Subscribe to Updates

Click here to subscribe to new posts by email. We use Google FeedBurner to send these notifications.

Don’t Panic! Gay Satanists Are Not Corrupting Your Bible

Posted on: July 15th, 2015 by Craig Rairdin 51 Comments

Recently we’ve heard from a few customers who have seen a post on Facebook suggesting that someone is out to corrupt the New International Version (NIV) and English Standard Version (ESV) Bibles, and that they need to act quickly to make sure they archive a copy of the “real” Bible before gays and satanists ruin it. The post usually looks something like this:

PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!

I’m sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few… The NIV and ESV and other versions have also now removed 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones.

Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37

…you will not believe your eyes.

Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King James Version)

THE SOLUTION

If you must use the NIV or ESV BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.

There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV and many more versions are affected.

This is a variation on the claims that newer Bibles remove verses from the “original” (by which they usually mean the King James Version). But in this version of the panic-inducing message, the argument is that the newer versions themselves are being updated, purportedly by the gays and satanists at Harper Collins, to remove verses and change words.

The fact of the matter is that updates have been made to these two Bibles. Ongoing updates are often made by the translators of all modern Bibles to address errors in previous editions, changes in language and usage, and to incorporate a better understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This is not unusual; even the King James Version was updated for these purposes during the early years of its existence.

With respect to the NIV, Zondervan, and Harper Collins, it’s important to note that the text of the NIV is actually maintained by Biblica, formerly the International Bible Society, a ministry that translates the Bible into dozens of languages and distributes it freely throughout the world. Zondervan is their commercial publishing partner, but Biblica maintains the text, just as they do their other Bibles. So despite the claims of this Facebook post, Harper Collins is not changing the text.

The ESV is an update to the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which itself was a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV). The ASV was an “Americanized” edition of the Revised Version (RV), which was a late-19th-century update to the King James Version. Coincidentally, the ASV was originally published by Thomas Nelson, which today is owned by the same parent company (Harper Collins) that owns Zondervan.

With respect to the complaints about the ESV, given its history one is compelled to question which earlier version the author would have us revert to. This is not made clear. In fact, there is very little clarity in the Facebook post.

We’re frankly disappointed that so many people are sucked in by claims like this. I suppose it could be true that there is a world-wide conspiracy by homosexuals who are in league with satanists to corrupt the Bible. I don’t think the author argues that point very well, if at all, but I suppose it could be possible. I think it’s more likely that an uneducated person who is ignorant of how Bible translation works and of the history of the Bible noticed that both his NIV Bible and his copy of the Joy of Gay Sex were published by Harper Collins and decided everyone on Facebook needed to know about it.

Interested in learning more about the history of the Bible, the original texts and manuscripts from which it is translated, why certain writings are included while others are not, how it is translated, and some information about the various English translations of the Bible over the years? Check out The Origin of the Bible by Dr. Philip Comfort for PocketBible.

This updated volume of the original classic provides a fascinating overview of how the Bible was first inspired, canonized, read as sacred literature, copied in ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and eventually translated into the languages of the world.
The Origin of the Bible is a comprehensive guide to the origin and development of the Bible text, manuscripts, and canon. This updated edition provides a chapter on recent developments in Bible translation.

An excellent resources for pastors, Bible teachers, seminarians and any student of the Bible (i.e all Christians), this book provides a wealth of information about the historical development of the Bible.

 

Tags: , ,

51 Responses

  1. Harvey Mast says:

    I see your article above. It triggered a thought process of mine. PLEASE watch the following video (link to 2-hour-long video removed) THEN again, in good conscience republish your article. The above video is specific about the “errors” that have been corrected, and more to the point, the “errors” that have been introduced, deliberately. PLEASE watch the video, because, since you’re attitude appears to be to kowtow to the changers, I have serious reservations for any more investment in your products.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      Hi Harvey,

      We publish the text of each translation of the Bible as provided to us by the copyright owners. It is up to you to decide which one(s) you want to use. We are a bookstore, not your intelligence or your conscience. We believe our customers are smart enough to figure out what they believe.

