KJV VS. NIV IN THE WCG

by Richard Burkard



"NIV - Not Inspired Version!" So said the late radio preacher Maze Jackson.

"If it's not King James, it's not Bible!" So said the bumper sticker on a pickup truck that rushed by me one morning on an interstate highway. (Funny thing: I was driving at the speed limit. If this driver was a Christian, how did he or she justify breaking the law?)

"You can hardly find a King James Version in stores anymore...." So said a radio preacher from Jacksonville, who obviously hasn't visited the Christian bookstores and "dollar stores" I've visited. The KJV is there in abundance. (As I write this, a Christian bookstore's mailer is on the desk. The NIV's are marked down 25 percent - and four of the 12 "big ones" offered are KJV or New King James.)

When it comes to religious beliefs and convictions, people can become emotional. That's not necessarily wrong, as long as those emotions are grounded in fact and proper faith. So why do some people become just as emotional when it comes to which translation of the Bible we should use?

An old joke says the King James Version was "good enough for Jesus, so it's good enough for me." In reality, the KJV was not introduced until more than 1,500 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet the introduction of more "modern" or "conversational" translations has stirred up some people. They claim God's Word is being watered down, if not outright changed. They dare to put such translations under the warning of Deut. 12:32: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (KJV, of course)

I have a personal theory about the Worldwide Church of God's changes, which I haven't seen any former or current Church leader or religious historian examine. I believe when the WCG changed its "Bible of choice" from the King James to the New International Version during the 1990s, that triggered a number of doctrinal revisions. A change in wording and perspective opened eyes in Pasadena - at least among those who felt the Church's longtime teachings could be wrong.

Yet efforts by spinoff groups to address the translational differences don't always hit the target. This article was inspired by one of those efforts - a message by a spinoff Pastor in December 2000. His main point really was to encourage members to examine multiple translations, when considering a passage of Scripture. This approach is not bad; in fact, most theologians would call that healthy. But the verses used within that sermon were clearly an effort to establish the King James or "Authorized" Version as the reliable version, while the NIV was based on inferior texts.

We'll address this issue in two parts. First, we'll examine the passages this Pastor cited where differences seem to exist - and analyze how wide and misleading the differences really are. Then our second article will check some passages he did not mention, that may have had an even bigger bearing on the WCG's changes.

PART 1: DIFFERENCES NOTED BY SPINOFF GROUPS

The Pastor who gave this message said God's Word should be preserved, and not "updated." He argued the NIV removes 650 words of Jesus. But that begs the question of whether the missing words are significant, or merely a "condensed" version of Jesus's statements - somewhat like editing down long-winded quotes of a speaker to the "bottom-line" or "core" of a point.

Here are the verses the Pastor used to make his argument for the King James:

Mark 1:14 - Did Jesus come into Galilee "preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God"? (KJV) Or was He "proclaiming the good news of God"? (NIV)

The Kingdom is edited out, the Pastor suggests. Yet he ignores verse 15 in NIV, where Jesus directly explains what the gospel is: "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" A parallel passage to this, Matthew 4:23, calls it "the good news of the kingdom" in NIV. (The Pastor ignores another important translational difference in this chapter; we'll examine that in Part 2.)

Matt. 6:33 - Did Jesus say to "seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness...." (KJV) or to "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness"? (NIV)

The translations are close, the Pastor says, but some might read this verse and not grasp WHOSE kingdom Jesus is describing. Yet those people would have to miss verse 32, which explains who "His" is: "...Your heavenly Father knows that you need them."

Matt. 9:13 - Did Jesus say "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (KJV) - or "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (NIV)?

Why is repentance left out of the NIV, the Pastor asked? Apparently because no other translation besides the King James mentions it! "AV [authorized version] 'to repentance' is not part of the original text," one commentary says. (New Bible Commentary: Revised, 1970, pg. 828)

The Pastor next quoted Mark 2:17, which has the same sort of translational disagreement. But another parallel gospel passage, Luke 5:32, does include "to repentance" in the NIV, New American Standard and Moffatt translations. Apparently the phrase is part of that original text; at least no asterisk is placed next to "repentance" in Strong's Concordance at that point.

John 6:47 - Did Jesus say, "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (KJV) - or simply, "He who believes has everlasting life"? (NIV)

Whom are we supposed to believe in, the Pastor argues? Yet the very next verse offers a clear clue to the answer: "I am the bread of life." (v. 48) Not long before this, verses 29 and 35 leave no doubt: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.... he who believes in me will never be thirsty." In other words, believe in Jesus.

Col. 1:14 - The KJV says of Jesus the Son: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins...." The NIV puts the words "through his blood" in the margin.

