(New International Version)

Wayne Coats

Some of the smart-set prattle that elders do not have the right to regulate which versions are to be used in the congregation. What proof is given to substantiate such babbling? Not one word!

        Comes now information concerning a congregation which is having trouble over the New International Version (NIV) being used by some of the members. If the opposers of the situation would just play shut mouth, the trouble would cease being open and outward but the resentment would continue in the hearts of those who object to the New International Version (NIV). Should the opposers refuse to state their ideas? Do they have valid reasons for their objections?
        I will set forth some reasons why my brethren have no business relying on the New International Version (NIV) perversion. I suspect the mindset of so many will be the same kind of thinking which can be found among those who use mechanical instruments of music in their worship. They like it, and it matters not what others say. How sad!
        There are a great number of versions which have been pasted together. With some, The Cotton Patch version is acceptable. Why do we have a ready supply of versions? They have been printed in order to sell and make money without regard to the truth. This leads me to state that there is a world of difference in a version and a translation. A version is so often a mere paraphrase wherein the publisher inserts his own theological beliefs whenever he wishes.
        There is a smorgasbord of versions available and the booksellers vie for the sales and dollars which junk versions will bring in. A few of the efforts of false teachers can be seen in, The Cotton Patch version, The Bible Union version, The New Living Bible, Today’s English version, Moffatts version, Phillips version, 20th Century New Testament, Revised Standard version, and the New International version. There are others to be sure, but these are sufficient to show the sordid tastes of gullible people.
        Since the new age of liberalism and modernism has found an inner sanctum in “our” uNew International Version (NIV)ersities, a barrage of new versions have been proliferated and an ever increasing number of babblings about the, “mistakes in the King James version.” It is difficult to maintain the proper respect and appreciation for the King James Version with a crew of semi-infidels deprecating the book.
        Some of the smart-set prattle that elders do not have the right to regulate which versions are to be used in the congregation. What proof is given to substantiate such babbling? Not one word! Are shepherds to guard the flock? What is involved in guarding the flock? Shepherds are to feed the flock and see that the flock is properly fed.
        Anyone who can move around by himself probably knows that practically every cultic and sectarian group has their own publishing house. Many of these groups would be glad to filter their Sunday school materials into congregations of the church if the elders and members will allow such. Are the shepherds responsible for the food which the sheep feast upon?
        We grant that some sheep are not always satisfied with the pure, sound, word of God. As parents, we have a fearful responsibility to see that our children have pure and wholesome food. We would not tolerate tainted food to be sold in the market place. Should parents guard their children from such rot? Should shepherds guard the sheep from error? Shepherds are to take care of the flock (1 Tim. 3:5). What does that involve? What do mothers practice in caring for little babies?
        The New International Version is shot full of errors. One does not need to rely upon my statement, but if one knows how to study the matter and will take the time and trouble to investigate the matter, one can see for self. “Aye, there’s the rub!”
        The new New International Version (NIV) perversion appeared in 1973. A committee of men from several denominations produced the New International Version (NIV). If you will read the preface you might be shocked to learn that so-called translators declared, “Words are occasionally used or phrases supplied for clarification.”
        For many years, our brethren have debated sectarians and the debates have been published. Each opponent in the debate has had the liberty of checking the manuscript before publication. Can you imagine brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. allowing the notorious J. Frank Norris to use words and phrases for clarification as a result of their debate?
        What kind of changes would a crew of denominational men make in their efforts? Do the same men make changes in their words and phrases as they preach? My brethren have to be extremely ignorant and careless as they clutch their darling New International Version (NIV) to their breast. Will they use the Book of Mormon? Jailbird Joe Smith made a lot of changes in his theology. Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy made a lot of changes in her “Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture.” Every cultic person on earth does the same.
        We need to realize the difference in a paraphrase and a credible translation. Any person can prattle a paraphrase and some people will be gullible enough to buy it and follow its errors.
        For the benefit of the concerned reader, we will post a few of the egregious blunders of the New International Version (NIV). A brief statement from the Old Testament will show the blunder of the New International Version (NIV) crew. They render Psalms 51:1 as follows, “I have been a sinner from birth.” Not by any stretch of a deranged mind does the passage sustain the Calvinistic notion of Total Depravity by inheritance. Not only are words and phrases changed, but entire sentences are perverted.
        The elder who came into the church building cradling his New International Version (NIV) in his arm would most likely object to the preacher using the New International Version (NIV) to preach a sermon on Inherited Total Depravity. It could be that the fellow is so dumb that he wouldn’t know the difference in truth and error.
        The Calvinists have long defended the false teaching on Total Depravity and they like to quote Psalms 51:1. Apparently they have no conscience about taking a position which results in the Bible flatly contradicting itself.