      We don’t see lesbian scholars and satan worshippers behind every tree. There are Bibles such as The New World Translation and books such as The Book of Mormon that we have avoided because they have a clear, sectarian agenda. On the other hand, we wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to publishing those titles if they would be of value to enough customers to have in an electronic form. (Our BookBuilder program actually lets anyone publish those in our format if they really want to.) While the NIV is controversial, this is the first time I’ve seen someone argue that the 1984 NIV is God’s Holy Word For Today while the 2011 NIV is the product of gay Satan worshippers. And it’s definitely the first time I’ve seen the ESV lumped into that category. Usually the anti-feminist crowd cites the NIV as the embodiment of evil and holds the ESV up as an example of good translation.

      We feel that the kind of alarmism expressed in the Facebook post quoted above is intellectually shallow and poorly argued. It’s only meant to stir up people who are easily stirred up. I’ll read a brief summary of the standard arguments against the NIV if you want to link me to it, but I’m not going to sit through a two-hour video just to hear the same old same-old again.

      And by the way this has been our position since 1988. So if you haven’t noticed any problem with our product until now, you’re probably OK. 🙂

    • Juan Bustos says:

      Hi Harvey but the link of the video you posted was removed. Could you please write the title of the video?

      • Craig Rairdin says:

        Since this is our site, we remove links. Especially links to material of which we don’t approve. We’ll remove it if he posts it again, too. 🙂

    • Bryce says:

      Hey Harvey,

      I noticed that your comment had a link that was removed. I would like to know what that link was, or what the name of the video was (is it on Youtube? With the name it would be easy for anyone to search it out).

      Thank you,
      Bryce

      • Craig Rairdin says:

        Sorry this wasn’t clear, but I see every comment before it gets posted and I edit or delete those that are at odds with our policies. I remove most links. In this case, the user’s case is clearly made in his post without the link.

  2. Tim Adams says:

    Thanks for the words of sanity Craig. The last sentence actually made me chuckle out loud. I needed the pick-me-up!

  3. Terry says:

    Craig, thanks for handling this in a more gracious manner then I probably would have handled it. I weary of the chicken little church approach that so many, Americans in particular, seem to buy into. In the original post, somehow the supposed agenda behind supposed translation changes is to be interpreted as worse than Christians, for the sake of protection, who out right deceive brothers and sisters, and misrepresent the translated Scriptures, to further their own fear-based agenda. That is a sad commentary on the church.

    The NIV has been, and continues to be, a tremendous translation, and I’ve been using it since it first arrived. The ESV is a wonderful gift to the community of faith, I use it every day. Pocket Bible is the best, and I thank you for your solemn and sane and wise words which will hopefully allay the fears of the poorly informed.

  4. Alicia McKean says:

    So I was curious and checked out the first scripture verse – Matthew 17:21. And he’s right. It’s not there. But there is an asterisk that I can hit and the verse pops up. Not a very good job of hiding it. But then I discovered the conspiracy must include all the Bible translators because the verse is bracketed in the NASB and missing from the NET Bible. Where I found a very detailed note about why the verse is not included. Which is a long way of saying that if you are worried about the translation you are reading, learn the original languages and go read the original writings. Or trust that God is Sovereign.

    Also, thank you for Pocketbible. I have been using it since I had a Palm Pilot. I have it on my phone and my tablet. I love that I always carry my Bible with me and that I have multiple translations at my disposal. Just wanted to throw that in.

  5. Craig Rairdin,
    Your opening paragraph is inaccurate. The KJV-Onlyists do not propose that an attempt is underway to corrupt the New Testament text of the NIV and ESV. The contention of the KJV-Onlyists is that the NIV and ESV already are corrupt, partly because of poor translating-methods but mainly because they are based on a severely flawed Greek base-text.

    Also, while, as you mentioned, the text of the NIV is not being changed by HarperCollins personnel, the text of the NIV today *is* different from the text of the NIV issued in 1984. Mark 1:41 contains one obvious example; Jesus used to be filled with compassion but now (in the new edition of the NIV) Jesus is, instead, indignant.

