Bible translations come and go; we generally don’t proclaim all modern translations evil as it’s not inherently bad to have a Bible in modern English, but you must be careful — some of these groups claim they’re only updating English and grammar, but after a careful review you find they don’t just update English, but actually change doctrines to fit their liberal theology — all under the guise of “updating” the venerable KJV.
Don’t be fooled — what God wrote, He wrote. Nobody has to believe it, like it, or accept it, but to claim God didn’t want His Word to apply today strikes us as the height of hubris. Once you go down that road, who gets to decide what parts fit today and what doesn’t? What doctrine still applies today, and what doesn’t? And by what methods do you pick and choose? Oh yes, the “we’ll use the best of modern scholarship” rears its ugly head again. But we’ll take God’s word over modern scholarship, and we’d recommend everyone do the same.
In the end “scholars” end up with a designer religion bearing little resemblance to Christianity — how many “scholars” and pastors deny the virgin birth, existence of hell, literal return of Jesus, and the inerrancy of the Bible? How much picking and choosing of what they feel to apply for today, and what they won’t? They may use orthodox terminology, but only to cover their un-Christian ideas straight from the pit of hell.
Instead of Christianity, they’ve built themselves a cult of liberal theology. That’s fine if they so choose to and reject Christianity, but keep your slimy “scholarship” off my Bible.
The latest to get the “updating” treatment is the NIV. We’re not big fans of the NIV generally, but it does have uses. But we’re definitely wary of any update when “scholars” complain the new 2011 version of the NIV won’t be liberal enough! Notice what Bart Ehrman (a self-described “renowned Bible scholar”) has to say about it.
Reporting from Chicago — When the new New International Version of the Bible is unveiled in 2011, don’t look for androgynous vocabulary that had rankled some evangelicals. In fact, as soon as the latest version is published, the gender-neutral Today’s New International Version will vanish.
“If we want to maintain the NIV as a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to and respect the vocabulary they are using today,” said Keith Danby, president of Biblica.
New Testament scholar and author Bart Ehrman doubts the revision has as much to do with the evolution of the English language as the orthodox trends in evangelical thought.
“They are changing the gender-neutral language, no doubt, because their ‘base’ is conservative evangelical Christians who are offended by anything that appears to have a feminist agenda behind it, not because the language has changed,” Ehrman said. “If it has changed, of course, it has changed toward greater gender neutrality — except in religiously and politically conservative circles.”
We’ve noted about Mr. Ehrman’s total lack of credible scholarship before — so much so even atheists heap scorn on his bizarre theories. But let’s look at one example of the TNIV (1 Corinthians 15:21), and you’ll quickly see why it’s corrupt, and why these attempts to “modernize” the Bible frequently also turn out corrupt, no matter how many “scholars” work on them (even if they call themselves “renowned”) using the “best of modern scholarship”.
NIV: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
TNIV: For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being.
Death came from Adam (we’ll say he was a man, but perhaps the “scholars” disagree), and the Resurrection comes from Jesus, who was also a man (again, scholars?). In this case they go way beyond gender language, changing the intent and meaning of a passage — all in the name of “scholarship” and “gender-neutral”. Why were these “gender-neutral” changes made when it’s obvious the passages mean Adam (man) and Jesus (man)? If they’re going to eliminate gender, why not just call Jesus “it”? Of course, Paul had something to say about mixing gender roles in 1 Corinthians 11, but perhaps they’ll leave out that chapter — it likely doesn’t fit with their worldview anyway.
Hands off my Bible — don’t let any “scholar” tell you some parts don’t apply, or the Bible needs to be “updated” for modern times. Hogwash.
You’re free to accept or reject the Bible as you wish, but it’s quite the example of hubris to re-write it to fit your own mold — and that hubris frequently comes from so-called “scholars”.
As Bible versions appear and disappear with regularity you’re left with problems — especially if you want to memorize. What will you do with all your memorized NIV verses when they no longer match the 2011 NIV? Worse, they’ll likely stop selling the older version, so even if you want to you’ll have no way to purchase what you’re familiar with; another hidden danger of the modern versions as they come and go.
Good riddance TNIV. Will the 2011 NIV be as bad? We hope not, but most likely it will be between what the NIV is now, and what the liberal scholars hoped for in the TNIV.
God doesn’t change, why do scholars want to change His Word?