Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?


While the NIV still commands a whopping 40% of Bible sales and is listed in first place among Bible purchased by the CBA, many people are still waging a war against the NIV.

Bible-translation-bestsellers-April-2017
(Source: http://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0417)

Even in 2017 DOTB gets upset ranters commenting on blog posts with false information and condemnation for all who read the NIV. The typical rant usually looks something like the following:

The NIV and all the other new (per) versions come from the corrupt Egyptian texts (codex sinaiaticus and Vaticanas and were translated by a couple of satan worshipping reprobates (Westcott and Hort) to say that the KJV is not a good translation makes me angry considering that people died to get that bible translated and printed. The arrogance is breathtaking. William Tyndale and the 40 some scholars who sweated blood for 7 years to get the word of God out to the world under the name King James Bible would be face palming in heaven. The chief editor of the NIV is a sodomite and the chief stylistic editor is a dyke! But carry on reading your easy to read garbage so called bible which tells you to cut off your genitals in Galatians 5:12! (Source: http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2016/07/21/should-christians-hate-the-reprobates/)

Other similar claims are commonly made about the NIV, many of which are dirived from Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions. Below we are going to address a very common claim about the NIV translation team, namely, that the NIV translation committee was somehow influenced by homosexual translators. Some, like the comment above, go as far as to say that the chief editor of the NIV was a sodomite.

This claim, in it’s many forms, is simply false.


Who Translated And Edited The NIV?


The translation team for the original NIV was adjusted a bit as editing got heavier but the list of the first initial translators and editors is below. Their academic institutions are listed with them as they were when the NIV was first translated. Some of them have since changed institutions.

From 1965 to 1983 the members of the CBT [1] were:

  1. E. Leslie Carlson: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Larry Walker: Mid-America Reformed Seminary
  2. Edmund P. Clowney: Westminster Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Robert Preus: Concordia Theological Seminary
  3. Ralph Earle: Nazarene Theological Seminary
  4. Burton L. Goddard: Gordon Divinity School
  5. R. Laird Harris: Covenant Theological Seminary
  6. Earl S. Kalland: Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary (Denver)
  7. Kenneth S. Kantzer: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
    1. ** Richard Longenecker: McMaster Divinity College
  8. Robert Mounce: Bethel College (St. Paul).
    1. ** Youngve Kindberg: International Bible Society.
      1. ** Donald Wiseman: Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union
  9. Stephen W. Paine: Houghton College
  10. Charles F. Pfeiffer: Central Michigan University
    In 1974 the “long-inactive” Pfeiffer was replaced by Kenneth L. Barker
  11. Charles C. Ryrie: Dallas Theological Seminary.
    1. ** Ronald Youngblood: Wheaton Graduate School, Bethel Seminary
  12. Francis R. Steele: North Africa Mission.
    1. ** William J. Martin: Trinity College
      1. ** Bruce Waltke: Reformed Theological Seminary
  13. John H. Stek: Calvin Theological Seminary
  14. John C. Wenger: Goshen Biblical Seminary
  15. Marten H. Woudstra: Calvin Theological Seminary
  16. * Elmer Smick: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
  17. * Herbert Wolf: Wheaton College
  18. * Gleason Archer: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  19. * Roy Hayden: Huntington College

*Added during expanded editing processes from 1976-1978.
** Added due to death and/or absence of original members.

The following names are listed as literary consultants which were used by the NIV committee. The role of such consultants were not usually of translation but of style, English idiom usage, and sentence construction and word-flow. They were not involved in translation or theological formation.

  1. Edward M. Blaiklock: University of Auckland, New Zealand.
  2. Frank E. Gaebelein: Headmaster Emeritus, The Stony Brook School.
  3. Charles E. Hummel: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship.
  4. Elisabeth Elliot Leitch: Writer.
  5. Calvin Linton: The George Washington University.
  6. Kathryn R. Ludwigson: Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College.
  7. Alvin Martin: Fuller Theological Seminary.
  8. Virginia Mollenkott: William Paterson College.
  9. Margaret Nicholson: Author-Editor.
  10. W. T. Purkiser: Kansas City, Missouri.
  11. Walter R. Roehrs: Concordia Theological Seminary.
  12. Samuel J. Schultz: Wheaton College.
  13. John T. Timmerman: Calvin College.
  14. Richard F. Wevers: Calvin College.

 


Who Were The Gay Translators?


Before we address who the alleged homosexuals where that translated the original NIV, let’s first establish that just because a person is a homosexual and they assisted in a Bible translation, that does not mean that the translation is corrupt. Like nearly all modern translations, each translator is assigned a block of text to translate and comment on. Thus, if a gay person was given the task of translating Genesis, in no way would their influence have an affect on whoever translated Leviticus and especially not on New Testament books. Almost universally, Hebrew scholars and Greek scholars stick to their main language. They do not jump back and forth.