    It’s easy to laugh off the low-hanging fruit of KJV-Onlyists but there are real text-critical questions involving the passages that you listed. I hope this is clear.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      I think you’re confused, James. My opening paragraph is not about “KJV-Onlyists”. It’s about the people who are passing around the message that is quoted in my post. They are not KJV-Onlyists. Best I can tell, they are NIV-1984-Onlyists, which is definitely a new one, at least based on my inbox.

      You are correct that the 2011 NIV text is different than the 1984 text. If it were not, an update wouldn’t have been necessary. 🙂 Not everyone is going to agree with every decision made by every translator, and Mark 1:41 is a case in point. I found this interesting discussion from William Mounce: https://www.teknia.com/blog/little-text-criticism-mark-1-41

      My only point about the KJV-Onlyists was that part of the argument presented by the poster of this message is that verses are being “removed from the Bible”. The fact is that the cited verses were “removed” in the 1984 NIV as well, so there’s nothing new here. And as I’ve argued before, one could just as reasonably say that the cited verses were “added” by the KJV as that they were “removed” by the NIV.

      And again, the poster is not arguing for a return to the KJV, but a return to the earlier NIV, which is missing the same verses. The whole argument is weird and inscrutable. I agree with you that there are arguments for and against the listed passages. The poster does not make those arguments nor even allude to them.

      • Craig Rairdin,
        CR: “Best I can tell, they are NIV-1984-Onlyists” —

        Rather odd that any sort of NIV-Onlyist would cite the KJV instead of the NIV, isn’t it.

        What seems to have happened is that someone in Nigeria encountered some KJV-Onlyist material and reframed its contents without being aware that its statements about the NIV were as valid about the 1984 NIV as they are about the 2011 NIV. (Not to mean that they actually are valid, or not — just that they were interpreted as such.) The material seems to have trickled from the Nairaland forum in Nigeria to various FB pages and snowballed from there. But its basis is most definitely KJV-Onlyist material.

        Regarding Mk. 1:41 see my statements in the relevant part of the review at http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/Misquoting.htm . Codex D is arguably the most corrupt Greek manuscript of the Gospels & Acts in existence; its reading in Mk. 1:41 is a retro-translation of a Latin translator’s mistranslation of the usual word SPLANGCHNISTHEIS (which means “filled with compassion” but which is literally, “moved in the bowels” which a dense Latin translator could think meant “upset”).

        • Craig Rairdin says:

          I can only go by what is in the message. The message is badly written and you’re right, it sounds like it is a poor edit of a message that probably was making a different point when originally written. My whole point is that people see this nonsensical, unintelligent, illogical post and they fly off in a frenzy thinking there’s suddenly something wrong with their Bible. Unfortunately, these people contact us wanting to know why we are in league with gays and satanists who are rewriting the NIV as we speak. 🙂

          The Mark 1:41 discussion is interesting, but is a perfect example of how little any of this matters. Compassionate, indignant, whatever — Jesus had the power to heal and the authority to forgive sins. My relationship with God is not affected by this word. It’s an interesting discussion — for five minutes. But I’m not going to throw out my NIV, ESV, KJV, or any other Bible over it. And I’m not going to abandon or alter my faith over it.

  6. Madeleine Forrer says:

    Craig, thanks to you and your team for the extraordinary work you do. There’s a grain of truth in every lie, right?

    I am wondering though, is there an option to use the 1984 version? I do read a variety of translations as I study, but I would really prefer that edition as my baseline It seems as though it isn’t available, and that’s what I find most frustrating. I’m hoping you’ll tell me I’m wrong.

    Blessings, Madeleine

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      If you previously purchased the 1984 NIV from us, you can still download it. If you did not purchase that edition when it was available, we can’t sell it to you.

  7. John Williams says:

    Ah, well, I have an early NIV at home that tells us (I think in Colossians) to put to death thoughts of sexual immortality! I wonder what the conspiracy theorists would make of that being altered?

    • John, I’m searching for the Col.3:5 which I found decades ago and wish to pin down in a forthcoming book. Since you have the edit., pls let me know which it was – I think it was the ’78.

