NIV Part 1: Words Change Doctrine

One word can carry a century of theology, and one “helpful” replacement can quietly move the meaning. Brother James wraps up a five-part series from the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast by arguing that the New International Version does more than modernize English. He says it repeatedly substitutes less precise synonyms and adds interpretive phrasing that functions like commentary, not translation.

We walk through specific examples where familiar Bible terminology is replaced: grace becomes favor, propitiation becomes sacrifice of atonement, mercy seat becomes atonement cover, and “flesh” is frequently rendered as “sinful nature.” Along the way, we discuss why those choices matter for doctrine, for reading older Christian works, and for using tools like concordances and Bible dictionaries. We also dig into passages where punctuation, verb force, and sentence structure are reshaped, including conditional logic in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 and the direct command in Galatians 6:1.

The episode also highlights controversial renderings in 1 John 3, Titus 1, Philippians 2, John 20, and Hebrews 11, raising questions about works, God’s attributes, Christology, and whether “readability” can come at the cost of precision. If you care about Bible translation, textual criticism, formal equivalence versus dynamic equivalence, and how wording choices can steer interpretation, you’ll want to hear the full argument and the verses behind it. Subscribe for more, share this with a friend who loves translations debates, and leave a review with your take: where do you think a translator’s job ends and interpretation begins?

Church Website — BibleBaptistDeLand.com

Ministry Website — JamesWKnox.org 

YouTube Channel — YouTube.com/JamesWKnoxSermons

Sermon Audio — SermonAudio.com/BibleBaptistDeLand

Web Store — Store.JamesWKnox.org

Transcript

Welcome And Series Setup

SPEAKER_00 0:02

All right, now a very pleasant good day to each and every one of you. I'm Brother James, and I greet you as always in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, and I welcome you once again to the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast, the Ministry of the Bible Baptist Church of Delam, Florida. Don't let that scare you. And heard by the grace of God around the world. Responses having been received now from over 70 nations in all but I think all but about three or four states in the United States of America. I'm trying to look over my uh shoulder just now. Uh I see Utah and New Mexico and Alaska and Vermont. And to my knowledge, best we can tell by our record keeping, those are the only four states in the United States of America from which we have not uh had a response. And as I said, over 70 nations around the world. So God has certainly blessed us tremendously as we've done our very, very best to declare the truth of his word and minister to God's

Why The NIV Cannot Be God’s Word

SPEAKER_00 1:11

people. Now, we started four broadcasts ago. This will be the fifth and final broadcast in a series showing you why the New International Version is not and cannot possibly be the Word of God. We are not going to go back and review all the material that we've given you on Old Testament textual problems and New Testament textual problems. We are just going to press ahead with our study and hope that if you've missed the previous broadcasts, you may write to us and obtain them, or that you will write to us and obtain them.

Synonym Swaps That Weaken Meaning

SPEAKER_00 1:50

We want to come on the program today to talk about the synonym problems. As with the Old Testament change from peace offering to fellowship offering, the NIV New Testament has found it necessary to change terminology long used by English speaking Christians to wording they consider more easily understood. Terms such as sin, grace, propitiation, and righteousness, terms with precise meanings that have been understood and taught by the church for centuries have been retranslated by the NIV into less precise, even ambiguous words. A few will be listed for you on the program today, and the major ones we'll treat separately in just a few minutes. Grace becomes favor. Won't that help the modern day shrinks? In John fourteen sixteen and twenty six, John fifteen twenty six, John sixteen seven. Advocate becomes one who speaks to the Father in our defense, one. They're not translating the Bible, they're commenting on the Bible. Think becomes feel Philippians one seven. Don't you know the modern day charismatic loves that one? Mercy seat becomes atonement cover, whatever that means, numerous times. Tabernacle becomes tent of meeting, numerous times. Inspiration becomes God breathed. Second Timothy three sixteen, a translation not found in any of the six Greek lexicons. They just made it up. Propitiation becomes sacrifice of atonement, Romans three twenty five, or atoning sacrifice, first John two, they couldn't make up their mind. Now some of these may seem minor, but none of them is. The older terminology has been understood and employed by the church for centuries, and the Christian familiar only with the NIV finds the words of Christians of bygone eras closed books. Suddenly the voluminous works of the great men of the faith of past centuries are unintelligible. Also lost to these twentieth century NIV readers are the concordances and lexicons and Bible dictionaries that employ this theological language. In addition to this, some of these synonyms are not fully synonymous. They do not convey the full idea of the original terms, and they often weaken the meaning of both the Greek and the English. Changing grace to favor and glory to honor are prime examples of this. It is by God's grace, unmerited and free that men are saved. Favor carries with it the idea of something that can be earned or paid back. God's glory is another thing to which we can add nothing. We can, however, honor him just as we can honor others of an hour.

