The Growth of Replacement Theology Part 1

  

Deuteronomy 14:2: For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth

Ron Matsen, who is president of Koinonia Institute, also has over 30 years of pastoral ministry as well.  He has lectured many times on end times, so he is well-suited to discuss “replacement theology,” since it has a sizeable end-times application.  Replacement theology is one of the oldest controversies impacting the Christian church. Unlike controversies on the canon, or Arius, this controversy has never been resolved. By the time you reach the end of this paper (in two blogs), you’ll see why.  The subject is important because virtually all the Reformation-based denominations teach it as true.  And there has been an increase in evangelical denominations that do, too.  So let’s see what it’s all about.  We’ll start with a definition:

Replacement theology:  The view that the Jewish people and the land are replaced by the Christian church to fulfill the purposes of God to become the historic continuation of Israel.  The theory says that God rejected the Jews because of their rejection of His laws and what they did to His Son, so when the Bible speaks of God’s dealing with ‘Israel’ from the book of Acts and beyond, He is really speaking to not Israel but the church. The nation Israel has no calling in the plan of God; promises and covenants are null and void—they have been given to the church. This is particularly important for the end times.  So, the theory goes, Israel is no longer God’s chosen people.

So when we see "Israel," we're supposed to think "the church."  Well, Paul doesn't do that. He's talking about Israel's future beyond him in Romans 11:

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. ² God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, ³ “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? ⁴ But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal”...Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded...have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles

When Paul makes a comparative comment that he is "also" an Israelite, and then lists Jewish qualities, he is not speaking of the church--he is speaking of the Israelite nation.  So when he clearly says that God has not cast "His people" away, he is also speaking of the Jewish nation. He is also saying that if anyone (like Elijah) speaks against Israel, our answer should be "there is a remnant; there is always a remnant." He admits that Israel is not God's ideal at his time, then mysteriously says that's because they have been blinded. Jesus says that too, in Matthew 13--and He is quoting Isaiah who said that first.

Would God predestine His people to be blinded?  Or did He just foreknow it?  This gets into a deep subject, predestination.  Another blog.  In any event, one great benefit of their blindness was that, upon the Jews refusal to accept the gospel at the time, the apostles turned their attention to the Gentiles.  Thus, salvation was offered up to the Gentiles.  In any event, my point seems to be proven--in two places above, Paul is saying the Jewish nation has not been cast away.

Well, is there a Biblical basis for the Replacement view?  Seemingly, yes.  Let’s start with Jeremiah.  Poor Jeremiah was the prophet in the last days of Israel and Judah (The nation split in two when Solomon’s son ruled).  He records God’s anger. Jeremiah 3:6-8:

The Lord said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. ⁷ And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. ⁸ Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also

God considered Himself married to Israel, in a spiritual sense, in this and many other Old Testament verses (like Jeremiah 31:32).  When Israel worshipped other gods, God considered it harlotry, or adultery.  In this verse, from the Old Testament, He is fed up with His wandering “wife” and has given the Jews a divorce. 

Replacement theologians jump on this verse and say, "This divorce is permanent, because a man who is divorced, cannot remarry her if she marries another and then divorces again."  So says Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Thus, they say, if the Jewish nation plays harlot, and God divorces her, she is "married" to another god; but if she wants to come back to God, these verses in Deuteronomy show that that wasn't possible.

BUT God is a God of forgiveness, more than is ever possible for us.  Thus, the rules change for God's spiritual connection with us.  I found an argument in the Book of Hosea, would you believe.  His thinking and prophecy about Jews there gives us an idea of His mind.  First, God tells poor Hosea to marry a harlot, as a symbol of His status with the nation of Israel:

...the Lord said to Hosea: “Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry And children of harlotry, For the land has committed great harlotry By departing from the Lord.”

God later names Hosea's son, using the same harsh language that you read in Jeremiah above:

...she conceived and bore a son. ⁹ Then God said: “Call his name Lo-Ammi, For you  are not My people, And I will not be your God.

Then God has a change of heart.  Every Scripture on the subject of salvation (which is what this is) says that this turnabout will only come about when WE repent and commit to follow our Lord.

“And it shall be, in that day, Says the Lord, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me My Master,’¹⁷ For I will take from her mouth the names of the Baals, And they shall be remembered by their name no more.¹⁸ In that day I will make a covenant for them...“I will betroth you to Me forever...I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, And you shall know the Lord.

So "in that day," in the future, it speaks of a revival among the Jews, who will see Jesus as the true Messiah and will ask forgiveness for their sin.  What a great day that will be!

A second verse that seemingly supports replacement theology goes like this:  Jesus, in the week before He was crucified by Pilate and the Jews, prophesies about the Jews’ fate in Matthew 21:43:

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

The “kingdom of God” is a spiritual kingdom, revealed by Jesus; it is for those Gentiles and Jews who get saved and are operating under the King’s principles, as Jesus outlined them in the New Testament. On the supposed subject of His saying that the Jews would lose membership in the kingdom, it sounds like He meant the whole nation, all of them. But can God send a whole nation to hell? No way.  The verse is explained by how the word ‘nation’ should just be “people.” Thus, He will take away the fleshly 'kingdom' promises previously given to the Jews, and will give them spiritually to the saved Jew and Gentile people. This verse, properly understood, means the kingdom (heaven) is offered to anyone who believes in Jesus.

 The third verse the Replacements love is two chapters later, in Matthew 23:37-39, where Jesus makes another judgment on the Jews: 

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁸ See! Your house is left to you desolate; ³⁹ for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

God’s patience in longsuffering does have an end.  The word “desolate” suggests that His presence with the nation is abandoned at that time (and for thousands of years more, as we have seen.  BUT note verse 39--you see, God is opening the door; Jews who want to be saved, can be saved.

Lastly, for this paper, Paul, in Romans, gives us a re-definition of what it means to be a Jew.  Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; ²⁹ but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Replacement theologians are saying, the genetic Jews were not Jews any more; and (they think) we shouldn't make any special effort to help them. We should let them be dispossessed if the Arabs have the muscle.  I disagree. Nowhere does this verse say that God has switched His benefits to the church--a word that is not even mentioned.  It simply says, God, who creates a new spirit in us when we are saved, has always wanted His people to show that spirit to the world.  His loving compassion and His fairness in justice He wanted mirrored in His people. A “real” Jew is a new creation in the spirit, or inwardly.  One born a genetic Jew is one only outwardly; that's not salvation until it is created inwardly, which a Jew or a Gentile can do, if they have the mind to. You cannot be saved by being of the "right race." The Jews of those days thought the right race, plus being a "good person," not breaking the laws too much, got them saved.

If you are thinking negatively about the Jews, you’re reading beyond what Paul said to what you want to hear, perhaps out of your own prejudice.   He is simply defining “real Jew” as any Jew or Gentile who is saved and showing inward signs of a new creation. Nothing more. Circumcision, in these verses, is a symbol that signifies them as His peculiar people (see Deuteronomy 14:2 at the beginning of the paper).  But all saved people are 'peculiar now,' and as a result are persecuted by the world. The Jews twisted circumcision to a sign of salvation, but Paul is thinking of the symbolic meaning, that the person “stamped” with it should act how a person ought to behave, the new creation of a saved person. Most of the Jews were not “inward” or “real” Jews when they burdened God’s law with additional rules; ,many of man’s  traditions cancelled out God's laws in those days.  Most were arrogant of the poor, and had no compassion. More than once God told them He preferred mercy over their sacrifices. Most of the Jews were “going through the motions” if they even celebrated a religious ritual that God gave them. Their heart wasn’t in it; they lacked a heart of love for God and His wonderful character.  

