versions – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms Wed, 17 Sep 2025 18:07:36 +0000 en hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2 https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/cropped-LaVistaBanner-Copy-1-32x32.png versions – La Vista Church of Christ https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms 32 32 157465916 Which Bible translations are the best? https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/which-bible-translations-are-the-best/ Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:19:35 +0000 http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=1303

Question:

Which Bible translations have the highest accuracy?

Answer:

At one time, Bible translations were an arduous task that took years, if not decades, to complete. Now translations are appearing in rapid succession, and it is becoming difficult to keep up with the many that are available. I'll restrict my comments to those translations of which I am familiar.

Good Translations

King James Version

All languages change over time. Hence, some translations, while good when they were originally introduced, become difficult to use accurately simply because the common language has changed. The King James Version was a very good translation when it was first introduced in A.D. 1611. It has gone through several updates, the last of which dates back to the 1700s. Hence, the King James Version reflects the English used 300 years ago. While it remains a fairly good translation, errors have been made using this translation simply because people do not realize that the definitions of words have changed.

New King James Version

This is a good, solid translation that basically follows the King James but with modern English terms. If there is a fault, it is in its wide selection of word choices for translating words in the original language. A word in Greek might be translated five to ten different ways because readers of English find this to be more natural.

New American Standard

This is a good translation, though at times its phrasing is difficult to read due to its tendency to translate a word the same way every time it is used. It provides a better sense of what the original language conveyed, but many find its readability to be stilted. A severe problem is that it retains the usage of Old English pronouns, such as "Thee" and "Thine," when God is talking or being addressed. The shifts between modern and older pronouns are disconcerting to most people and are not called for in a translation.

The updated New American Standard Bible, also known as the New American Standard Bible 1995 edition, removed the old English pronouns. It also reads a bit smoother than the original NASB.

American Standard Version

The predecessor to the New American Standard, the American Standard Version is known for its precise translation. It was completed in 1901, so its English is slightly outdated. It shares the New American Standard's problem of switching between modern and older pronouns.

English Standard Version

This translation was released in 2001. It appears to be a solid, literal translation of the original text. Many problems in past translations have been corrected, though it introduces a few problems of its own. For example, "man" and "woman" at the beginning of I Corinthians 11 is rendered as "husband" and "wife" though there is no support for this in the context of the passage. A good review of this translation can be found at: "The English Standard Version" and "English Standard Version."

Flawed Translations

New International Version

While being a very easy-to-read translation, it suffers greatly from a strong bias in its editorial staff. Several key verses were modified to give credence to Calvinistic doctrine. It was also based on a flawed Greek text. See the article: "The New International Version" for more details.

Revised Standard Version

This version was intended to be a United Kingdom version of the American Standard Version, but along the way, scholars who doubted the inspiration of the Bible influenced the translation to give credence to their doubts. The most famous mistranslation is that of Isaiah 7:14, where the prophecy of the Messiah being born of a virgin is rendered as being born of a young woman.

New Century Version (Children's Version)

Actually, this is a set of versions aimed at different reading levels. The children's version is good, but I have found several instances where the translation leaves something to be desired. I suspect that in trying to simplify the text, they lost much of the subtlety that is present in the original text. However, there are places where their translation clarifies difficult passages.

Bad Translations

The following translations are unacceptable because of the heavy editing done by translators:

New International Version Inclusive Language Edition
New Revised Standard Version
New Century Version (Adult Version)
Contemporary English Version
New Living Translation

All of the above have taken on the right to alter the original text in an attempt to make the Bible more acceptable to modern society's view of how the world ought to be. See the sermon, "Gender-Neutral Bibles," for more details.

Other poor translations, because of major changes to the text to support the beliefs of the translators, are:

Today's English Version
New World Translation

]]> 1303 Gender-Neutral Bibles https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/gender-neutral-bibles/ Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:57:46 +0000 http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=1309

I.         Our society has been extremely concerned about avoiding giving offense to various sections of our culture

            A.        Just to use certain words can be perceived to be an insult by various groups.

            B.        All variations of Negro are off limits, as is use of colored to refer to people with very dark skin tones, though people of color is making a comeback.

            C.        Just recently Indian Red, referring to a reddish-brown pigment from India, has been changed because Native Americans (not American Indians) find it offensive.