Is this a minimalization of the blood of Christ? If so, then the New American Standard is even worse - because the words "through his blood" are left out completely. But other writings of Paul along this line in the NIV DO mention Christ and His blood

Examples: Rom. 3:24-25: "....The redemption that came by Christ Jesus.... a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood." Also Eph. 1:7: "In him we have redemption through his blood...." (See also I Pet. 1:18-19)

Rev. 21:24 - The KJV says of the New Jerusalem: "The nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it." The NIV says: "The nations shall walk by its light...."

Why does the NIV leave out the specification about being saved? The context of verse 27 provides a clue: "Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." These are conditions implying saved people are involved. Note also this is the "new heaven and new earth," appearing after all resurrections are finished. (v. 1) So will there even be unsaved nations at this point, for making a distinction with the saved ones?

Mk. 3:15 - The KJV says Jesus gave His 12 disciples/apostles "power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." The NIV says only that they "have authority to drive out demons."

Why is the NIV biased against healing the sick? In reality, it's not. Several verses in this chapter mention healing (vs. 1-5, 10) - and a parallel passage in the gospels does say the disciples had power "to heal every disease and sickness." (Matt. 10:1)

Acts 3:11 - The KJV says, "....the lame man which was healed held Peter and John...." The NIV only says, "....the beggar held on to Peter and John...."

Why is healing left out again? At the risk of sounding flip: HELLO! Read the verses around it! Verses 6-8, 12 and 16 clearly describe the healing of this beggar - or as verse 16 in NIV calls it, "complete healing."

Lk. 4:18 - Jesus reads aloud in the synagogue from Isaiah. The KJV quotes Him as finding: "He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives...." The NIV quotes it as: "He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...."

Why does the NIV remove words that are needed for healing hearts? First of all, the KJV and the Living Bible are the only translations we found that includes this disputed part. "'To heal the brokenhearted' is a clause in the source that is omitted by the best Lukan MSS." (Interpreter's Bible, 1952, vol. 8, pg. 90) Note also a check of the original text Jesus read shows the NIV does include the words, "bind up the brokenhearted." (Isa. 61:1)

But to use this verse to argue the NIV "cuts out" lines from the Bible invites a troublesome response - that Jesus ADDED to the very text he read! Isaiah 61:1-2 has nothing about "recovery of sight for the blind," yet all translations indicate Jesus read the scroll that way. WCG ministers in years past argued Jesus could add that line, since it happened during His ministry. Christians with faith in God's Word believe it did. But if the issue is "adding to or diminishing from" the Bible, is not Christ guilty of it here?

One old commentary reveals the answer: "Our Lord purposely inserted other words in the passage read according to the common custom. The rabbis said: 'The reader of the prophet may skip from one text to another, but he may not skip from prophet to prophet, but in the 12 (minor) prophets it is lawful." (One-Volume Bible Commentary, Dummelow, 1936, pgs. 743-44) The phrase about recovery of sight can be found in Isa. 42:7.

The Pastor who gave this sermon went on to contend with the word "brokenhearted" eliminated from Luke 4, only "one witness" remains on the matter of healing hearts - and "by the mouths of two or three witnesses shall a matter be established." (II Cor. 13:1) For one thing, this verse seems to apply Biblically only in the context of judging sins and offenses. But even accepting its application in this case, we still have the words of Isaiah 61 - as well as Psalm 147:3: "He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds."

II Cor. 10:4 - The KJV says, ""The weapons of our warfare are.... mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds." The NIV puts it: "The weapons we fight with.... have divine power to demolish strongholds."

The Pastor said many NIV translations leave the "through God" part out of this verse, but he admitted "divine power" is an acceptable substitute. Yet every NIV I found in the library had that phrase. I like the Contemporary English Version's simplicity here: "We use God's power...."

John 6:69 - The KJV quotes Peter as confessing to Jesus: "We believe and are sure that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." The NIV says, "We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

The Pastor declared the phrase "Holy One" a "Catholic reading." If that's a sin, then almost every Bible translation is guilty. The NASB, CEV, RSV and Moffatt translations join NIV in using that phrase here. ":There are various other readings with other titles, but this is to be preferred since it is the most unusual." (N.B.C., p. 944)

In a similar moment of confession in Matthew, Peter calls Jesus, "The Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16) The NIV agrees with KJV on this wording. We must also note the KJV uses the allegedly Catholic reading of "Holy One" several times in describing Jesus! We found these examples: Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34; Acts 2:27, 3:14, 13:35; I Jhn. 2:20; Psm. 16:10.

(We couldn't help also noticing Luke 1:35 - where the KJV calls Jesus in the womb a "holy thing," while NIV uses "holy one." Imagine what abortion rights groups could do with the King James wording....)