But not all of them were “fake Jews,” spiritually. There is always a remnant. Jesus was a Jew--a Jew that brought us incomparable salvation. Weren't all the apostles Jews? So that means Jews spread the Gospel to Jerusalem, then to Judea (both Jewish country), and then Samaria and all the world (Acts 1:8). And gave their lives for it.  I appreciate what they did for me.  Finally, Jews wrote and gave to us the Bible, God's Words to us.  The standard for all of behavior. 

Those four "Replacement favorite" verses are just a few, but they try to present a position in replacement theology. They can be successfully attacked, as I showed. 

But let's talk some history.  I promise not to make it boring.  Herein are some negatives to the Replacement theory to go along with my arguments above.  Mr. Matsen points out that this view causes prejudicial hatred of the Jews, and church history proves that out. The replacement theory was widely believed, then instituted into law by prejudicial church fathers, beginning around 100 AD, among what I call the "second generation" church fathers. He cites factual evidence that beginning with those Christian fathers, there clearly was some prejudice, which was troubling for me to read, since I had always revered them.  (The apostles didn’t think this way.)  Here are a few examples of the second-generation of Christian leaders:

Ignatius of Antioch (50-117 AD) taught that those who partake of the Passover are partakers of those who killed Jesus. 

First, you need to understand that celebration of Jesus' crucifixion and Resurrection was originally done at the same time as Passover. Passover is the Jewish ritual involving the slaying of an innocent lamb, whose blood is then offered up to God as a substitute, to atone the people from the penalty of sin.  Thus, Passover is an important symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, whose blood He shed, frees us believers from sin. Now please hear me on this:  Symbols are important. Many people are not readers, (particularly children), so symbols are especially made for them. So putting a taint on those symbols, and what it looks like is dis-fellowshipping from Jews, is a terrible idea. It throws away the goodness of the symbol, and it shows grudging hatred and unforgiveness.

Thus, as early as during the first century, we have the first prejudicial quote of many of the church fathers toward the Jews.  (The shame of Ignatius is that he was the student of John the Apostle, the disciple that Jesus loved the most—who never expressed an angry bone in his body).  The idea of placing all the blame for killing Christ on the Jews germinated very quickly.  The problem with the blame, as I see it, is: Both Jew and Gentile were at fault in Jesus’ death. Fact is, under the Romans, the Jews were not permitted to sentence anyone to death; they had to clear it with their Roman Gentile masters—in this case, Governor Pilate. It’s also true the Gentiles were the ones who tortured Him and delivered the final blow to Jesus’ life; and a gruesome blow that was, as many Scriptures—Old and New Testament—attest. It’s true, on the other hand, that the Jews hounded Jesus throughout His short ministry, and finally egged Pilate to exterminate Him. But he stalled, knowing that Jesus was not guilty.  If this Gentile had a spine, he could have told the people to get lost, but he didn't; so he must bear part of the fault for condemning an obviously innocent person to death. Sure, if he had let Jesus live, the blood-lusting Jews might have rioted, and he might have had an insurrection like the Maccabees did 200 years before, and that could cause bloodshed, and even loss of his soldiers’ lives.  But that was not the cause of his decision against Jesus.  He knew that the Roman soldiers could handle any riot. He, as many Gentile rulers before (and many since), simply did not respect life much—whether it was his soldiers, or Jesus.  Despite the warnings of his wife, he had no clue of what kind of Man stood before him.  Jesus was simply an inconvenience. So what if he killed an innocent man? "Get Him out of the way so these people would calm down; I want to enjoy the rest of my afternoon."  So, I believe God pointed guilt to both parties—which was by design, since we All have the taint of sin and need a Savior.  The Jews actually cursed themselves for their part in this act (Matt 27:25), and Gentiles willingly did what they asked.  But this was God’s purpose.  Each had a hand in killing Him. That is why I was troubled to read how Ignatius shook off the compassion he was taught, and blamed the Jews only.  

Justin Martyr (about 150 AD) claimed that God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid, and the Gentiles had replaced the Jews.

So the replacement idea was in full flower as early as that. The idea was not only showing unforgiveness to the Jews who had done so much for us Gentiles, it was done with clearly prejudicial motives.

Similar were the thoughts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen as well.  All these men were otherwise giants in the faith in those first 200 years after Christ was ascended back to heaven. 

Things got even more heated up, especially when the Church gained enough influence to be “married” to the State—i.e., when Constantine declared them the official religion of Rome (313 AD, Edict of Milan). The church would then fill up with pagans (looking for political and monetary advantage by belonging to the “right” church), so now the church was motivated by pagans, and attended by pagans. So here's what happened when the pagans start running the show:

The Council of Elvira, in Spain, 305 AD, prohibited Christians of that country from sharing a meal with a Jew, or marrying them, blessing them, or of observing the Sabbath with them.

That was evil, like our own black hatred laws after Reconstruction failed.  Then the hammer really came down:

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), changed the celebration of the Resurrection from the Jewish Passover and the Feast of First Fruits, to Easter to avoid participation with the Jews. 

This was an evil move on two other fronts besides prejudice:  First, two symbols are wiped out:  Besides Passover, Jesus was the First Fruit of those who are resurrected. The festival of First Fruits began on Nisan 15 per the Jewish calendar, the day after Passover—so additional symbology about Jesus could be learned, but isn't.  So, Passover and First Fruit are gone for Christians. Actually, kids got hurt the most.  Most have questions about what's going on in Passover, especially; so when you explain and give the real meaning of the symbols, it’s an evangelistic tool.  And easier to memorize because you have visuals and repetition. 

Secondly, twisting the celebration date to "Easter" was demonic, and I don't hesitate to use that term. Here's why: Easter began as a pagan holiday, with an idolatrous worship of a goddess of sexual fertility (including religious prostitution) in some pagans, or an idolatrous worship of a goddess of spring. They wanted to join the celebration of Christ's Resurrection with that? A pagan sexual holiday? As a result, Passover, like substituting Santa Claus (another terrible idea) instead of the birth of Christ, has been censored or corrupted away from their real spiritual meanings. The kids learn that buying gifts is Christmas, and chocolate eggs and fuzzy bunnies is Easter.  Wow, let's secularize and paganize them some more.  

The third reason this was a bad idea was this:  God, in having the Jews celebrate Passover for Jewish freedom as they had for centuries, wanted them to see the second, the more real meaning of Passover, namely Christ.  It was an evangelistic way they could be approached, and hopefully saved, and become Christian Jews.  He also wanted those saved Jews to celebrate with Gentiles who believed in Christ. So (in those early days) people could see that Christianity wasn’t just some Jewish cult--and Christians could forgive.  A double benefit.

