as the NIV!

The NIV is so paraphrastic that they made up things to place in God's mouth. Now that is arrogance! Furthermore, the things they made up aren't even true! The NIV at Hebrews 11:11 attempts to make every scholar true and God a liar. Let me expatiate:
First of all, of the two NIV readings, only the marginal reading even *approximates* the Greek. And in approximating the Greek, it guts the passage by ignoring the seed theology. The text option, however, is just downright awful.

With absolutely no textual support in any textual tradition -- i.e. no Greek mss -- the NIV throws Abraham into the verse. It claims that Abraham was past age to have children -- which is clearly untrue, as Abraham's six sons by his second wife Keturah could testify (Genesis 25). Further, Abraham's behavior with the handmaid Hagar is proof enough that it was not Abraham, but Sarah who was "past age." But the NIV leaves us with the distinct impression by INTRODUCING Abraham without any textual basis at all that Abraham as well as Sarah was past age for "bearing children" (much less laying down seed, which is the theological import that is missing from both the text option and the margin option).

As I have continued to examine the NIV over the years I have been increasingly impressed with what a poor translation it actually is.

NIV Examples 2

This next part will be more of a book review of Robert Martin's _Accuracy of Translation and the NIV_. Hopefully nobody on the echo will be so shortsighted (and dare I say foolish) as to accuse Martin of being "KJV-only" or whatever the latest epithet happens to be for those who do not roll over for the "translation of the month."

Martin provides dozens (perhaps scores) of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV. He groups these inaccuracies under seven categories:

1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the translators had to make interpretive decisions about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4.

2. Addition of words in translation (pp. 22-28). To be fair, older translations have done this as well, but when the AV(KJV) adds words to clarify meaning it puts them in italics. The NIV does not -- it therefore gives no warning or notice to the reader as to what it has done. For example, 1 Cor. 7:9 states "it is better to marry than to burn," a statement which is subject to numerous interpretations. The NIV says, "to burn with passion," an addition to the text that is not indicated by any italics (or other flags) and that simply settles the interpretation for the reader. Acts 5:20 says, "all the words of this life," but the NIV reads "the full message of this new life." The word "new" is nowhere to be found in any Greek ms. It has been added by the NIV translators and clearly adds a "new thought" to this verse -- a thought which is man's and not God's at this place.

3. Omission of words (pp. 28-29). Be careful -- some words are omitted due to a difference in textual choice. That is not what Martin is speaking to here. The NIV often omits conjunctions and interjections. The word "lo" or "behold" occurs 62 times in Matthew, but the NIV omits it 37 times. Mark's gospel abounds in the term "immediately" and creates a major theme in Mark's Davidic perspective on Jesus. The NIV omits it in 5 places. In Matthew 10:6, "of the house" is simply left out, and "unto himself" is left out of Ephesians 1:5 -- neither of these omissions have any textual basis.

4. Erosion of technical vocabulary (pp. 29-38). There are parts of the Bible that use highly technical words -- words that have been used in a specifically Christian way by the author. Thus the NIV translates the Greek term *dikaioo* as "justify" except in Romans 2:13 and 3:20, where it reads "declared righteous." Martin correctly points out that justification "involves the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us," not simply a mere verbal declaration. Propitiation becomes the vague "sacrifice of atonement" and "atoning sacrifice" in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2.

5. Levelling cultural distinctives (pp. 38-40). "Girding up the loins of your mind" in 1 Peter 1:13 becomes "prepare your minds for action" in the NIV. The NIV does give the "sermonic gist" of the idea, but it eliminates the biblical imagery which calls to mind much of the OT, especially the priestly ministry. The priests were forbidden to approach the altar by steps, lest their nakedness be exposed. They were given special, anointed loin coverings (breeches) so that they could do so. Ordinary underwear would not cover "nakedness" any more than Adam's figleaves did. Thus the notion of girding up the loins has a priestly ring to it, which the NIV eliminates. See Exodus 20:26; 28:42-43; Lev. 9:30.

6. Slipping in subjective interpretations (pp. 41-62). Here is a handful of Martin's numerous illustrations: In each case, the first translation is word-for-word formal equivalency; the second is the NIV. In each case, the NIV decides to perform the office of pope for us by interpreting the "sense" of the Greek. John 17:11 in thy name
by the power of your name
Gal. 1:11 according to man
something that man made up
Phil. 2:1 in Christ
from being united with Christ
1 Thes. 4:2 through the Lord Jesus
by the authority of the Lord Jesus
These illustrations are minor. Important and major illustrations of this in the NIV are discussed by Martin.