                        1.         Though Native Americans is a misnomer since most Americans are natives of this country, being born here.

            D.        Feminists have been attempting to alter the English language to remove male terms.

                        1.         While spoken English has not changed, nor has popular written English changed, recent translations of the Bible have been altered to reflect an idealized “gender-neutral” style of English.

                        2.         For example, a group called the National Council of Churches of Christ (nothing to do with us) insists that

                                    a.         “Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language—the lack of common gender third person singular pronoun.” (Introduction to the NRSV)

                                    b.         “During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.” (Introduction to the NRSV).

                                    c.         “Only very occasionally has the pronoun “he” or “him” been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original. In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage.” (Introduction to the NRSV)

                                    d.         “In everyday speech, “gender generic” or “inclusive” language is used because it sounds most natural to people today. This means that where the biblical languages require masculine nouns or pronouns when both men and women are intended, this intention must be reflected in translation, though the English form may be very different from that of the original.” (Introduction to the CEV)

                                    e.         “It is often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit.” (Preface to the NIVI)

                        3.         In other words, these translations are admitting to paraphrasing instead of translating the original manuscripts if the translators believe the author meant something different than what was stated.

            E.        Today we will examine the gender neutral translations to see if they are usable by serious Bible students.

                        1.         Versions which claim to be gender neutral are:

                                    a.         New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

                                    b.         New Living Translation (NLT)

                                    c.         New Century Version (NCV) [adult version]

                                    d.         Contemporary English Version (CEV)

                                    e.         New International Version - Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI) [currently distributed only in England].

II.        Changes to eliminate “he”

            A.        Changing “he” to “they”

                        1.         Example from John 14:23

                                    a.         “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (NASB)

                                    b.         The KJV uses “man” for “anyone,” but the Greek pronoun is tis is an indefinite pronoun that does not carry a male or female meaning, so “anyone” is a more accurate translation.

                                    c.         The inclusive versions want to eliminate the “he” and “him”s because it is obvious that women are included by Jesus’ words.

                                    d.         “If anyone loves Me, he or she will keep My word; and My Father will love him or her, and We will come to him or her and make Our abode with him or her.”

                                                (1)       Impossible to read and extremely awkward.

                                    e.         “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” (NRSV)

                                                (1)       Avoided the awkward by changing the singular to plural.

                                    f.         The problem is that Jesus did not speak with plural pronouns in this passage. The Greek shows that Jesus used masculine singular pronouns.

                                                (1)       Instead of being applied to the individual believer, the statement is made to apply only to groups of believers

                                                (2)       It is no longer a literal translation, but a paraphrase which does not carry the same meaning as the original text.

                                                (3)       The Greek does have generic plural, masculine / neuter singular, masculine singular, and feminine singular pronouns for self-reference.

                        2.         Consider John 15:5 where denominations gloss over the pronouns to make application to churches instead of individuals.

                                    a.         “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (NASB)

                                    b.         “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         With a gender neutral version, one could argue falsely that Jesus was speaking to groups of Christians (i.e. churches), even though this does not match the Greek.

                        3.         Worse is Psalm 34:20, a prophecy of Jesus’ death.

                                    a.         “He keeps all his bones, Not one of them is broken.” (NASB)

                                    b.         “He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         Even though the pronoun here is singular in Hebrew, the messianic prophecy is lost to those reading the gender neutral translations.

                        4.         Psalm 19:11-12, speaking of God’s Word

                                    a.         “Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.” (NASB)

                                    b.         “Moreover by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. But who can detect their errors? Clear me from hidden faults.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         The pronoun is inserted to keep the meaning clear. Notice that in the NASB, we are addressing the individual’s error, but in the NRSV we are addressing the errors in God’s Word!

            B.        Changing third person to second person

                        1.         Consider Galatians 6:7

                                    a.         “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” (NASB)

                                    b.         “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow.” (NRSV)

                        2.         A reader could come away thinking that Paul’s statement only applies to Christians and is not a general commentary on human conduct.

            C.        Removing direct quotations

                        1.         Consider Psalms 41:5

                                    a.         My enemies speak evil against me, “When will he die, and his name perish?” (NASB)

                                    b.         My enemies wonder in malice when I will die, and my name perish. (NRSV)

                                    c.         Speech has been converted to thoughts.

                                    d.         The Hebrew text does not say they wondered, but that they spoke.

            D.        Why do they alter the text so much?

                        1.         Supposedly there is a defect in English because it does not have a genderless third person singular pronoun.

                        2.         They fail to mention that Hebrew, Greek, and most other languages in the world also lack a genderless third person singular pronoun.