“Sinful Nature” And Pre-Interpretation

SPEAKER_00 5:13

Associated with this is the problem of pre interpretation. The NIV translators assume that the educational level of the reader is such that he cannot understand theological language, so the translators take it upon themselves to interpret the language for them. For example, the Greek word for flesh, SARX sarx can mean sinful nature or it can mean flesh. Its translation has to be based upon its use in context. But as we saw with Sheol in the Old Testament, the NIV translates SARX consistently in one way sinful nature. This is interpretation, and it contradicts the correct biblical teaching of Romans six and Galatians five, which we'll discuss in just a few moments. The NIV translators did not seem to be concerned with following the traditional phrasing of the Bible, despite their stated desire to maintain the tradition of previous translations. They wanted a fresh contemporary translation, which would be much like what the New Testament writers would have penned had they done so in modern English. As lofty as this idea may have been, the result at times borders on paraphrasing and is occasionally bizarre. Let me give you a few examples. In first John chapter three, verse seven, the authorized King James Bible states He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous. Now the NIV renders this he who does what is right is righteous just as he is righteous. Implied in this is a righteousness obtained through works. Doing what is right is not the same as doing righteousness. Righteousness goes far beyond the doing right of verse seven, or the not doing what is sinful of verse eight. It has been stated that since helping an old woman across the street is right, this action would make a person acceptable to God. There are too many people today who think that God will accept them if their works that are good outweigh the works that are bad, and this translation feeds this idea. It's a perversion. Another inaccurate statement of the NIV is found in Titus 1 2. Here the authorized King James Holy Bible reads, In hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie promised before the world began. The NIV renders this a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God who does not lie promised before the beginning of time. Now aside from the obvious paraphrase, this isn't a translation at all, the surprising statement of God who does not lie is hard to accept. There are things which God cannot do. He cannot sin, he cannot deny himself, etc. He also cannot lie. Now the phrase does not lie implies that God is able to lie, but usually doesn't do it, at least not at the moment. Cannot denotes an inability. Does not include a volitional aspect. It's much the same as saying I cannot steal. I'm unable to do so, which would indicate that the speaker could not do so even if he wanted to, or I do not steal. By the grace of God I do not steal because I have at least for this moment overcome the desire to do so. Now it's not apparent whether this translation is based on English style, is trying to settle a theological issue, or is just carelessness. But in any event the weakening of the reading is more than unfortunate.

Paraphrase Problems In Key Passages

SPEAKER_00 9:04

It borders on heresy. Another problem passage is the great Christological reading in Philippians two seven. The authorized King James Holy Bible states, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant. The NIV renders this, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant. Now many have sought through reinterpretation of this passage to support the heresy that Jesus was not fully God. They do this by translating Canu K E N O O to read emptied. Jesus emptied himself of his deity, and thus was not fully God. The NIV valiantly tries to avoid this error by translating Canu made himself nothing. This phrase, however, is worse than emptied. The obvious meaning would be that Jesus, either as God or as man, ceased to exist, because nothing, if it if it means anything at all, means a lack of existence. Thus the NIV, it is hoped unwittingly, but probably not, simply eliminates the problem of interpretation in this passage by translating Jesus Christ out of existence. That's a great piece of work, isn't it? In James 3 1 there is a NIV interpretation, which is very typical of the translation style and approach of the translators. The Greek text literally reads, Let not many become teachers, my brethren. This the NIV renders, not many of you should presume to be teachers. The NIV interprets the Greek to mean that the problem is one of presumption to become teachers, rather than that a teacher will be held strictly accountable for what he teaches. The translation itself is presumptuous. It's unfair to scripture, it's inaccurate, to say the least.

