Living Water of Washington DC. A Christian Outreach Ministry.

Bible Versions: What's All the Fuss About?

SYNOPSIS

There has been a movement among some Christians in recent years to exclusively use the authorized King James Version of the Bible for study and worship. Unremarkably, this movement is called the "King James Only" Movement. Although I am a big fan of the KJV, I ordinarily preach using the NIV so that the archaic English of Mr. King James does not befuddle listeners, for many of whom English is a second language. But I sometimes quote from other versions of the Bible, including the KJV, when I think that a passage is rendered more faithfully in another version. For study, I use the KJV extensively (but not exclusively).

Happily, for most of the Bible there is no difference in meaning between NIV- and KJV-rendered passages. But sometimes there are, and I urge any serious student of the Bible to be very cautious of some of the differences. While I do not adhere to the KJV-Only position, I admit that I agree with many of the grounds for that position. My concern is not so much about the NIV itself and areas where it differs from the KJV, as about the general direction that modern Bible translation is headed, which is further and further away from the precise meanings of the words of the original manuscripts. I believe the differences, though subtle and often insignificant now, will only widen in the future. My concern is about the downward cascade into which many theologians have thrown the biblical canon during recent years. The real problem is occurring in the newest translations, and will worsen if the trend continues.

To illustrate this trend, I will compare the KJV and NIV, both of which I deem to be good translations. I choose them for a couple of reasons.

First, I choose the NIV in the comparison because it is a reliable modern translation based on data from more newly found texts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus and the Dead Sea Scrolls); it is representative of the content of the more recently discovered sources and is a good example of modern translations in general. Similarly, I choose the KJV not simply because it is the KJV, but because the KJV New Testament is the best known English translation of the Greek Textus Receptus, which, you will see, contains different words from those recently discovered texts. My objective is to compare source documents used in modern English translations such as the NIV against the Textus Receptus, which is the source text for the KJV, with the assumption that the NIV and KJV are faithful translations of their respective sources.

Second, I choose the NIV and KJV because I imagine that most of our readers are familiar with them both and are able to do their own comparisons to draw their own conclusions.

In the tables that follow, you will find some verses translated into English that show differences between the Textus Receptus and more recently discovered manuscripts. We'll start with some simple differences and work through more serious differences between the Textus Receptus and the "older" (recently discovered) manuscripts. Obviously, the more recently discovered manuscripts are used in the more recent English translations such as the NIV and NASB. I put the word "older" in quotes ("") because those manuscripts are the ones found, so far, that are oldest according to the best science available today, which is not infallible. Furthermore, all the manuscripts discovered and existing today, whether used for the KJV or for the newer translations, are merely copies of the actual original manuscripts penned by the inspired writers. The actual originals are called the "autographs", and they have not been discovered and might perhaps never be found. If the autographs were ever found, what a marvelous discovery that would be!

Examine the side-by-side comparisons of the contents of the Textus Receptus (translated into the English KJV) against more recently discovered "older" texts (NIV). Differences are highlighted in bold. Consider this discussion an attempt to call attention to a potentially serious problem, which is the gradual distortion of God's word in modern (and postmodern) translations of the Bible. Again, I don't consider the NIV to be a poor translation, but there are some troublesome issues that lead me to wonder if the NIV is an incremental step toward future versions of the Bible that will not faithfully present the word of God contained in the original manuscripts.

Let's begin.

The "older" manuscripts (used in newer translations) are missing key occurrences of the words "Jesus" and "Christ", and diminish the identity of "Lord" in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Verse	KJV	NIV
John 4:42	we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.	we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.
Acts 2:30	Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;	But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
Rom 1:16	For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ	I am not ashamed of the gospel
1 Cor 16:22	If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.	If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him.
Gal 4:7	Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.	So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.
Gal 6:15	For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.	Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Philip 4:13	I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.	I can do everything through him who gives me strength.
2 Tim 4:22	The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.	The Lord be with your spirit.
Mark 9:24	And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.	Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
Luke 9:57	And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.	As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
Luke 23:42	And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. [This is the thief on the cross speaking to Jesus on the cross. RB]	Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Eph 3:14	For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ	For this reason I kneel before the Father
Col 1:2	Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	Grace and peace to you from God our Father.