        David did not say he was born a sinner. He said he was conceived in sin by his mother. It is no light thing to twist and pervert the scriptures. With intelligent people, there is a difference in conception and birth. Whatever David is declaring, it relates to conception and has not one word about his birth.
        There have been different view points presented with respect to the passage under review but we know that whatever the Psalmist declared, he did not contradict the words of the Holy Spirit. Can we not accept that principle?
        Another inspired prophet wrote, “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20).
        To the church at Rome Paul wrote, “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). “Furthermore we have had fathers of the flesh which corrected us and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live” (Heb. 12:9)? Surely God is not the Father of totally depraved spirits. I have an old debate book wherein the Baptist debater is quoted as saying, “There will be infants in hell, not a span long.” This shows how far-out false teachers will go.
        A big inconsistency is seen in reading Matthew 5:17 and comparing it with Ephesians 2:15. The account of Matthew has Jesus saying, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The Ephesians account reads, “For he himself is our peace, who had made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” Why the contradiction?
        In Matthew 24:21 Jesus said, “For then there shall be great tribulation.” The New International Version (NIV) uses the expression, “great distress.” In Revelation 7:14, the same word is used and the committee used the expression, “the great tribulation.” Again we ask, why the difference? Does a Bible word mean one thing at the front of the New Testament, but the same original word can be changed at the end of the New Testament? Such is not translating at all.
        Jesus taught in John 3:16 that the believer “should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The New International Version (NIV) reads, “shall not perish.” There is a difference in “should not” and “shall not.”
        In John 5:28 Jesus said, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice.” The New International Version (NIV) scholars changed the word hour and rendered it “a time is coming.” Thayer renders the word “hour” as “a point in time.” I do not care for the versions being changed and paraphrased and offered for my use. Give me a translation.
        A decided Calvinistic viewpoint is set forth in Romans 1:17 when the New International Version (NIV) declared, “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last.” Righteousness is not by faith from first to last. In spite of the coloring of the text, obedience is a necessary part of righteous living.
        One of the frequent babblings among the liberals is to speak of one’s “sinful nature.” If they need support for such rot, they can turn to the New International Version (NIV). In Galatians 3:14 the New International Version (NIV) reads, “You, my brother were called to be free, but do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature.” In Romans 7:18, we read, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.” In the eighth chapter of Romans, the revisers did a complete job in spreading their Calvinism by the use of “sinful nature.”
        Calvinism is seen again when the New International Version (NIV) crew writes, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Paul is discussing the “natural man” in the text and context. He does not teach Calvinism.
        In First Corinthians 13:10 Paul wrote, “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” A gross perversion is seen in the New International Version (NIV) which reads, “But when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” Paul used the neuter gender in that, which applied to the perfect law of liberty (the New Testament). False teachers would have the text referring to the coming of Christ, at which time we will be all one. That is not in the text.
        Perhaps my brethren who cling to the New International Version (NIV) will be consoled when they read, “And you also were included in Christ, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13). Are we really “in Christ” when we hear the word? The hearer believes and is marked with a seal. Who can believe it? Is this a word or phrase which needed a change for clarification?
        For long decades we have turned to our Bibles and read, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). The New International Version (NIV) committee changed that text as follows: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord.” Some of the elders want their New International Version (NIV), but they don’t want to “make music” — yet. It’s a pretty sorry book which purports to be the Bible and yet the brethren reject some of its parts and delight in other parts.
        There has been a number of pseudo-scholars who have delighted in talking about the, “Mistakes in the King James Translation.” Those old translators were conservative in their views and did not seek to insert modernism into their efforts. They worked for two years and nine months in order to produce the translation. There were forty-seven scholars who lived to finish the work. As I read the preface in my old, tattered, and worn KJV, I am impressed with the care and meticulous concern which King James bound on the translators.
        I have heard some remarks that the old King James translation has too many difficult words. The New International Version (NIV) has many words too difficult for some people. Do we not have enough intelligence to study a dictionary? I keep one in reach, beside my chair all the time. I suspect we are like the people who use the mechanical instruments in worship. They like them and will use them. So with the New International Version (NIV), it matters not how much Calvinism and Pentecostalism have been inserted for “clarification,” some brethren do not know and they do not care.
        What benefit is the New International Version (NIV), KJV or any other book to persons who reject the wisdom of those brethren who — “take care of the church of the Lord” (1 Tim. 3:5).
                705 Hillview Dr.
                Mt. Juliet, TN 37122

Top of Page