That being said, below are the supposed translators that “corrupted” the NIV.

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott: Literary consultant

Virginia was listed in all references as a literary consultant. She has also said herself that all she did was provide services as a stylistic consultant. She did not participate in any translation work. In fact, in one letter she wrote to Michael J. Penfold, she lamented the use of “homosexual” in the Old Testament because it was too anachronistic. A portion of the letter reads as follows:

I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept “homosexual” is too anachronistic to be utilized in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. (Virginia Mollenkot)

As a stylistic consultant Virginia would have had virtually no influence on how the Bible was translated. Rather, she advised on which English words, phrases, and idioms, would best communicate the ideas behind the translator’s work. She also engaged in style advice which would been things like sentence structure and readability, specifically for American English speakers.

It’s pretty clear that Virginia was not a major player in the translation, not that that would have made a difference.

Dr. Marten Woudstra: Chair of the Old Testament committee

As some would point out, the real offender of corruption is Dr. Marten Woudstra. To be fair to the critics, Dr. Woudstra did eventually come out as a homosexual. However, he has no publications addressing the matter. He has very few public mentions of the topic and he was not known to have a “partner”. Of the known homosexual Christians in the academic world, from the 70’s, Woudstra was the least vocal on the subject.

However, Woudstra did comment on the nature of the Old Testament and it’s use of sexual terminology.

“There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today.” (Dr. Martin Woudstra)

Many would argue in favor with Woudstra’s reasoning. However, Woudstra’s view does not necessarily give the stamp of approval on modern homosexual practices. He never said that homosexuality isn’t in the Bible or that it’s ok to practice. The better question is: does Woudstra’s perceived position on homosexuality affect the actual translation efforts of the NIV?

Most who knew and worked with the man would say that he was professional and kept his personal life out of his work. Woudstra worked with a slew of great theologians, even F.F. Bruce. Woudstra was revered by the conservative staff at Calvin Seminary, where he wworked.He was also on a committee in the early 70’s to establish a denominational position on the issue of homosexuality. The report that came from committee did not condone homosexuality, even though Woudstra was, himself, a homosexual. This seems to be a trend in his academic works. One would even argue Woudstra had reservations about even his own opinions on the topic.

On the more practical side of things, one must ask what the role of the OT Chairman actually was? As chairman of the OT committee, did Woudstra have influence over the translation of the entire OT? The simple answer is no. He did not get to dictate how the entire OT was translated. He simply oversaw the work.

Additionally, from looking at his previous work it can be suggested that he was not the type of chairperson to force his opinion on others. It should also be noted that he was ONLY involved in the 1973 – 1978 NIV which was only printed for about 6 years, before another revisions was made. Clearly, whatever influence he had was very limited.


Conclusion


If one looks at the passages in the NIV where homosexuality is discussed, it is obvious that the Bible still condemns homosexuality. The question of whether or not Dr Woudtra “corrupted” the NIV can be answered clearly by looking at the OT passages that his team translated. Here are the passages below, including some in the NT.

NIV – Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: this is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. (Romans 1:26-27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. (1 Corinthians 6:9) [Homosexual offenders referring to those who have homosexual sex]

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7)

It is clear that the only passages that seem “soft” on homosexuality is 1 Corinthians, yet that is a NT passage, for which Dr. Woudstra would have no hand in translating. He was the chair of the OT committee not the the NT committee. Furthermore, the passage still condemns homosexuality. It just uses a phrase (homosexual offenders) that seems a bit strange because it’s not a common phrase. They could have used a better phrase, like they did in later revisions. The new NIV now reads.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men. (1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV 2011)

Any other passage on the matter are also firmed up in later revisions of the NIV. Even if the original was a tad soft (which it wasn’t) the newer revisions correct any confusion.


[Featured image from www.saltradioministries.com]

44 thoughts on “Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?”

  1. Pingback: his truth
  2. Ridiculous arguments…the “stylistic consultant” that recommended wording had nothing to do with translation…alright. Words. Language. I must be confused what translation is supposed to attend to. The OT Chairman didn’t do anything but “oversee” the translation of the OT. Oh. Just sat there watching. It’s not even worth explaining the corruption in the verses you offer as holding their original meaning and the mere fact that you justify God’s Word not applying to today’s world views as reasonable really let’s the believer know you are completely deceived or deceptive.

    Let’s not forget the corruption goes far beyond homosexuality, not to mention the fact that it’s published by the same people who publish the satanic Bible & all other sorts of witchcraft texts.

    Does the NIV indicate what punishment is promised to those who lead His people astray? Be on guard, be discerning, ask our Heavenly Father for wisdom. Praise God, ever faithful.