  8. David says:

    I have my mother’s old NIV Study Bible. According to the copyright notice on the early pages, it was published by the Zondervan Corporation in 1985. The verses that are cited in the Facebook article (Matt 17:21, 18:11 etc) are all missing. Hence their omission has nothing to do with the Harper Collins ownership, which (according to Wikipedia — see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zondervan#History) began in 1988, i.e. it is not a recent event as is implied by the article. The material posted in Facebook is therefore a complete misrepresentation.

  9. Percy says:

    KJV, NIV or any other version of the Bible … it doesn’t matter … they are all, in some way or another, corrupted from “the original” text. But, the one thing that is accurate … 2 Timothy 2:15, in that, I encourage all of you to do just that, study … don’t study without praying and asking for God’s revelation of what you are studying … allow your spirit to commune with The Holy Spirit for a better understanding of what God is communicating to you … it’s not about what man has translated, it’s about what God intends for each individual.

  10. Robert Hughes says:

    If ANY so called Christian book store is selling a Bible that they know is corrupted no matter how small, and reply that it isn’t their duty to defend GOD’s word then they should remove the Christian from their title and just put Spiritual family book stores. It is Absolutely everyone’s duty to peacefully defend the word of GOD.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      That’s the trick, isn’t it — knowing that the Bible they’re selling is corrupted. There is always someone, somewhere arguing that any given Bible — including the KJV — is “corrupted”. If Christian bookstores (and by implication, Laridian, since I compared us to a bookstore in an earlier comment) removed everything from their product line that someone claimed was corrupted, we wouldn’t have anything left to distribute. But as I said above, we do make judgement calls constantly regarding what we should or should not publish.

  11. Sangaye Kweegbo says:

    Well Sir, I defer with you a little if you say that the words in printed in the NIV1984 is the same as 2011.
    After I got this text from a friend yesterday, I decided to immediately check the missing verses beginning with Matthew 17:21. Which was a urge from the Lord Jesus to his Disciples saying, “These Kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” I took my NIV Bible and Immediately found it in my bible. Afterwards,i Checked the Internet and my mobile device and the identical verse is not on the imternet presently. So indeed these verse are missing from the newest prints that are being published.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      As I explain here, those verses aren’t necessarily “missing”. It could be argued that those verses were added to God’s word in the versions where they are present.

      Those who argue that the verses are “missing” assume without argument that they belong there in the first place. That is what needs to be shown. That is, that the translators of older Bibles, working from more recent manuscripts (i.e. manuscripts that were written hundreds of years after the manuscripts we now have access to), were not simply propogating earlier errors by including these verses in their translations of the Bible.

      I’m not inviting that discussion here, because it’s been argued ad nauseum elsewhere, to no conclusion. I’m just pointing out that this isn’t a black-and-white issue. There is not an objectively right answer to this question.

  12. Dixion says:

    I see why people may be concerned. I don’t see the need to hide the text. What does hurt if text is repeated in another chapter or verse?

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      Nothing is being “hidden”. The translators who do these newer translations have access to manuscripts they believe are more accurate than those used by earlier translators. In these more-accurate manuscripts, some of the verses found in the less-accureate manuscripts do not appear. So the translators do not include those verses, or they put them in the footnotes. They are only following the original manuscripts. They are not making a decision to “hide” anything.

  13. Eben McWilliams says:

    God bless you Craig for the wonderful work done and your team. People are polluting the populace and trying to confuse feeble minded believers. But thanks for your clarification.

  14. MargieL says:

    The same company does in fact published the Satanic Bible though? Is that correct?

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      The Satanic Bible is published by Avon, which publishes mostly romance novels. Avon is an imprint of Harper Collins, which also owns Zondervan (NIV and Amplified Bible), Thomas Nelson (NKJV), and Olive Tree Bible Software. The NIV text, however, was translated and is owned by Biblica, formerly the International Bible Society. Zondervan is the publisher, not the copyright owner.

  15. Debbie says:

    Thank God schools in my country stopped using NIV. I mean how do you explain all these to young minds? NIV is full of contradictions in my opinion

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      Interesting. I haven’t heard this argument before. Can you cite three contradictions in the NIV that are not present in, say, the KJV? I’d like to look into this further. Thanks!