Discernment Claims And 1 Corinthians 7

SPEAKER_00 11:47

Now, how would you identify, according to the Bible, how would you identify someone who had given heed to a seducing spirit and was teaching a doctrine of a devil? How would you know that? One of the things they would teach, according to verse 3, is forbidding to marry. And so, isn't it amazing to find the New International Version rendering 1 Corinthians 7 1, it is good for a man not to marry. Now you say, What does that mean, Brother James? That means that anyone with an ounce of spiritual discernment, anyone with the slightest measure of spiritual insight, can see that Satan, like all murderers, wants to get caught. Satan, like all criminals, wants people to know of his great crime. Now that's just a fact of the fallen nature. Man doesn't want to pay for his crimes, but the vain self-exalting pride of man wants someone to know what he's done. Well, here Satan identifies himself as the director of the translating committee for the New International Version. Because you are told that when a seducing spirit was at work, the devil's doctrines would be set forth, and one of those doctrines is clearly and plainly set forth in 1 Corinthians 7 1 of the New International Version. Now you do with that what you will. No further questions asked.

Commands Softened And Sentences Chopped

SPEAKER_00 13:38

In another passage, the verb tense or form is changed, seemingly at random. Galatians 6 1 in the authorized version reads, Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such in one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted. The NIV says, Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently, but watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Now, there's several problems, we've got a note here. The first problem is the problem of restoring. In the Greek and in the Authorized King James Version, the verb restore is a direct command to be obeyed. The NIV gives the idea that restoring is something which ought to be done, not something that must be done. Second, the substitution of gently for in the spirit of meekness doesn't make any sense at all. Gentleness and meekness are two different aspects of the fruit of the spirit, according to Galatians chapter 5. The spirit of meekness relates directly to the way in which you are considering yourself. If the Christian has this spirit of meekness, he will not be overbearing or proud and place himself in the position of being tempted. Gently refers to the way of restoring. It doesn't relate to the attitude of the restorer, but to the one who has fallen. Third, this verse in the Greek text is one sentence. It carries one full, uncomplicated thought. And so it is rendered in the authorized version. But the NIV, in order to make the scriptures more readable to modern man, takes longer sentences and divides them into short, chopped-up ones. They do this in Ephesians 1 3-14, Acts 1 1-5, Hebrews 1 1-4, 1 Corinthians 5 5-10. The problem is they also break up shorter, uncomplicated sentences. Now it's crucial for the reader of the Bible to realize that one main idea is being conveyed. And by inserting unnecessary punctuation, taking liberties with verb forms, the NIV translators run the risk of obscuring God's intended meaning. Because once again they are commenting on the Greek and Hebrew text rather than translating it. Along the same line, the NIV obscures the natural reading of the text in 1 Thessalonians 4.14. The Holy Bible says, For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. But the NIV says, We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. Not only does that not make any sense at all, but it is out and out doctrinal baloney. The difference here may seem minor to you, but the omission of the two little words for if alter the entire passage. The words are in the Great Text and they're there for a purpose. The sentence is not a statement of fact, although it has the underlying idea of being true, it is instead conditional. If we believe this, we believe these other things as well. And since God moved the apostle to include the conditional, can sound Christians in translation legitimately do otherwise? No, they can't. But the heretics on the NIV committee could do it. In 1 Thessalonians 4 12, the NIV changes statements into what would normally be their results. Authorized version, that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without NIV, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders. Those are two entirely different statements. A V, that you may have lack of nothing, NIV, so that you will not be dependent on anybody. Now this is the equivalent of taking a statement he hit the rock and rendering it as its effect or result the rock was broken. In this passage, whereas the original desire was for Christians to walk honestly toward them that are without, the NIV would have the believer win the respect of outsiders. While the King James Bible would have the believer lack nothing, the NIV wants him to have uh not have to depend on anyone. In the NIV, the desire is for pride and respect and for total independence. These things are considered improper in other passages of scripture. Here again is another reason for formal equivalence translation. By the NIV's subtle changes accomplished, no doubt they'll say to aid the English reader in understanding the scriptures, it's not only terminal terminology that changes, but also syntax and form and thus interpretation.