    Reply
    • I realize that most people don’t understand the translation process, so allow me to assist. Style consultants are not hired to change the meaning of words. They are paid to help the translators arrive on phrasing that is meaningful to non-scholars. For example, the 1995 NASB is a great translation but is sometimes hard to read because it uses phrases that are technically correct but not well known among the average reader. They did not make style or readability a priority. They consulted 9 different critical specialists on not one style consultant (in the latest 2020 version).

      What does a style consultant do? They tell you to use words like “age” rather than “eon”…. or how to use commas properly for readability. The comma issue is more important than you might realize since most manuscripts contained no punctuation. They DO NOT alter the meaning of words. That is what translators are for.

      What does the committee chair do on a translation team? They act as a manager, assigning tasks, answering questions, reviewing translations, etc. They are not, however, assigned books to translate usually.

      Nevertheless, this article is about whether or not the NIV was corrupted by these people and unfortunately you failed to list a single verse that was “corrupted” by their individual. All the passages concerning homosexuality read nearly identical to other contemporary translations. None have been altered to appear pro-homosexuality.

      Reply
  3. You made me dislike the NIV version even more. You aren’t discrediting the facts stacked against it, you’re simply stating that they “aren’t that bad”. You have made the choice to overlook them, and that’s fine! But you can’t ask the internet to join you in overlooking things that, for me, could have been here say, but you proved are actually true. These people were, in fact, who they are rumored to be (or at least, in my circles). I am disappointed and squirming at the fact that you cannot at least give these discrepancies any validity, rather than time and again stating your opinion that they are not a big deal.

    Reply
    • I don’t think you understood the material very well so I will highlight a few things.
      1. The primary claim is that there was 1 or more homosexual translators that corrupted the NIV translation.
      That claim is false on two accounts. First, the 2 homosexuals involved were not translators. Virginia was a style consultant and was in no way translating texts. Dr. Woudstra was also not translating the texts. He was overseeing the people in charge of the Hebrew scriptures but was not personally involved.

      The second problem with this claim is that these people corrupted the translations. None of the passages that speak of homosexuality were altered. From Leviticus to Paul, all the texts concerning homosexuality still condemns it. So, clearly the text was not corrupted.

      The NIV was a translation by Committee, not by a single LGBQ dictator. Furthermore, the NIV was updated a decade ago now (2011). The translation committee is listed here. https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/
      None of them were homosexual and I think you’ll find that they agree with the previous 1984 translators on passages associated with homosexuality because they were never corrupted.

      Reply
  4. Thanks for your clarification about the NIV. However, while R. Laird Harris was a revered teacher of mine at Covenant, and I used the NIV for a while, I moved on to the KJV and ASV when I read English, and the Chinese Union when I read Chinese (I do some with the ESV and Chinses New Version, because I have them in a bilingual edition).
    This being said, my beloved KJV (I believe the Majority Text deserves more respect than it gets) was translated the team that missed the boat on Presbyterian church order…

    Reply
  5. It is really simple to settle. Jesus said “My sheep hear my voice and a stranger they will not follow. Rather they will flee from him”.

    Even before I obeyed God’s Bible Plan of Salvation = Acts 2:38 I knew something was spiritually wrong with all translations except the “Authorized Version”. Curious qualification place on the KJV by the King James. Now I am a professional mathematician with an NSf Postdoc to boot. I am also quite familiar with both Logic as it is practiced in philosophy departments and mathematical logic. The NIV is demonstrably corrupt. As a “formal system” it is demonstrably inconsistent and incomplete. No such defects do I find in the KJV. Apart from the fact that almost all NT Scriptures on prayer&fasting were removed or mutilated!

    Now Jesus said “This kind cometh out only by prayer and fasting”. Well it is no wonder that Ted Haggard and other abusers of themselves with mankind could not cast their own demons out using the NIV.

    You will find out on that soon to come Judgement Day what seed you are of.

    HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED? Acts 19

    If not your salvation is all in your head!

    Reply
    • Congratulations on your degrees in math. However, math isn’t the same as Biblical studies or linguistic studies. Learn Greek, Hebrew, and read some of the modern volumes on textual criticism and then you might be qualified to have a discussion about appropriate translations.

      “I am also quite familiar with both Logic as it is practiced in philosophy departments and mathematical logic.”
      So what…….I’m an electrical engineer with a degree in robotics…..doesn’t qualify me yet to understand the details of biblical translations. You still have to know the languages to have an informed opinion.

      “The NIV is demonstrably corrupt. As a “formal system” it is demonstrably inconsistent and incomplete. ”
      Funny how you presented no evidence of your claim even though it “demonstrable”. Also, the NIV isn’t a formal system so it’s a bit silly to compare it to one. You don’t need calculus to translate one text to another language or to do textual criticism.