But the Eastern churches ignored this Nicaea ruling.  Now we get into an even more evil realm; the West churches (headed up by Rome) wanted to exert power over the whole world of churches--I guess to show how strong they all could be if "united," but more to show that they were better than the East churches (because of Peter?)  So the Nicaean council wanted to corral the East's "defiance" by making another decision. They didn't ask the Eastern church's inputs at all.  Here is the Nicaean Council’s statement on this subject.  

We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch (ie Passover) namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy…

Can you believe the effrontery of this arm-twisting?  The "settlement" to which the writer refers was what the Western Church already decided, in the back rooms; so it was not a settlement at all.  How about the strong-arm tactics of saying that the Eastern Churches are guilty of “heresy” if they don't kowtow to what Rome had already decided, namely, "we will be celebrating Christ's Resurrection at the same time as the pagan sexual festival was happening, isn't that great?  You are heretical if you don't break away from the Jews and do what we do."  Folks, this letter was a black eye upon all Christianity, and they should have been ashamed of themselves.   The Eastern Churches had the right idea, by continuing the proper date for the Resurrection was Nisan 14, or Passover.  It was the West who was heretical, not them!  (This was the beginning of the split between the two churches, Orthodox and Catholic, that fully broke them 700 years later). 

The point of all this is that some people dislike replacement theory because it “causes” the prejudice you see above.  I maintain that it sure happened that way then. But, I should add, it’s possible to believe in replacement theology without hating the Jews. We could believe in replacement theory and still have compassion on the Jews, still understand that their mistakes, like our mistakes, could be forgiven and covered by the Cross.  We can believe that we are all responsible for crucifying Jesus, and still believe in Replacement theology.  When you get down to it, corrupt thinking is what caused people to lay prejudice against the Jews, not because of a doctrinal theory.

I had to stop in the middle of this debate—sorry.  Be sure and get my final points, and decision next week.  As always, praise to Our God.  

Desecrations of Translations, Final

 Please look to last week's "Desecrations of Translations" before you read this.

11) I Timothy 1:10 NIV for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

NKJV for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

The term “sodomy” or “sodomites” appears in KJV many times in the Old Testament, always as a terrible sin (such as Deuteronomy 23:17 or I Ki 14:24).  But for our purposes, I picked I Timothy 1:10 as my example. The NKJV has a slight disadvantage, because the term “sodomites” might be hard to understand. (Not used in today’s language.  Also, does it include any other sex act besides homosexuality?) The Greek word here is closest to “homosexuals.”  That word is easy to understand.  So we conclude the NIV has the right word, a better choice. But I do have a word of caution; the NIV has a different sexual flaw: they substitute “shrine prostitutes” for “sodomites” in the Old Testament.  Maybe that works, IF you know what the sexual practices were for a shrine prostitute. Lots of homosexuality.  (In Greek and Roman days, homosexuality was rampant.)  A reader unfamiliar with that fact gets nothing out of “shrine prostitutes” but more likely gets something out of “sodomites,” if he’s thinking right. So the NIV gets it right in the New Testament, but closer to wrong in the Old Testament. Homosexuality, in any event, is a grievous sin, and needs to be emphasized as subject to God’s punishment. PS: I’m not ignoring the fact that prostitutes are sinful.

12) Luke 1:15 NIV for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit  “ before he is born” (NIV 2011) OR “ even from birth” (NIV 1984)

NKJV For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Some NIV translators of 1984 suggested John the Baptist had to wait for these qualities until after he was born.  I guess the translator couldn’t imagine a baby in a womb imbibing fermented drink (unless mom had indulged). Or getting slapped with the Holy Spirit in the womb.  Then, surprise of surprises, the NIV 2011 translation switched and got it right, saying the baby in the womb could be filled with the Holy Spirit. Why not?  Didn’t John the Baptist leap in celebration in the womb when his mother met Mary, mother of Jesus, who was pregnant (Luke 1:41)?  I think even the prophet Samuel had that in the womb. He came out of his mom bristling with holiness and confrontation that it seems he had it earlier--from day “minus 260.” He probably preached in the womb—though the light was poor to read his notes. The NIV 1984 might be refusing to admit that anything happens in the womb—maybe they don’t want to think about the womb.  Would that be a condescension to the abortionists?  Also, the NIV gets revised way too frequently —six times in the last 33 years. So who knows what they will change in the next 5 years?

But the NKJV has it right, “from his mother’s womb.” There’s no difficulty defining Greek words; you just have to have the courage to abide by “every word” translation.  Not “cultural” translation.

13) Matthew 1:25 NIV But he (Joseph) did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

NKJV …and (Joseph) did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

The problem here is with the lazy rendition of the NIV, simply “son.” Let’s speak the whole truth:  firstborn Son. A firstborn son is treated special and has special benefits in the Jewish culture.  And, Son should be capitalized. Jesus deserves those.

14) Far more serious is Luke 2:33. Per the NIV: The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him

NKJV And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him

If any reader was uncertain about whether Joseph was the father, he gets the wrong idea from the NIV.  At least the NKJV implies that Joseph is not the father.  We talked at length on the theological importance of why the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ father in Part 1 about Isaiah 7:14. This is a continuation of the same perverted theme the modernists like. They’re saying, “Mary had sex with Joseph or some man.  Not the supernatural, Holy Spirit stuff.  Let’s remove the supernatural, even if it knocks down fundamental beliefs, the kind necessary to be saved.” But God is a God of supernatural, especially in Jesus’s birth narratives.

15) Luke 4:4 NIV Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread.  (That’s the whole verse)

NKJV But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”

Why would we leave out “but by every word of God?”  The modernists don’t like living by the Word of God? They don’t believe there is one?

16) John 6:47 NIV Very truly I tell you, the one who believes, has eternal life

NKJV Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes ^[a]in Me has everlasting life

Surely this NIV “Gospel” is the shortest requirement to be saved that I’ve ever seen.  It looks like you can believe ANYTHING and get eternal life.  Fortunately, the NKJV has added belief “in Me (Jesus).” (There have been some fancy dances as to what “belief” in Jesus really is.)  The Bible is not designed as a book of theology, but it’s obvious from reading Paul and James of what real “belief” in Jesus is. PS:  Note the letter “a” next to “in Me” in the 1982 NKJV.  They included a little note at the bottom that ‘in Me’ should be deleted. The term is not included in their pair of “original” translations, they say.  Uh-oh, this warped idea crept into a “note” in the NKJV, a step in the wrong direction. Actually, things are worse;  it is a known and surprising fact that the “New” King James has omitted 16 New Testament verses in total by 1982. At that rate, there won’t BE any New Testament 113 translation changes from now (but how many years for that? Less than you think! Getting back to the NIV, it has revised itself six times in 33 years.  Way to make money, publishers!)

