NIV Part 4: Under the Microscope

Some Bible debates sound like they’re about preferences, but what happens when the words themselves change and the reader is never clearly told where or why? We take a hard, detailed look at the New International Version and explain why we believe it crosses the line from Bible translation into Bible rewriting, especially in the Old Testament. If you care about biblical authority, inerrancy, and whether your English Bible reflects the Hebrew text or an editor’s best guess, this conversation is for you.

We walk through the Masoretic Text and why vowel pointing matters, then show how a translator’s willingness to adjust vowels or adopt alternate readings can reshape meaning without obvious warning. Along the way, we point to specific places where the NIV leans on sources like the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, Syriac, Targums, and occasional Dead Sea Scroll readings. We also address NIV footnotes that introduce uncertainty, plus examples involving names and key phrases where the note can end up undermining the line on the page.

From there, we talk about archaeology and “modern knowledge” as a rationale for changing the sense of a passage, including the NIV’s reading of Jonah 3:3. We also press into doctrinally weighty choices in God’s titles, like “Sovereign Lord” and “Lord Almighty,” and we challenge the idea that poetic formatting and parallelism should ever justify rewriting Scripture. We close by contrasting familiar language in Psalm 23 and why word choices like “mercy” carry theological connections that matter.

Subscribe for more, share this with a friend who reads the NIV, and leave a review with your take: where should a translator stop and the text speak for itself?

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 Why We Use KJV

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 to the preaching of the cross radio broadcast. You know, the Holy Bible declares that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. Now, that's what the Holy Bible says. But I couldn't quote that from any of the new and modern translations of the Bible because they've altered that verse to read in such a way as to place the matter of salvation in the hands of the sinner, make salvation a matter of works. And so that's just one of the many, many reasons why we stick with the old King James Bible here on the Preaching of the Cross Radio Broadcast. And from time to time, the volume of the mail and the amount of the criticism and the number of the questions is so great that we feel compelled to take a few broadcasts and spell out for our listeners just why it is that we hold to the blessed old Reformation text. And so on the last broadcast, we began a series of studies on what is probably at present, the time we're preparing these studies, the most popular of the modern translations, and that is the new international version. You know, for a while it was the revised version, and then it was the American Standard Version, and then the big deal was the revised standard version in the 50s. In the 60s, the big deal was the new American Standard, and now that's been replaced, and now the now the top dog, and dog's the right word, now the top dog is the NIV, the new international version. And we showed you on the uh last uh broadcast, we discussed the philosophy of the translators and showed their their great disregard for and their lack of faith in the authority of the scripture.

Why Modern Versions Shift Doctrine

SPEAKER_00 2:10

Now, on the broadcast today, I want to talk to you about some of the textual problems in the New International Version, and I think you'll find them rather alarming if you believe the Bible at all. We'll take the Old Testament textual problems on the program today, and then next time, God willing, we'll look at many of the New Testament textual problems. Now, the Word of God, as best as anyone can tell, since no one has the originals, but as best as anyone can tell, the Word of God was originally penned in three languages Hebrew and a small amount of Aramaic in the Old Testament, and Corne Greek in the New. This not being an article on textual criticism that we are citing here, a full discussion of the problems associated with modern textual theory will not be undertaken here, says the writer. He says the problems of the New International Version will be presented with the presupposition that the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus of the New are the most reliable texts of Scripture, and references made to other publications of the Trinitarian Bible Society, the works of Edward Hills, the works of John Burgeon, the works of Theodore Lettus, etc. Now, this is our problem. Our problem is that in this day and age everyone has an authority they can appeal to that agrees with them. And so we've got to carefully consider these matters. In this light, something needs to be said about the origin of the Masoretic text before discussing the New International Version's most major problems, that is how it changes that text. Now the original Hebrew manuscripts were not pointed, that is, the written text was made up of consonants without the vowel signs that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal uh text or consonantal text. From the eighth to the eleventh centuries, a Jewish sect known as the Masorites or Masarets, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament, complete with vowel signs, and this they did, giving Jews and Christians alike an Old Testament text devoid of much of the ambiguity of the unpointed text. Sometimes, however, in the judgment of the New International Version translators, the vowel letters and vowel signs did not represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal

NIV Translation Philosophy And Authority

SPEAKER_00 4:50

text. Of course, the fact that they didn't have that original text didn't mean anything to them. Accordingly, the translators took it upon themselves to change those readings, usually without indicating any change in the footnotes. Now it should be understood that as with any language, changing vowels often changes words completely. For existence, the difference or for instance the difference between dog and dug. Since these changes are not noted, there is no way of determining where the New International Version has altered what has been the accepted Old Testament for a thousand years. Unless one compares each word of the NIV with a more accurate translation, like the King James Bible. And then because of the theory that translation is never complete, which the NIV holds to, comparison would have to be made with all other editions of the NIV because they may have changed since the last printing. You see, the new international version you bought yesterday may be very different from the new international version your brother bought four years ago or your father bought fifteen years ago. The major concern here is for God's word. More than once in Scripture, warning is given against changing his word. Here the NIV treads on very dangerous ground. Now it is true that there are places in which the Masoretic text is difficult to translate. An ancient translation such as the Aramic Targums and the Latin Vulgate and the Syrian Peshitta, as well as maybe even the Dead Sea Scrolls, though not likely, could be helpful in determining the intended meaning. Most translations use the Masoretic text as a basis and look to these others for additional light. The NIV, however, seems to hold these other translations on an equal level with the Masoretic text, and even throws great weight on the Septuagint, which is a great myth and great fairy tale that we'll talk about one day. This is done, and I quote again from the NIV committee, this is done where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. Now it should be noted that not all scholars, particularly conservative ones, accept these principles of textual criticism, and the matter of providing a correct reading can be extremely subjective. In Genesis 4 8, the New International Version adds Let's go out to the field on the basis of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint in the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac. In verse 15, they replace the Masoretic texts therefore with not so based on the Septuagint. Psalm 145 5 is changed on the Septuagint reading alone, and Isaiah 33 8 on only a Dead Sea Scroll reading. That is, they throw out the thousand year old text that's been honored for 1,000 years and recognized and accepted, and on the basis of some mythological Greek piece of literature from four hundred years after the death of Christ, one writing, one piece of manuscript, they reject over five thousand manuscripts in their readings. The NIV alters the text of Ezekiel 19 7, using a Targum reading and nothing else. Here the difference between the Masoretic

Masoretic Text Origins And Vowels

SPEAKER_00 8:30

Hebrew text and the Aramic Targum readings is only a straw a small stroke or mark at the top of a letter. But it should be remembered this is the very tittle that Jesus said would never pass away in Matthew 5 18. Now in this same vein are those footnotes in the NIV, which cast doubts upon the Masoretic text and on the translations that are based upon it. Judges 1 eighteen in the Holy Bible, the King James Version reads, Also Judah took Gaza with a coast thereof, and Ascalon with a coast thereof, and Ekron with a coast thereof. The NIV changes this to the men of Judah also took Gaza, Ascalon, and Ekron. But directs readers to a footnote which says Septuagint Judah did not take. You can't say the King James Bible is one translation of the Word of God, and the NIV is another translation of the Word of God when they directly contradict one another. You've got to pick one. The NIV also casts doubt in its notes on proper names. Eve, according to major lexicons, means life or mother of all living. Thereby additional light is given to Genesis 3 20, and Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living. But the NIV states in the footnote that Eve probably means living. Following the murder of Abel, Eve bore a son, named him Seth, for God said she hath appointed me another seed. And the lexicons say the name Seth means placing in the stead of another. But the NIV says that Seth probably means granted. Now these names are meant to give added meaning to Scripture. The NIV in their footnotes doesn't add meaning, they cast doubt. What about archaeology? Well the precise meaning of the biblical text is sometimes uncertain. This is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts than with the Greek. Archaeological and linguistic discoveries in this century aid in understanding difficult passages. You say, Brother James, where did you get that statement from? Oh, from Edwin Palmer, the editor of the NIV, who, by the way, was a staunch hypercalvinist. I've got his book on the five points. Now this statement of the NIV translators is indeed true. But the statement must be tempered with a realization that neither archaeology nor linguistics, nor anything except the revealed word of God can be considered infallible. This was vividly displayed when for decades critics claimed that scripture was in error in its statements regarding the extent of the Hittite Empire. Archaeology, it is said, had found no evidence of the Great Hittite Empire, and therefore it couldn't have existed, and the Bible must be wrong. But then in the late 1800s the ruins of the Great Hittite Empire were discovered. And of course these people didn't apologize, they just kind of crawled away back into their dens. In the twentieth century, the ruins of Nineveh were discovered. But there was a problem. The Old Testament book of Jonah claimed that the city was an exceeding great city of three days' journey, Jonah 3 3. However, the archaeologists had determined that the city was important, but definitely not large enough to require three days to transverse it. So the NIV translators determined that according to archaeology and the culture of the period, an important city would require a visit of three days in order to honor it properly. Therefore, the three days required of Jonah must have been in order to honor the city. So the NIV reads in Jonah 3 3, now Nineveh was a very important city. A visit required three days. Now that's an interesting reading, but that's not what any Hebrew manuscript on the face of the earth says. That's just somebody made something somebody made up because they didn't believe the Bible and put more faith in infidel atheistic science than they did in the Word of God. That's what you're dealing with when you purchase a new international version. Modern knowledge of ancient culture has also brought about other changes from the traditional readings, some of which have little or no textual backing. Joseph's coat of many colours in Genesis 37 3 is a prime example. Most scholars agree that the coat probably reached the ankles and had long sleeves, much like those worn by Middle Eastern nobility. But the NIV renders the phrase, quote, a richly ornamented robe, with a footnote saying that the Hebrew is uncertain. Now the question arises as to the validity of changing the word of God from what the Hebrew text actually says simply because you don't like the wording. That's what the NIV does.