      • Olu William says:

        I have one version to cite for you Craig. I don’t know if you are and you study bible. since you asked for citation, I have one. Same Matt 17:21 & Mark 9:29 In NKJV copyright and published by Thomas Nelson ( 1982), we found the words “PRAYER and FASTING”. But in the NIV Journal Word Bible copyright & published @2015 by Zondervan has the those two words Missing. In fact, verse 21 is missing for Matt 17:21. At the bottom, it says “some manuscript include here words similar to Mark 9:29. I went to Mark 9:29, I saw “prayer” but the word “fasting” is missing. Prayer and Fasting are spiritual weapons for Christians but have been toyed with in NIV. I hope Christians pay more attentions.

        • Craig Rairdin says:

          The question to which you are replying asks for examples of contradictions present in the NIV that are not present in the KJV or other Bibles. You are merely citing differences, which is fine — I’d be happy to address those.

          The differences you cite are not the result of gay or satanic influence on the translators. They are differences in the extant Greek manuscripts. Translators of the older Bibles like the KJV did not have access to all the Greek manuscripts that we have today, as many have been found more recently than when those Bibles were translated.

          Specifically Matthew 17:21 is not present in the oldest Greek manuscripts — the ones that are closest to the originals. It is believed that the verse was added, perhaps absentmindedly or perhaps intentionally, during the process of manually copying the manuscripts. Since the copies that existed at the time the KJV was translated were more recent than those we have now, the argument is that the text was changed sometime during that process.

          With respect to Mark 9:29, the most reliable manuscripts have only the word “prayer”. The later manuscripts, which, as described above, were copies of copies of copies of copies of the ones we have now, have “fasting” added. Scholars believe this word was added in those later manuscripts as opposed to being removed from the earlier texts (and re-inserted into the later ones).

          Again, the important thing to this discussion is that the word “fasting” was not removed by the translators, nor was 17:21 removed by the translators. The translators of the NIV and other newer Bibles worked from the best Greek manuscripts available to them. In those manuscripts, the word “fasting” is not present in Mark and verse 17:21 is not present in Matthew.

          Finally, by virtue of the fact that we have multiple translations and multiple manuscripts, we can evaluate the evidences for the word “fasting” in Mark and the entire verse in Matthew and come to our own decision. This is why it is so important to use multiple translations and understand the sources of these differences. On the other hand, it could be argued that these differences change no Christian doctrine or teaching. The efficacy of prayer and fasting is well-known and well-described throughout the Old and New Testaments.

  16. Joseph says:

    Thank you for the clarifications. But Dr. Martin Woudstra the chairman translator in the old testament of NIV is homosexual and Virginia Mollenkott is a lesbian, the stylistic editor. So is it safe to say that the integrity of the NIV version is not good?

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      That may be the case, but it is not the assertion of this article. But since we’re on the topic, can you cite three examples where the NIV Old Testament corrupts the meaning of the Hebrew in order to promote a pro-homosexual agenda?

    • Ed H says:

      Joseph, it is possible the translators of the NIV are gay. But it gets worse. WAY worse.

      David wrote – not translated, but actually wrote – many of the Psalms, and that guy was a murderer!

      Moses had the audacity to throw down the tablets the 10 commandments were on, then he struck a rock making it look like he made it gush with water and denying that glory to God, yet that guy wrote Genesis-Deut.

      Don’t get me started on Paul’s sins before he wrote most of the New Testament.

      We should be very VERY leery of those doing the Lord’s work until we have vetted the skeletons in their closet, and assume the genetic fallacy is of no consequence.

      • Craig Rairdin says:

        The blog doesn’t let me give you a thumbs-up for this reply, but consider it given.

        One of the things I believe Christians are wont to do is pick out the sins that they themselves are not tempted by (or sometimes, ironically, the ones they are MOST tempted by) and make those out to be the worst of sins. In some circles, that might be divorce. In others, it’s homosexuality. Oddly, up here where I live, smoking is a heinous sin. But down south where they grow tobacco, it is less so.