17) I John 4:3 NIV but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

NKJV and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world

The NIV omits “come in the flesh.” Yet, that very thing, denying that Christ came in the flesh, is called “antichrist,” as the NKJV verse defines it. Still, the NIV did exactly that, refusing to say Christ was come in the flesh! They did it in that verse that says it was wrong! What cohones! They are hiding the fact that they LIKE that idea. That idea was Gnosticism, an early heresy. (And having another go-round in the modern translations.)  Their belief was, the “Spirit of Christ” (pure and non-material) was a separate entity from Jesus (a sinful man of flesh).  They got this by claiming that there were two “gods” originally;  the evil god had physical matter, the spiritual god does not. If you have flesh, you have to be corrupt—the only way to be pure is to be only a spirit.  So, they figure, Jesus was a regular sinful boy and man, then took on a pure “Spirit of Christ” from the time of His baptism to leaving Him at His death.  Thus “Jesus” was sinful, not born of a virgin, and there was no resurrection. (This is another of the reasons we insist the Holy Spirit was Jesus’ father—so as not be born with a sin nature, as with the rest of mankind.)  The Gnostics took great pains to separate the two words “Jesus” “Christ.”  Because the word “Jesus” (a sinful man) is different from “Christ” (a separate being, a pure Spirit of Christ).  Their splitting of the two words is evident in modern translations like I John 4:3 and in 80 or so texts where they separate the two words, or simply drop off one or the other. The NIV is sneaking in an old heresy.

The second flaw in the NIV here is defining false belief as “not acknowledging Jesus.”  Well, how weak in the belief system is the puerile word “acknowledge” Jesus? Such an idea says your belief can be just believing in His history and morality.  All you have to say to “acknowledge” Him is ‘Yes, I believe he lived. He was a good man.’ Don’t forget, the demons acknowledged Jesus! But that didn’t save them.  Their works said they were evil. Anyway, “acknowledge” is  poor wording, and doesn’t get anybody saved.

18 & 19) Matthew 17:21 (and Mark 9:29) NKJV However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

NIV The verses are GONE!

Why are Matthew 17:21 an Mark 9:29 gone? Well, the subject is casting out demons—which Jesus does a lot of.  Modernists probably get uncomfortable just on that, and maybe don’t believe in demons or demonology, or exorcism.  Nor do they want to divulge details so we might hope we could do it too, if the need arises.  Granted, trying this is not for amateurs, but avoiding the subject totally is not the answer either. If you don’t believe demons can exist in people anymore, ask the homicide police about that.

20) Mathew18:11 NKJV For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

NIV Gone!

Again, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus deleted a wonderful verse, that didn’t offend anybody. We should all be reminded that the penalty is eternally severe for those who add, subtract, or change God’s Word.  I am speaking of Revelation 22:18ff:

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; ¹⁹ and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life

So it will go for those who produced these heretical versions.

21) Matthew 23:14 NKJV Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation

NIV GONE

Uh, we’re not saving this one, perhaps, because it’s antisemitic? Because we want to be nice to the Pharisees, the guys who led the killing of Jesus?  Why? Searching.

22) Same “goner” with I John 5:7 NKJV For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 This verse is unique because nowhere else does the Trinity get set clearly forth. Wiping this fundamental verse out is putting a big hole in good doctrine.

23) Mark 16:9-20 KJNV Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. ¹⁰ She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. ¹¹ And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.¹² After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. ¹³ And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.¹⁴ Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. ¹⁵ And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. ¹⁶ He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. ¹⁷ And these signs will follow those who ^[b]believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; ¹⁸ they^[c] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”¹⁹ So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. ²⁰ And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen

Modern versions: Gone or isolated, separated from the Bible.

This great summary of Jesus’s activities after His resurrection, to His ascension, is ever to be cherished.  But not in the eyes of modernists.  Why? Because, perhaps, they don’t even believe in the Resurrection? Or perhaps they don’t believe in the spectacular lives of the early Christian church beginning in v. 17—casting out demons? Speaking in tongues? Taking up serpents, or drinking up poison? They might say, “no way.” Well, I believed it happened, as noted elsewhere in Scripture.  Either way of their unbelief, if so, they are on their way to hell. And the guys that picked these philistines for the job of translation, if they knew their lack of belief ahead of time, should go there too.  Boy, I hope there is a revival in “old timey” verses and we force the publishers to get conservative on “modernizing,” and bring these verses back.  Maybe the best we could do currently would be, not to buy a modern Bible. Get on a Bible bookstore and buy your non-modern Scripture there, even if used.

24) John 5:2-6 RSV Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool…³ In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed ⁵ One man was there, who had been ill for thirty-eight years. ⁶ When Jesus saw him and knew that he had been lying there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?

John 5:2-6 NKJV ² Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. ³ In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. ⁴ For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. ⁵ Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. ⁶ When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

Did you see the difference? Verse 4 is gone in RSV. Modernists considered v. 4 (though it appeared in all real Greek texts) a foolish superstition, and didn’t want to embarrass the Bible with it—so they just threw it away.

25) John 8:3-11 NKJV Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear .⁷So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being  convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” ¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

John 8:3-11 NIV has the same idea and modern words, BUT they isolate the entire group, and essentially give the reader the choice of whether to accept it as God’s Word. Perhaps modernists don’t like how Jesus readily forgave the woman (the guilty man is never challenged).  But note how Jesus clearly calls the adultery sinful. Perhaps He saw her repentant heart, since He could read her mind.

26) Luke 23:34 NKJV Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

Luke 23:34 NASB [^[o]But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”] The note “o” explains it as “Most early MSS do not contain this.” They put it in brackets to make their point even more clear.  Unfortunately, the same letter is used by the NASB to put doubts in our mind about v.17, where Pilate, at the holiday, was obligated to release a prisoner (later, he gave them Jesus or Barabbas, their choice—they chose wrong!) In any event, creating doubts in our minds about the infallibility of Scripture, did not phase the modernists from doing this. I guess they figured no regular man (their thinking of Him?) could actually say that, under such intense pain and persecution.  Presumably Jesus should have cursed them? Would that “Be a man?”

27) Acts 8 beginning with v.28 is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, to whom Philip preached about Jesus. Then they ride in a carriage and come across water.  The eunuch says in effect, “can I be baptized?”  Verse 37 presents Philip’s clear answer in the NKJV:  Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may. But that verse is omitted by modern versions. Considering that modern versions come from disputed Catholic sources, and since the verse explains that you shouldn’t be baptized unless you believe in Jesus, the Catholic tradition would be against letting this verse slide.  ’Jettison it’ they say. And it was.  Simple as that.

28) One more omission story.  Of the 54 times that “hell” appeared the KJV, the modern versions eliminated 41 of them.  (The NKJV actually eliminates 22 of them).  ‘Why the severe cutback?’ some ask. Well, modern translations might have the right idea here.  You see, Tynedale, who created the first modern English text, and was part of the Received Text, had a problem with “hell.” There were 3 Greek words that he called “hell.” But the only real Hell is from the Greek Gehenna. The Greek Hades, on the other hand, is the temporary place of the dead which (as I believe) saved and unsaved go as they wait for the rapture (I have another blog based on Jesus’ doctrine in His story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16). Finally, there is Sheol, which is really the grave.  So most of them were not Hell.  Modern versions reduced this overuse, which we give them credit for. (I particularly don’t like “sheol” as a substitute for hell.  Nobody knows what it means.) PS: I suspect the modernists probably would like all 54 hells to be gone.

This is the last of the disappearing verses. The list is too long.

My last words help prove that God anointed the original King James Bible. The proof is, shall we say, in the numbers.  I only have enough room to stir your interest.  Overall, these are magical connections that only appear in the King James. Here we go.