Examples Of Old Testament Rewrites

SPEAKER_00 13:50

It is not a translation, it is a rewriting of God's word to suit the opinion of its editors and translators. The sacrifice of Shalom, the peace offering, is rendered in the NIV fellowship offering, with a footnote stating that the phrase was traditionally peace offering. Yet in many other places Shalom is given its traditional and primary translation of peace. Job is told to be at peace with God, not at fellowship with him in Job 2221. Now nobody knows why the NIV translators are so inconsistent. While it's true that any word means what it means in its context, this sort of inconsistency is unnecessary and testifies to the insincerity of the NIV translators or the fact that they were just had their minds confused by God when they started to mess with his Bible. The NIV translators made numerous unwarranted changes, strictly on the basis of the translator's judgment. When Rebecca's family spoke to Abraham's servant, asking him to let the young man remain for a few more days, Genesis 24, 55, the Holy Bible says, After that she shall go. The NIV changes this to then you may go. Now this change would indicate that Rebecca's family was permitting the servant to leave by himself. Strange business, isn't it? Genesis thirty-four also bears an unwarranted change. Here Dinah's brothers, in response to Shechem's desire to marry Dina, gave requirements for the marriage to take place. If these requirements are met, the Jews will give their daughters and take the Hivites' daughters, verse 16. If not, the brothers quote, will take our daughter and go. That's verse 17. But the New International Version changes daughter in verse 17 to sister. Now while it's true that Dinah was the men's sister, the Hebrew word and the wording of the preceding verse require the word daughter. So the NIV is not a translation, it is a man's rewriting of the Bible. It is not the word of God, it's the word of man. If inerrancy is based upon words, and Jesus himself declared that even the smallest part of a letter would not pass away in Matthew 5 18, this source of sort of baseless change affects much more than just one verse. It has an impact on the whole of Scripture. This impact is clearly seen in Hosea chapter 12 and verse 4. This passage speaks of Jacob overpowering the angel and then making supplication to God. God found him in Bethel. As Hosea says, there he spake with us. In Genesis 28, 13, God spoke with Jacob alone. On this basis, the NIV changes us in Hosea to him, because the context of Genesis 28 seems to make it so. But the Hebrew in Hosea is us, just as priests, while yet in the loins of their father Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, Hebrews 7, 7 to 10, so in Genesis God speaks not only to Jacob, but to all who were in his loins. A statement that would include all the people of Israel in sins and blessings of Jacob. Thus to change the Os in Hosea to him not only is a non-translation, but a rewriting of the Bible, but shows that the translators of the NIV didn't understand the Word of God that they were trying to rewrite. Now, you can't tell me that the New International Version is the Word of God when I've already shown

Footnotes That Create Doubt

SPEAKER_00 18:10

you enough occurrences in the Old Testament where men have simply written their opinion into the text to show any honest man or woman that they're not dealing with the Holy Bible, they're dealing with the works of men. The NIV also has problems in the titles of God. An area of change in the New International Version, which affects virtually all of the Old Testament, is the translator's interpretation of those common titles of God. Beginning in Genesis 15, 2, they render Adonai a form of the covenant name of God, usually translated Lord God, as Sovereign Lord. You know why they did that? Because Edwin Palmer, the director of the translation, was a five-point hypercalvinist, that's why. And so they added sovereign Lord to support their own doctrinal prejudice when there isn't any such term found in a Hebrew manuscript on the face of this earth. Indeed, the idea of God's sovereignty may be found in this passage and throughout Scripture, but Adonai means my Lord. And the Tetragamon, YHVH, has the idea of being. Rendering the name sovereign Lord emphasizes God's sovereignty only, while the context could very well be dealing with his mercy or his justice or any other attribute, or might well include all his attributes by the mere fact of his being God. Nor do the translators explain why they chose this one attribute to highlight. They only state that they do and leave the reasoning to the reader's imagination. That's why you've got men raised up by God to tell you what's going on. I'll tell you what's going on. Edwin Palmer rewrote the Bible to match his theology. And you have it in the New International Version. Another change in reference to you say I don't, but I've got Edwin Palmer's book on the five points of Calvinism right here on my shelf. I've read it. I do my homework. I study these things out. I don't just get on the radio and mouth off like some religious fanatic who has a prejudice. I've checked these matters out, and you'd do well to listen. Another change in reference to the titles of God is for is uh from the Lord of hosts King James Bible to the Lord Almighty. Now this change is necessitated, the translators say, because for most readers today, hosts has little meaning, whereas Almighty conveys the sense of the Hebrew. He who is sovereign Hello, John Calvin, over all the