Dan. 3:25 - King Nebuchadnezzar examines the survival of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, and sees more than three people. He describes what he sees in KJV: "....The form of the fourth is like the Son of God." The NIV quotes him as saying: "....The fourth looks like a son of the gods."

Is this a case of NIV watering down the reality of Jesus Christ in favor of pantheism? Or is it simply the more likely thing that a king of Babylon would say? "....Speaking from the viewpoint of one steeped in Babylonian superstition.... The heathen king, of course, could not recognize the true identity of the One before him." (N.B.C., p. 692)

The CEV quotes Nebuchadnezzar as saying, "....the fourth one looks like a god." But my version's margin states, "a son of the gods" is the Aramaic rendering of the verse. That's how the RSV puts it as well. One other thought: if we accept the King James wording, then the first use of the phrase "Son of God" in the Bible would be by a King of Babylon - who wasn't always on God's side! This is possible, of course, but is it likely?

Matt. 20:23 - Jesus tells two disciples in the KJV: "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand...." The NIV puts it: "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right hand...."

Why does the NIV say nothing about baptism here? Well, no other major translation besides KJV does. But a similar passage in the Gospels DOES include the baptism in NIV (Mark 10:38-39).

Matt. 17:20-21 - Jesus gives His disciples some tips on removing demons and faith. In the KJV He says: "....nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." The NIV says: "Nothing will be impossible for you," BUT then puts verse 21 in the margin, based on "some manuscripts:" "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

Why is the "prayer and fasting" part in the margin? Several alternate translations explain:"Early manuscripts do not contain this verse." (NASB margin; see also Living Bible margin) "This verse, which is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 33, and some of the older versions, was not originally part of the text." (Interpreter's, vol. 7, pg. 464) This commentary suggests this verse was added as the early Church progressed, because members discovered the spiritual value of prayer and fasting.

A parallel NIV passage in the Gospels DOES quote Jesus in the main text saying: "This kind can come out only by prayer." [margin: "prayer and fasting"] (Mk. 9:29) Then there's the version in Luke, in which not even the KJV mentions the "prayer and fasting" line. (Lk. 9:37-42)

Lest you think the NIV is completely anti-fasting, Jesus's words, "WHEN you fast...." are included (Matt. 6:16), along with examples by New Testament apostles. (Acts 13:2, 14:23)

I Cor. 11:24 - Describing how Jesus began the New Testament Passover/Lord's Supper, Paul writes in the KJV: "....He brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you....'" The NIV puts it: "....He broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you....'"

The Pastor mentioned this verse only in passing because he was running out of time. But if the argument involves the symbolism of Jesus's body, where is the problem here? Both translations note earlier in the verse that Jesus "broke bread." Does the breaking have to be doubly emphasized to make His point clear?

The margin of the Moffatt translation explains why the extra "broken" is left out of most translations: "Von Soden brackets [Gk.}, but if it is a gloss, it is a correct one, unless the Lucan [Gk.] be preferred."

Mk. 10:24 - Jesus tells the disciples in KJV: "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" The NIV puts it: "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" The phrase, "for those who trust in riches," is in the margin, quoting "some manuscripts."

The Pastor argued the NIV's rendering implied it's hard for ANYONE to enter God's Kingdom - and he added while the way IS narrow, Jesus's burden is light while the "way of transgressors is hard." (Matt. 7:13-14, 11:28-30; Prv. 13:15) Yet the surrounding verses in the passage from Mark (10:21-25) make clear Jesus is focusing here on wealthy people. And if you fear verse 24 will give people despair, don't overlook how Jesus sums up this discussion in verse 27: "With man this is impossible, but NOT with God; all things are possible with God."

Summary: The Pastor concluded his sermon by saying there is a difference in translations - and by trying to improve on "God's creation" (that is, the Authorized King James) we risk tampering with the text, which can lead to trouble. Yet the differences he cites are all easily explainable - by either reading the context of a verse, comparing other places in the Bible where the topic occurs, or considering other sources such as commentaries or a preponderance of translations.

As I reviewed this message, I recalled a statement this Pastor gave at a Bible Study years ago: "If you look long enough for a loose brick, you'll find it." That statement seems to apply to this sermon, too - looking for "loose bricks" in a translation to dismiss it as inferior. In reality, the same could be done with the King James, too.

Part 2 of this examination will consider more serious differences in the translations - which could have produced a major shift in WCG thinking in the last decade.

For Part Two, click here!

To respond to this article, e-mail: wwwcg

< Back to www.cg main page

© 2001-02 Richard Burkard , All Rights Reserved.