The word “Jehovah” for God is used (with Jireh, with Nissi, as well) 7 times only in the KJV. Seven is the number of perfection.  Did you know that the latest version of the NKJV has NONE of these?  I am clueless as to why. The phrase “Word of God” is in the KJV 49 times, or 7x7. The words “Holy Spirit” is used 7 times in the KJV. Finally, the phrase ‘Son of Man’ is a divine term that perked up the Pharisees’ accusation of Jesus of blasphemy. (See Matthw 26;63-65.)  How do we know that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man? They both occur 196 times—only happens in the King James Bible. And that, of course, is 28 times—guess what? 7.  There are more, but I have spent enough time on this fascinating subject.

GLOSSARY of Bible Translations

ASV American Standard Version

CSB Christian Standard Bible

ESV English Standard Version

NASB New American Standard Bible

NEB New English Bible

NIV (used as substitute for different modern versions) New International Version

KJV King James Version

NKJV New KJV (some of these versions have been revised on different dates)

RSV Revised Standard Version

Desecrations of Translations

I stumbled across a video by Michael Hoggard comparing the differences between modern translations vs. the King James version.  So these summaries are chapters 2 and 3 of “The Desecration of Translation” blogs that I began with Eugene Nida last week.  Mr. Hoggard does a great job of presenting the differences side-by side; I will compare them in a similar fashion.

Before I do that, I need to give you background that I couldn’t on my first blog; it would have made it too long.  The ‘desecration’ I’m talking about is that the texts used for the King James Version, which all Protestants used for 400 years, was abandoned; two other, questionable texts were substituted, and there are significant negative doctrinal effects because of the switch, as we will see.

The King James Version started with Erasmus, a Dutch theologian, who in the early 1500s, took over 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many of them only part of the New Testament, whether they were vellum (animal skins) or parchment, most of them agreeing on the same exact verbiage of each Bible text. Then he combined and translated— he took the most reliable of the Greek MSS, some of which had miniscule differences with one anothr, combined the best, and where there was a gap in text, he took it from the Vulgate, a Latin version made in 400 AD (the sole language the Catholics used for over a thousand years), and created a superb Greek text (like Apple, his second version was better), which was called, ever since, the Textus Receptus (Received Text), also the Majority Text.  Martin Luther then used his second version to translate the Bible into German, or as they say, “into the vernacular.” A process that previous people gave their lives for, because the Catholics hated it. In England, Tynedale, called the “architect” of modern English, produced an English text from the same sources as Luther, in 1526.  But King James of England was not a fan of it, and in 1604 he gathered a God-given group of 54 superb holy scholars (one of them was a linguistic savant; he knew 21 languages, many ancient ones, intimately). These were from competitive Puritan and Anglican theologians (perhaps they were like our Lutherans and Baptists).  The King James Version was the result, and came out in 1611.  But this became old English and hard to understand; so the “thee” and “thou” and such were updated through 1982 with the New KJV. Nobody deviated from the Received Text to that point.  But in the 2013 updating, the New KJV strayed away from the Received Text, and now has many of the ‘modern version’ problems we will see here momentarily. The New KJV will not compete against modern versions, unless people refuse to buy it and insist on it going back to what it was.

Now let’s take a look at the opposition.  The documents used for the modern versions, which rejected the Received Text, substituted from two sources which were combined--but both were questionable: one was discovered in the mid-1800s from the rubbish bin (I kid you not) of a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, called the Codex Sinaiticus. The BBC documentary on this called it “history’s most altered manuscript.”  (That does not mean the KJV was deficient.  Quite the opposite. As several experts who viewed the Codex Sinaiticus details have said, it looks like different scribes had a fierce debate about what some verses meant. There were cross-outs and replacements plenty in their notes).

The other basis for modern versions presumably was hidden away in the basement library of the Vatican itself in Rome; supposedly having been there from the 6^th century, they say. (It actually was discovered in 1475, given a shelf number, and restocked, and ignored for the next 330 years. Erasmus wasn't interested in it). It was called Codex Vaticanus (it was in Greek, and not to be confused with the Latin Vulgate). They claim the Vaticanus was originally made in Caesarea. Like the Sinaiticus,it had little support (45 copies--not like the 5000 Greek MSS Erasmus worked with.)

It was again pulled of the Vatican library in the 1870s, just in time to squeeze it and Sinaiticus together for the modern versions the ecumenicists were calling for.  (I don’t know how “ecumenic” it was, since both sources have Roman Catholic roots).  These two were proclaimed to be “old” b y Roman Catholic paleontologists and what’s more important, the Received Text—used for over 270 years—were pronounced corrupted. A false claim. The Received Text, nevertheless, was then discarded and replaced by these two recent discoveries for all the modern versions to use. This decision was made in 1881.  These two replacements were, at that time, accused of fraud in when they were produced. One expert of the day scathingly said: "The 'Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as--what it most certainly is--the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous, literary blunder of the Age."

Let me give you one more quote, from an expert scholar who compared these two that were “put together” for modern versions. Dean Burgum’s quote:

“In the four Gospels alone, these two versions have 3,036 significant differences in translation.  It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS differ, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.”  

My question is, how were they able to throw away the Textus Receptus, after 400 years, without a serious comparison? Even if they had the oldest surviving text, that likely came from the Egyptian area--dry climate, as it is--but that area was infected with Gnosticism, a heresy that I do not have time to tell you about. Oldest is not best.

So here's what we have:  Before, everyone brought their Bibles to church and actually each found the text the pastor announced, and all read it together.  Now, they chose this replacement--from one, a single copy found in a rubbish bin (there is a fascinating story behind that--see, in YouTube, “The Great Bible Hoax of 1881”).  The other was a copy from the Vatican, who have a history of despising Scripture.  One of these texts doesn’t even internally agree, much less two of them agreeing together. The past 45 years have been a blizzard of differing versions, all creating doubts as to whether this God's infallible Word.  The “modern” Greek versions have been altered 28 times. So now, there’s no reason to bring a Bible to church, since likely your version will not be used in quoting Scripture. Pastor will put the verses, with his favorite text, on a Power Point board--if the church has the money to buy a good one. Since most (liberal) Protestants and Catholics have recently formally agreed on a single text (previously, even with modern translations, the Catholics had their own version), then what we have for the future is a single, theologically deficient, version that will be produced and occasionally revised. A few of us stubborn conservatives will continue using the King James, with the “thees” and “thous;” or the New King James (but making darn sure the publishing date is 1982 or before). Hopefully the publishing empires (mostly owned by secular companies) will continue production of these “dinosaurs” for us dinosaurs.

I did a few comparisons between “old” and “new” versions in my first blog, but let’s get on it big time; that will be my effort for blogs 2 and 3.

a)Mr. Hoggard has a problem with modern translations of Daniel 3:25. Nebuchadnezzar has just tossed 3 Jews in the fiery furnace.  But he sees a fourth, probably Jesus (called a ‘theophany’), and he calls Him “a son of the gods,” according to the modern ASV, ESV, CSB, NASB, and NIV (glossary at end). But the KJV says his quote was a ‘Son of God.’  (A name prophesied for Jesus.) The question is not ‘Which is right?’ The question is, Which words did Nebuchadnezzar say?