                        3.         English masculine third person singular pronouns precisely translate the Hebrew and Greek masculine third person singular pronouns in the original text.

                        4.         The problem is not in the languages, but in the beliefs of the translators.

                        5.         By the way, not all the gender-neutral translations have the exact same set of problems. Some avoid one set of problems, but cause a different set.

III.       Changes to eliminate “man”

            A.        Changing “man” to “human”

                        1.         In the Hebrew, there is an interesting situation. The word “adam” can refer to the first created individual, any individual male, or all mankind. In English we have a word “man” which can refer to any individual male or all of mankind.

                        2.         However, this is now supposedly offensive, so “man” is changed to “human,” “human being,” or “human kind.”

                        3.         Genesis 1:27

                                    a.         “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (NASB)

                                    b.         “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         Notice that God no longer created a man, Adam, who was the founder of the human race, God created the whole human race. A subtle, but important difference.

                                    d.         Also these multiple creations were made in the image of God.

                                                (1)       What does this do to Paul’s reasoning in I Cor. 11:7-9?

                                                (2)       What happens to the order of events for Paul’s argument in I Timothy 2:13

            B.        Changing “man” to “mortal”

                        1.         Acts 10:26

                                    a.         But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” (NASB)

                                    b.         But Peter made him get up, saying, “Stand up; I am only a mortal.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         The emphasis shifts from Peter’s humanity to his mortality.

                                                (1)       Peter does not refuse worship because he is subject to death.

                                                (2)       Peter refuses worship because he is a creature made by God; he is not God, but a man.

                        2.         There is a Greek word, which means mortal, but it is not used in this verse. The translators chose the alteration.

                        3.         Sometimes it gets humorous. Even though King Agrippa is a male, we can’t call him that (Acts 12:22).

                                    a.         The people kept shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a mortal!” (NRSV)

                                    b.         As if the people of the first century were politically correct.

            C.        Changing “son of man” to “mortal” or “human”

                        1.         Ezekiel 2:1

                                    a.         “Then He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet that I may speak with you!” (NASB)

                                    b.         “He said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         “He said to me, “Human, stand up on your feet. Then I will speak to you.” (NCV)

                        2.         The fact that Jesus called himself “son of man” as Ezekiel was called is now lost.

                        3.         Daniel 7:13

                                    a.         “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.” (NASB)

                                    b.         “As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him.” (NRSV)

                                    c.         The prophecy regarding Jesus is lost.

                        4.         Similarly the prophecy in Psalm 8:4 is lost.

            D.        Changing the Greek word for men that excludes women.

                        1.         In the selection of elders in Titus 1:6

                                    a.         “namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife,” (NASB)

                                    b.         “someone who is blameless, married only once,” (NRSV)

                                    c.         The eldership is no longer restricted to married men.

                                    d.         I Timothy 3 is similarly altered.

                                    e.         The CEV is also guilty of this perversion, though the other gender-neutral translations preserve the necessity of being male.

            E.        Loss of a righteous man

                        1.         Psalms 1:1

                                    a.         “How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!” (NASB)

                                    b.         “Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread,” (NRSV)

                                    c.         The subtle contrast of the singular righteous man as opposed to the many sinners is lost.

                                    d.         The meaning is important. Few are righteous, many are wicked.

IV.      Changes to eliminate “father,” “son,” and “brother”

            A.        One author counted 4,500 fewer references to male family members in the NRSV as contrasted with the RSV.

                        1.         The original text has not changed. The meaning of the original words have not changed. Just the translators fear of male gender words.

            B.        For example, “fatherless” is changed to “orphan”

                        1.         An orphan has no living parents. A fatherless child may still have a living mother.

                        2.         Leading to nonsensical verses, such as Job 24:9 “There are those who snatch the orphan child from the breast,”

                        3.         I was surprised to find that the NASB mistranslated this verse as well.

            C.        Daughters now must be concerned about immoral women

                        1.         “My child, be attentive to my wisdom . . . for the lips of loose women drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil . . . And now, my child, listen to me . . . keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house.” (Proverbs 5:1-8, NRSV)

                        2.         The warning is no longer to just sons, but daughters as well.

V.        We could go on and on, but the point has been made. The purpose of a translation is to convey the original meaning of a text in another language. The gender-neutral versions fail to retain the meaning propagating at times serious false teachings.