Archaeology Used To Change Jonah

SPEAKER_00 21:10

hosts that is, in parentheses, powers, in heaven and on earth. However, most people, and especially non-Christians, for whom also the NIV was translated, uh huh, 1 Corinthians 2.14, have little more understanding of the phrase Lord Almighty than to consider it a mild expletive. There are places in Scripture where the Greek or Hebrew word for Almighty is used. For example, 2 Corinthians 6.18, and in these places it is only right and proper to translate the word Almighty, but the word the NIV translates as Almighty in the Old Testament does not mean Almighty. It is the Hebrew word that means of hosts. So the NIV is not a translation. It is a commentary, it is a human opinion, it is a man's rewriting of the Word of God. The phrase Lord of hosts at least makes sincere readers pause to consider its meaning. And it's no problem for those who understand who the hosts of heaven and earth are, as in Luke 213. A matter of fact, in Luke 213 the NIV renders suddenly a great company of the heavenly hosts appeared. Why, why weren't they honest enough to say suddenly a great company of the heavenly almighty's appeared? I'll tell you why. Because once you begin to serve the serpent, you end up as crooked as the serpent. That's why. You say now, Brother James, you'd get a lot farther if you didn't talk that way and you didn't throw in those little side comments that insult people and hurt their feelings. I know that. I know that very well. But the truth of the matter is, if you love the word of God as much as some of us love the word of God, you would be just as upset with those who pervert it as you would be with someone defiling your wife. You see, what passes off today as love for the Word of God is not really love for the Word of God. If you love someone, you protect them, you defend them, and you have some very hard feelings toward those who would defile them. You see, you just need to pray about those things. You need to slow down and not be so critical. There may be some very good heart reasons why some of us get worked up like we do. I can understand a man that doesn't believe anything, not getting excited about anything, but those of us that believe the book we get a little bit excited when people seek to pervert it and lead the blind into the ditch. Now, poetry is not without revision in the NIV.

God’s Titles And Loaded Word Choices

SPEAKER_00 24:05

Poetry is printed in poetic line, according to the NIV translators, quote, to reflect the structure of Hebrew poetry. This poetry is normally characterized by parallelism and balanced lines. However, scholars differ regarding scansion of Hebrew lines. End of quotation. Scholars also use the difficulties of determining meter and parallelism in Hebrew poetry to insert a diversity of meaning into scripture, and translation becomes a game that in the end proves to be detrimental to belief in the inerrancy of God's word. Briggs, in the International Critical Commentary, proposes a number of amendations to Psalm 114, inserting and deleting words from the Hebrew in order to produce parallelism he believes is proper for the Psalm. Who asked him? Others use parallelism to dispute the biblical teachings on creation. In Genesis one two, we read in a commentary by let me give his name here. Well Palmer, Edwin Palmer says in Genesis one two, did the author really mean to express two distinct thoughts? Or did he regard the creation of man as part of the creation of the earth, so that his lines are really parallel statements? In the NIV we find revisions in order to produce parallelism. That is, to force the Bible text to read like Hebrew poetry, they rewrite the Bible text. Although these changes are not nearly so detrimental as those proposed by more liberal scholars, they are nonetheless changes to the Word of God. Changes not intended by God. With the NIV translator's view of never-ending translations, who knows what other more liberal changes may be incorporated into the next edition. Now we've got to wind it down for today. Although the NIV stresses the need for parallelism and balance, they have failed to achieve either. Instead, the stately rhythm and flow of the authorized King James Version, so familiar to Christians for three centuries, is lost in the NIV's attempt to communicate. The translators manage to retain your rod and your staff, they comfort me in Psalm 23.4. Yet for the sake of unlearned readers, they change mercy to love in Psalm 23.6,

Poetry, Psalm 23, And The Close

SPEAKER_00 26:36

resulting in surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life. Not only does this lose the rhythm found with the additional syllable of mercy, but it also loses the theological significance of mercy as found in the mercy seat in the tabernacle and so often in the lives of David and his spiritual kinsmen. What have I said on this broadcast? Quite simply, I have proven to you, if you never listen to another program again, that the New International Version is not the Word of God, but it is the Word of men, as they have altered the text of the Holy Bible and rewritten it to suit their fancy. Well, our time's almost gone for today. If you'd like this entire five-part study on the NIV, it's on one C D. You may obtain it by visiting JamesWNox.org. JamesWnox.org. That's the web address to get the study on the NIV. Your friends need to hear this. Hope you'll get one today. The announcement will be on in just a moment to let you know when this program will be heard again over this radio station. We hope you'll join us then for the preaching of the cross radio broadcast. Until that time, I'm Brother James. May the Lord richly bless you, and good day.