        So before I get upset about a closted homosexual working on the NIV in the early 1960’s when we weren’t as brazen about sexual sin as we are today, I would want a list of the sins of the rest of the translation committee. After all, if you are guilty of the smallest part of the Law, you are guilty of all of it (James 2:10). And secondly, I would want to know how those sins got translated into the work. Is the NIV particularly forgiving of certain sins? Were there committee meetings in which one translator said he wouldn’t work on a particular book of the Bible unless he could water down prohibitions against incest, bestiality, theft, or lying?

        And do we know the sins of the person who wrote the Bible software on which we read the NIV (or the KJV for that matter)? How about the sins of the guy who ran the printing press or the blue-haired lady who installed the thumb-tabs in your printed Bible? Was there ever a Bible translated, printed, and distributed by a team of sinless people? Which one is that?? 🙂

  17. Nneoma says:

    This is it, the last reply go me thinking, and right now none of them is arguing it again, sin is sin and they all are disobedience against God, it doesn’t matter how u paint it or the name u call it, Let us flee from all manner of sin and evil, God bless and have mercy on us in Jesus name

  18. David says:

    The NIV has clearly removed very important verses. No need to try and defend that. Good day.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      At your request and consistent with my own preferences, I will not defend your statement that the NIV has removed very important verses.

  19. C. M. OFORI says:

    Craig, good job. This arguments, are destructive and takes attention from the real message. I had a hard copy of 1984 version of the NIV Bible and it’s good. There are missing verses, yes but this verses are missing in other Bibles too. For instance, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and Good News Bible. Let me say here that, most Christians do not read the Bible on their own, else they would have notice this omissions long ago before this post on FB. Yes, the Bible says if you lost a sheep out of 100, you would leave the 99 and hunt for the lost one. If that is the basis for these arguments, so be it. Other than that, I think we do not need the whole Bible to make it to heaven. A person’s turning point is not in reading the Bible cover-to-cover, it may be a verse, a chapter and sometimes a word. God is watching. He will not permit the truth to be distorted to a certain level measured by God alone. He allowed Saul to pursue David until He sent the Philistines to Saul’s land and a servant came to call Saul, diverting his attention from David. All that we need as Christians to preach, teach and encourage is in the Bible. By the time some of these translators completed their assignment of translating the Bible, they were converted to Christianity. Jesus told his disciples to let those who do not belong to them to cast out demons in His name, and that If they cast out Demons in Jesus’ name, they will not turn around and say evil about Me(Jesus). Look, the Bible is inspired by God that’s why it’s the Oldest book. Despite all attempts to destroy it at some point it still stands. Have faith that God will build his church- He will protect the Bible-those attempting to alter it will be converted to Christianity. God bless Al true worshippers who worship God Jehovah in truth.

  20. John R.Volz says:

    It’s Jan.13, 2017 and I received that “Critical Alert” about the NIV, and I do what I always do when I get these type of warning messages, either it be a Dancing Pope Virus, or a Dying child writing a song to raise money through “likes” (both Hoaxes) to just name a couple of a long list, but this one led me here and I found this blog extremely interesting. Craig Rairden you’ve done a good job of enlighting folks on this subject matter. I get it, and though I’m a bit jacked up, I am a Christian, and I get it. I copy the link here and pasted it in reply to the person who sent it to me. Maybe they’ll get it to. Thank You Brother, and all God’s Blessings and Favor to You and Yours! Keep up the good work!

  21. carl hughes says:

    First off people can argue that there is no perfect translation and I agree but since I dont read Greek or Latin, the only original english translation that came out is the KJV in the 1500’s that hasn’t been touched or altered. I am a KJV only christian because for the last 400 years, hundreds of millions of christians have used the KJV, lived, died and saved by it. Where as these new bible versions have only been around for the last few decades and they keep coming out with new translations that the average Christian is already lost. To say that the KJV is also inaccurate then we can say that the hundreds of million Christians who used the KJV would have died in vain and their salvation lost. We all know that Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, a literary critic on the NIV translation is an open lesbian. In the Episcopal magazine, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits. To say that there is no hidden agenda to the NIV perversion is just plain ignorance because we don’t know what happens behind closed doors.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      Hi Carl,

      The Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew, so even if you could read Latin, you’d still be reading a translation. Interestingly, some portions of the KJV were translated from text that had first been translated to Latin, then those Latin documents translated back to Greek. We’ve since found Greek texts (multiple Greek texts, actually) containing those portions of the New Testament, so we no longer need to rely on those Greek-to-Latin-to-Greek texts.