            A.        English has not changed. You can look in the local paper and popular magazines and see that male terms are still used to represent male and females. It is the nature of English and most languages in the world.

            B.        No one has the right to alter God’s word, even if he wears the title of scholar.

            C.        The Bible claims to be God breathed (II Timothy 3:16). The very words in the Bible were selected by God to convey His meaning. What right does any man have to say God did not mean it exactly in that fashion?

            D.        Every word of God proves true (Proverbs 30:5-6).

]]> 1309 The New International Version https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-new-international-version/ Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:30:36 +0000 http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=1306

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

One of the easiest reading Bibles being published today is the New International Version. Its clarity comes not only from its use of modern English but also from the willingness of the translators to translate idiomatic phrases of the Bible times into similar phrases of today. This could be dangerous to any translation, for a true translation must keep the original meaning intended by the original author. An idiom in one language does not always match an idiom’s meaning in another language. I’m not an expert in this field, but I think the translators of the New International Version struck a good balance in this area most of the time.

However, as with most human works, the NIV is not without its problems. The translation was done at a period of time when the best available Greek text for the New Testament, as determined by biblical scholars, turned out to be severely flawed[1, 2]. One of the false teachings that was widespread during the early days of the church was a belief that Jesus was not really God in the flesh. Anything earthly was considered sinful and corrupt, “So how could the pure God take on the nature of corruption,” these false teachers argued? Followers of this system of belief, now known as Gnosticism, used Bibles edited to support their beliefs[3].

True Christians refused to use these altered Bibles, but they were loath to destroy the copies since they still contained much of God’s Word. Instead, they retired the books to sealed crypts. Recently, modern archeologists found these crypts. Finding copies of God’s word that were older than most of the material we possessed at that time gave higher weight to this older material, reasoning that older was better.

Scholars have eventually pieced together the puzzle, but not before a few new translations were made using the flawed text, including the NIV[4].

Gary Colley has published a list of problems with the NIV that all Bible students should be aware of. Some of these problems arise from the flawed Greek text that the NIV was based on, but other problems arise from the religious bias of the translators. The wording of the passages was subtly altered in a number of places to make it more acceptable to popular religious beliefs instead of attempting to accurately match the original meaning.

I would like to give you an expanded version of brother Colley’s list, showing the alteration by comparing it with other translations.

Total Depravity

 “It mistranslated Psalms 51:5 to teach the false theory of Total Depravity.”

  • KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
  • NASB: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
  • NKJV: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
  • NIV: Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to tell that there is a major difference in meaning between the NIV and the other cited passages. Why did the translators of the NIV change the meaning so much? I believe they were trying to justify their strongly held belief that people are born guilty of the sin of Adam. They attempted to provide proof where none existed.

Original Sin

 “It changes ‘flesh’ in Romans 8 to ‘sinful nature’ teaching the false theory of original sin.”

The word being debated is the Greek word sarx which means “flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physical or mortal] and passions), or (specifically) a human being.”

The English word “flesh” carries a similar meaning as it too can refer to the edible parts of an animal or to the physical being of a man. However, “nature” means the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing. By changing the wording from “flesh” to “nature” the translators shifted the meaning from an emphasis on the physical makeup of man to the character or spiritual makeup of man.

In addition, the word “sinful” is adjoined to “nature” even when the original Greek does not mention sinfulness.

The Deity of Christ

 “It denies the deity of Christ by removing ‘begotten’ from every text referring to Jesus Christ (cf., John 3:16)”

The NIV refuses to reflect the Greek New Testament statements that Jesus was born of God. Instead, they use phrases such as “the One and Only” or “I have made you my son.” Consider the difference in translation shown in John 1:14.

  • ASV: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
  • NKJV: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
  • NIV: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Greek word being translated is monogenes. It is a compound word meaning “the only one of a race” or “the only born.” In literature, it is used to refer an only child and it can be seen translated as such in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17. In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is used in describing Isaac (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16) and Jephthah’s daughter (Judges 11:34). Isaac was technically not an only child, but he was the unique child of promise to Abraham. Just as an only child is treasured by his parents, the Greek word monogenes also carries the connotation of someone beloved.

The NIV emphasizes the uniqueness of Christ while de-emphasizing the kinship of Christ to God the Father.

