Welcome to.....a bible teaching....

GOD fearing....site.... we are

The New Unity Church

NWT (New World Translation) - Bible full of Lies![[PASTING TABLES IS NOT SUPPORTED]]

2013-03-31

To The Editor

Many of us have been asked at some point “what is the best translation of the Bible?”  This is a tricky question.

I am not an expert of Biblical translation by any means.  I have read several of the major translations such as the NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, and NRSV.  I have also tried to pay attention to the translations published in commentaries and various critiques of passages translated in these versions. 

A particular translation may capture the true meaning of one passage better than another and a different passage less so. 

The question is further complicated by version updates.  For example, if I were to commend the New International Version (NIV) translation I would have to specify the specific revision and publication date. 

Many of you may or may not be aware of the cultural pressure to use gender-neutral language in all matters of communication secular, academic, legal and now religious.  This reflects a liberal cultural that embraces worldly values and is pressing its agenda under the guise of fairness and sensitivity.

For those of us who firmly believe in the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, such an intrusion from the world upon the methods of translation is troublesome. 

Not too long ago when English speakers used the word “man” in the gender-neutral sense and context it was understood to include all mankind, male and female.  There are many voices that have argued a change has occurred in our language such that “man” is never understood in a gender neutral sense anymore and is specific for “male” or “men” of the species.

Clearly, there are some Biblical passages where the language, grammar and context of a word are gender neutral.  And where the authors clearly intended to include women and men together it would be appropriate to choose a gender neutral term such as “whoever” or “whosoever.”  If that is what Holy Writ means then that may be the correct translation for today’s English speaker. 

An example would be Mathew 18:15 reading in the KJV “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee” reads in the older NIV (1984) “If your brother sins against you,” the NRSV (1990) “If another member of the Church sins” and in the more recent NIV (2005) “If your brother or sister sins.”

The Greek word translated here is ho adelphos.  In the Greek it is masculine.  You will recognize the root in our city Philadelphia, the city of “brotherly love.”  However Mathew’s context includes women as well and such verses are not understood to be restricted to men only.  Therefore, translating ho adelphos as “brother or sister” may capture the sense of the verse though “sister” is not in the original Greek. 

If a change is deemed necessary from “brother” to some gender neutral expression then I would favor the NRSV.  Adelphos is in the singular in the Greek and does not and cannot mean “brothers and sisters.” 

One may ask “Is this not a distinction without a difference?”  To which I would reply that distinctions have always played a critical role in Biblical interpretation, doctrine and theology.  Distinctions matter because as we move further away from the literal translation of the text we risk adding subtle errors that can fester as time passes.  

We first have to ask ourselves: what are the forces behind the very recent and dogmatic demand that we all use gender neutral language?  Why is it that the academic elite believe that people today cannot understand the plain meaning of the word “man” in its traditional gender neutral context?  How can a radical change happen over a short period of time?

Has this change come about naturally?  Or has there been a systematic effort by the academy and cultural elite to force a change in our language away from its original beauty and meaning?

What are the implications?  How can our children then understand the great works of literature?  What becomes of poetry?  Do we translate these great works into modern English with gender-sensitive language? 

What is he but a brute
Whose flesh has soul to suit,
Whose spirit works lest arms and legs want play?
To man, propose this test--
Thy body at its best,
How far can that project thy soul on its lone way? (R. Browning, Rabbi ben Ezra)

If they dare not touch Browning how much more Holy Scripture!

In a reality where language is constantly changing, translation is always challenging.  So how does the average Christian choose?  And what Bible do we recommend to new Christians?

Beloved, we must be mindful of a hidden agenda and the effect and corrosion of something basic as language upon all aspects of our lives and our society.  What appears innocent and reasonable on the surface can lead to rust and dross undermining the most basic of all tools of communication.  And this has profound effects upon ethics, culture and simply how people view the world.

Genesis 3 teaches that the Serpent is the craftiest (subtle) beast of the field.  Change language in a calculated manner and people may not hear him hissing and be bitten.