NIV Examples 3

Robert Martin is Professor of Biblical Theology in Trinity Ministerial Academy in Essex Fells, NJ. He is hardly a slouch when it comes to the New Testament. I have related a short review of his work, published by Banner of Truth Trust (which is more Reformed on its worst day than Bethany House is on its best day) of Carlisle, PA and Edinburgh, UK. The previous post gave a list of six categories under which Martin upbraids (thanks for the word, Doug Palmer) the NIV for inaccuracies and worse. This post gives his seventh category.
7. Finally, paraphrasing (pp. 62-67). The problem with paraphrasing again is that it allows too much latitude to the translator to do our thinking and meditating for us. But the primary focus that Martin illustrates in this category is the manner in which the cadence and beauty of the original text is changed. Here are just a *few* of Martin's numerous illustrations. Remember, there is an entire generation being raise on this pap. . .
Matt. 12:49 and he stretched forth his hand toward his
disciples and said
NIV pointing to his disciples, he said
(the hand is eliminated)
Matt. 13:33 in three measures of meal
NIV into a large amount of flour
(the number three is eliminated)
Mark 1:2 before your face
NIV ahead of you
(the face is eliminated)
Luke 1:15 from his mother's womb
NIV from birth
(completely changes the meaning; pro-aborts can
take comfort here!)
John 1:20 and he confessed and denied not; and he
confessed
NIV and he did not fail to confess, but confessed
freely
(lessens the emphatic character of the language)
1 Thes. 4:6 the Lord is an avenger
NIV the Lord will punish
(the OT Avenger of Blood theology vanishes)
The kinds of errors outlined in this and the previous post reveal more than just the usual mistakes that are made in any translation. They reveal a cavalier attitude toward the doctrine of VERBAL inspiration. The NIV is not interested in translating the WORDS of God, but the CONCEPTS of God. Yet such cannot be done apart from the words. I would remind anyone interested in the truth, that Paul based an important aspect of the "seed theology" on the fact that the word occurred in the SINGULAR and NOT the PLURAL form. If even singulars and plurals are important to a correct understanding of God's word, how dare we take such an attitude toward it that we will translate "idea by idea" rather than word by word?
Btw, for a bit of CLEAR evidence that both NASV and NIV have a chiliastic bias, simply compare Matthew 24:30 in either of those versions with the ACCURATE translation to be found in the AV. It is not a sign that appears in the sky or heaven, but rather a sign is given that the Son of Man is in heaven. Again, while theologians of various eschatological stripe may dispute the *MEANING* of this text, the AV preserves the word order and sense of the Greek text and allows for more than one interpretation. At this point, both the NASV and the NIV remove "ambiguity" from the text by FORCING one interpretation onto the text.
If it is still in print, I would suggest that anyone interested in reading *both sides* of the dynamic equivalency philosophy get Jacob van Bruggen's critique of it in _The Future of the Bible_. It was published 10 or 15 years ago by Thomas Nelson.

The Bible was not written in 20th century "street English." It was written in Hebrew and Hebraized Greek. Attempts to make the Bible sound like a modern novel do it no service and in the opinion of numerous scholars (James White's unwarranted claim to a "majority of scholars" notwithstanding) are beginning to realize that the NIV went WAY OVERBOARD with a new idea -- an idea that is philologically unsound.

NIV Examples 4

I have given examples of how the NIV takes a cavalier attitude toward the Word of God and passes that attitude off as though it were following "standard" translation techniques. In reality, what the NIV often does is superimpose the theology of the translators onto the text of God's word.

Now that does not mean that I think that the NIV translators were any more (nor any LESS) depraved than the rest of humanity. The fact is, there is probably not a person in this echo who has a higher personal regard for Edwin J. Palmer than I do. It should be noted, however, that many of the more Reformed men on the translation committee dropped out of the work over time, no longer desiring to be associated with it. Also, in the years since 1965-78, many more Reformed linguistic scholars are coming to understand the numerous flaws contained in the NIV.
Further, if James White is to be believed (how could we doubt the scholarship of Mr. White?), the preface to the NIV is simply WRONG when it states "For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions of *Biblia Hebraica*, was used throughout." Yet Mr. White informs us that the NIV *really* used a non-standard ms variant at Psalm 12:7 (ENG) to come up with "you will keep us."