Either is possible, but I say, lean to the newer versions on this one. Since Nebuchadnezzar is an uninspired polytheist, we can expect that at most, he might have been in awe of the Hebrew God; and, yes, he knew that they only worshipped one God. But for him to, further, call the 4^th person the Son of God (with “son” capitalized) was a stretch for him. This is Old Testament, before Jesus. The Book of Daniel is also partially versed in Aramaic, which uses the word “Elohim” in what Nebuchadnezzar said, which is a plural term (see Genesis 1:1 and your Bible notes). Polytheists used the single term “son” a lot because in many myths, a “son of the gods” might be a demigod. Lots of those among polytheists.  Yet the Bible  also describes the Jewish God as a Three-in-One.  We know that Nebuchadnezzar was wishy-washy in his respect for Jewish beliefs.  Putting all these facts together, I swing with the modern versions as more likely accurate. Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan, not a theologian.

b)Mr. Hoggard also questions the modern version‘s translation of Hosea 11:12, since it called the tribe of Judah as “unruly against God.”  Whereas the KJV in the same verse says “Judah yet ruleth with God.”  Which is it?

First, the modern translations have a backing from context; in at least 4 places in Hosea, Judah is raked against the coals (12:2, 6:4, 5:10, and 5:12.) All those evil deeds were also recorded by KJV.  The real problem with 11:12 is that a Hebrew word rud used there is of utterly uncertain meaning—a seldom-seen problem, thank the Lord. So it could have either meaning, flip a coin.  Theologically, Judah is the tribe from which Jesus comes, and they were a “better” tribe than the 10 tribes of northern Israel, as the history of their immoral kings exceeded the number of immoral kings of Judah.  Also a fact: Judah was taken away into captivity by the Babylonians only 125 years after the 10 tribes were taken away by Assyria—both punished for evil idolatry.  But Judah was a royal tribe, as Jewish scribes knew, and records were carefully and continually kept, and Jesus did descend from that tribe. But that doesn’t change the uncertainty about the Hebrew word rud—was it unruly, or ruly? We conclude that we don’t know which was more accurate.

Now let’s get to differences that are real mistakes by modern translations. I will use the NIV, mostly, but the NIV is a stand-in for modern translations--they all had pretty much the same flaws. Frankly, I didn’t want to plow through reading 6 “favorite” modern versions when one version tells you where they’re all at, in most cases.  We will compare them to the New King James, 1982, most often. (Not the New KJV of 2013, which has been radically modernized.)

We will start with God’s command that Abraham offer his promised son, Isaac, on the altar:

1)Genesis 22:2-NIV Then God said, Take your son…Sacrifice him…as a burnt offering.

KJV: And he (God) said, Take now thy son…and offer him there for a burnt offering…

This is one I never heard of before, and Hoggard makes a good point here.  If God told him to “sacrifice” him, per modernist versions, then Abraham was obligated to put him on the altar and kill him. The angel (or Angel) who stopped him, he should have ignored and fulfilled God’s command. You’re familiar with Galatians 1:8 emphasizing perfect obedience:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed 

BUT if God merely told him to “offer” him as a sacrifice, his obligation was complete when he laid Isaac on the altar and tied him up.  If God wanted him to kill him, that would take a separate command. Since God wouldn’t make a command that Abraham wouldn’t be expected to fulfill, the NKJV is my choice.   (Perhaps you think I sound too much like a Philadelphia lawyer. A requirement of debaters).

2) Modern versions (not the NIV—yet):  Isaiah 7:14: …a young woman will conceive

KJV: …a virgin shall conceive….

I covered this in Part 1. Virgins is so right, “young woman” is so, so wrong.

3)Likewise, I covered the difference in Mark 1:1. The New Revised Standard Version does not call Jesus the Son of God, so as to not offend the Muslims.  But it’s wrong.  The KJV, of course, does call Him that—which is correct. Do NOT sacrifice truth for fear of man.

4) Jesus’ birthplace is prophesied in Micah.  But notice what He is called:

Micah 5:2, NIV… one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

KJV:  The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old,
from everlasting.” 

First, “The One” is far superior to just “one” in the NIV.  Jesus is unique, right?  And second, the KJV has the words “from everlasting.” The NIV has “from ancient times.” That’s a  weaker phrase.  Such a phrase is an indeterminate length of time.  Compare to the power Jesus has in His eternity (read His prayer in John 17 for further proof). “From everlasting” is much better! Why did the modern “theologians” downplay Him?? 

5) Matthew 18:3 NIV: unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

KJV: unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven

Is the Gospel (how to enter the kingdom of heaven) just a matter of reforming ourselves, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps?  That’s what the puerile word “change” suggests.  But Jesus told Nicodemus: unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Is that just “change,” or is that God helping us to start over?  Another Scripture refers to us as a “new creation.” The point is, you can’t be born again by yourself.  God has a part to play, much of it the actions of the Holy Spirit.  “Change” doesn’t suggest God even HAS a role.  NOT a Gospel word.  Modern versions fail on that one.

6) We all know John 3:16, right?  Well, maybe not--did you ever think of the phrase “He gave His only begotten Son” in KJV?  Did you know “only begotten” isn’t the greatest translation?  Since the KJV’s Genesis chapter 4 has ‘somebody begat somebody, they begat somebody else,’ the word ‘begotten’ tends to emphasize birth, right?  But such an important verse, John 3:16, should not focus on His birth, because He is eternal.  Upon further archaeological digs, they figured a better definition for the Greek word, and it really meant “One and only Son.”  Emphasizing His uniqueness.  Actually, SOME of the modern versions got this right; the NIV uses the phrase “His one and only Son.” They even capitalized Son. (Well, like a clock, you have to get it right once in a while).  Unfortunately, there is a long list of modern versions that merely say, “he gave his only Son.” That’s weak.  “One and only” conveys the uniqueness of Jesus that other modern versions totally miss.  (By the way, if you feel left out, you and I are not “sons;” we are adopted children (Ephesians 1:5).  Technically, the term sons of God (if you include them in Job 1 and 2, like you should) represent direct creation by God.  That includes only Adam, Eve, all the angels, including those that went bad, even including Satan.  And, of course, Jesus (despite how the modern versions scandalously accuse His mother).

7) This modern version (the New English Bible) is so poor on this that I have to bring it up:

II Timothy 3:16 NEB: Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching. (That’s the whole verse!)

NKJ: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

First is the disgusting idea that only the inspired Scriptures have a use. So, are we supposed to consider which Scripture is inspired? Is this along the lines of “I have my truth, you have yours?” That tends toward chaos. So we can cherry-pick Scriptures that we like or don’t like?  So you may say,” I think Jesus was not inspired when He spoke of divorce.”  Get real!  Secondly, the NEB uses small caps for “scripture.”  Give me a break—it’s pretty obvious that they consider the Bible just another book with high morality.  Thirdly, the NEB translators must have said, ”all the other ‘purposes’ for Scripture (reproof, correction, instruction) are all nasty, negative words!  Throw them away! Everybody should have only happy scriptures!”  I hope you get my point.)

8) I Timothy 3:16 NIV He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels…

NKJV: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

The NIV has “He (who?) appeared in the flesh,” which does not emphasize the incarnation as does the KJV, “God was manifested in the flesh.” The word “manifested” also adds gravitas; it implies His eternity, that His substance was 100% God.