      “No such defects do I find in the KJV. ”
      I actually have a whole series dedicated to translation mistakes in the KJV. It’s not even unique. A dozen or so scholars have published readily available materials on these matters. You can read my entries at the following. http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/category/king-james-bible-kjv/kjv-translation-errors/

      “Apart from the fact that almost all NT Scriptures on prayer&fasting were removed or mutilated!”
      I assume you never actually bothered to do a word search but for the record “fasting” is mentioned in the following verses in the NIV:
      Matthew 4:2
      Matthew 6:16, 18
      Matthew 9:14

      In the KJV the the word “fasting” shows up a few more times (11 total times) because the translators translated 2 different Greek words into the English word “fasting”. The verb νηστεύω means to fast but it’s derived from the adjective νῆστις which means hungry…which is why the NIV sometimes uses the word hungry instead of fasting. The KJV translators were either re-interpreting the verses or they just made a translation mistake. The adjective for being hungry is not the same as a verb indicating fasting. You can’t say someone was hungering in English. It’s not an idiomatic expression in English like it was in other languages. That is why we say fasting. However, the adjective to describe hunger translates just fine because it’s a state of being, not an idiom for fasting.

      The word pray/prayer shows up 165 times in the NT of the NIV… which astonishingly is the same number as the KJV.

      You would do yourself many favors if you would try to provide better examples that were not rooted in conspiracy theory talking points and a lack of study.

      Reply
      • Theology is man telling God what His Word means. The Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth which the world neither knoweth nor receiveth is God telling man what His Word means. (Gospel of John)

        The Bible and the Apostles cared nothing for theology or philosophy, neither did they create confusion and subversion by striving about the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words. (2Timothy 2:14)

        Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2;8

        All the things that you highly exalt are of the world and not of God.

        HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED?

        Just as I thought. Your belief is intellectual, in your head and Vain.

        For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. 1 Thessalonians 1;5

        THAT IS MY GOSPEL. You can give your intellectual reasonings to God on Judgement Day. We will see what he thinks.

        Reply
        • You have one sorry excuse for despising education.

          “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

          What do you actually think happens at Bible college and Seminary? You think we sit around reading philosophy and not the Bible? The entire Bible is theology. Theology is the study of God. (Greek: theos-logia = theology in English. The study of God)

          I think the word you’re looking for is hermeneutics which is from the Greek: hermēneuō, meaning to interpret.

          But I’m sure you already knew that.

          Reply
          • The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. Proverbs 12:15

            A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him? Ecclesiastes 10:14

          • Nothing is more foolish than someone with no expertise in a field of study correcting someone with expertise in that field. Do you correct the doctor and your mechanic too?

          • I’m a simple person and I don’t come close to having the degrees that you all have. So please excuse my poor writing skills. I love God and my desire and objectives is to know God word to the best of my ability with the help of the holy spirit. I know that the bible says he who started a good work in me, will fIrish on to the end. Because of this truth I understand that God expects me to search and learn all I can about Him ,his plan of salvation and end time prophecy, that is why I believe that I have to start with his word which is found in the bible. The ? than is which is the best bible translation can I rely on to help me with my studies. In my search through the Web is how I came to this page or site. I read many of the discussions between may of you, which helps me to see and understood how important it is to read the best bible available. I have a question that all of you could give me an answer to.
            King James Bible
            All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes. The scriptures that is to be used to achieve this goal is the old and new testemant. Now we all know that God makes no errors in what ever he does or have someone do. Because he is righteous yet understanding of us and the fact that we are flawed , he can understand our limitations, yet he does expects us to do our best from a sincere heart . Knowing this helps us to know and make a wise decision in the reading or tranotation of the scriptures. II believe that just like God chose Moses , prophets and the apostles , to write the scriptures as they were lead by the spirit of God. We have had many translators who translated the bible. Wouldn’t rather have everyone who is involved in any translation to be devoted to God before taking on such a task or would they be found by God to be unqualified for the job if they are purposelyou living a life that is completely contrary to the word of God. God knows we are not perfect but if we claim to be saved and know that the scriptures are holy ,why would we want to translate God’s word knowing we are living in complete rebellion of his word. I would feel shameful knowing that I’m taking such a holy task and I can’t dedicated my life to him. Which leads me to this answere. If someone is having some serious sinful issues happening in there life .
            1 corinthians 6:18 flee from serial immorality. Every single a person commits is outside the body, but the serially immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own so glorify God in your body.
            Leviticus 18:22 you shall not lie with a male as with a woman ;it is an abomination.
            The fact that they let anyone who is struggling with sins that are an abomination and need deliverance from such sins show that not one of them was qualified to translate or aid in the translation of the bible. If no one knew than the person who help in any shape or form was not qualified in aiding on the translation of the niv or any other bible. …What they needed to do is get their life right with God first , which according to what I have read they didn’t. They showed to be untrustworthy.