No, I do not think the NIV translators were any more wicked than the rest of us. I *DO* think that they were naive men who were bent on following a NEW (and bad) idea. Of course, that is what often happens when the work of the church (keeping and translating the Scriptures) is turned over to the academy. We have a similar result when the church turns over the training of its men to the seminary. We ought not be surprised when the rarified air of the ivory tower scholastic does not reflect the needs of the church (specifically for an accurate translation of God's words).

There are some posters on this echo who delight in pointing out "picayune" problems in the AV. Let us acknowledge that there are some difficulties which a godly generation of the church should address. Virtually every one of those difficulties could be addressed in marginal notes. There are some additional differences in punctuation between the common usage in 1769 (the last time such a task was undertaken) and the common usage today. Those items can be addressed without resorting to a wholesale change of the text into a style better suited to a magazine article than the Holy Word of God.

However, whatever problems may exist in the AV (and we are eager to rectify that which is in NEED of rectification); those problems recede to mere background clutter compared to the problems of the "latest and greatest" translations.

Significantly, Hebrew expressions are often literally brought into the Greek of the NT. Thus if we want a "guide" as to how we ought to translate "concept by concept" the NT is a pretty good guide, since it was written primarily by people who spoke Hebrew (or rather Aramaic) as their first language and were using Hebrew ideas and concepts as they wrote the Greek NT.

Now the AV, by following a formal equivalence of word to word translation, supplying words where needed but indicating that it has done so by the use of italics, preserves the Hebrew idiom in which the Bible was written. I know that there are many today in Japheth who despise the tents of Shem, but the fact is that Hebrew is a S(h)emitic language and we ought not despise those who are our own faith fathers if we are truly in Christ (Galatians 3:27-29; Romans 3:2; etc.).

IMO, and the opinion of an increasing number of scholars, the NIV departs from the biblical technique of translation. Thus for us to understand what is meant by stars and constellations in the New Testament we must have an idea from the Hebrew OT what the concepts were. It is impossible for us to understand what it means for the sun to be darkened without realizing the import it has from the OT. But by placing these ideas in modern "street English," the OT nuance is lost to the modern reader.

NIV Examples 5

I made the statement that the NIV has a chiliastic bias. One responder (Doug Palmer) referred to those who expose the translational bias of the NIV as "fools, liars or deceived." As I have done in the past, I will leave it to those who are reading to determine for themselves if Mr. Palmer's accusations are warranted.

I chose to review Mr. Martin specifically because he has the same theological background as Mr. James White (viz. Reformed Baptist). Of course numerous NON baptistic Reformed scholars could have been referenced, including Jacob Van Bruggen, James B. Jordan, Dr. Edward F. Hills, Gary North, etc. But I want to demonstrate that this is NOT an issue limited to those in the Reformed camp (in the historical sense) opposed to those outside it, but is simply a case of being forthcoming. The NIV is a REALLY BAD TRANSLATION. Anybody who would go "to the wall" for the NIV is simply brainwashed with respect to translation work. If translators working for the state department of the federal government used the same translation technique that the NIV uses, we would be at war within a month!

Let us compare Matthew 24:30 . . .
NIV: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will
appear in the sky."
AV: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of
Man in heaven."
What interpretations are possible for the NIV statement? Only one: some kind of sign will appear in the sky. The ONLY way one can understand the NIV is as a prediction of some kind of visible apparition in the atmospheric or stellar heavens.

Now, contrast the more accurate AV translation. There are three *possible* interpretations that are immediately obvious. The first is the same one the NIV forces upon us, namely some kind of sign will appear in the visible heavens (sky). The second is that some kind of sign will appear in the highest heavens. The third (and the one with the most historic Reformed expositors -- and I believe the *correct* one) is that a sign will appear the meaning of which is that the Son of Man has ascended to take his throne in heaven.

The point of this (and we could multiply examples) is that dynamic equivalence *tremendously increases the role of the translator in mediating the meaning of the text!* A "formal" translation gives us in English the text of the Greek, but does not force us to one interpretation or another. Dynamic equivalence *has somebody's interpretation built in*! It is an unavoidable consequence of the theory.

Obviously there is a sliding scale between an interlinear Bible at one end and an amplified paraphrase Bible at the other. My critique is not intended to do away with proper distinctions. However, the NIV clearly errs by being way too far to the interpretive paraphrase end of the scale. While some of the interpretive paraphrases are Calvinistic (and so I agree with *them* ), others clearly are *not.* The point is this: neither a Calvinistic nor an anti- Calvinistic bias is appropriate; neither a chiliastic nor an anti-chiliastic bias is appropriate; and above all, a cavalier attitude toward the WORDS GOD INSPIRED is altogether UNappropriate.