9) Mark 10:24 NIV AND NKJV The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

Old KJV: And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Well, even the New King James of 1982 failed us here. Note how the NKJV takes sides with the failed NIV in being “nicey-nice” to the rich folks. So we don’t want to offend the rich folks…hmmm.  Well, I’m intimately familiar with the “deep State” conspiracy, which is tied in to the multibillion-dollar rich folks; all the unregulated AI (worse than nuclear bombs for our safety, says Elon Musk), the fake money, the collapse of the banking system, all are prescribed.  For their benefit.  We will see that no matter how much the Gates give to philanthropy (never to churches), they’re still manipulating our lives, as they always have been. They’re just surveilling our lives secretly instead of out in the open.   Jesus resonates with me when He reprobates the rich people many times in Scripture. So the KJV has contextual backing.  Let’s record EVERY word of Scripture, no matter who is offended. Stick with the old KJV on this verse.

10) Isaiah 14:12 NIV How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

NKJV How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!

The problem is, Jesus is called the Morning Star in another verse (Revelation 22:16).  So when you read the NIV here, you might think it’s referring to Jesus—who is being accused of evil.  So where are you leading novice readers?  Since both, in modern Scripture, are called morning star, some might even think they were brothers; how stupid is that? The NKJV makes it clear by flat-out calling him “Lucifer,” which shouts out Satan. In the NKJV, Lucifer is simply “son of the morning,” not morning star.  This de-emphasizes any connection to Jesus, Morning Star.  The NKJV is better; the NIV seems to go out of its way to tie these two together.

NEXT WEEK We do 18 more desecrations of translations. 

Eugene Nida and Bad Translation

 

The Journal of Missiology has a fascinating series of articles by Adam Simnowitz, a minister with the Assemblies of God.  It is a four-part series called “The Desecration of Bible Translation.”  Such a title deserves a summary.  (I also used  a YouTube audio blog for a source, “The Great Bible Hoax.”) Here are the main points:

Tragically, some well-known and highly-respected and trusted Bible translation societies and organizations, borrowing from the Anthropological field of linguistics, teach and promote that language and meaning are relative to culture. This commitment to cultural relativism is a faulty foundation for Bible translation, leading to compromised translations of Scripture. This has resulted in such notions as “Religious Idiom Translation” (RIT), in which the text of the Bible is Islamized for Muslims, Buddhaized for Buddhists, and Hinduized for Hindus.  All done by no less than Wycliffe Bible Translators and their Summer Institutes of Linguistics (SIL), and by the American Bible Society, and the United Bible Societies.

This current free-for-all in Bible translation is in great measure due to the life and work of one of the earliest teachers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, who also served as the first Secretary for Translations at the American Bible Society, namely Dr. Eugene A. Nida.

The likelihood that beginning in 1936, a 22-year old graduate from UCLA with no formal theological training, who did not believe that truth transcends culture but is relative to it, whose view of language does not necessarily include belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and who never translated any part of the Bible for publication--would be able to so thoroughly remake Bible translation in his own image--does not seem possible.  He did it through a revolutionary means of translating, using his self-admittedly flawed theory of Dynamic Equivalence (DE). This was destined to become the accepted translation theory among a majority of missionary translators by the 1970s. His work also had significant ramifications for North American evangelicalism, since dynamic equivalence also formed the theoretical basis for most modern vernacular English translations, as we shall see.

 

To explain the dangers of Dynamic Equivalence, Dr. Phil Stringer, head of Dayspring Bible College and Seminary says: Nida’s system was telling translators, “You’ve got to stop translating literally (i.e., word for word). By doing that, you’re worshipping words more than God.” (A false statement).  David Daniels, author of ‘Why They Changed the Bible,’ felt that Nida was influenced by neo-orthodoxy.  Since he did not believe that God inspired the words, he felt that the best translation was when you could translate it so that  the Scriptures inspire the reader.  To quote Nida, ‘The Scriptures are inspired because they inspire me.’ If you could invoke the same feeling in a reader of a different culture, of what he alleges the original Bible reader felt, that’s a proper translation.  Of course, who knows what the inspired Bible author or original reader felt?

 

Dr. Stringer felt that you can’t drop the “word-for-word technique and take the “translate what the idea means” approach because you will, unknowingly, influence it with your interpretation of the idea’s meaning. Prior to Nida, your job was to take the words that God gave in Greek and Hebrew, and turn them into that language. God was the author, and He inspired the words.  Nida felt that God did not inspire words, He inspired ideas. Your job is to translate the idea to their language. 

. 

SIL Corporate Historian, Frederick “Boone” Aldridge identified the motivating factor behind Nida’s revolution: “By driving a wedge between the text and its message Nida was carrying out a direct assault on the idea that each word’s  literal meaning functioned to preserve truth.”

Nida’s first monumental step to make Bible translations less literal began when he attended the third Camp Wycliffe (which was later renamed, the SIL, in the summer of 1936.  This was a “Summer Training Camp for Prospective Bible Translators,” started by William Cameron Townsend (a.k.a. “Uncle Cam”), the founder of SIL and also founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Though he began as a student, Nida became part of the faculty, a role in which he would serve until 1953. Nida worked with Townsend for many years achieving his first goal:  to radically change the methods of Bible translation, as we’ve seen above.  He was successful in applying his methods in SIL, and he and Townsend worked well together.  The organization has grown to where it is ubiquitous.  Anyone who wants to be a Bible translator, with any agency, were funneled into SIL. There, you get the principles for proper Bible translation. So all of them got those from Eugene Nida.

But “Cam” did not demand true accountability from SIL’s attendees (not surprising, considering their leader didn’t even believe the Bible).  One who went through SIL in the 1970s was author David Daniels, a graduate of Fuller Bible Seminary.  While at SIL, he relaxed by talking to one of his professors who had been a missionary Bible translator for many years.  He was shocked to hear the man did not believe in the Great Flood of Genesis 6.  He suggested that when you go to raise support with churches who want you to certify your statement of faith with a signature, you just “sign it, even if you don’t believe it.”  Then when you get on the mission field, you can do whatever you want. Daniels’ question was, how can you translate a Bible that you don’t believe?  How many non-believers does SIL “teach?” 

 

But Nida and Cam parted the ways in 1953 because Wycliffe wanted everyone to sign a faith statement that they believed the Bible was God’s Word, that it was inerrant in its original writing. Nida could not sign it. 

Prior to that, in 1943, through Townsend’s advocacy, he also joined the American Bible Society (ABS) as their “associate secretary for versions” (later, promoted to “Secretary for Translations”).  He was influenced by a landmark book, Language, by Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield wrote that linguistics did not improve “until the eighteenth century, when scholars ceased to view language as a direct gift of God.” Bloomfield’s view of language as a physical response unrelated to the author’s thoughts guts individual words of any fixed meaning. God is not the source of language, he believed.  Further statements by Bloomfield which Nida followed: 

§  cultural relativism (there are no absolutes)

§  language is merely cultural (and thus subject to relativism)

§  language is a flawed medium of communication 

Nida carefully introduced cultural relativism and Bloomfield’s mechanistic view of language to unsuspecting evangelicals. That these biblically incompatible beliefs with their attendant errors have come to dominate the world of Bible translation and greatly impact missions, with hardly any effective opposition from biblical conservatives, is in great measure a testament to Nida’s skill in knowing how to persuade a given audience. These gifts have proved invaluable in allowing Nida’s agenda of cultural relativism to go undetected by them, for they assume that “dynamic equivalence” is a valid translation theory compatible with the belief that the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God. But that is not one of Nida’s beliefs.