          • Iraida, I appreciate your response but let me ask you a question. If these 2 “sinful” people were able to corrupt the text….can you point to any verse that was corrupted? What exactly was corrupted? And if it’s corrupt, why does the NIV match other modern translations? How could they corrupt translations that they did not participate in?

  6. To admin,

    I must simply say this:

    The fact that too many fallacies line up in the Swiss Cheese chart in regards to the NIV that unlock everyone’s view so that we can see that the NIV is evil… & all other modern versions of the Bible, as well, show that your support of the NIV is just plain wrong. You can take away which ever manuscript any Bible has come from & still see that the NIV is tainted just because they have homosexuals that had their grubby paws involved in it. You can take that away & look at who owns the printing press that the NIV came off of & see what other books they print on the same press & see that the NIV is still tainted. The point remains, 1Thes. 5:22, “Abstain From All Appearances of Evil” & yet here admin is supporting it. You can look at the same things & know that because all these devil… evil people have had their hand in the NIV & look at Haggai 2:12-14 & know that it came off of a dirty printing press & therefore, the NIV is dirty as well.

    Even if you could still clean all that up, how do you explain all the references of the sodomites being removed from the NIV with temple prostitutes being substituted in those places? I’m sorry. You can use all the technical terms of lectionaries, papyrus, uncials, minuscules, etc., but the very fact remains, the NIV gives off such a stink, that even a new student just starting to doing research that looked a little bit up the river into the writing of the NIV would sense the bloated corpses that the water is rushing through that polluted everything down the whole stream. What happens to the churches that preach to their congregations using this horrible Bible? Is it any wonder that we’re where we’re at in this country today, because the deceived are now deceiving the masses? While I can’t possibly lay it all at the feet of the NIV, I must say that it is just one little bit that adds up to all the problems we have today. As far as aim concerned, “admin” is just another chink in that chain that is waving the rest of humanity through the Gates of Hell.

    In the end, admin, I would suggest that you “dust off your AKJV Holy Bible” & try reading it to see the fingerprint of God/Jesus Christ that aided in the writing of the Authorized King James Version. You might learn something. I will not be returning to this site, but you have my e-mail, if you have a little Godly rebuke, but I don’t think you’re capable of it. 1Tim. 5:20.

    Tony Beardmore
    Wichita, Ks.

    Reply
    • Sigh…. just a never ending string of talking points. Translations are not like a tub of water that can simply be tainted. It’s not like the translation of one passage ruins the whole product. Moreover, I already listed the passages about homosexuality and showed that not one of them was altered to appear favorably towards homosexuality. They all condemn it. And dirty printing presses? Oh give me a break. That’s just silly.

      About your complaint on Deuteronomy 23:17-18 not reading the way you like, it’s fairly obvious that the verse is referring to cult prostitution. The Hebrew texts used in both the KJV and modern translations use the word(s) קדשׁה/קדשׁ which is literally translated to mean something consecrated, holy, or set apart. Deuteronomy uses this word to refer to temple prostitution was a common idiomatic expression in the Ancient Near East. A boy or girl at the temple that was set aside for temple use and receives the price of a harlot is clearly a temple prostitute. It’s the KJV that inserts the word sodomite for the male temple prostitute.

      The fact that you never bothered to read a commentary on this passage or even lookup some of the words in a KJV Strong’s Concordance should make you ashamed of yourself. Going around lecturing people on topics you know nothing about yet claiming to have superior knowledge…..it’s embarrassing. You can talk about stenches and things you dislike about the NIV all you want is still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve not offered up a single shred of actual evidence to refute the fact that the NIV is a perfectly fine translation.

      You don’t see the fingerprint of God, you just have an active imagination. I won’t be emailing you. I know you think you’re “doing the right thing” by “rebuking” me but you’re just showing how little to understand. When you’ve actually studied and shown yourself approved you can come back and we can have and adult conversation the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words rather than you making wild unfounded accusations.

      Reply
  7. I like what you said, & I also look at who owns the NIV publishing company along with other books that they print on those same presses, such as, The Joys of Gay Sex & the Satanic Bible (Hag. 2:12-14 & 1Thes. 5:22), but my main question is, What’s wrong with the KJV? I can’t imagine a better printed Bible in all the English-speaking world. Is there anything betting in the English language?

    Reply
    • I actually don’t mind the KJV. It’s the people who believe it’s the only true English Bible that drive me crazy. They make up wild conspiracies about other translations and make claims about translation accuracy having no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, or how the translation process works.