      The KJV was commissioned in 1604 and completed in 1611. So no portion of it came out in the 1500’s. And it is not the case that it hasn’t been altered. Two early revisions (1629 and 1638) corrected errors introduced in the printing of the first edition. Then, because languages evolve over time, the KJV was updated in 1762 and again in 1769 to bring spelling and word usage in line with then-modern practices. The KJV Bible you read from today is none of these, of course. Depending on the publisher, it may come through a line of updates that came through Cambridge University or another through Oxford.

      Because it was impossible for early printers to retain the typesetting between each printing of the text, every printing of the KJV was different from the last. And every printer set their own type. So those millions of Christians who were saved with a KJV Bible on their laps were reading from dozens or maybe even hundreds of different editions of the text.

      Fortunately, our salvation doesn’t depend on the wording of the Bible we’re reading at the time that we confess that we are sinners and receive Christ’s free gift of salvation. Remember that millions of Christians were saved in the roughly 1600 years before the King James Version was even conceived. The early church didn’t even have the complete text of the Bible you and I have today, and no one would question their salvation. So the idea that our salvation can be lost just because our Bible is found to contain a variation on the translation of a particular verse is both soteriologically and logically flawed.

      It is true that Mollenkott was a “secret” lesbian at the time that she did some proofreading of the NIV. I’m wondering if you can give me, say, just three passages from the NIV where the biblical view of lesbianism was modified by Mollenkott. Failing that, I’m wondering if you can give me just one passage. Then we can discuss the extent that a closetted lesbian adversely affected the translation of of the NIV.

      Then keep in mind that the post on which I’m commenting claims that the original 1984 NIV is fine, it’s the later 2011 edition that is corrupt. So when citing the passages you come up with to demonstrate the sanctity of lesbianism from the NIV, can you show how they were altered between 1984 and 2011 and explain what role Mollenkott or any other lesbian had in making this change?

      I look forward to continuing our discussion. Thank you for your comments.

  22. Christopher Ray says:

    This argument leads to one of two paths. Either the Word of God can be found in the Hebrew and Greek text we currently have or it is found in the King James Version. To the first argument I say that 99% of scholars claiming that the Word of God is found in the Greek and Hebrew text claim that it is not in fact the Word of God but a translation of a translation. They are fully willing to admit that all bibles are translations. The KJV says the words of God are pure and other bibles say the Words of God are flawless. Translations can not add up to this verse in the Bible. Translations are works of men and therefore subject to error. Scholars who promote Hebrew and Greek readily admit error in all translations. This line of thinking ends up promoting that the Word of God does not exist.

    To KJV supporters I would say 99% of them contradict themselves as well. They do not support the 1st Edition original Authorized 1611 KJV but rather the revisions that do not contain the Apocrypha. In their arrogance they try to correct the “errors” in the Word of God and settle for standing on the foundation of revisions. This is hypocritical period.

    This leaves a Christians with several other options. Either trust the church completely. Don’t ask questions. Have faith..

    Trust the 1611 KJV w/ all “errors” included, have faith.

    Try a different faith / religion

    Make up your own way of knowing the Lord (Without using the word the Lord doesn’t even have that name though) idk

    Personally I have faith in the original 1611 KJV w/ Apocrypha and Old English Text and all the beautiful word art. The Church claims authority from the Bible so I choose the Bible as my authority. Just a thought really.

    • Craig Rairdin says:

      This is an impassioned, though logically flawed, argument for the KJV but it is in response to an article that claims that the earlier 1978 and 1984 editions of the NIV are more true to the original text than the 2011 edition is.

      Your pro-KJV argument invokes the logical fallacy of a false choice. It is not the case that “either the Word of God can be found in the Hebrew and Greek text we currently have or it is found in the King James Version”. There are many other possibilities that you do not explore.