In my next post (NIV Examples 6) I will discuss some aspects of textual criticism we find in the NIV. I am not speaking now of the fact that there are differences of opinion among translators as to which ms family is preferable, for virtually *all* the modern translations except the New King James and the Modern King James (neither of which are trying to cash in on the popularity of the KJV -- naw, couldn't be that!) utilize a different textual tradition than the AV. No, the problem with the NIV is not *just* the fact that they use what many regard to be an inferior text type (though, naturally, the NIV translators did not so consider it), but the *arrogance* with which they reference their fave Alexandrian mss.

NIV Examples 6

As James B. Jordan says in "Rite Reasons" for July 1990, "Surely, when we come to pledge our allegiance to Him and hear His orders, we should honor him by using a precise and accurate translation." The NIV falls SERIOUSLY short of being such a translation. We have examined some reasons *why* it falls short.

We come now to consider what we might characterize as the "textual arrogance" of the NIV. There are two main textual traditions for the Greek NT. Each one has its proponents in the ecclesiastical and academic communities. There are some, who with the same arrogance we will find typical of the NIV, trumpet themselves to be the scholars. But the fact of the matter is that there are scholars on both sides of the issue.

For the sake of simplicity we can call these two traditions the Byzantine and the Alexandrian. If we were to get into the minutia of the subject we would find some overlap and even some mss which do not fall neatly into *either* category, but we are trying to keep this simple and straightforward.

The Byzantine tradition is the one that God saw fit to preserve publicly in the life of the church for sixteen centuries. It is the text of the Protestant Reformation and the text of the Eastern Orthodox churches. The Alexandrian tradition consists of some *very old* mss which a number of modern scholars, following primarily the lead of some nineteenth century scholars, believe is the true text of the Greek NT.

Virtually all the new English translations (excepting the NKJV and the MKJV and the *laughable* earlier KJV II) are made using the Alexandrian tradition as a base. I have gone on record in the past as believing this is an error. I believe it is a side effect of the failure of the church qua church to guard the Scriptures and Christian scholarship and the transfer of that function from the church to the academy. It also reflects, IMNSHO, the triumphalism of the concept of neutrality and what Dooyeweerd called the "science ideal" in the area of NT textual studies. I say all this to let you know that I am NOT without bias. Nobody is. However, there is a community of scholars who would have you *believe* that there is such a thing as neutrality toward God and his word and that you need look no further than them to find it.

Whatever the case may be with respect to the Byzantine tradition or the Alexandrian tradition, one of the more irritating (and, yes, oftentimes dishonest) aspects of the NIV is the arrogance with which it asserts the superiority of the Alexandrian tradition.

Since it sets off the "growl button" of some of the self-proclaimed prophets in this echo to compare anything to the AV, as though that is the LEAST POSSIBLE translation we should consider, I will compare the textual statements found in the margins of the NASV New Testament with those found in the NIV.

John 7:53 - 8:11 is not present in the Alexandrian witnesses; nor is Mark 16:9-20. The NASV includes these two passages in brackets, with a marginal note. The NIV more dramatically sets them off, and has a note in the text:

John 7:53 - 8:11

NASV note: "John 7:53 - 8:11 is not found in most
of the old mss."

NIV statement: "The earliest and most reliable
manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."
Mark 16:9-20

NASV note: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse
9 through 20."

NIV statement: "The most reliable early manuscripts do
not have Mark 16:9-20."

It is quite clear that the NIV editors are much more dogmatic in their assertions regarding the subject of text criticism that are the NASV editors. The NASV notes are accurate and correct; the NIV notes are pejorative and misleading. After all, who determines what constitutes "most reliable?" The NIV editors are obviously of the opinion that such is to be determined by *THEM* (spec. the "academy") and not the church as she has read and practiced the Scriptures for two millennia.

NIV Examples 7

This section will deal with the the desireability of "street English" over "literary English." Or perhaps it wouild be more accurate for me to say that it deals with the "undesirability" of street english.

As a literary work, the NIV *at best* leaves much to be desired. One major defect is in its comma usage. Thus in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we read, "May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless." For a list of three things, there needs to be a comma after "soul." This is the uniform requirement of every modern grammatical guide of which I am aware. The fact that pop magazines ignore the serial comma is no justification for someone who wants to be taken seriously to do so.