      Reply
  8. Interesting. But the deep question is, were the translators men of the spirit, or only men of religious flesh? Would men of the spirit even engage homos and lesbians in translating the word of God? The answer is no, they wouldn’t. Can we imagine, with all that’s said about homo throughout the word of God, Paul or John giving their letters to a homo to edit? Absolutely not!! Or Jesus asking Mollincot to help prepare his parables? No, no, no. Not only that, they would not engage with anyone of the flesh in these works, for such people are thetargets of the great message — be converted and saved by the spirit. By your fruits you shall know them?
    The bad Greek texts, the OT books in the wrong order (as in KJV also), the wild paraphrasing as if the original style isn’t good enough, the multitude of blunders and alterations(as in the KJV) … all evidence of men of the flesh. /calling oneself “a conservative evangelical” is not good enough. It’s not a biblical term. You have to be born of the spirit of Jesus, after which you would have no dealings with men of the flesh concerning the word of God.
    P.S. Nor am I a fan of the KJV. I believe in only accurate translating. These versions fail the tests a thousand times.

    Reply
    • It is interesting that whenever proven wrong on something KJVO guys always go down the road of attacking someone’s character. I believe Socrates said it best: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

      To the point, however, if you bothered to read the whole thing or look into the matter, the only homosexual involved in the actual translation work did not “come out” until long after the NIV was already translated and the texts being translated under his review fully condemn homosexuality. So, it’s not like he was affecting anything and his co-workers were unaware he was gay. So, it’s a bit far fetched to assume that the rest of the translation committee were men of the “flesh” because they unknowingly worked with a guy who was gay.

      On the matter of the Greek texts and other translations, I’ll just assume you know nothing of textual criticism nor the original languages. The Greek text used for the NT wasn’t even complete, much less superior. Portions were backwards translated into Greek from the Latin manuscripts. Moreover, the majority of the manuscripts used in the TR were rather late in date and differed in many places with early texts in Latin, Greek, Coptic, and Syriac, not to mention the quotations of the early church writings.

      Reply
  9. My comment here is in reply to Admin’s comments tot Michael Floyd. It seems it has submitted it as a new comment on its own for some reason.

    Reply
  10. Your point #1 in that they are closest to the original is a presupposition that oldest is more accurate, a basis backed up by “early church fathers” which is not much different to Catholic dogma I keep seeing over and over in any manuscript debate. That catholic-church-defined traditions supersede scripture, that purely because they quoted them equates to proof that they are “closest” to the originals ?
    Referencing lectionaries and devotions as a point of verification is still presupposing that the manuscripts were accurate from the start. Comparing the overlapping consistency seen with Byzantine manuscripts used in the KJV process; not as old but much greater in number.

    In a court of law, which would stand a batter chance?
    Smaller data pool, supposedly higher quality evidence on moot claim that older is more reliable?
    or
    Significantly greater data pool, not as old and therefore further away from the originals, yet still maintain consistency?

    Point #2 dismisses the fact that two unbelievers were relied upon. To use an extreme example for contrast, it would be like using Richard Dawkins and expecting there to be no bias. Or another example, imagine an entire team consisting of highly respected and educated men and women in these fields, all of them muslims, atheists and hard-left political activists. We end up with gross intellectual dishonesty in thinking that despite their experience and qualifications, there would be no bias or well-meaning (from their beliefs) to influence the end result even if only tied to a position of textual criticism.

    Yes, Erasmus laid the foundation; a devout catholic that subscribed to the magical cannibal biscuit of transubstantiation. Having said this, Erasmus was still blamed by Catholics at the time for being an instigator for many protestant uprisings at the time. HIs ecumenical view gives some insight to his mindset since by any true catholic definition, ecumenical would be blasphemy to the church. I do not think it is fair to draw Erasmus off purely because he was in fact a catholic.
    He was one man but the translation committee of that authorised version is where that tapestry was continued by 47 highly qualified people.
    Compare their backgrounds and beliefs to those examples above – which would be more trustworthy as a person eager to understand what God actually said?

    Reply
    • Sometimes the way my server caches causes the post to not show up in the right order. I am working on this issue. I did discover a workaround, although I don’t know why it works yet. If you delete your reply and do it a second time, it will add it to the right location.

      Nevertheless, I will address your points now.

      #1 – I am not sure why you have a problem with the church fathers and the manuscripts that they quoted from. You do understand that everything we have today comes from the early church, right? There isn’t a group of non-Christians from the first three centuries that were hoarding Byzantine manuscripts. Preferring the texts used by the early church has nothing to do with the Catholic view on Scripture VS Tradition.