Now we're going to look at more significant differences. So far we've only looked at how the "older" manuscripts of the New Testament are missing instances of the words "Jesus", "Christ", and "Lord", sometimes in key passages. This might not be seem very important, after all, the "older" manuscripts do refer to Jesus as "Christ" and "Lord" many times, so what's the big deal? Also, to be fair, there are instances where the "older" texts contain the words Jesus or Christ but the Textus Receptus does not.

But now we're going to explore passages where omissions and changes of words in the "older" texts begin to cast doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God, thereby opening the doors for even more radical changes.

The newer translations omit important references to the Lord Jesus Christ as God, His identity as the unique Son of God, His Incarnation, His eternality, the Second Coming, and the triune God.

The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word begotten. If Jesus was "the one and only" Son, then how are we supposed to understand the promise found in 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God" and Galatians 4 (see verse in table above)? Are we the sons of God or is He the one and only Son of God? The one thing that does not change is this: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God. Jesus is unique in His Deity, at one with His Father (John 10:30), and He has attributes of God that He cannot share with us. He is our Lord and not our equal.

One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the Deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus is God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJV reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" But the NIV says, "He appeared in a body", in accordance with recently discovered manuscripts. "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. But there is no clear antecedent in the context - are we to presume that "He" refers to God Himself or someone or something else? We know that Jesus is the subject in 1 Timothy 3:16 and the KJV is clear that it was God who was "manifest in the flesh". Therefore, Jesus is God. But in newer Bible versions, this message is severely weakened. This is no trivial matter. The teaching about the Deity of Jesus Christ has been minimized (or eliminated) in some churches today as many congregants make appeal to the newer Bible translations for support.

It's obvious from these verses that there are theological issues that must be resolved before proponents of either Bible version can completely agree. I do not present an exhaustive case for one position or another in this article, but I do wish to point out differences in so that you can be aware of them and think about them as you study the Bible. Certainly, in-depth study of the Bible involves careful comparison of different translations. Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity, for example, will find that their beliefs are strongly supported by the words in the KJV, less so by those in the NIV.

The "older" manuscripts are missing entire verses, sentences, and long phrases.

The examples of missing verses given below include the well-known editing of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Luke and the removal of the last eleven verses of the Gospel of Mark. A friend once pointed out to me that it seems unlikely that God would choose to end the inspired gospel of Mark with the words "they were afraid". But in the "older, more accurate" manuscripts, the God-inspired book of Mark ends with the words "they were afraid". In the NIV there is a note defending this strange and abrupt ending, stating that "the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". So according to the NIV, that is how God would choose to end His gospel through Mark, based on "the most reliable" early manuscripts -- "they were afraid"?

 

Verse	KJV	NIV
Matt 6:13	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.	And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt 18:11	For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.	Nothing.
Matt 23:14	Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.	Nothing.
Mark 11:26	But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.	Nothing.
Mark 16:9-20	[255 words]	Nothing.
Luke 9:55-56	But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.	But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.
Luke 17:36	Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.	Nothing.
Rom 8:1	There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.	Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
1 Pet 4:14	If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.	If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.

The "older" manuscripts diminish the importance of repentance, obedience, clean and humble living, fasting, the cost of discipleship, and heavenly (not earthly) reward.

The "older" manuscripts omit references to prophecy identifying Jesus as the Christ, diminish continuity between the Testaments, and contain a blatant error in Mark 1:2.

In the NIV, Mark 1:2 reads, "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way". What's the problem? The Old Testament verse cited in Mark 1:2 is not written in Isaiah. It is Malachi 3:1. An actual quote from Isaiah occurs later in Mark 1:3. In the KJV, Mark 1:2 correctly reads: "As it is written in the prophets…"

The "older" manuscripts diminish the importance of Christ's shed blood, sacrifice and substitutionary atonement for our sins.