However, the comma use objection is minor compared to the manner in which the NIV sacrifices the literary artistry of the Bible to vulgar usage. Simply compare "Abraham lifted up his eyes" with "Abraham looked up." Nobody can seriously suggest that the second is either more literary or any more easily understood. Why remove eyes?

I, along with many others not only in the ecclesiastical community, but in the academic community as well, object to this cheapening and idiotification (yes, that is a correct usage of idiot -- look it up in your _Funk & Wagnall's_) of the Word of God to street rhetoric. It is an insult to the man (and child) in the pew. It does *NOT* encourage growth in grace or knowledge either one.

In an earlier post I demonstrated this with Romans 4:1. We don't want to "burden" our readers with such technicalities as the theology of the flesh, so we simply paraphrase it away. So too, a word like "propitiation" is clearly just too long for some stupid or moronic Christian to understand. We'd better paraphrase that one as well. Of course, it is so unlikely that the pastor would actually *teach* the meaning of such a word, that we need to rid ourselves of it. Thus the NIV in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2. Interestingly, 40 years ago when the RSV did the SAME thing by changing propitiate to expiate, there was a hue and cry from evangelicals.
I have never in all my years found a layman as stupid as the professors in seminary tell you they are! The practice of "dumbing down" the Bible makes no more sense than painting over the old masters with representations of the Marlboro Man.

The NIV is unsuitable for a study Bible -- it is simply too wrong at too many places. But the artistic (literary) downgrade also makes it unsuitable for public reading. One is therefore left to wonder for what purpose the NIV *is* suitable.

It is the translational equivalent of the "60's" mentality. It is a reflection of the "away with all tradition" of that period. Just as the RSV is a reflection not so much of the Word of God as it is of English and American liberalism, so also the NIV is a reflection, not of the Word of God, but of the "post-hippie-I-gotta-be-me" evangelicalism.

The church should maintain a higher standard for worship and study than the NIV affords us. Perhaps I am an optimist, but I do *NOT* believe the American public is so poorly educated that a precise and accurate translation of the Scriptures would be unintelligible to it.
The Authorized Version (KJV) was translated with a view to being read aloud in church, and though it is imperfect from this standpoint in places, yet it clearly reflects this concern. Modern translations are made for individuals who are working in their studies (the triumph of the academy over the church), and thus versions like the NASV do not read well aloud. The general cheapening of language in the NIV makes it altogether unsuitable for public reading.

NIV Examples 8
OK, so this section has nothing to do with the NIV *per se.* It is however a response to those who maintain that one of the reasons that there is a great "need" for a modern translation *like* the NIV is the use of archaic terms such as "thou/thee/thy/thine" in the KJV.

First, let us establish that "thee and thou, etc." are *NOT* archaic or obsolete English. This is clear from the fact that everybody knows what they mean. Now if you want to try some archaic, or "olde Englishe" try Chaucer as originally written.

Second, let us establish that "thee and thou" were *NEVER* common street English, including that of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I. Neither are they the equivalent of "du" in German. That is, they are not familiar as opposed to formal.

Rather, "thee and thou" are *poetic* forms used in religious language and love poetry! Every language including the Hebrew of the Psalms has special poetic forms (see Gesenius' _Hebrew Grammar_, sect. 2,q-r; etc.).

Why then should we stand idly by while the richness of our language (the language of the Bible in both Hebrew and Greek) is being tossed away by aging relics of the 60s? If they wish to write love poems and hymns using the modern term "you" to relate to one another, then by all means let them. But they may be pleased to keep their anti-literary hands off God's inspired word.
Here is a quick rundown for the non-grammarians reading this series of posts. A "pronoun" is a word that "stands in for" another noun or noun-phrase. A "personal pronoun" is one which stands for a person. The personal pronouns are classified as first person, second person and third person by their relationship to the one speaking. The speaker himself and any others he chooses to include as part of his "group" is called first person. The person(s) TO WHOM the speaker is speaking is called second person. The person(s) ABOUT WHOM the speaker is speaking is called third person. Thus we have the following table which we can construct in English, once we differentiate between the purpose of the various pronouns:

NOM OBJ POSS

1st singular I Me My (or mine)
plural We Us Our (or ours)

2nd singular Thou Thee Thy (or thine)
plural Ye You Your (or yours)

3rd singular He/She/It Him/Her/It His/Hers/Its
plural They Them Their (or theirs)

NOM=nominative = case of the subject

OBJ=objective = case of the object of the verb, indirect
object of the verb or object of a preposition

POSS=possessive = case of possessing or sourcing.