A more clear altering is seen in Psalms 2:7, Acts 13:33, and Hebrews 1:5. Consider the following:

  • NKJV: God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'
  • NASB: that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are My son; today I have begotten You.'
  • NIV: he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father. '

The Greek word gennao and the Hebrew word yalad refers to conceiving and giving birth to a child. The argument for de-emphasizing the birth is that some have argued that these verses mean Jesus had a beginning. The NIV’s wording avoids that conclusion, but at the expense of changing what the text actually says. While there are plenty of verses which demonstrate that Jesus is eternal, these verses carry the idea that Jesus is of the lineage of God – in other words, his deity, which is the point of Hebrews 1:5. That point is softened by the NIV’s translation which leaves the impression that anyone could have become God’s Son, God just happened to select Jesus. The literal reading fits well with the virgin birth of Jesus and that God was literally his father.

The Eunuch’s Baptism

“It deletes both the statement of Philip on the condition of baptism and the eunuch’s answer (cf. Acts 8:37).”

This is due to the manipulated Greek text on which the translation was based. If there is any consolation, most copies of the NIV include verse 37 in the footnotes.

Salvation at the Point of Hearing

“It falsely teaches that sinners are ‘included in Christ’ at the point of hearing (Ephesians 1:13).”

  • NKJV: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
  • ASV: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
  • NIV: And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Nothing in Greek indicates the idea of being included in Christ, especially at the point of hearing the Gospel.

Salvation at the Point of Faith

“It tampers with the plan of salvation in Romans 10:10, teaching that justification is reached at the point of faith. The same verse teaches that salvation is reached at the point of confession (Romans 10:10).”

  • NKJV: For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  • ASV: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  • NIV: For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

The Greek behind the phrase “unto righteousness” indicates a leading up to the point of the justification of character or leading up to the point of righteousness. However, the NIV leads the reader to believe the justification has already taken place, which contradicts other verses that teach that salvation is based on more than just belief. See Acts 11:18 and Mark 16:16.

A similar alteration is made in John 3:16.

  • NKJV: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
  • ASV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
  • NIV: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice the subtle change from the idea that a believer should not perish to the idea that a believer shall not perish. “Should” indicates that the believer has no excuse for perishing. “Shall” indicates that a believer cannot perish.

Testimony

“It changes I Corinthians 1:6 from ‘the testimony of Christ’ (the gospel) to ‘our testimony of Christ’ (testimonialist).”

The Greek word marturion is a neuter word meaning something evidential, in other words in the general sense, evidence given or in the specific sense something like the Decalogue (in the sacred Tabernacle). Changing the “the” or “our” removes the neuter sense of the testimony, making it something that was personally done. While the Apostles did testify of Christ, Paul is not speaking of just his personal testimony in this verse but of all the evidence that God has delivered concerning Christ.

Salvation Before Baptism

“It makes Peter teach that baptism is ‘the pledge of a good conscience toward God’ advancing the false theory of faith alone (I Peter 3:21).”

The Greek word eperotema, means “an inquiry.” However, the word “pledge” used in the NIV means a promise made to God and not a response to God’s request.

As you can see, the New International Version is not the best version to use if you are interested in the accuracy of a translation. I still like it for easy reading, but for a serious study, I prefer to use more precise translations, such as the New King James Version, the American Standard Version, or the New American Standard Version.