 

If “dynamic equivalence,” with its emphasis on receptor response, is opposed to translation in general, it is especially devastating when applied to Bible translation. Most importantly, it completely undermines its divine inspiration by bypassing the need to faithfully and accurately communicate authorial intent—especially important when the author is God. When your main desire is to communicate smoothly with the receptor, that introduces another of Nida’s goals:  Do not offend the receptor. That belief is important in his later role as a translation ecumenicist. In the Adam Simnowitz thesis, “Muslim Idiom Translation: Assessing So-Called Scripture Translation For Muslim Audiences With A Look Into Its Origins In Eugene A. Nida’s Theories Of Dynamic Equivalence And Cultural Anthropology,” he provides examples of Nida encouraging translators of Scripture to not use “Son [of God]” in reference to Jesus with regard to Muslim audiences. For proof, look no further than the translation of Mark 1:1.  It reads, in the New King James Version:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

But in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition:

The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.

If Jesus is not the Son of God, you don’t have a gospel anymore. 

Nida made a reference to Jan Slomp’s article in The Bible Translator, “Are The Words ‘Son Of God’ In Mark 1.1 Original?,” as if Slomp agreed with Nida’s contention that “Son of God” should be omitted in Mark 1:1 because it is a “stumbling block…for an Islamic constituency.” But the fact is, Slomp wrote that the inclusion or exclusion of ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 should not be based on ‘apologetic concern for the Muslim reader…[but] has to be decided…on the basis of textual criticism.’” So Slomp is falsely referenced by Nida as agreeing with him, when it was clear that they disagreed—strongly.  This constitutes dishonest scholarship by Nida.

So let’s take a closer look at Nida’s character.  Nida was first married on June 19, 1943, to Althea Sprague. They remained married until her passing on May 1, 1993. Nida remained a widower until his second marriage to María Elena Fernández-Miranda, on May 5, 1997.  Prior to their marriage, however, with both of them living in Brussels, Belgium, Maria wrote that they began living together on February 3, 1996. Living in sin is relative to the culture, I presume.

June Bratcher, the wife of Robert Bratcher (author of several books on Bible translators, who knew Nida well) told Simnowitz the following:

Nida was very careful with what he said…[he] didn’t “just talk.” Gene [i.e. Nida] was very enigmatic. I think he said what people would approve of. He could argue both sides of an argument when he needed to. In an intense conversation, he could go along with the person he wanted to press, to obtain control. He was slippery some times. Nida was not truthful in the way that I understand truthful. Nida told [my husband] Bob to never admit a mistake, never put anything in writing. If you change something, do not admit it. He was wily. 

June’s unflattering comments provide us with a first-hand account of someone who, along with her husband, interacted with Nida for many years.

Dr. Charles R. Taber, the co-author of The Theory and Practice of Translation, described Nida as follows:

alternating between sensitivity and manipulativeness

charming, blunt, devious, persistent as the occasion seems to warrant

 

Finally, we can’t fail to mention Nida’s connection with the Roman Catholic Church. 

After he left his SIL job in 1953 because he couldn’t agree that the Bible’s originals were inerrant, his energetic style took him elsewhere—namely, to work with the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 1954. He urged them to consider joint translation efforts, Protestant and Catholic, since ecumenism was the wave of the future. That way he could continue to reach translators with his approach.  After a series of meetings, he was finally successful; the pope and the cardinals endorsed the idea in Vatican II.  They even asked him to come to Rome and teach the Jesuits how to translate, no less.  Based on the Malachi Martin book on them, the Jesuits are not to be trusted.  The Catholic leaders figured it was all right to work with Protestants who are eager to work with them; they even called us “separated brethren,” not heretics, as in the past.  (Don’t forget the Council of Trent, where they hurled over a hundred anathemas our way—important, also, is that they never apologized for that. Nor did they eliminate ANY of a pile of traditions that had no basis in Scripture.  One thing is constant: They are not familiar with compromise).  How were we to work together since they have continued to produce their own Bibles (such as the New Revised Version—Catholic Edition, published in 1966).  When they make their own Bibles, even after working on a “joint” translation, what was the point?  I suspect it’s to compromise the Protestant Bibles. 

 

Nida’s influence has now gotten into Christian homes, through their Bible translation.  As we saw above.  His dynamic equivalency approach is used by many modern versions.  He got together with Rome, and in ecumenical sessions, put together the United Bible Society’s Bibles.  An example is the Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version—1952.  One of their goals was, as I mentioned, , to make sure no one was offended by the translation.  Their Old Testament committee included an unbelieving Jewish scholar, Harry Olinsky.  He caused an uproar over Isaiah 7:14, in effect forcing them to change ‘virgin’ to ‘young woman’ regarding Mary’s conception of Jesus’  But this removed an important foundation of faith.  Mary had to be a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit to make sure Jesus did not get the sin nature that we all had—and it made it possible that Jesus was qualified to be a perfect substitute to redeem us believers from the penalty of sin.  That Bible version would have us believe that Mary had unmarried sex with Joseph.  They hate that God would perform a supernatural event so we could be saved. Perhaps they would like to share their views on what will redeem us, then—or, perhaps, man has evolved so as not to sin any more?  He just makes mistakes? God loves us anyhow, and we will all be saved?  Keep in mind, Ken Pike (leader of SIL after Nida) thought that this was wonderful ecumenicism—he said that liberal translators did a much better job than conservatives.  Despite saying that, he was not removed from his position at SIL. Other examples of “no offense” Bibles are the New Revised Standard Version, put together by an ecumenical committee of scholars for the National Council of Churches in 1989. This is also the source for the NRSV “Updated Version” of 2021.  And let us not forget those versions that Nida had a larger hand in translating, including Today’s English Version New Testament (TEV; a.k.a. Good News for Modern Man), and the Good News Bible (now, Good News Translation) in English.  None of these has Isaiah 7:14 right.  Actually, that’s a good litmus test for avoiding the “ecumenical” Bibles that are determined to sacrifice word-meanings for the receptor’s feelings.  (I should mention, my favorites are, besides of course the New King James, I like the Legacy Standard Bible and the Pure Word.) 

So it’s gotten to this:  As of 1979, we have a one-world Greek text, except for a handful of believer-translators that refused to sign in to the program.  We should not talk of a “one world” religion for the future, since we have them now, as far as translating Scriptures world-wide. As of 1979, the official Greek and Hebrew text of the Roman Catholic Church was the United Bible Society’s text, Likewise the American Bible Society, and almost every National Bible Society in the world. Well, one result is, any new translations are going to have great consistency.  Looks like Mary will always be a “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in almost every Bible around in any language in the world.  And we’re not sure where Jesus fits in, with Mark 1:1 (and there are others).  My recommendation:  Hang onto your old Bibles.  More importantly, Read them.