Doubting Versus Rebellion In John 20

SPEAKER_00 19:10

One of the most frustrating misinterpretations is produced in the NIV in John 20, 27. Here the authorized King James Bible says, And be not faithless but believing. The NIV renders, stop doubting and believe. Now the passage is that of doubting Thomas, the apostle who did not believe that the Lord had risen from the dead. The problem is, from the Greek text, Thomas was not doubting. He was in rebellion. The Greek text employs a double negative here, resulting in emphasis. Thomas did not just say, I will not believe. He says, I will not believe. His is not doubt, it's rebellion. He doesn't need to stop doubting, he needs to stop being faithless and unbelieving. The NIV stop doubting only perpetuates the cliche of doubting Thomas. But it's certainly not the correct reading of the Word of God. A second problem in the passage is that the second half of the clause is separated from the first in the text by the word but. This is not just a weak connective or conjunctive word, but a strong adversity, showing a strong contrast between the two phrases. Thomas is not to be faithless, but he is to be believing. Yet again, the NIV makes an unwarranted change, and in doing so weakens the scriptures. Not only that, but the NIV makes frequent use and consistent use of sinful nature in place of the word flesh. By doing so, they produce such translations as live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. In Galatians 5 16, and I know that nothing good lives in me, that is in my sinful nature. Romans 7 18. Now this just won't work. Flesh is the Bible term all the way through the Bible. We're not dealing here with the physical nature or the sinful nature, we're dealing with the flesh, the body of flesh. The NIV renders this hand this man over to Satan so that the sinful nature may be destroyed. Are you get are you kidding me? Do you think those given over to Satan no longer have a sinful nature? Of all the explanations you'll ever hear for ridding the believer of sin, this has got to be the most creative. It's really not funny, though, is it? It goes far beyond what a Christian should have to endure in modern translations. And yet, why do people that seemingly love God and seemingly have a heart for God, why do they continue to read and use a new international version? Because they're not zealous for the truth and they're not careful students of the Word. That's all it can be.

John’s Wording Shifts And Hebrews 11 Rewrite

SPEAKER_00 22:41

In John's Gospel, there are several examples of over-translation or misinterpretation, which we need to cite if we can get to them the remainder of the time of the broadcast today. In John 14 1, King James Bible, let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me. The NIV, do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, trust also in me. And the word trust has a sense of the will involved. Believe has the idea of assent or understanding and will involved. It'd be better to keep the normal use of believe rather than put trust in the text. The NIV also breaks this one sentence into two, making a major break between not having troubled hearts and believing in the Father and the Son, which in actuality the only thing that'll keep your heart from being troubled is belief in the Father and the Son. In John 16, 31, King James Bible reads, Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? The NIV changes this question into an exclamation. Now this is incredible. This just goes beyond all reasonable rules and laws of translation. This is commentary. It's not translation. One final example. Luke 134. King James Bible, then Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? The NIV changes this to how shall this be how will this be? Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin. Now it's true that no in this sense is to have intimate relations. This euphemism is familiar to most who read Scripture and to many who do not. The statement, however, was that Mary was not having relations with a man. The NIV makes this statement, which in the Greek is a present tense, a simple simple declaration that she was a virgin. Now it is true that Mary was a virgin at the time, and at the birth of G at the time of the birth of Jesus, but that is not what Mary said. Since the doctrine of the virgin birth is under great attack in this present day, a clear and precise translation of these passages is needed for a proper understanding and defense of this doctrine, and you'll never get a proper translation with the NIV. Now, before finishing, there's one verse which clearly illustrates the high-handed methods of textual criticism and interpretation which characterize the NIV. In Hebrews 11 1, the Holy Bible says, Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because he judged him faithful who had promised. The NIV says, 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. Now, this verse doesn't even refer to Abraham, and the rendering of the NIV about Abraham here is found in no Greek manuscript at all, not even one. However, scholars have become concerned with the fact that Sarah is not a good example of the faith. So they use the argument that the Greek word to conceive, seed, is normally used of a male begetting and not of a woman. And so to keep God from making the terrible mistake of calling Sarah a woman of faith, they just rewrote the Bible. Isn't that incredible? Now it's impossible to believe that people can claim extreme accuracy for the New International Version when they handle the Greek text and the matter of translating the Bible in this fashion.

Final Warning And How To Get The Series

SPEAKER_00 26:52

My dear Christian friend, you've got two choices after listening to this study. You can continue to use the New International Version and for the rest of your life know that you are in deliberate, willful rebellion against the truth, or you can cast aside your respective persons and your love of a man, and love God and love his word enough to get your hands on a copy of the true and living word of God from the English-speaking people, the Holy Bible, the authorized King James Version. Well, this brings us to the close of a five-part series on the NIV. You may obtain this entire study on one CD by visiting Jameswnox.org. That's Jameswnox.org. Like to visit more, but our time is gone. We hope you'll join us next time right here on this station for the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast. Until then, I'm Brother James. May the Lord richly bless you and good day.