      On the matter of data quality… there isn’t a court in the land that would prefer a large data pool that is 1000 years after the fact verses a small data pool that is between 50-300 years after the fact. This is because everyone is well aware of how data is corrupted over time and that data pools were usually more difficult to build in ancient times due to a lack of technology. The ONLY reason why we have a larger data pool of Byzantine manuscripts is because of advances in technology where those manuscripts thrived. Let’s not also forget that some of the largest non-Byzantine libraries in the world (which had manuscripts in them) were burned to the ground, such as the ones in Alexandria, Caesarea, and Jerusalem. There is more nuance to why the Byzantine manuscript tradition survive than you apparently want to understand.

      On the consistency of the later manuscripts, why is that a selling point? They had a drastically different culture where more people could read and write. Why wouldn’t there be more manuscripts? But that doesn’t make them better. They had better technology and better literacy as a population. We have that today you know. We have hundreds and thousands of copies of the SBL NT critical text. Does that mean they are more trustworthy than the ancient Byzantine NT texts? By your logic, they would be the best copies since they agree more and we have more copies.

      Last thing on the reliability conversation. You are confusing reliability with authenticity. NT Greek critics are looking to figure out which texts are closes to the original, not which text was transmitted most reliably. Two very different things.

      #2 – Wescott and Hort were not “unbelievers”. If you spent any amount of time studying you would have figured out that they also wrote commentaries and that they were in ministry all their lives. Wescott was the Bishop in Durham until he died and Hort was an Anglican Priest. The only reason why you think they were unbelievers is because you have been deceived by KJVO people trying to convince you they were not.

      Moreover, modern translations are “based” on the Wescott-Hort texts. They are used for reference only at this point. The Nestle-Aland text is usually the starting point for the NT Greek in most modern Bibles.

      #3 – The last point you made about Erasmus and the KJV translators is just silly. You’re confusing translations with critical apparatuses. Erasmus was not a Bible translator, even though he had the ability to do so. He was a critical scholar who formed the Greek NT manuscripts into a usable apparatus. The translators of the KJV were certainly learned men but they were only updating the Bishop’s Bible using the Erasmusian apparatus. They did not create their own set of manuscripts and they did not translate the entire Bible, or even NT for that matter. If you bothered to read the introduction to the 1611 KJV you would see that their instructions were to update the Bishops’ Bible. On top of that, they didn’t even have a complete set of Greek manuscripts to work from. Erasmus had to backwards translate Latin manuscripts into Greek to complete some of the books of the NT.

      Reply
  11. God will never bring his word from Egypt or Rome . Satan has a strong hold on those cities, no Blood was shed for the New English version.and KJV came from Antioch and Jerusalem . Its not copyrighted like the New English version ,

    Reply
    • Virtually everything you just said is wrong. The Greek old testament that’s used by Paul and virtually every gentile church was translated in Alexandria, Egypt. The Bible for the first 1500 years was Latin and came from Rome. No blood was shed over the KJV as it was directed and sanctioned by the king and it’s underlying manuscripts were collated by a Catholic priest named Erasmus.

      Lastly, the copyright system as we know it today didn’t exist in 1611. However we know that only selected printers were allowed to print it and they were compensated for the work.

      Reply
  12. Isn’t it true that the Alexandra manuscripts come down on the wrong side of the argument in Timothy. And that Westcott and Horts in rewriting the Greek that translators use now to write bibles, can’t be considered older manuscripts. Plus Wescott and Hort can’t even be considered believers. It’s like letting unbelievers write the most important book in the world. Don’t think that’s smart. I’m not saying the kjv is perfect, but 40 Christian scholars divided up and separated and then taking what is agreed on by all, is way more accurate that a bunch of non believers with the less is. Just my thoughts

    Reply
    • Michael, thanks for your comment. I will try to address your various comments in an orderly manner below.

      1. The Alexandrian text types are the closest to the original (along with the Western) that are available. Scholars that create the critical apparatus for the old and new testaments use many other manuscripts also. They do not simply just assume that the oldest are the best. In many cases the older manuscripts are preferred because they were supported well by the early church fathers, who quoted the Bible veraciously. They also consult ancient lectionaries, devotionals, and even household items that are found which, not infrequently, have inscriptions on them.

      Thus, to merely states that the Alexandrian texts are somehow deficient (which they are not) is missing the forrest through the trees.

      2. Wescott and Hort were neither atheists nor attempting to change the Greek text. In fact, their major contributions to the field of textual criticism are less about the critical editions they made and more about the methods of textual criticism. It’s the methods that they employed with brought them respect. Their critical editions are not the basis for all modern translations, however, their work is referenced frequently even today. But even modern translators believe that they relied on Vaticanus and

      The urgency to defame and slander WH is just a distraction from their work and scholarship. Wescott was an ordained and practicing Bishop most of his adult life and Hort was a seminary professor for a long duration.

      3. The KJV translation method that you are referring to is not fully accurate but it’s also comparing apples to oranges. Wescott and Hort were not translators… thought they could do that if they wished. They were interested in the manuscripts not the translation. The KJV committees were translators not textual critics. They used a critical apparatus to translate from…. one very similar to the one that Wescott and Hort made.