Footnotes

  1. F.H.A. Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 120. "... while we accord to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any single document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one out of many, several of them being nearly (and not quite as old, and in other respects not less worthy of confidence than itself. One marked feature, characteristic of this copy is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbins to speak of it as presenting 'an abbreviated text of the New Testament:' and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity."
  2. Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD, "AN EVALUATION OF THE W-H THEORY," The Identity of the New Testament Text II, p. 54. "I have quoted men like Zuntz, Clark and Colwell on the "Byzantine" text to show that modern scholars are prepared to reject the notion of a "Byzantine" recension, but the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among "Byzantine" MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation. The variation between two "Byzantine" MSS will be found to differ both in number and severity from that between two "Western" MSS or two "Alexandrian" MSS—the number and nature of the disagreements between two "Byzantine" MSS throughout the Gospels will seem trivial compared to the number (over 3,000) and nature (many serious) of the disagreements between Aleph and B, the chief "Alexandrian" MSS, in the same space."
  3. Brian K. McPherson and Scott McPherson, "A Brief Examination of Manuscript Variation Issues". "More specifically, we can learn from the early church where the heretics who were altering the text were based geographically and the language they used to spread their false doctrine. When we study early church history we find that although Gnostic heretics did spread to other parts of the Roman (or Byzantine Roman) world, their origination and epicenter was Alexandria, Egypt Ð the very source location of the Alexandrian text-type and of the most prominent Alexandrian texts. Early prominent Gnostic heretical leaders like Valentinus and Basilides were first active in Alexandria during the middle of the second century A.D.In the twenty-seventh chapter of his work Against Heresies, Book I, Irenaeus, a second-century apologist, recorded the beliefs of the Gnostic heretic Marcion. In the fifth chapter of his third book, Tertullian, a Christian apologist who lived and wrote between approximately 160-230 A.D., records that Marcion tampered with the Biblical texts. As such Tertullian's testimony that Marcion deliberately altered the scriptural texts in a theologically consequential manner is informative of this practice among heretical leaders. Notice from the quote below that Marcion is not an isolated incident, but his followers are said to be "daily retouching" the New Testament texts."For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way - when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience-smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering." - Tertullian, Book III Ch. V(NOTE: The above passage from Tertullian is quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")Similar accounts are provided by two the fourth-century writers, Eusebius and Theodoret, concerning the heretic Tatian. In the twenty-eighth chapter of his work Against Heresies, Book I, Irenaeus, relates followed after the Gnostic beliefs of men like Marcion. And like his predecessor Marcion, Eusebius and Theodoret record that Tatian also altered the Biblical texts. Again, this information demonstrates clearly the practice of early heretics to deliberately alter the scriptural texts in a doctrinally significant fashion.

    "But their chief and founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is the gospel by the four, or the gospel formed of the four; which is in the possession of some even now. It is also said that he dared to alter certain expressions of the Apostles, in order to correct the composition of the phrase." - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History. pg. 166

    "Tatian the Syrian...also composed the gospel which is called 'Diatessaron,' cutting out the genealogies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." - Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 37, 38

    (NOTE: The above passages from Eusebius and Theodoret are quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

    In the quote below, Eusebius records that doctrinally significant text tampering was a common practice of the Gnostic heretics. One of the men, Theodotus, was a disciple of the prominent second-century Gnostic heretic Valentinus who founded the Gnostic school at Alexandria. Notice again from the quote below that Theodotus is not an isolated incident, but his followers are said to be "daily retouching" the New Testament texts.

    "...Theodotus, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, as the first one that asserted that Christ was a mere man...The sacred Scriptures...have been boldly perverted by them; the rule of the ancient faith they have set aside, Christ they have renounced, not inquiring what the Holy Scriptures declared, but zealously laboring what form of reasoning may be devised to establish their impiety...But as to these men who abuse the acts of the unbelievers, to their own heretical views, and who adulterate the simplicity of that faith contained in the Holy Scriptures,...For this purpose they fearlessly lay their hands on the Holy Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. And that I do not say this against them without foundation, whoever wishes may learn; for should anyone collect and compare their copies one with another, he would find them greatly at variance among themselves. For the copies of Asclepiodotus will be found to differ from those of Theodotus. Copies of many you may find in abundance, altered, by the eagerness of their disciples to insert each one his own corrections, as they call them, i.e. their corruptions. Again the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these, for those of Appollonius are not consistent with themselves. For one may compare those which were prepared before by them, with those which they afterward perverted for their own objects, and you will find them widely differing...For either they do not believe that the Holy Scriptures were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and they are thus infidels, or they deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what alternative is there but to pronounce them demoniacs? For neither can they deny that they have been guilty of the daring act when the copies were written with their own hand, nor did they receive such Scriptures from those by whom they were instructed in the elements of the faith; nor can they show copies from which they were transcribed." - Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Reprinted 1991. pp. 214-216

    (NOTE: The above passage from Eusebius is quoted from Tim Warner's article "Demise of the Westcott-Hort Theory.")

    From the available historical records, we have of the early church period we can see clearly that it was the common practice of the Alexandrian Gnostic heretics to alter the scriptural texts. We must also note from the quote from Eusebius that having no two copies alike is a hallmark of the Gnostic tampering. The fact that this inconsistency is also a hallmark of the Alexandrian text tradition is yet another indication that the variation present in the Alexandrian texts may be the result of Gnostic tampering."

  4. D. Cloud, "Are the Modern Versions Based on Westcott-Hort?", Way of Life Literature. "Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic alive. He is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament and the author of many widely used books on textual criticism. In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament--Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."
]]> 1306