      Your argument that 99% of scholars who claim that the Hebrew and Greek texts contain the Word of God also claim they do not is false on its face. Either they make the claim or they don’t.

      You assert that a translation of the Word of God cannot be the Word of God, but you do so without any support.

      You have faith in those who translated and printed the first edition of the KJV, including all of its flaws, but offer no explanation why it is worthy of your faith while earlier translations/printings (such as the widely used Geneva Bible) and later translations/printings are not. You state that “translations are the works of men and are therefore subject to error” but then accept the KJV (a translation) as the Word of God.

      I would argue that your understanding of the term “Word of God” is flawed. I would encourage you to study the use of this terminology in the Bible (KJV Bible is fine), and specifically think of it in terms of printed Bibles and whether or not that is what the Bible speaks of when it uses this term. I suspect what you truly mean to talk about is inspiration and inerrancy, which are relatively recent concepts as applied to our 66-book canon, and whether or not any translation of the Bible is inspired and inerrant; whether any copy of the Greek and Hebrew texts are inspired and inerrant; and whether the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.

      I also think you need to be more specific about your use of the term “Word of God”. At times you say it “can be found in” the KJV or original texts, and at other times you say that the KJV or original texts are (or are not) the Word of God. These are very different ideas (and there are other understandings of this term that are different than these).

      I’m encouraged by the fact that you are reading and following the KJV Bible. You and I would agree, I believe, with the idea that the KJV is completely understandable by today’s readers if they are willing to learn its vocabulary and understand that the meaning of certain English words has changed over time. Other words have fallen out of use. These are obstacles that are easily overcome. You and I would agree that the KJV contains everything the Christian needs to live according to God’s precepts. Where we probably disagree is that I believe that the Word of God is a bigger concept than any one translation of any one set of Hebrew and Greek texts into any one language. I believe that the Word of God survives even flawed translation, and that it doesn’t reside only in printed, transcribed, or translated texts.

      As you said — these are just my thoughts in response to your thoughts. 🙂

  23. Christopher Ray says:

    P.S [link removed] contains an original 1611 KJV and if you google facsimile 1611 KJV you should find a company still producing copies of the original 1611 KJV

  24. Deborah Wilhelm says:

    Having just learned of Harper Collins publishing choices, I have ended a publishing contract with an associated Christian division. Rationalizing evil is the devil’s work. Christians are not taught that there is a gay satanist behind every bush or book. Scripture does say that satan is the ruler of this world seeking to devour us. Scripture also says that opening the door to an evil spirit and shooing him away just brings a bunch of them right back. A stronghold is a stronghold. I don’t allow anything in my house that promotes paganism, idolatry, godlessness, or false teachings. Why would a Christian publish with a company that has invited satan and abominations to their front door and table? A stronghold is a stronghold. Money seems to be the god here. A Christian cannot be double-minded and cannot afford even the appearance of wrong-doing by association. I was very disturbed to find that Harper Collins publishes such material.

  25. I read thro’ the interesting back and forth discussions about Harper-Collins and NIV. The question I ask is: are these discussants followers of Christ or simply theologians having some intellectual party?

    In Kenya there is a massive revival in preparation of the Messiah’s return. We use multiple versions of the Bible and the issues raised here seem extraterrestrial. I have at least ten versions of the Bible including Kiswahili language, Kikuyu language, NIV, KJV, NKJ,Good News(ABS), Gideon’s Kiswahili new testament, African Heritage Bible…

    All of them have a singular subject: Jesus Christ!!

    I think the followers of Christ need to focus on following Christ. Those who brought the gospel to Kenya from Europe have fallen away possibly because they got drawn away from Christ by clever arguments, toxic (but sugar coated) philosophies, pseudo-science and crooked theologies. In regard to Harper-Collins we should demand only one thing – access to the faithful translations of Holy Scriptures. They seem to be doing well on that score. As for lesbians, gays, satanists – Christ died for them. I pray they will see the Truth and flee into the glorious light of the Blessings.

Leave a Reply

©2017 Laridian