      To be clear, making a critical edition of the manuscripts and translating a critical edition into English, are two very different jobs. The translation by committee process is still used today in many of today’s Bibles.

      My own thoughts ……..
      Defending the KJV falls into two categories. 1. The manuscripts and 2. The translation of those manuscripts. On both of these issues, the KJV cannot claim superiority. The manuscripts used by the original 1611 translators were just a few that were published by Erasmus, a catholic priest. Some passages were missing from the Greek and so it was not even a complete set of Greek NT manuscripts. Portions were translated from Latin back to Greek. Manuscripts aside, it’s fairly easy to open the KJV and mistakes in it. Most KJV advocates are alarmed to find out that the KJV has errors but it does.

      To be fair though, some of those mistakes came from the Bishop’s Bible. This is because the KJV was initiated to be an update of the Bishop’s Bible. In fact, they were given strict orders NOT to change the text of the Bishop’s Bible unless absolutely needed. 92% of the KJV can be found identically copied from the Tyndale or Bishop’s Bible.

      Reply
  13. The greek and hebrew manuscripts are the standard, but the manuscripts used by the king james are superior because they are the preserved manuscripts that were consistently passed down. The NIV deleted verses based on alexandrian egyptian manuscripts that weren’t discovered until the 1800s. God said he would preserve his word. He would not let the true version of his word be lost until the 1800s. Just because a manuscript is older, doesn’t mean it’s more authoratative. People(and satan) were corrupting God’s word back then, just like some people are corrupting God’s word today. God let the Alexandrian manuscripts be lost for a reason. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

    Reply
    • Sam, thanks for commenting. However, I cannot agree with your theories.

      The KJV manuscripts were not superior. In fact, they are not even complete. The TR was partially back-translated from Latin. Nevertheless, what leads you to believe that the KJV manuscripts were better? Are you just repeating things you were told?

      The NIV did not delete passages solely on the basis of the Alexandrian texts. To understand the many manuscripts that are used to create modern translations, I would suggest picking up a UBS Bible which has the manuscripts listed for all the variant readings. I would also grab the commentary on the UBS Greek texts, by Bruce Metzger.

      Your theory of preservation is yet another example where the KJV fails. The Hebrew text does not say he will preserve his word. It says he will preserve the needy. It’s hard to see in English because the thing that God is preserving is “them”. But who is “them”? Any Hebrew reader can see that “them” is not referring to God’s words. That being said, I do believe God preserved enough for the purpose it serves.

      His words were not “lost” until the 1800’s. The Bible was available in many languages, even in the 2nd century. Those ancient translations also tend to agree with the manuscripts that are used for the new translations. Furthermore, English Bibles were in existence 100 years before the KJV.

      I agree that older is not equal to better. Neither to modern scholars and critics. They are just one of the tools in the toolbox for textual reconstruction.

      The Alexandrian manuscripts were not lost, BTW. They are known and used, just not in the western world. Erasmus actually had someone consult the Vaticanus when creating his Greek edition of the NT.

      Reply
    • I think you’re placing that in the form of a question. The answer is no but technically all Bible translations are “similar”. It’s the differences that matter.

      Reply
  14. Thank you for the clarifying about that matter, however I’d like to know as well your stand on the issue regarding the deleted verses in the NIV Bible.

    Reply
    • My first question is why you think the NIV deleted verses from the Bible? I think what you mean is deleted from the KJV. Which makes me ask the question….. Aren’t you worried about the verses ADDED to the Bible by the KJV?

      I only bring this up because you are starting with the notion that the KJV is the standard but it’s not. The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the standard.

      Reply
          • The best Greek text is that compiled by Pierpoint and Robinson 2005. They spent 27 years doing this. They show conclusively that the superior Greek text are those of Byzantian origin, not Alexandrian. Some scholars are saying of the Sinaiticus text that it was a fraud, Tea-stained to appear antiquated. Whether that is true I do not know, but several are saying it and I’m not surprised. The whole story seem like a fraud from the beginning.What I do know for certain is that the Byzantian Majority texts contain, between them, the whole word of God. Whereas the Alexandrian texts, and that compiled by the renegades Wescott and Hort, differ from each other, differ from the Majority, are called “depraved” in places by John Burgon, and are much depleted. Doctor Graham Thomason on his website Far Above All.com has produced a masterly booklet on the subject (to which I introduced him, but he now excels).

            I am not a supporter of the KJV. For a start, it, like the NIV, as the Old Testament books in the wrong order. That is before we consider syntax, meaning, doctrine, and style. And the nature of the translators (KJV translators had persecutors of Christians among them). I believe that both the KJV and the NIV are extremely poor translations.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.