Jesus Christ redeemed us through His blood. He was broken for us. Newer versions of the Bible, based on "older" texts, do not emphasize His shed blood. Some professing "Christians", such as Gnostics, do not believe Jesus took upon Himself our sins. But we know salvation is only through His blood.

The "older" manuscripts diminish the severity of God's Judgment.

The "older" manuscripts are ambivalent on the Virgin Birth.

We know that Joseph, husband of Mary, was not Jesus' father. To say that Joseph is Jesus' father calls into question the Virgin Birth. The repeated references to Joseph as Jesus' "father" in modern translations is a subtle attack on the Virgin Birth. The modern translations also shy away from referring to Jesus as the Son of God, compared to the Textus Receptus.

In Luke 2:33 and 2:43 of the KJV Joseph is not called Jesus' father, so that there is no confusion about His Father being God the Father. But Joseph is called Jesus' father in newer versions. This casts doubt on the Virgin Birth, the role of the Holy Spirit in His conception and His divine nature. Also, recall that John 9:35 of the KJV cites a rare instance in which Jesus uses the phrase "Son of God" in reference to Himself. But newer translations of the Bible have Jesus using His title of "Son of man" in that particular verse.

The "older" manuscripts diminish the importance of Scripture, the infallibility of Scripture, and the dangers of false doctrine.

What is to account for all of these differences? As stated at the beginning of this article, some differences can be explained by the different source manuscripts used in the translations. There are many other reasons, such as methods of translation, objectives of translation (e.g. word-for-word presentation vs. dynamic equivalence) and more, which I hope to discuss in future letters. My intent has been to point out in this article differences in content between the source texts used for most English versions of the New Testament- the Textus Receptus vs. the Alexandrian Texts (which are the "older" manuscripts used in most newer versions). The lists above are not exhaustive; I only include some examples. Also, I only deal with some important discrepancies occurring in translations of the New Testament texts, but there are plenty more differences occurring in the Old Testament texts.

So then which manuscripts are authentic? Some scholars say that the newer translations, such as the NIV, are better because they are based on the older manuscripts. They say that the older age of the manuscripts indicates that they more closely resemble the originals. This is a reasonable assumption, but it is only an assumption nonetheless. Does a manuscript's older age "prove" its greater authenticity? Or does it make the manuscript appear to be more authentic because of a logical inference based on its age? An older document is just that- an older document, possibly better but not necessarily. Only God's everlasting Word is perfect and incorruptible. The only absolute, unchanging Truth is the Word of God which facilely overwhelms man's wisdom and defies secular science (Is 29:14, 1 Cor 1:19). I have faith that God preserves His sacred Word in textual transmission, even if the originals are never found. The autographs could, conceivably, differ greatly from the "older" texts and could conceivably match precisely the wording of the Textus Receptus. But the modern translators proudly affirm that older is more authentic as though it were fact. Who is to say that even older texts won't be discovered later on? Then those texts would be proclaimed by the scientific world as "the most authentic".

Some scholars who argue that the Textus Receptus is not authentic use new archaeological discoveries to refute the orthodox Gospel (as well as to refute the Bible itself). "Older" manuscripts discovered in Qumran (near Jerusalem) and Nag Hammadi in Egypt pose serious threats to fidelity in the translation of the News which we received from the Church fathers (Textus Receptus means "Received Text", also called the Majority Text). I give no credence to science when it contradicts the Word. I accept God's Word as Truth first, and then I accept the scientific perspective when it is consistent with God's Word. The question is: which of the source manuscripts is a faithful preservation of God' infallible Word? I won't give a point-blank answer to that question in this article (you've probably figured out which way I lean, anyway), but I will point out the fact that "proofs" based on man's wisdom don't "prove" anything. Only the Holy Spirit brings people into Christ, and the Holy Spirit is revealed by His everlasting Word. When professing Christians use man's wisdom and man's proofs to guide their faith and to make decisions about faith, then they can easily be misled. Many fall into dangerous Gnostic revisionism. Put your faith in Scripture that you believe is authentic and God-breathed before you put faith in the wisdom of any man. And when pondering the matter, keep this simple fact in mind: older copies of manuscripts, if they really are older, are not necessarily better. They're just older.