Those who retain the the AV on the ground of its intrinsic translational, textual, and linguistic superiority to modern translations have sometimes been charged with following the example of 16th century Roman Catholics who venerated the Latin Vulgate and insisted that sacred worship should not be conducted in a known language. Of course, such is *not* fair criticism, because a *VERY HIGH* proportion of the vocabulary of the AV continues in common use today.

The preface of the NIV rightly points out that the ancient tongues (Hebrew & Greek) did not use a special form of the word "you" to address God. However, a cursory reading of the AV will soon clarify the fact that it is the *modern* translations which have attempted to keep "thee and thou" when addressing God and "you and you" when addressing mortals. That is NOT the case with the AV. The AV usage is simply a reflection of the singular 2nd person pronouns used in the Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were originally written by the inspiration of God. However, in reading through the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures numerous times in my life, I have never found a *single instance* in which God is addressed using a 2nd person PLURAL pronoun. Not once!

Some interesting places to look for "thou and thee:"

In Luke 22:31, the NIV rightly explains in a footnote that the term "you" as used in that verse is plural. But then it FAILS to mention that in verse 32, the word "you" is singular in Greek! Of course, those who use the AV have no difficulty discerning that even without footnotes!
Exodus 4:15, "THOU shalt speak ... I will be with THY mouth" referring to Moses himself. But then "and will teach YOU what YE shall do" refers to the entire nation of Israel.
Again, examples could be multiplied. I will do just that in the next section (Thou and Thee).

Thee and Thou

In the previous section (NIV Examples 8), I pointed out the use of the terms "thee and thou/thy and thine." I explained that they were *NEVER* common street English, but were a poetic device used by the AV translators to reflect the use of singular 2nd person pronouns from Hebrew and Greek.

At the conclusion of that post, I gave two examples -- in Luke 22:31-32 and in Exodus 4:15 demonstrating that it really becomes quite difficult to tell who is being addressed without being able to distinguish properly between singular and plural pronouns.

This post simply follows up on that one with some more examples of the same ambiguity that arises from not properly translating singulars and plurals.

Exodus 29:42, "This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout YOUR generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD where I will meet YOU, to speak there unto THEE." The *you*, referring to the children of Israel, is explained in the following verse, but *thee* refers to Moses, who had the holy privilege of hearing the words of God directly (Leviticus 1:1). And yes, before Jeff Doles asks, I believe a tape recorder would have picked them up.

2 Samuel 7:23, "An what nation in the earth is like THY people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for YOU great things and terrible, for THY land, before THY people, which THOU redeemedst to THEE from Egypt." Here David prayed to God in the second person singular, but referred to the people of Israel as YOU. What confusion could result if this important distinction were done away? It could be incorrectly thought that David was praying in part to the nation -- or that the land belonged to the people and not to God. Either misconstruction invites error.

Matthew 26:64, "Jesus saith unto him, THOU has said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." THOU refers to the High Priest. YE and YOU are open to some interpretation, but AT LEAST include all those who were standing there IN ADDITION to the high priest.

John 3:7, 11, "Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again." The message was spoken to the individual Nicodemus, but obviously has wider application. So also at verse 11, "I say unto THEE...that YE receive not our witness."

1 Corinthians 8:9-12, "Take heed lest...this liberty of YOURS.... If any man see THEE which hast knowledge... through THY knowledge...but when YE sin." The plural form likely refers to all church members, but the singular form to those in responsibility.

I would invite readers to get out a "modern" translation that has dropped the use of the 2nd person singular/plural distinction and read these passages along with Numbers 16:8-11; Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Isaiah 33:2-4; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 6:4-7; Matthew 11:23-24; Matthew 18:9-10; Matthew 18:22-35; Matthew 20:21-22; Matthew 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 5:4; Luke 6:30-31; Luke 9:41; Luke 10:13-14; Luke 16:25-26; Luke 22:31-32; John 1:50-51; James 2:16; etc.

Surely you will notice that replacing "thou/thee/thy/thine" with the ambiguous "you" does NOT clarify, but tends to muddy the Scriptures.

Perhaps also, as a result of these few posts, there will be a greater appreciation for the important distinctions that are retained by the AV. Rather than seeing "thou/thee/thy/thine" as a reason for adopting a MODERN translation, we should see them as being a more accurate depiction of the WORDS GOD INSPIRED.

Pastor Richard Bacon