I will continue with how this affects Bible Translation next time. 

To The Editor:

In my last letter I began to address the common question “which translation of the Bible is the best?”  I introduced the concept of gender neutrality and how translation efforts have tried to keep pace with the rapid changes in the English language.

The full impact of the danger of the political correctness agenda can be seen in the changes to the New International Version (NIV) over time.  Particularly, I will point to the famous publishing house, Zondervan, and their effort to produce the now defunct Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

The TNIV was eventually discontinued because of criticism from traditional biblical scholars that the use of gender neutral language went far beyond simply trying to convey the original meaning of the text but actually fundamentally changed the meaning of the text and therefore the Word of God.

The TNIV project was being conducted in a shroud of secrecy. In 1997 a meeting was held in Colorado Springs where the publisher, the translators of the TNIV project and its critics met, agreed and signed off on a document called “The Colorado Springs Guidelines.”   The meeting was called over grave concerns about this translation.

I recently listened to a 2002 lecture by R. C. Sproul who was among the leaders concerned about the problems with the TNIV project.  Dr. Sproul was also a key figure in formulating the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

Apparently, despite a signed agreement, the publisher and the translators went about their business and shortly prior to publication sent a letter to the committee removing their names from the document they swore to follow.  Political correctness and cultural pressure was believed to be the force behind this shocking event.

When the full extent of the translation became known prior to publication a “Statement of Concern” was issued (2002) and signed by over 100 Bible Scholars and leading Pastors.  There was furor over the secrecy and deceit of the publisher and the scholars working on the project.

After its publication, the TNIV was subjected to critique and was eventually discontinued for it was unsound.  However, the shockwaves rippled thought the field of Biblical translation placing everyone on notice that forces other than the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit were at work in modern translation efforts.

According to Dr. Sproul, the fundamental heresy of the TNIV was made clear in the edition’s Preface.  I do not have a copy of this edition and I unsuccessfully tried to find a copy of the translator’s Preface on the internet.  Zondervan’s public preview skips the Preface section and goes from the Table of Contents right to the Introduction to Genesis. 

Dr. Sproul mentioned in this 2002 lecture, when the TNIV was published, that the introduction plainly and without blushing claimed as one of the “primary concerns” an effort to “correct” the Scripture. 

That same year The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) Policy on Gender-Inclusive Language (2002) includes such statements as:

“The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.”

Notice what has happened.  We have moved from an effort to capture gender neutrality in modern English to correcting the inerrant and inspired Word of God!   Distorting the original text became unavoidable.

Trust is undermined as these things was done in secret and not fully disclosed to unsuspecting readers who, like me, never bothered with the Preface.  Worse, the same errors were systematically put into the Children’s and Teen Bibles.

But the story has not ended.  Although Zondervan has removed the TNIV, its newer NIV translations of Holy Scripture retain many of the errors of the TNIV and apparently they maintain the same philosophy of translation. 

I read the Preface of the most recent NIV (2011) and compared it to my older NIV (1995).  This is part of what is contained: 

“The original NIV (1978) was published in a time when “a man” would naturally be understood, in many contexts, to be referring to a person, whether male or female. But most English speakers today tend to hear a distinctly male connotation in this word.”

Beloved, this is NOT a process in which the translators submit to the Holy Spirit guiding preservation of God’s Word inerrant.  Nay, it is an outright attack upon the Word of God!  It is the craftiness of the serpent who asked Eve “Hath God said?”  And in response, Eve changed God’s Word from “do not eat” to “do not eat or touch.”  And mankind fell.

Which is the best translation of the Bible?  Zondervan has hidden its agenda and methods by eliminating them from the Preface.  Who can we trust? 

Beloved, listen for the hissing of the Serpent.  I would advise against purchasing or recommending a NIV published after 1995.  In the meantime the ESV, NASV and NKJV are readable and are faithful. 

Be careful.  The Word of God cannot be changed and those who do are like wolves among the sheep.  The distinctions turn into differences and then into lies and heresy.  Nothing less than the souls of all people are at stake.